Billions stolen in wage theft from US workers(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Billions stolen in wage theft from US workers
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/15/wage-theft-us-workers-employees
445 comments
I had a manual labor job when I was 16 that my parents wanted me to get to build some character. A night a week or so and one shift on the weekend. The need for labor was dependent on customer demand on a given day and weather and fluctuated greatly. Practice was so show up and wait around in the break room until it was busy enough that you were needed, and then people would be called in order of arrival. So some people would wait around hours to even find out if they might work that day.
I did it a couple times and found it so demoralizing I quit. Later I found out that practice is very illegal.
I did it a couple times and found it so demoralizing I quit. Later I found out that practice is very illegal.
You think the construction industry is illegal. Wait till you hear
about academia!! :)
This is the life today for zero-hours, at-will employment in the university sector. As a visiting professor I've had universities ask me to deliver a semester course a year in advance, and call the week before to say they're not running it. At the very minimum a 12 week course takes 40 hours of preparation even if you're just refreshing the notes and practicals from last time.
I've had Russell group universities not pay me for two years. They've flat out "lost" my invoices, three times! Two major league universities tried to stiff me out of over £2000 and had to be threatened with legal action. One London uni asked me to prepare a DSP course, then instead of hiring me to deliver it plagiarised my slides, took my name off them and got a junior lecturer to deliver the course instead. The last university I worked at were so careless with my payments that my accountant advised me to "extricate immediately" because there so many "anomalies" she couldn't keep track of them all.
Universities are absolute f*king gangsters.
This is the life today for zero-hours, at-will employment in the university sector. As a visiting professor I've had universities ask me to deliver a semester course a year in advance, and call the week before to say they're not running it. At the very minimum a 12 week course takes 40 hours of preparation even if you're just refreshing the notes and practicals from last time.
I've had Russell group universities not pay me for two years. They've flat out "lost" my invoices, three times! Two major league universities tried to stiff me out of over £2000 and had to be threatened with legal action. One London uni asked me to prepare a DSP course, then instead of hiring me to deliver it plagiarised my slides, took my name off them and got a junior lecturer to deliver the course instead. The last university I worked at were so careless with my payments that my accountant advised me to "extricate immediately" because there so many "anomalies" she couldn't keep track of them all.
Universities are absolute f*king gangsters.
Universities, unlike building firms, have actual assets and are unlikely to claim bankruptcy. That means you could easily take the above issues to small claims court as long as you had them in writing (and remember, even a agreement to pay you via email usually suffices - no formal documents or signatures required)
You're not wrong, but my goodness... the effort, and the waiting.
It's so sapping to have to work for your money like a regular person,
and then work again and again just to get what's rightfully due to
you.
This is a very important point that a lot of folks miss. You van spend hundreds or even thousands of hours getting what is obviously due and often that is all lost.
I have let many people go who I would persue in a world with my hours being paid(at a lawyers rate) in the event of a victory in the courtroom.
Ahhh, should land...
I have let many people go who I would persue in a world with my hours being paid(at a lawyers rate) in the event of a victory in the courtroom.
Ahhh, should land...
They have lawyers and you don't so expect this to be dragged out and expensive for you and your rewards, if successful, to not even cover the initial losses fully, much less the time and money of the suit. The big companies will always win. Better off suing the small construction company or building firm, as you're far more likely to be on even(er) ground with them.
...and then your career in academia is over, regardless of the official rules of retribution.
Which, based on all of the bad experiences, might be a blessing in disguise for adjuncts (UK or otherwise!)
Which, based on all of the bad experiences, might be a blessing in disguise for adjuncts (UK or otherwise!)
No, it's not like that. I write excoriating pieces in the Times
Higher, completely damning the UK university system as "unfit for
teaching and leaning" [0], and they still call me and ask "can you
just cover this class?".
Amusing as that desperation is, in a way it's more terrifying how the machinery of blind capitalism works. The system isn't capable of sentiment like that. They don't care what I say. It's just business. They're not there keeping a score of 'friends' and 'enemies'.
Universities run on people like me who are of the "academic mindset", who can and will do things like teaching because we love it as a vocation even though the salary is a quarter or fifth of what is on offer privately.
In the end, the only solution is to say no, even when you'd really like to do it. It's a weird modern tragedy.
[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/cyber-education/
Amusing as that desperation is, in a way it's more terrifying how the machinery of blind capitalism works. The system isn't capable of sentiment like that. They don't care what I say. It's just business. They're not there keeping a score of 'friends' and 'enemies'.
Universities run on people like me who are of the "academic mindset", who can and will do things like teaching because we love it as a vocation even though the salary is a quarter or fifth of what is on offer privately.
In the end, the only solution is to say no, even when you'd really like to do it. It's a weird modern tragedy.
[0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/cyber-education/
> Universities run on people like me who are of the "academic mindset", who can and will do things like teaching because we love it as a vocation even though the salary is a quarter or fifth of what is on offer privately.
Everything runs like this. Jobs people want will pay less than jobs people don't want.
Everything runs like this. Jobs people want will pay less than jobs people don't want.
Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO?
> Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO?
Unironically, yes. Most people don't have enough exposure to actually understand what the job of a CEO is. I have had that exposure, and I don't ever want to be the CEO of any sizeable company. Once you become CEO, work/life balance utterly ceases to exist, because you are the person imbued as the corporation, meaning you are literally always working, always on call, always stuck with the most difficult or intractable decisions where maybe all the options are wrong, and no matter your choice everyone will hate you. It's a terrible job that people only do because it pays so well.
I am not the CEO but I'm much higher up the food chain today than I was when I started. I often reminisce fondly about my time working phone tech support, because I could work my queue and walk out without having to give any thought to anything that occurred that day. That's not the reality of being in any sort of management role, and the higher up you go the less that matches reality.
Unironically, yes. Most people don't have enough exposure to actually understand what the job of a CEO is. I have had that exposure, and I don't ever want to be the CEO of any sizeable company. Once you become CEO, work/life balance utterly ceases to exist, because you are the person imbued as the corporation, meaning you are literally always working, always on call, always stuck with the most difficult or intractable decisions where maybe all the options are wrong, and no matter your choice everyone will hate you. It's a terrible job that people only do because it pays so well.
I am not the CEO but I'm much higher up the food chain today than I was when I started. I often reminisce fondly about my time working phone tech support, because I could work my queue and walk out without having to give any thought to anything that occurred that day. That's not the reality of being in any sort of management role, and the higher up you go the less that matches reality.
This is no worse than the demands beared by countless $12/hr general managers.
> This is no worse than the demands beared by countless $12/hr general managers.
That is grossly incorrect. Also, general managers don't make $12/hr. The average general manager in the US makes ~$87k/yr, and can be as high as $150k/yr, and depending on the specific industry you can end up with relatively sizeable compensation based on profit sharing and bonus structures. A general manager typically oversees a single location of a much larger business entity, with oversight for less than 500 staff, compared to a CEO that may have tens of thousands of people and their myriad workstreams that they are trying to weave into some unified vision/strategy plus dealing with the personnel challenges that go with that scale.
I realize you were trying to be pithy, but let's not do that on HN.
That is grossly incorrect. Also, general managers don't make $12/hr. The average general manager in the US makes ~$87k/yr, and can be as high as $150k/yr, and depending on the specific industry you can end up with relatively sizeable compensation based on profit sharing and bonus structures. A general manager typically oversees a single location of a much larger business entity, with oversight for less than 500 staff, compared to a CEO that may have tens of thousands of people and their myriad workstreams that they are trying to weave into some unified vision/strategy plus dealing with the personnel challenges that go with that scale.
I realize you were trying to be pithy, but let's not do that on HN.
Your reply is incorrect and inaccurate. Consider this an opportunity to improve, not double down.
Senior exec positions (at large companies) pay really well for the most part--but I couldn't imagine doing that sort of thing for more than a few years with the mindset that I'm doing my time in purgatory so that I can retire early and have a sane life. (Some CEOs seem to have a better ability to carve off some me-time but it's still a job a lot of people wouldn't want for the long term.)
I have yet to see a CEO choose to go back down the food chain, even though that is something they have the power to do.
