"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…
An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
81–90 of 126 posts
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#82If this is over the normal course of business and spread out over years, as it would be for workers not getting paid a few minutes preparing their workstation before their shift, or not having rest breaks, then it’s an implied (or explicit!) part of the employment contract and not actually any sort of scam. Assigning the word “theft” is dishonest.
Not a lawyer but I would not advise writing “we will disregard federal labor law” into an employment agreement
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#83> 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…
Semantics really matter indeed. What does "to own" means for you? To have it on your person? To have it in your bank account? To hold it with your hands?
Turns out it is much more complicated than that and none of these conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient. You should look up the bundle of rights definition of private property to see how complicated it gets. The moment you contractually are entitled to that money, but deprived of your right of exercising your agency over it, you're being deprived of your property too, hence the appropriateness of the term "theft".
> if you intended to pay a debt, but later refuse to, then you pay it back with some interest
Only if you agreed to this contractually (or whatever ambient legal context defines the terms otherwise). "But I was gonna pay interest on it" is not a defense of delinquency. It is like I can steal your TV and say "I was gonna return it back, with a smaller TV on the side". You can't deprive people of their bundle of property rights (e.g. right of access and use) willy nilly.
> Otherwise everyone who declines to make a payment on their credit card bill would also be a thief.
Terms of this is very clearly defined on your credit card agreement; you are in delinquency of that missed pay indeed, hence the consequences of penalty payments, credit score impact and so forth.
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#84> 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…
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wage+theft&yea...
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#86Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#87Hundreds of millions in the US is from $0.30 up to $2.99 per capita. Maybe similar in scale to yearly losses from stuck vending machines.
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Modern finance is essentially the Art of I.O.U's.
Before Grimm1's instance of someone else getting hired on, your hypothetical employer has their affairs set up such that expected payroll is met. Payroll is calculated as a function of headcount, and often, the business owner/primary equityholder are the end eater's of any financial shortfalls. They get paid last. Payroll must be paid first, vendors generally fall somewhere in between, and are somewhat more flexible in how you can accommodate them, as long as you make good on it.
Grimm1's scenario would therefore properly play out as the Owner doesn't take home as much (honestly any profit if things have deteriorated to the point you can't meet payroll).
The courts do not look favorably on not paying your people, and in bankruptcy, your payroll obligations take primacy(I think).
You (dataflow) don't necessarily paint the most accurate picture in the sense that the liability does in fact exist in a materially fashion. You can "call it" in the same way that a bank can do a "margin call", which usually requires getting an agent of the court involved.
The sad thing is, legal representation/effective litigation has such a high barrier to entry, that most people don't even realize they can. The other problem is the additional legal costs may jeopardize a business to the point it death spirals, ensuring you never get made whole.
USPS is an interesting case, because I'm not sure what else might be in play due to it's quasi-public nature. A federal institution cannot go into arrears. (Literally, a lot of Federal managers won't even be comfortable letting you do volunteer work in my experience). They have to furlough on budget shortfalls. But USPS is not "Federal" like most Executive agencies, as they are still technically private, or have been operated that way, while also being Constitutionally mandated to exist.
USPS as I recall, is also one of the only employers required to pre-fund their pension liabilities. Unlike everyone else in the private sector who apparently aren't.
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe I should try that next time I'm in a restaurant. Perhaps ironically, people frequently place orders at restaurant and then decline to come to pick them up & pay. They restaurant still ends up providing the service they promise, and the customer declines to make the payment they promise. It's terrible, but my understanding is it's similarly quite commonplace and hardly ever prosecuted.
Because it is not a crime. You can order whatever you want unless a payment is made and product accepted a legal transaction hasn't occured. Missed items, uncooked food, poor quality are common reasons not to accept and send back. You can decide to decline the transaction at any point. What businesses do is make the person pay first. Rarely does a fastfood worker take my order.. stop.. makes my food and then asks me…
It may or may not be a crime depending on intent, but a transaction is not the issue. It is breach of contract. Laws obviously vary around the world, but the US Uniform Commercial Code is probably typical. The restaurant has made an offer. The customer has accepted it. There is agreed-to "consideration" (value) to be provided by both sides. If the restaurant does what they said they would do you, having accepted the "offer" by making an order, are bound to do what you said you would do (pay the price that you knew was the price when you accepted the offer.)
Just increase the dollar amounts by a large enough factor, and you'll see it. A company sells widgets. I order a million dollars worth, items that can't simply be put back in stock and resold to others. They make them, but I don't pick them up. I'm not arguing that they didn't do their part by making defective items. I'm (probably) not required to pick them up, but I am required to pay what I agreed. You are saying "no transaction occurred", but that's not at issue. The company will (rightly) sue me for breach of contract.
It's the same for fast food except that the static friction of legal costs vastly overpowers the scale of recovery from the breach of contract for each instance of no-show. But if a single order for $10,000 (catering a company picnic) is not picked up, you get past the friction, and the restaurant will sue for breach of contract.
Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a lawyer but I would not advise writing “we will disregard federal labor law” into an employment agreement
You’re relying to an imaginary version of my comment.