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

91–100 of 126 posts

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

#91

Post by Grimm1 »

dataflow wrote: post #78
Grimm1 wrote: post #76

Earlier 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…

I think we differ on the semantics, I see "This money is owed to me" as I own that money. I may not physically have it in my possession but I have mechanisms to retrieve it and that is wherein ownership is for me. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something.

> 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!

By my above clarification does it make sense from my viewpoint if I now say something like, "That money is mine, my employer is simply holding it for me, because I could use the courts to retrieve it if they said they don't want to give it to me."

You don't have to agree I just want to make sure I'm getting my point across.

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

#92

Post by anonchan »

ineptech wrote: post #66
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.

It's not always true that you "just have to give it back"; repeat offenders do get taken to the woodshed sometimes. But, when employers and employees steal from each other, the fact that one is a criminal matter and the other a civil matter says a great deal about the law is and what purpose it was designed to serve.

Stealing from a restaurant is a criminal matter because you're taking (by force or concealing your actions) what doesn't belong to you. A restaurant not paying wages is a civil matter because they failed to fulfill their contractual obligations to pay you and are in debt. Arguing that taking money by force and not paying money are equivalent is comparing apples and oranges.

(It may be appropriate to criminalize failing to pay employees, but I'm not sure about the first and higher-order effects of doing so, or how to craft legal principles and laws with the right incentives, while avoiding special cases like the laundry list of exemptions to California's AB5.)

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

#93

Post by dataflow »

Grimm1 wrote: post #91
dataflow wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think we differ on the semantics, I see "This money is owed to me" as I own that money. I may not physically have it in my possession but I have mechanisms to retrieve it and that is wherein ownership is for me. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something. > These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm s…

> I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something.

No, that's not what I'm saying. You can obviously lend something and it still belongs to you even though someone else possesses it.

I'm saying that if something has previously belonged to someone else, it will not be yours until and unless either (a) its existing owner, or (b) a valid legal procedure actually transfers the ownership. Moreover, until that is the case, you cannot take possession of it without the consent of the owners, and doing so would not make you its owner. Furthermore, a mere contract that you would be paid $X by Y time does not imply you will be the owner of $X of the payer's money at Y time (nor earlier). It is merely a promise to transfer ownership, which may or may not occur due to numerous reasons both inside and outside the employer's control. Just like how a stock option is a promise to transfer stock, not a grant of ownership of the stock, and just like how that has nothing to do with your physical possession of anything.

I'm pretty sure it's possible to write a contract that actually grants you ownership of some funds by a certain time, but I'd bet no employer would agree to that. Precisely because it would have quite different legal implications than merely a promise of payment.

I get the feeling the confusion here is that you're conflating moral ownership with legal ownership. That you have a moral right to something and that there exists a legal procedure to grant you ownership doesn't mean you are the legal owner before that procedure occurs.

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

#94

Post by jseliger »

ceejayoz wrote: post #57
jseliger wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Docs are typically salaried, aren’t they?

An excellent point: some are, but many aren't, particularly in fields like emergency medicine (EM) and anesthesia. 1099 work is common as is hourly w-2 work.

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

#95

Post by sokoloff »

dataflow wrote: post #81
jseliger wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Flight attendants might be another example.

Some of the airline contracts are really odd. IIRC: Some roles are paid only when the door is closed. Some flying roles are paid one rate while the airplane is chocked and another rate when it’s unchocked. Pilots are paid a minimum number of hours per month; some are paid to sit in ready reserve and others have to sit on reserve as assigned as part of the agreement to get the monthly guarantee.

It’s messy for sure.

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

#96

Post by NoahTheDuke »

anonchan wrote: post #92
ineptech wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not always true that you "just have to give it back"; repeat offenders do get taken to the woodshed sometimes. But, when employers and employees steal from each other, the fact that one is a criminal matter and the other a civil matter says a great deal about the law is and what purpose it was designed to serve.

Stealing from a restaurant is a criminal matter because you're taking (by force or concealing your actions) what doesn't belong to you. A restaurant not paying wages is a civil matter because they failed to fulfill their contractual obligations to pay you and are in debt. Arguing that taking money by force and not paying money are equivalent is comparing apples and oranges. (It may be appropriate to criminalize faili…

I love the phrase “comparing apples to oranges” because while I know the intended meaning, the literal meaning is the opposite: they’re both sweet fruits that are common in western society, they’re sliced and juiced and used in a variety of dishes, and they are readily available.

The difference between “stealing cash” and “wage theft” is only a difference in perspective. The employee didn’t perform any labor to earn the money they took so they’ve broken the contract and now they’re in debt to the restaurant. Likewise, an employee’s labor is a fungible resource they control and the expenditure of it that solely benefits the restaurant through a lie (concealing their actions) is no different than someone scamming the person at the register and walking out without paying.

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

#97

Post by CheezeIt »

eschaton wrote: post #90
CheezeIt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re relying to an imaginary version of my comment.

Not really; you’re saying that these violations of the law can become implicitly part of the terms of work and should be accepted as such, when they’re violations of the law and therefore cannot be considered part of the terms of work.

I didn’t say “no rest breaks” would be in a written contract. The first three or four jobs I had, there was no written contract.

Illegal aliens somehow manage to have agreements with people paying them money. Lawmakers disagreeing with your terms of employment doesn’t have any bearing on the meaning of “theft”.

The fact that you’re coming up with such convoluted legalistic reasoning shows what a lie it is.

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

#99

Post by mchusma »

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…

I agree with what you are saying. I personally have never seen something in the real world that looks much like "wage theft". I have seen hundreds of examples of basically the inverse, workers deliberately lying to employers to earn more.

I think it's best if we just keep the word "theft" out if it. It is a misleading rhetorical tool.

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

#100

Post by Grimm1 »

dataflow wrote: post #93
Grimm1 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we differ on the semantics, I see "This money is owed to me" as I own that money. I may not physically have it in my possession but I have mechanisms to retrieve it and that is wherein ownership is for me. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something. > These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm s…

> I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something. No, that's not what I'm saying. You can obviously lend something and it still belongs to you even though someone else possesses it. I'm saying that if something has previously belonged to someone else, it will not be yours until and unless either (a) its existing owner, or (b) a valid legal procedure…

First thank you for the clarification.

I'm going to do something never before done on the internet and change my position. I think you've convinced me that there is a difference.

Though I'm not sold that in most matters of practicality it would have that much of an impact because if I'm able to compel you to give me X through something like "a valid legal procedure" then I at least had a claim to ownership of X to begin with, which I can use to get possession of X and full ownership, in your sense, of X. It just took me a few extra steps instead of a neat transfer by the person I'm compelling through the legal procedure but at the end I still get X.

The only other thing I see here is that with stock options, execution is legally optional and a decision made by the person with the option. It's not legally optional to pay someone wages if they're employed under a standard wage contract and that decision isn't made by the employee to not be paid it's being made by the employer that's an important distinction.

Anyway, whether I have X or a magic token (in this case the government) that upon using it will force you to give me X makes no difference to me, still got X. If it didn't contracts would be worthless and we both know that's not typically the case. So if anything I see it as a distinction ultimately without difference but I guess there is value in seeing the distinction anyway.

Anyway good conversation and I imagine we still have some disagreement here but I'm going to go enjoy my Saturday evening, have a good one yourself!

Post reply on HN