Typically the way it works is the comp structure is such that after a few years in the role you can semi-retire. The goal of anyone who is a CEO is to try throw their hat in the ring, hopefully do a good job, and then step away to help other people who want to be CEOs. Generally they do this by taking on board seats or becoming an investor. The average CEO tenure is 7 years and the median is 5 years[1]. This is not a job you can do for a long time without it basically killing you due to the stress.
I'm sure you've seen all the before/after pictures they always do for POTUS. If you saw similar photos for folks becoming CEOs of a major company, you'd see a similar change. Being a CEO is a job that will literally run you ragged. It destroys your health, and is not something most people can tolerate for longer than a decade.
[1]: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/02/12/ceo-tenure-rates/
I'm sure you've seen all the before/after pictures they always do for POTUS. If you saw similar photos for folks becoming CEOs of a major company, you'd see a similar change. Being a CEO is a job that will literally run you ragged. It destroys your health, and is not something most people can tolerate for longer than a decade.
[1]: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/02/12/ceo-tenure-rates/
CEOs of large companies generally don't go back down the food chain because they don't need to. They retire/semi-retire (e.g. get a board seat or some other advisor type of position) instead.
The strongest factor in personal employment decisions is what we "need to". Of course a CEO doesn't need to continue pulling their weight when they have piles of cash to retire on.
Obligatory:
"You know, one day, my mother, she put me on her knee and she said to me, 'Gaston, my son, the world is a beautiful place. You must go into it and love everyone, try to make everyone happy, and bring peace and contentment everywhere you go,' and so, I became a waiter. Well, it's it's not much of a philosophy, I know... but, well,... fuck you. I can live my own life in my own way if I want to. Fuck off."
Replace waiter with CEO and I think it would still work. I mean, why do any of us do anything?
"You know, one day, my mother, she put me on her knee and she said to me, 'Gaston, my son, the world is a beautiful place. You must go into it and love everyone, try to make everyone happy, and bring peace and contentment everywhere you go,' and so, I became a waiter. Well, it's it's not much of a philosophy, I know... but, well,... fuck you. I can live my own life in my own way if I want to. Fuck off."
Replace waiter with CEO and I think it would still work. I mean, why do any of us do anything?
> Does that mean everyone wants to be a waiter and nobody wants to be a CEO?
You've committed the fallacy of the single cause. A reason doesn't mean the reason for lower salaries.
You've committed the fallacy of the single cause. A reason doesn't mean the reason for lower salaries.
Is it me committing the fallacy or am I responding to the fallacy?
Committing.
Since I have to be explicit, I'm questioning the line of thinking that I'm responding to with my initial post in this thread. Perhaps you should go back and reread it.
> not only would they fire you but they'd call up all their industry buddies and you'd basically be on every other restaurants no-hire list.
So like a much-dreaded union for employers except it’s underhanded and illegal.
So like a much-dreaded union for employers except it’s underhanded and illegal.
Yes, exactly.
And it’s underhanded and illegal when employers do it, because there’s an imbalance of power between employee and employee.
Unions exist to even out that balance of power. When employers engage in that kind of activity it further increases the imbalance of power.
For example, in this case, they were using that tactic to support their ability to steal from employees.
And it’s underhanded and illegal when employers do it, because there’s an imbalance of power between employee and employee.
Unions exist to even out that balance of power. When employers engage in that kind of activity it further increases the imbalance of power.
For example, in this case, they were using that tactic to support their ability to steal from employees.
To clarify this further:
The employer is already a collective, "A business", and the hiring manager is operating with the full power of that collective in hiring/firing negotations.
A union is a collective to balance power against the business (collective).
A cartel is a collective of collectives (ie., a group of businesses) operating to defeat free market competition regulation, in this sense the cartel is balancing power against the state -- which is the only permitted "collective of collectives".
Cartels challenge states (power to create free markets), whereas unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire).
This is why unions are permissible and cartels are not.
The employer is already a collective, "A business", and the hiring manager is operating with the full power of that collective in hiring/firing negotations.
A union is a collective to balance power against the business (collective).
A cartel is a collective of collectives (ie., a group of businesses) operating to defeat free market competition regulation, in this sense the cartel is balancing power against the state -- which is the only permitted "collective of collectives".
Cartels challenge states (power to create free markets), whereas unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire).
This is why unions are permissible and cartels are not.
This is very simplistic, and somewhat wrong
First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free
This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is.
Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company.
The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union
First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free
This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is.
Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company.
The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union
err.. no, free markets are state constructions.
By default, an unregulated market becomes non-free essentially immediately, as cartels form (indeed, as cartels of cartels form, hence states).
As Hobbes observed, in the state of nature there is no motivation to remain as an individual, so you form groups in order for self-protection. In an "anarchical market" you end up with incredible levels of monopolisation (etc.).
A free market is a state construction whereby cartels, scams, fraud, (murder, theft, etc.) is prohibited so that limited liability collectives (another state construction) called "businesses" can freely compete for labour and profit.
By default, an unregulated market becomes non-free essentially immediately, as cartels form (indeed, as cartels of cartels form, hence states).
As Hobbes observed, in the state of nature there is no motivation to remain as an individual, so you form groups in order for self-protection. In an "anarchical market" you end up with incredible levels of monopolisation (etc.).
A free market is a state construction whereby cartels, scams, fraud, (murder, theft, etc.) is prohibited so that limited liability collectives (another state construction) called "businesses" can freely compete for labour and profit.
FWIW, to bystanders without context for this area of study, the parent is basically the orthodox take on the role of the state in modern economies and “free markets”: in short, you can’t have one (certainly not a highly-productive one that makes life not-suck) that lasts for any length of time without a state, and the “shape” it takes and whom it serves and to what degree is meaningfully determined by same state.
There is an irony that capitalism is claimed by the anarcho-libertarian lot. As capitalism is the most collectivised system in human history (consider, only, the scale of Microsoft) -- and also the most anti-capitalist system (ie., it forces capitalists to compete and hence dramatically diminishes their power relative to other systems).
Perhaps one day we might see capitalism as an "iterated socialism" (ie., socialism as thought about if you include time in your imagination).
And communism, libertarianism, anarchism, etc. as all products of a time-free form of reasoning where you can just pause the world and imagine that all people will "run the same program".
Perhaps one day we might see capitalism as an "iterated socialism" (ie., socialism as thought about if you include time in your imagination).
And communism, libertarianism, anarchism, etc. as all products of a time-free form of reasoning where you can just pause the world and imagine that all people will "run the same program".
Yeah, last I checked the “story” of capitalism and strong market economies is generally regarded as essentially having the emergence of the proto-nation-state (as in e.g. Spain under the “Catholic Monarchs”) as a prerequisite, as far as being something that can exist on an all-encompassing scale rather than in the margins, in tiny states navigating the “waters” between larger polities with other economic systems.
Stability and guarantees from a strong central state really grease the wheels of commerce.
Stability and guarantees from a strong central state really grease the wheels of commerce.
That's essentially my understanding too. The legal construction of property, and rule and commodification of law are all necessary functions of market economies.
Cartels are a feature of free markets.
I would argue that it's good for the state to take some sort of interest in regulating them, one of several ways that I'm not a free-market fundamentalist.
But arguing that the formation of cartels makes a market non-free is backward. Cartels emerge through free association in trade. Regulating them might make for a more functional market, a more efficient market (or it might not) but it makes for a less free market, always.
I will add that I consider the very idea of "absence of the state" to be badly-formed, states vary considerably in their constitution but there's always something serving that role, even if it's a few elders in a village.
I would argue that it's good for the state to take some sort of interest in regulating them, one of several ways that I'm not a free-market fundamentalist.
But arguing that the formation of cartels makes a market non-free is backward. Cartels emerge through free association in trade. Regulating them might make for a more functional market, a more efficient market (or it might not) but it makes for a less free market, always.
I will add that I consider the very idea of "absence of the state" to be badly-formed, states vary considerably in their constitution but there's always something serving that role, even if it's a few elders in a village.
If a cartel sets the price, rather than supply and demand, is it really a free market? Of course the answer is no and that's obvious to anyone giving it any thought at all.
