Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

epi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#71

Post by dataflow »

Grimm1 wrote: post #70
dataflow wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter what your employer would do "They" was referring to the bank, not the employer. > it matters that you're legally entitled to it and a court would enforce it and have it paid to you. They wouldn't do it in the same situation as theft I think, though, which is kind of my point. Like if a coworker who joined the week after you got paid from the funds that should've gone to you the week before, and th…

That really makes no difference, sure, if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it, they would happily give you your money. A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer because that is your money, legally, after performing your work duties per your employment contract and labor law.

> if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it

Because then you would own the money after the court legally transfers the ownership. They don't belong to you beforehand, is what I'm saying.

> A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer

Not from the other employee. You completely missed the points of my examples, especially the one about receiving stolen goods. Try reading them again.

If you just want to call it theft despite all the differences it has with actual theft, I obviously can't stop you, but I tried to explain precisely some rather important differences in how they're treated.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#72

Post by tapvt »

dataflow wrote: post #6

> This failure to pay what workers are legally entitled to can be called wage theft; in essence, it involves employers taking money that belongs to their employees and keeping it for themselves. Shouldn't it be called fraud rather than theft? I thought theft is depriving someone of something they own... but you don't own the money yet before the payment is made. My understanding was, if you intended to pay a debt, bu…

It seems to me that it is “theft” in the same vein as “theft of service,” but I could be mistaken.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#74

Post by dataflow »

aqme28 wrote: post #30
dataflow wrote: post #6

> This failure to pay what workers are legally entitled to can be called wage theft; in essence, it involves employers taking money that belongs to their employees and keeping it for themselves. Shouldn't it be called fraud rather than theft? I thought theft is depriving someone of something they own... but you don't own the money yet before the payment is made. My understanding was, if you intended to pay a debt, bu…

What would you call "theft of services"? "Service fraud" instead? Theft is a more consistent term for this than you're giving credit.

Good question. How about "unpaid labor"? Not as attention-grabbing as if you have "theft" in there, but it sure sounds more accurate than any other phrasing I can think of. Or maybe "wage fraud"?

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#75

Post by ineptech »

xyzzyz wrote: post #35
detaro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wage theft" is an established term with clear meaning, is it really helpful in any way to try and cherry-pick it from first principles despite that? Nobody is using "wage theft" to suggest treating all unpaid debts as "theft".

It is established through unceasing efforts of activists, who pushed for it, precisely in order to exploit the negative connotations of the word “theft” to describe something that is not what people typically associate with the notion of theft. If you go with your friends to restaurant, with the understanding that you’ll pay the bill everyone will pay you their part, but one of them refuses to do so afterwards, would…

> It is established through unceasing efforts of activists, who pushed for it, precisely in order to exploit the negative connotations of the word “theft” to describe something that is not what people typically associate with the notion of theft.

Source? I think this term has been in general use for at least two generations.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#76

Post by Grimm1 »

dataflow wrote: post #71
Grimm1 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really makes no difference, sure, if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it, they would happily give you your money. A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer because that is your money, legally, after performing your work duties per your employment contract and labor law.

> if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it Because then you would own the money after the court legally transfers the ownership . They don't belong to you beforehand , is what I'm saying. > A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer Not from the other employee . You completely missed the points of my examples, especially the one about receiving stolen goods. Try reading them a…

You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it.

You don't claw it back from your co-worker because money is fungible and just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money. That's money owed to them from your employer who also owes you money.

Honestly I ignored that initially in my response because I thought the example was a bit contrived and because of my above reasoning didn't really hold water.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#77

Post by astura »

jseliger wrote: post #56
iso1210 wrote: post #2

"Between 2012 and 2013, McDonald’s reached agreement with the Kentucky Labor Cabinet to pay $29,000 in back wages to 203 affected workers" So basically you steal the money, and if you're caught (unlikely), you just have to give it back. Maybe I should try that next time I'm in a restaurant.

Emergency medicine doctors appear to routinely suffer from this: most are expected to stay after their 12-hour shifts (some EDs have 8, 9, or 10 hour shifts, but 12 is common) to finish charting and take care of other tasks, but hospitals never pay for this time. I've asked EM docs about taking this to state labor boards and the like, but most seem not to think that wage theft is a problem, or fear retaliation too mu…

Are you sure these doctors are paid hourly?

Because if they are salaried they are exempt from the FLSA and not entitled to overtime. (Mind you, that doesn't actually prevent hospitals from paying overtime, they just aren't required to.)

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#78

Post by dataflow »

Grimm1 wrote: post #76
dataflow wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it Because then you would own the money after the court legally transfers the ownership . They don't belong to you beforehand , is what I'm saying. > A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer Not from the other employee . You completely missed the points of my examples, especially the one about receiving stolen goods. Try reading them a…

You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it. You don't claw it back from your co-worker because money is fungible and just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money. That's money owed to them from your employer who also owes you money. Honestly I ignored that initially in my response because I thought the example was a bit contrived and because of my…

> You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it.

> just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money

These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm saying in the second one. This is exactly how the money isn't yours! That money in the bank isn't yours either just because the employer could've paid you with it!

I'm not sure where to go from here (I feel like you just made my point for me) but if we still disagree then I guess we might just have to leave it a that.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#79

Post by bserge »

jseliger wrote: post #56
iso1210 wrote: post #2

"Between 2012 and 2013, McDonald’s reached agreement with the Kentucky Labor Cabinet to pay $29,000 in back wages to 203 affected workers" So basically you steal the money, and if you're caught (unlikely), you just have to give it back. Maybe I should try that next time I'm in a restaurant.

Emergency medicine doctors appear to routinely suffer from this: most are expected to stay after their 12-hour shifts (some EDs have 8, 9, or 10 hour shifts, but 12 is common) to finish charting and take care of other tasks, but hospitals never pay for this time. I've asked EM docs about taking this to state labor boards and the like, but most seem not to think that wage theft is a problem, or fear retaliation too mu…

I usually shit on them all, but maybe I shouldn't. It was the legal system that forced powers onto them, after all.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#80

Post by overtonwhy »

balozi wrote: post #60

To play the devils advocate for a moment, I will suggest that the opposite of wage theft, whereby employees steal time/resources from their employers, is in orders of magnitude far greater. Almost no employee devotes 100% of their effort and time to their employer during paid time. Lots of socializing, day dreaming and standing around at every workplace. My point is to suggest that there are nuances to employer-emplo…

People are human beings, not robots. What you're suggesting is inhumane. Maybe that's not something worth advocating for regardless of who is paying you.
Post reply on HN