A market isn't free if prices aren't set by supply and demand operating under the guarantees of free exchange given by states (ie., property rights, and the rest).
A cartel sets prices, and is one of the many ways markets are unfree.
There's a ton of confusion created by libertarian sorts who fail to distinguish between government regulation which sets prices, and regulation necessary for the operation of the market itself. Basically delusional ideologues have denied the latter exists, by just ignoring it.
If a government acts to set prices it makes a market non-free, just as much as if a cartel does so. "Free" cannot plausibly mean that a mafia is fine but a police force isnt.. and the claim that it does is just libertarian propaganda.
Governments which regulate markets so as to prevent cartels are acting to prevent the very sort of price-setting which "free" denotes does not occur
A cartel sets prices, and is one of the many ways markets are unfree.
There's a ton of confusion created by libertarian sorts who fail to distinguish between government regulation which sets prices, and regulation necessary for the operation of the market itself. Basically delusional ideologues have denied the latter exists, by just ignoring it.
If a government acts to set prices it makes a market non-free, just as much as if a cartel does so. "Free" cannot plausibly mean that a mafia is fine but a police force isnt.. and the claim that it does is just libertarian propaganda.
Governments which regulate markets so as to prevent cartels are acting to prevent the very sort of price-setting which "free" denotes does not occur
> A cartel sets prices, and is one of the many ways markets are unfree.
That's true, but cartels can't enforce this. New or external firms can compete with the cartel. If a cartel reduces production or raises prices then it incentivizes competitors to meet the market demand with lower prices. The only way the cartel can exclude new firms is by controlling the entirety of some resource or enforcing the cartel usually in the form of lobbying for regulations.
That's true, but cartels can't enforce this. New or external firms can compete with the cartel. If a cartel reduces production or raises prices then it incentivizes competitors to meet the market demand with lower prices. The only way the cartel can exclude new firms is by controlling the entirety of some resource or enforcing the cartel usually in the form of lobbying for regulations.
In Ontario, the "dairy cartel" invaded the big name convenience stores and groceries and forcibly replaced product on the shelf with their own without repercussion
I wonder what factors prevented competition with the "dairy cartel" in Ontario as would happen in a free market. Most likely there are restrictions on what products can be sold to willing customers that are costly for smaller firms to comply with. There may also be subsidies that have criteria that entrenched firms benefit from, but impose additional restrictions on how new firms can function.
Why would it be worthwhile to compete with a dairy cartel? Of all the things one can do with capital, why go to war with a cartel over relatively small margins?
You're assuming also that the cartel is operating only "economically", not also, eg., bribing, blackmailing, (stealing, murdering, ...), ...potential competitors. Why not just invite any competitor into the cartel? Why not buy them out? Why not "make life difficult" for them?
The underlying assumption that "things wash out" requires supposing that an extremely simplistic newtonian model of an economy where politics doesnt really occur. But people are foremost political, ie., engaged in tribal behaviour, collectivising, using force, and so on. This doesnt "wash out".
You're assuming also that the cartel is operating only "economically", not also, eg., bribing, blackmailing, (stealing, murdering, ...), ...potential competitors. Why not just invite any competitor into the cartel? Why not buy them out? Why not "make life difficult" for them?
The underlying assumption that "things wash out" requires supposing that an extremely simplistic newtonian model of an economy where politics doesnt really occur. But people are foremost political, ie., engaged in tribal behaviour, collectivising, using force, and so on. This doesnt "wash out".
graeber/wengrow would disagree
Neither of those people are a good source on the common definition of free markets. "Free market" is just two words, they can mean whatever an author wants. But it's useful to have a common vocabulary, and respectful to stick with the definition used by whomever introduces a term.
> I will add that I consider the very idea of "absence of the state" to be badly-formed, states vary considerably in their constitution but there's always something serving that role, even if it's a few elders in a village.
well now we will get in a Hobbes vs Locke, I am more Lockean
I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most
Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized
I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most
Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized
I know of no example in all of human history of a free market without a state, at least one of more than a short period -- so my position is very weak here, if you can show only one, i'd have to at least modify it. Yet, I bet you cannot.
Neutrally, using the term "anarchical market", i'd say that these markets are empheral. Everyone them has to act against rules which are not in their self-interest, it's highly unclear why a subgroup of market participants wouldnt immediately collectivise and outcompete everyone else.
Collectivisation is human's superpower, and the obvious an immediate thing basically everyone does (hence: mafia, warlords, cartels, etc.). It would be remarkable to see this anarchical market of yours remain free for very long, so I'd gladly hear of one case.
The main mechanism against collectivisation is that some biggest baddest collective decides to prohibit it (hence the state). There may be others, but I can think of none that would operate under anarchical conditions.
Neutrally, using the term "anarchical market", i'd say that these markets are empheral. Everyone them has to act against rules which are not in their self-interest, it's highly unclear why a subgroup of market participants wouldnt immediately collectivise and outcompete everyone else.
Collectivisation is human's superpower, and the obvious an immediate thing basically everyone does (hence: mafia, warlords, cartels, etc.). It would be remarkable to see this anarchical market of yours remain free for very long, so I'd gladly hear of one case.
The main mechanism against collectivisation is that some biggest baddest collective decides to prohibit it (hence the state). There may be others, but I can think of none that would operate under anarchical conditions.
[an] example in all of human history of a free market without a state
The Hanseatic League. This was basically its own trade association across North Europe, based on maritime trade. It had considerable market/economic power, but no legislative power; most participants were city-states so they were self-reliant to a degree, but none of them had jurisdiction or power over the entire group.
The Hanseatic League. This was basically its own trade association across North Europe, based on maritime trade. It had considerable market/economic power, but no legislative power; most participants were city-states so they were self-reliant to a degree, but none of them had jurisdiction or power over the entire group.
I can't speak to the example other than skimming wikipedia, but:
> Hanseatic Cities gradually developed common trade regulations.
> That year, the merchants of the Hansa in Cologne convinced King Henry II of England to exempt them from all tolls in London[26] and to grant protection to merchants and goods throughout England.[27]: 14–17
> etc.
> By the mid-16th century, these weak connections left the Hanseatic League vulnerable, and it gradually unraveled as members became consolidated into other realms or departed, ultimately disintegrating in 1669.
So it looks like the league was parasitic on the relevant states involved being able to implement regulations, so, basically exactly the point i'm making.
And secondarily, insofar as the legague itself lacked a mechanism to enforce transnational agreeement, it was weak and collpased.
So QED: insofar as participating states had viable regulating mechanisms the system work; insofar as challenges arose which requrired transnational mechanisms, it fell apart.
> Hanseatic Cities gradually developed common trade regulations.
> That year, the merchants of the Hansa in Cologne convinced King Henry II of England to exempt them from all tolls in London[26] and to grant protection to merchants and goods throughout England.[27]: 14–17
> etc.
> By the mid-16th century, these weak connections left the Hanseatic League vulnerable, and it gradually unraveled as members became consolidated into other realms or departed, ultimately disintegrating in 1669.
So it looks like the league was parasitic on the relevant states involved being able to implement regulations, so, basically exactly the point i'm making.
And secondarily, insofar as the legague itself lacked a mechanism to enforce transnational agreeement, it was weak and collpased.
So QED: insofar as participating states had viable regulating mechanisms the system work; insofar as challenges arose which requrired transnational mechanisms, it fell apart.
Markets do not instantly become monopolized, but they do tend that way, and will also eagerly form cartels unless stopped by regulation.
Of course it matters what kind of regulation; it's also possible to regulate markets in a way that protects monopolies, and some governments do that. So it's important to have a government that understands the importance of a free market.
To give you some examples, the Dutch markets for health insurance and energy are entirely privatised but heavily regulated, and quite competitive. It's easy to switch from one provider to another, and so they compete hard on price. Although perhaps more so in the early days after privatisation than more recently.
On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised. Sometimes the EU makes moves to increase competition, but that's only piecemeal and not always terribly effective; Microsoft still rules the desktop, except in those areas where Apple now rules it.
Of course it matters what kind of regulation; it's also possible to regulate markets in a way that protects monopolies, and some governments do that. So it's important to have a government that understands the importance of a free market.
To give you some examples, the Dutch markets for health insurance and energy are entirely privatised but heavily regulated, and quite competitive. It's easy to switch from one provider to another, and so they compete hard on price. Although perhaps more so in the early days after privatisation than more recently.
On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised. Sometimes the EU makes moves to increase competition, but that's only piecemeal and not always terribly effective; Microsoft still rules the desktop, except in those areas where Apple now rules it.
> Markets do not instantly become monopolized, but they do tend that way, and will also eagerly form cartels unless stopped by regulation.
Monopolization requires control of land or resources. This is because any cartel's attempt to set artificially high prices can be undercut by new entrants to the market who aren't in the cartel.
> On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised.
Software is monopolized primarily through regulated monopolies on software (re)production i.e. copyright.
Monopolization requires control of land or resources. This is because any cartel's attempt to set artificially high prices can be undercut by new entrants to the market who aren't in the cartel.
> On the other hand, the market for software is not very regulated, it's heavily monopolised.
Software is monopolized primarily through regulated monopolies on software (re)production i.e. copyright.
There's plenty of pirated Windows around, but everybody still has to use Windows. Linux got into the gaming market only by supporting the Windows apis, and that support is still not quite perfect.
It's not copyright that monopolises software, but api support. The need to reverse engineer other people's work. A lack of open standards. There would be more competition possible in software if regulation mandated open standards and open apis.
So no, you don't need control of land to enable monopolization. You don't need IP law either. There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization, and many of those factors do require some degree of regulation to mitigate them.
Although you could argue that corporations themselves are a government-created construct, and removing those would remove the problem. That could be true, but that's a very big step.
It's not copyright that monopolises software, but api support. The need to reverse engineer other people's work. A lack of open standards. There would be more competition possible in software if regulation mandated open standards and open apis.
So no, you don't need control of land to enable monopolization. You don't need IP law either. There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization, and many of those factors do require some degree of regulation to mitigate them.
Although you could argue that corporations themselves are a government-created construct, and removing those would remove the problem. That could be true, but that's a very big step.
> There's plenty of pirated Windows around, but everybody still has to use Windows.
The threat of jail time for people sharing pirated copies or circumventing copyright protected measures changes the pros/cons people weigh whether or not some people copy or reverse engineer despite those risks. There would be a lot more competition if pirates weren't incurring all these additional risks and were able to compete fairly without state backed copyright monopolies.
> There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization
The primary driver is restricting competition. If your competition is unrestricted then why would they join your cartel when they can outcompete you? Someone will always see that they can get a larger piece of the pie by outcompeting the cartel. Monopolies always use force to prevent winning in fair competition.
The threat of jail time for people sharing pirated copies or circumventing copyright protected measures changes the pros/cons people weigh whether or not some people copy or reverse engineer despite those risks. There would be a lot more competition if pirates weren't incurring all these additional risks and were able to compete fairly without state backed copyright monopolies.
> There are a million different factors that can drive monopolization
The primary driver is restricting competition. If your competition is unrestricted then why would they join your cartel when they can outcompete you? Someone will always see that they can get a larger piece of the pie by outcompeting the cartel. Monopolies always use force to prevent winning in fair competition.
One thing that they have often done in the past, is to temporarily drop their prices to outcompete newcomers, making it impossible for newcomers to outcompete them, and raising their prices back up once the newcomer is gone. The established monopolists always have deeper pockets than the newcomers. I'd love to see how you stop that without regulation.
> This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union.
Have you got any examples of this?
When I look at large unions where I am, it goes one of two ways. They get large and hopeless (teachers union and nurses union) or they get powerful enough that they can dictate such that they can make a meaningful change for their members.
I’ve seen some impressive conditioned earned by doctors unions, police unions and one I belonged to for allied health professionals.
None of them seem to be exoloiting their members, but I’m not sure how I’d find out about that.
Have you got any examples of this?
When I look at large unions where I am, it goes one of two ways. They get large and hopeless (teachers union and nurses union) or they get powerful enough that they can dictate such that they can make a meaningful change for their members.
I’ve seen some impressive conditioned earned by doctors unions, police unions and one I belonged to for allied health professionals.
None of them seem to be exoloiting their members, but I’m not sure how I’d find out about that.
> unions challenge businesses (power to hire/fire).
Which is kind of the problem with unions. If they stuck to negotiating pay levels while leaving businesses free to hire and fire who they see fit I think employers would be much more willing to work with them. Higher salary expenses are much less damaging to a business than not being able to fire incompetent workers.
Which is kind of the problem with unions. If they stuck to negotiating pay levels while leaving businesses free to hire and fire who they see fit I think employers would be much more willing to work with them. Higher salary expenses are much less damaging to a business than not being able to fire incompetent workers.
"Cartels of unions" or whatever are legal in some jurisdictions. See e.g. solidarity action / sympathy strikes.
Depending on the country, that varies from "totally illegal" to "well of course you're gonna solidarity strike, that's how it's done".
Depending on the country, that varies from "totally illegal" to "well of course you're gonna solidarity strike, that's how it's done".
[deleted]
Unions are cartels of sellers of labor.
If they're good or bad is another matter.
If they're good or bad is another matter.
Yeah, they can be, so its more vauge than i've made it out to be. The underlying problem is that employee-employer is individual-collective; so in some sense, there "has" to be a union option if this becomes too one sided.
But a cartel is never required, since businesses competing with each other is the goal of a free market.
I would agree that if unions become more powerful than businesses, so it ends up single-business vs "union-of-unions" you can get the same effects.
Hopefully the asymmetry is clear though. Cartels are never permissible in a free market, but unions often are because of the need for labour to compete "on the same terms" as business.
ie., the mere existence of a union isnt a sign the market is non-free; whereas the mere existence of a cartel is.
But a cartel is never required, since businesses competing with each other is the goal of a free market.
I would agree that if unions become more powerful than businesses, so it ends up single-business vs "union-of-unions" you can get the same effects.
Hopefully the asymmetry is clear though. Cartels are never permissible in a free market, but unions often are because of the need for labour to compete "on the same terms" as business.
ie., the mere existence of a union isnt a sign the market is non-free; whereas the mere existence of a cartel is.
> If they're good or bad is another matter.
It’s pretty clear what you think though.
It’s pretty clear what you think though.
[deleted]
If you want to demonstrate to someone why the legal system is designed for the wealthy and not the common people, I don't think you can do better than the entire subject of wage theft. Wage theft utterly eclipses every other form of larceny in the United States at least, and it is practically legal in every way apart from the letter of the law. Few companies ever see any consequences at all, and the few that do, it's fines here and there. No criminal liability. Certainly no SWAT teams raiding gated communities daily to haul off white collar criminals the way they'll roll out and obliterate an entire home (sometimes even the correct one) to catch someone selling weed.
The societal impact of this crime cannot be overstated. Billions of dollars stolen from workers, practically free of consequence.
The societal impact of this crime cannot be overstated. Billions of dollars stolen from workers, practically free of consequence.
Exactly. How many hand wringing articles have we seen in the past few years about roving bands of shoplifters vs how many about wage theft?
Most companies dont pay many taxes either.
any proof of this? Every company I've worked for pays lots in taxes.
1$ is lots of taxes.
Most companies use countless loopholes.
Most companies use countless loopholes.
> Wage theft utterly eclipses every other form of larceny in the United States at least
If you define being late with payments as theft, then I'd bet that rent theft is way larger than wage theft. I don't see why you would say that it is theft when you are late with payments to a worker but not theft when you are late with payments to a company.
If being late with payments isn't theft, then "wage theft" isn't theft, just like you missing to pay your rent one month isn't theft.
If you define being late with payments as theft, then I'd bet that rent theft is way larger than wage theft. I don't see why you would say that it is theft when you are late with payments to a worker but not theft when you are late with payments to a company.
If being late with payments isn't theft, then "wage theft" isn't theft, just like you missing to pay your rent one month isn't theft.
Rent is a contractual obligation and the remedy for late payment is built into the contract. Hardly comparable.
If being late with payments was theft then by far, far the largest form of larceny would be B2B. Late payments from businesses to vendors eclipses late rent. That's why there's an entire industry built around collecting payments, called factoring companies. That's why there are people hired as credit controllers to chase late payments.
Source: wife worked as a credit controller.
Source: wife worked as a credit controller.
Considering most rentals require a first, last, and deposit there is no theft. There is only failure to meet the terms of the lease.
"If this thing was an entirely different situation then the stakes would be different."
Well, glad we got that part worked out.
It is the same situation, entity A didn't pay entity B the money they agreed to pay.
Even looking past the time aspect which you slipped in (rent late, wages unpaid are definitionally different: unpaid is not, by necessity, late, and late is not necessarily "never going to arrive") wages are the payment of labor performed and rent is the payment of use of private property. Rent-seeking is derided behavior (by economists!) for this exact reason: A landlord does not (in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases) add value to a property: they merely own a thing, and charge people who need access to it, to access it. It's the free-market version of wind-drag: you aren't contributing anything, you're just taking a slice of production you haven't earned because you own a thing that's necessary for the larger system to operate.
> rent late, wages unpaid
Those two are the same, a person who is late would typically never pay if they didn't get threatening mail to "remind" them.
Those two are the same, a person who is late would typically never pay if they didn't get threatening mail to "remind" them.
Citation: Dude trust me
Hot, hot, hot fucking garbage. When I was in college and broke, and struggled to make rent, I was KEENLY FUCKING AWARE I owed it. It was a fact that was on my mind 24 hours a day, including inducing stress nightmares about losing my place to live.
Just absolute, 100%, shit from a bull's ass. Bullshit, you might say. I dunno where in the world you got this notion, but as someone who spent a youth in the poverty grinder, allow me to dispel you of it. Fuck no. Rent NEVER left my mind, even when it WAS paid. Making my rent payment every month was what kept me going to work when sick, what kept me at work when my boss treated me like shit, etc. etc. etc. This notion that people "forget" rent is some of the most ludicrous bullshit I've ever heard in my fucking life.
I don't mean to personally attack, I don't know you, but I cannot fathom how you got this idea in your head if you've ever rented a place before that you had to personally pay for.
Hot, hot, hot fucking garbage. When I was in college and broke, and struggled to make rent, I was KEENLY FUCKING AWARE I owed it. It was a fact that was on my mind 24 hours a day, including inducing stress nightmares about losing my place to live.
Just absolute, 100%, shit from a bull's ass. Bullshit, you might say. I dunno where in the world you got this notion, but as someone who spent a youth in the poverty grinder, allow me to dispel you of it. Fuck no. Rent NEVER left my mind, even when it WAS paid. Making my rent payment every month was what kept me going to work when sick, what kept me at work when my boss treated me like shit, etc. etc. etc. This notion that people "forget" rent is some of the most ludicrous bullshit I've ever heard in my fucking life.
I don't mean to personally attack, I don't know you, but I cannot fathom how you got this idea in your head if you've ever rented a place before that you had to personally pay for.
You don't think that the people who run companies that makes negative profits and thus can't pay workers since they lack the money doesn't feel the same? Just because some do that doesn't mean it is the norm.
Edit: You see plenty of stories from company owners who worry if they can pay salaries next month and it is all they can think about, that is the kind of person you are calling a "wage thief" here, even though they just like you are just struggling and trying to make ends meet.
Edit: You see plenty of stories from company owners who worry if they can pay salaries next month and it is all they can think about, that is the kind of person you are calling a "wage thief" here, even though they just like you are just struggling and trying to make ends meet.
It's laughable that you think the only companies committing wage theft are those that are not profitable and are struggling to keep the lights on.
And even if they are, remind me where your constitutional right to a profitable business is? If paying your workers means you can't keep the lights on, then you can't keep the lights on. Too many even in this situation think the answer is "keep the lights on, before paying workers".
But highly profitable businesses (up to and including Apple) also commit wage theft. So please don't try to turn this into yet another "poor small business owners" trope.
And even if they are, remind me where your constitutional right to a profitable business is? If paying your workers means you can't keep the lights on, then you can't keep the lights on. Too many even in this situation think the answer is "keep the lights on, before paying workers".
But highly profitable businesses (up to and including Apple) also commit wage theft. So please don't try to turn this into yet another "poor small business owners" trope.
Tell me youve never worked in service industry without telling me youve never worked in the service industries.
This isnt "being late with payments" that is as you have correctly pointed out, not theft. "late" implies that eventually the wages are in fact paid. This is not what people are talking about when they are talking about wage theft.
This isnt "being late with payments" that is as you have correctly pointed out, not theft. "late" implies that eventually the wages are in fact paid. This is not what people are talking about when they are talking about wage theft.
Tell me you have never rented out without telling me you have never rented out something.
People refuse to pay rent all the time unless you start to threaten legal action over it. We call that late payment, but they would never pay unless you went after them, just like these companies.
> This isnt "being late with payments"
"Being late with payments" doesn't mean they are late, it means they haven't paid you yet. That is equivalent to wage theft, we just call it "late" to make it seem like a lesser evil, and "theft" when corporations do it to make it seem worse than it is.
Of course some companies will never pay and will take you to court over it, but I don't see why you should lump all of that into a giant number alongside the very benign cases.
People refuse to pay rent all the time unless you start to threaten legal action over it. We call that late payment, but they would never pay unless you went after them, just like these companies.
> This isnt "being late with payments"
"Being late with payments" doesn't mean they are late, it means they haven't paid you yet. That is equivalent to wage theft, we just call it "late" to make it seem like a lesser evil, and "theft" when corporations do it to make it seem worse than it is.
Of course some companies will never pay and will take you to court over it, but I don't see why you should lump all of that into a giant number alongside the very benign cases.
I have actually worked in property management. It was incredibly educational. I learned a lot about how "landlords" are really the single greediest, laziest class of individuals one is ever likely to encounter. Eternally lamenting over how they're so under-appreciated and taken advantage of. There are always exceptions to any rule, sure but for the most part "professional landlords" are parasites. Anyway you clearly arent understanding the point here.
If you rent an apartment and agreed to pay 3000 a month for it and instead only pay 2500 a month you would be taken to court and lose the case. If an employer did the same it would be "a civil matter" having seen this firsthand I can attest to the truth of this.
If you rent an apartment and agreed to pay 3000 a month for it and instead only pay 2500 a month you would be taken to court and lose the case. If an employer did the same it would be "a civil matter" having seen this firsthand I can attest to the truth of this.
> There are always exceptions to any rule
We had what we thought were the dream landlords. They kept our rent low because we kept their property in good condition and we were tenants for literally a decade. I mowed both sides of the property, too, so they wouldn't need to service it. I replaced outlets, I was on-time with rent every single month.
Then they wanted out of the business. We were harangued constantly by their real estate agent to arrange tours of the property, oftentimes without the requisite 24-hour notice by our states law. We had to allow strangers THROUGH OUR HOME routinely for a month. Then they sold the property, and the new owners increased rent by the maximum legal amount the next month, almost $400 at the time, fully intending to continue increasing it until it was at "market rate" which essentially doubled our rent over the course of the next few months.
Thankfully my parents were in a particularly great position having had a windfall from a family member passing away, and they helped us a great deal in completing our savings for a down payment several years ahead of schedule, and helping us pay off some ancillary debt to give our credit score a shot in the arm. We managed to buy a home thanks to them and I will live in a fucking cardboard box before I kiss some landlord's ring again.
Fuck em.
We had what we thought were the dream landlords. They kept our rent low because we kept their property in good condition and we were tenants for literally a decade. I mowed both sides of the property, too, so they wouldn't need to service it. I replaced outlets, I was on-time with rent every single month.
Then they wanted out of the business. We were harangued constantly by their real estate agent to arrange tours of the property, oftentimes without the requisite 24-hour notice by our states law. We had to allow strangers THROUGH OUR HOME routinely for a month. Then they sold the property, and the new owners increased rent by the maximum legal amount the next month, almost $400 at the time, fully intending to continue increasing it until it was at "market rate" which essentially doubled our rent over the course of the next few months.
Thankfully my parents were in a particularly great position having had a windfall from a family member passing away, and they helped us a great deal in completing our savings for a down payment several years ahead of schedule, and helping us pay off some ancillary debt to give our credit score a shot in the arm. We managed to buy a home thanks to them and I will live in a fucking cardboard box before I kiss some landlord's ring again.
Fuck em.
> If you rent an apartment and agreed to pay 3000 a month for it and instead only pay 2500 a month you would be taken to court and lose the case. If an employer did the same it would be "a civil matter" having seen this firsthand I can attest to the truth of this.
Both of those are decided in civil court, I don't see the difference.
Both of those are decided in civil court, I don't see the difference.
Police will forcefully evict you from a home. They will not guard the entrance to a restaurant and refuse entry to the owners until they pay their servers stolen wages/tips.
> Tell me you have never rented out without telling me you have never rented out something.
Ah. You're a landlord. That explains a lot.
All the bemoaning and bitching I've ever heard from you lot has one answer: If it's so fucking bad, then sell your excess properties to people who actually want to live in them and leave the business. No one forced you to buy more housing/commercial space than you needed. You did that, because you wanted to profit from it while doing no work. In that lens, I hope it sucks for you. I hope you have problems every day from your tenants, from your buildings. I hope they hold you feet to the fire over every last problem they have with every ounce of legal leeway given them. I hope you're miserable.
And I hope all of this because nobody made you get into that business and you're free to leave it at any time.
Ah. You're a landlord. That explains a lot.
All the bemoaning and bitching I've ever heard from you lot has one answer: If it's so fucking bad, then sell your excess properties to people who actually want to live in them and leave the business. No one forced you to buy more housing/commercial space than you needed. You did that, because you wanted to profit from it while doing no work. In that lens, I hope it sucks for you. I hope you have problems every day from your tenants, from your buildings. I hope they hold you feet to the fire over every last problem they have with every ounce of legal leeway given them. I hope you're miserable.
And I hope all of this because nobody made you get into that business and you're free to leave it at any time.
> Tell me you have never rented out without telling me you have never rented out something.
To suffer the indignity of collecting rent by sitting on property. How do you live like that?
To suffer the indignity of collecting rent by sitting on property. How do you live like that?
If you're late with rent, the police will show up when called.
Agreed, and not sure why you're being downvoted for this.
Maybe because if you redefine things that aren't theft as theft you can make any number of things more prevalent than wage theft, or maybe because it confused paying someone late with paying someone never, or maybe because it equated people who are unable to pay due to not having enough money for their basic needs with corporations who most often have plenty of money and assets but still refuse to pay their employees, or for any number of other reasons that it was a terrible argument.
I don't understand the chord this opinion strikes. Unless you're letting your personal bias get in the way, there's not a distinct difference between the two.
If you can't find a difference between the walmart employee late on rent because he doesn't have enough money to pay it until friday comes around, and walmart who has literal billions in profits, but has been repeatedly caught stealing money from workers you'd have to be keeping your eyes shut. Zero personal bias is required to see that those situations aren't even close the same thing.
That you're relying on "if you can't find the difference you must be blind!" as an argument proves my point; it's an emotional argument, not a rational one, and there is no functional difference between the two.
The difference is power imbalance. A landlord has distinct and easily accessible power over their tenants: they own the tenants home. An employee, conversely, has very little power against their employer. Even a small business has a great deal of power over their employees, and most wage theft occurs at larger ones anyway. Employees can pursue cases of wage theft, sure. But:
- They must use the court system, and do so probably without legal representation unless they can find a lawyer willing to work pro-bono. This requires time and money
- At the same time they’re almost certainly job hunting because while retaliation is (sometimes) illegal, it’s trivially easy for businesses to cite other bullshit reasons for firing people and be entirely in the clear, because that’s even harder to prove in court than wage theft
- If they do manage both of those, they now have a documented history of fighting for their rights as workers, and bosses do not like that. It makes them inherently riskier to hire.
- They must use the court system, and do so probably without legal representation unless they can find a lawyer willing to work pro-bono. This requires time and money
- At the same time they’re almost certainly job hunting because while retaliation is (sometimes) illegal, it’s trivially easy for businesses to cite other bullshit reasons for firing people and be entirely in the clear, because that’s even harder to prove in court than wage theft
- If they do manage both of those, they now have a documented history of fighting for their rights as workers, and bosses do not like that. It makes them inherently riskier to hire.
Power imbalance is an emotional response, not a rational one; there is no functional difference between the two.
The idea of industry-wide "no-hire lists" is a bogeyman that bad employers use to control young employees who don't yet know any better.
At worst, you won't get a positive recommendation from an employer like this if somebody calls and asks. The idea that employers are busy maintaining "no-hire lists" and collecting names from all of their industry peers doesn't hold up, at least not outside of maybe weird small-town social bubbles.
At worst, you won't get a positive recommendation from an employer like this if somebody calls and asks. The idea that employers are busy maintaining "no-hire lists" and collecting names from all of their industry peers doesn't hold up, at least not outside of maybe weird small-town social bubbles.
Ah shame, shame, stupid low-experience employees just falling for some savvy bad-employer tricks.
But it’s not like the small-town social bubble of West Coast software development is a stranger to collusion. What was that thing again? Apple and some other giant tech companies colluding on wages? Well, it was on HN a few times at least. I don’t remember the details.
But it’s not like the small-town social bubble of West Coast software development is a stranger to collusion. What was that thing again? Apple and some other giant tech companies colluding on wages? Well, it was on HN a few times at least. I don’t remember the details.
Not true. I lived through the no-poaching agreements in Silicon Valley which is close and if that's not close enough for you, before that I worked in market research in Austin and we absolutely shared a no-hire list, and not just with our other branches, but among competing call centers.
There were two other companies we regularly swapped low-skill call center workers with and the management teams of all three, I was on one, shared a list of disruptive and dangerous workers we'd had to fire and discouraged any of the three firms to hire. On our end, the list was in Lotus Notes and it was someone's job to make sure it integrated updates from the other call centers.
That was the late 90s and the list sharing started in the late 80s before I got there but it was one of the thing you learned about when you got promoted to management, check the list before the interview!
I started out on the phones and had many friends still on the floor when I got promoted, so learning about the list was a little bit disturbing, but the names I recognized on it from my time in our call center, had been escorted out by the police or carried out by EMTs.
That firm was wild. We literally took on 20 guys from the child sexual abuse convict halfway house to work the phones. Only half made the cut after the trial period and only three of them stayed on more than a few months, and those three were quite good, one making the "CEO" team which was the highly capable group that could hold a CEO on the phone for a 45 minute interview about, for example, printers and multi-function devices conducted on behalf of Dell Computers to see if they were making any headway eating into HP printer sales or whatever.
My point is that back in the '90s lists you say don't exist absolutely did. I not only knew of one, I used it, added to it, and I have every confidence that two other companies employing the same kind of people were using it as well.
There were two other companies we regularly swapped low-skill call center workers with and the management teams of all three, I was on one, shared a list of disruptive and dangerous workers we'd had to fire and discouraged any of the three firms to hire. On our end, the list was in Lotus Notes and it was someone's job to make sure it integrated updates from the other call centers.
That was the late 90s and the list sharing started in the late 80s before I got there but it was one of the thing you learned about when you got promoted to management, check the list before the interview!
I started out on the phones and had many friends still on the floor when I got promoted, so learning about the list was a little bit disturbing, but the names I recognized on it from my time in our call center, had been escorted out by the police or carried out by EMTs.
That firm was wild. We literally took on 20 guys from the child sexual abuse convict halfway house to work the phones. Only half made the cut after the trial period and only three of them stayed on more than a few months, and those three were quite good, one making the "CEO" team which was the highly capable group that could hold a CEO on the phone for a 45 minute interview about, for example, printers and multi-function devices conducted on behalf of Dell Computers to see if they were making any headway eating into HP printer sales or whatever.
My point is that back in the '90s lists you say don't exist absolutely did. I not only knew of one, I used it, added to it, and I have every confidence that two other companies employing the same kind of people were using it as well.
Can confirm. There's no "no-hire lists" in the heavy construction, restaurant, and IT companies that I've seen.
However, in a small town, business owners may warn each other, and in a small bubble of companies, they may talk to each other.
And if you need a reference, better pick a fellow employee. Other than that, ignore the boogeyman!
However, in a small town, business owners may warn each other, and in a small bubble of companies, they may talk to each other.
And if you need a reference, better pick a fellow employee. Other than that, ignore the boogeyman!
Austin TX was not a small town in the 90s and my company and two others who used the same kind of employees (call center workers) that were in slightly different industries (surveys, sales, political) regularly shared a list of workers we'd fired and we believed should not be hired.
For my part, the fired workers that were added to the list had been escorted out by police or wheeled out by EMTs after causing property damage and physical harm to other employees. I didn't think much about it at the time. I was young and foolish and happy to have been promoted off the call center floor into management.
I think the list had started a decade earlier for sharing across sister companies. My local company had been acquired by a larger foreign company which had several US subsidiaries in similar businesses, one of which was just the other side of the river from us. I think they first shared the list amongst themselves which despite them being different companies, is almost "internal", but eventually they started sharing it with another Austin business with a large call center over on Mopac that shared a bunch of workers across different shifts. They'd work for us during the day calling businesses and work theirs at night calling residential. Then a third company joined and I wouldn't be surprised if they shared it even more broadly after I left, but by then I suspect most of the phone workers in Austin were covered at that point.
For my part, the fired workers that were added to the list had been escorted out by police or wheeled out by EMTs after causing property damage and physical harm to other employees. I didn't think much about it at the time. I was young and foolish and happy to have been promoted off the call center floor into management.
I think the list had started a decade earlier for sharing across sister companies. My local company had been acquired by a larger foreign company which had several US subsidiaries in similar businesses, one of which was just the other side of the river from us. I think they first shared the list amongst themselves which despite them being different companies, is almost "internal", but eventually they started sharing it with another Austin business with a large call center over on Mopac that shared a bunch of workers across different shifts. They'd work for us during the day calling businesses and work theirs at night calling residential. Then a third company joined and I wouldn't be surprised if they shared it even more broadly after I left, but by then I suspect most of the phone workers in Austin were covered at that point.
But with enough lobbying, it _could_ be legal!
(This to point out that most lobbies are to employers what unions are to employees)
(This to point out that most lobbies are to employers what unions are to employees)
They’re just voting with their (fat) wallets!
I think the word is Cartel.
> > not only would they fire you but they'd call up all their industry buddies and you'd basically be on every other restaurants no-hire list.
An interjection: Under GDPR this is illegal. (Just a reminder that "tech" legislation sometimes also improve on broader levels)
An interjection: Under GDPR this is illegal. (Just a reminder that "tech" legislation sometimes also improve on broader levels)
I working in restaurants for years. They purposely go for high school kids because they know they don't know the law, and know that they will think walking out with $50 is awesome, even if they worked 6 hours.
And then they get mad that the teenagers they made a point of hiring are irresponsible, unreliable, and have limited experience working. You know, teenagers.
I started working at 16, at a walmart.
I only called sick a handful of times, never was late, and did my job to the best of my ability. it is called work ethic. I started at $0.25 above minimum wage, as we given several raises, and position changes by the time I left at age 18, why because I was one of the most reliable teens they had, and they did not want me to go to another employer.
Some parents instill work ethic in their children even teens, sadly we do not have many good parents these days it seems like
and for the record, walmart never asked me and I never did work a single second off the clock...
I only called sick a handful of times, never was late, and did my job to the best of my ability. it is called work ethic. I started at $0.25 above minimum wage, as we given several raises, and position changes by the time I left at age 18, why because I was one of the most reliable teens they had, and they did not want me to go to another employer.
Some parents instill work ethic in their children even teens, sadly we do not have many good parents these days it seems like
and for the record, walmart never asked me and I never did work a single second off the clock...
> Some parents instill work ethic in their children even teens, sadly we do not have many good parents these days it seems like
It turns out that there is a lot more to what makes a person than just the behaviour of their parents.
It turns out that there is a lot more to what makes a person than just the behaviour of their parents.
I think it's actually developmentally inappropriate for teenagers to have that level of work ethic. A teenager has far too many things on their plate at school to dedicate that much of their energy and motivation to Walmart, even ignoring the cost to their social and cognitive development.
I 100% disagree, the coddling of the American mind is a huge problem and we continue to push out development in favor of these new age idea that "kids cant handle it" with the result that we now have an entire generation of Adult Children...
Most college graduates likely could not pass a 8th grade exam from 100 years ago, the social cost of that is immense.
Most college graduates likely could not pass a 8th grade exam from 100 years ago, the social cost of that is immense.
> the coddling of the American mind is a huge problem
Yeah I thought that book sucked too
> Most college graduates likely could not pass a 8th grade exam from 100 years ago
I highly doubt it, though we have no way to prove this one way or another. Maybe there'd be some like dates that we haven't memorized in modern times because priorities have changed, or some outdated home ec or shop practices.
Much more interesting is imagining a tween from 1924 trying to grapple with the advanced math and science (not to mention language skills) required to even take a modern AP class, let alone pass the exam.
But it's fine, it's developmentally appropriate for middle-aged and older men to find the days youths and teens lacking, your following in a time honored tradition of moral panics about how sure, we were idiots in our own special way, but these teens, these teens, are really something else, uniquely feckless in a way never before seen in history. Yes, every generation preceding mine has had this opinion, and has been soundly proven wrong, but, for the first time ever, we're right about it, and it just happens to be this generation of teens that is accurately described by the grumblings of old men, right when I want to start grumbling.
Yeah I thought that book sucked too
> Most college graduates likely could not pass a 8th grade exam from 100 years ago
I highly doubt it, though we have no way to prove this one way or another. Maybe there'd be some like dates that we haven't memorized in modern times because priorities have changed, or some outdated home ec or shop practices.
Much more interesting is imagining a tween from 1924 trying to grapple with the advanced math and science (not to mention language skills) required to even take a modern AP class, let alone pass the exam.
But it's fine, it's developmentally appropriate for middle-aged and older men to find the days youths and teens lacking, your following in a time honored tradition of moral panics about how sure, we were idiots in our own special way, but these teens, these teens, are really something else, uniquely feckless in a way never before seen in history. Yes, every generation preceding mine has had this opinion, and has been soundly proven wrong, but, for the first time ever, we're right about it, and it just happens to be this generation of teens that is accurately described by the grumblings of old men, right when I want to start grumbling.
So you deny that atleast in the US we have a huge Competence Crisis.. You ignore and deny the many many studies that show the IQ of the average graduate is dropping and dropping fast, you ignore the many many professors that have come out to state outright there is a plagiarism problem in most universities, and that administrators are forcing professors to pass students that should never be passed? You ignore the many many high schools that do not have a single student that pass standardized math and reading tests?
Yes there is "kids get off my lawn" but to just dismiss all of the data and problems as that is ignorant and dangerous
Yes there is "kids get off my lawn" but to just dismiss all of the data and problems as that is ignorant and dangerous
I don't see what you "having responsibility" has to do with taking advantage of children?
Also I have to ask, and I mean this seriously. What did you do with the money from that job? Did it go into savings? Did you help with household bills?
Also I have to ask, and I mean this seriously. What did you do with the money from that job? Did it go into savings? Did you help with household bills?
Paid for my car. My insurance and anything in wanted that was not basic needs.
My parents provided shelter, basic food at home, and transport to school and official functions...
If I wanted anything beyond that like access to a car to go out with friends. Or to buy a new game.. or go to a party etc. I hade to fund that with my own money
My parents were terrible at personal finance. They were not savers nor did the schools teach me anything about saving.. investment or compound interest so I did not start any of those things until my late 20's.. I failure instill regret....
That said my parents never asked me to contribute to the household finances.. and now today as one of my parents has no retirement they now live with me and I do not ask them to contribute to the household finances...
My parents provided shelter, basic food at home, and transport to school and official functions...
If I wanted anything beyond that like access to a car to go out with friends. Or to buy a new game.. or go to a party etc. I hade to fund that with my own money
My parents were terrible at personal finance. They were not savers nor did the schools teach me anything about saving.. investment or compound interest so I did not start any of those things until my late 20's.. I failure instill regret....
That said my parents never asked me to contribute to the household finances.. and now today as one of my parents has no retirement they now live with me and I do not ask them to contribute to the household finances...
Right after I finished tech school, and I was waiting for my first technician job, I worked for a friend's home remodeling contractor company for a few weeks. I was the "helper," so, naturally, I got all the shit work. The wages were minimum wage.
He kept jerking me around, paying fractions of what he owed me, then "forgetting" how much was left, etc. I probably ended up getting about a quarter or what I was owed.
This was a "friend" (note the quotes). I can only imagine what happens with the contractors that hire laborers from the side of the street, in the local hispanic district. Those chaps don't have any recourse (Unless you count the local MS-13 chapter).
I hear a lot of people tell me about the "wait to clock in" gig. Many of them "help themselves" to their employers' assets. I don't condone that, but I also don't condone their getting ripped off.
Large-scale, white-collar employers probably reap billions from stolen wages. My first job was hourly, and I made a lot of money over my standard wages (it was actually an honest employer -defense contractor, so they were audited with a proctoscope).
During my exempt career, I encountered all kinds of nickel-and-dime behavior. Those nickels and dimes add up to new Porsches in the driveways of senior managers.
He kept jerking me around, paying fractions of what he owed me, then "forgetting" how much was left, etc. I probably ended up getting about a quarter or what I was owed.
This was a "friend" (note the quotes). I can only imagine what happens with the contractors that hire laborers from the side of the street, in the local hispanic district. Those chaps don't have any recourse (Unless you count the local MS-13 chapter).
I hear a lot of people tell me about the "wait to clock in" gig. Many of them "help themselves" to their employers' assets. I don't condone that, but I also don't condone their getting ripped off.
Large-scale, white-collar employers probably reap billions from stolen wages. My first job was hourly, and I made a lot of money over my standard wages (it was actually an honest employer -defense contractor, so they were audited with a proctoscope).
During my exempt career, I encountered all kinds of nickel-and-dime behavior. Those nickels and dimes add up to new Porsches in the driveways of senior managers.
Laborers on the side are paid daily, unless a lot of trust has been built up.
The most they'll be screwed is one day's labor. They're in demand because they work very hard, and they'll quickly find work.
The most they'll be screwed is one day's labor. They're in demand because they work very hard, and they'll quickly find work.
And in academia. The University of Texas at Austin still owes me $14K in unpaid wages from 2017 where I was never paid for the classes I taught as a grad student. Unfortunately Texas has pathetically weak worker protections and the length of time you have to complain about wage theft is shorter than the length of time it takes the university to set up some payments, so by the time you realize you're not getting paid it's already too late to do anything about it.
A danish labor union is currently suing for this. They have already settles on ~25.000 USD being paid out to one worker who was paid for 37 hours a week but according to his clocking in and out of the building area had worked up to 60 hours per week.
This is exactly one of the key responsibilities for labour unions to manage this interest on behalf of their members.
This is exactly one of the key responsibilities for labour unions to manage this interest on behalf of their members.
I also experienced wage theft while waiting tables, and also thought 'thats just how it works'
As a server, aside from taking orders and carrying food, we had 'sidework' before and after our shift- stuff like cutting lemons into wedges for water, rolling silverware in napkins, refilling condiments, etc. That all needed to be done before/after clocking in. Additionally, if diners stayed late, our timecards were edited to reflect the hours we 'should have' been working.
And the last thing that bugs me the most, is that we were required to give 10% of our tips to share with the back-of-house employees like bus boys. The manager collected this money directly and there was no accounting or way to see how much of it actually made its way to the other employees. That pisses me off the most because it was so arbitrary and so completely in the control of someone who was already stealing from us.
As a server, aside from taking orders and carrying food, we had 'sidework' before and after our shift- stuff like cutting lemons into wedges for water, rolling silverware in napkins, refilling condiments, etc. That all needed to be done before/after clocking in. Additionally, if diners stayed late, our timecards were edited to reflect the hours we 'should have' been working.
And the last thing that bugs me the most, is that we were required to give 10% of our tips to share with the back-of-house employees like bus boys. The manager collected this money directly and there was no accounting or way to see how much of it actually made its way to the other employees. That pisses me off the most because it was so arbitrary and so completely in the control of someone who was already stealing from us.
> we were required to give 10% of our tips to share with the back-of-house employees like bus boys
The places I worked
- busboys were not back-of-house employees; they were out on the floor helping take care of tables (bussing them, refilling coffee, making deserts, etc).
- the wait staff gave the 10% (or whatever it was) directly to the busboys. And some to the hostess, and some to the bartender; basically all the client facing staff.
I have no memory of the owners doing anything dishonest to the staff (at any of the places I worked), so either I was blind to things, or there _are_ (were) some good ones out there.
The places I worked
- busboys were not back-of-house employees; they were out on the floor helping take care of tables (bussing them, refilling coffee, making deserts, etc).
- the wait staff gave the 10% (or whatever it was) directly to the busboys. And some to the hostess, and some to the bartender; basically all the client facing staff.
I have no memory of the owners doing anything dishonest to the staff (at any of the places I worked), so either I was blind to things, or there _are_ (were) some good ones out there.
The "industry buddies" but seems like a Boogeyman meant to scare people.
That's exactly what it is, but the kids they employ don't know better.
The idea that there's a cabal of restaurant owners who get together to discuss in detail how they're breaking the law and maintain a blacklist is absurd when you stop to think about it.
But they're more than happy to let those kind of rumours keep doing the rounds to scare the naive young people into not sticking up for themselves.
The idea that there's a cabal of restaurant owners who get together to discuss in detail how they're breaking the law and maintain a blacklist is absurd when you stop to think about it.
But they're more than happy to let those kind of rumours keep doing the rounds to scare the naive young people into not sticking up for themselves.
I think there’s one way this might work. To get hired at the next place they might want you to have experience. So you put your prior employer on the application, the new restaurant checks your references and mysteriously decides to pass on you.
Yeah the closest your going to get to a restaurant cabal are owners gossiping at the local wholesaler while waiting for their purchase to be processed, and even then there's a 50/50 chance a member of them is lying in order to bait a competitor into making a bad hire
It might be funny, but in Mexico it's done differently.
There are Whatsapp groups of HRs working in a particular group (tech, construction, etc.) where they communicate. Obviously they don't discuss the names openly but they do ask if someone is willing to give feedback on a candidate that worked at XY.
There are Whatsapp groups of HRs working in a particular group (tech, construction, etc.) where they communicate. Obviously they don't discuss the names openly but they do ask if someone is willing to give feedback on a candidate that worked at XY.
right, can you imagine some low level restaurant manager going over a list of potential hires that are still in high school with some managers from a couple of other restaurants? How many even bother to perform reference checks? It is a empty threat from a impotent person
Yes, and in my experience the lore around both the vileness and power of the owner is fully invented by the staff.
In many cases it's just teenagers being dramatic and coming up with external reasons why they are dealing with suboptimal conditions and not asking the owner about it.
In many cases it's just teenagers being dramatic and coming up with external reasons why they are dealing with suboptimal conditions and not asking the owner about it.
Are you willing to risk extended unemployment and potentially homelessness in order to call that bluff?
Wait until it's automated:
https://marshallbrain.com/manna
https://marshallbrain.com/manna
Maybe it's every industry. My wife was told she needed to be sitting at her desk ten minutes before clocking in when she worked at Accenture "so the computer could warm up"
An anonymous tip and a few inspections of staff logs and payrolls would make it pretty easy to make this disappear. The problem is that these sort of things (what regulations exist, whether authorities prioritize enforcing them) seems to always be answered with "no, because it's a poor people problem".
It's unfair competition though, so it's really important that this doesn't happen. A restaurant that wants do to the right thing shouldn't have to worry about a few % worse competitiveness on wages because the asshat across the street has his staff work for free.
If something like this earned you a $10k fee the first time and a 5 year ban from running any kind of business in the state if you repeat it, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem.
It's unfair competition though, so it's really important that this doesn't happen. A restaurant that wants do to the right thing shouldn't have to worry about a few % worse competitiveness on wages because the asshat across the street has his staff work for free.
If something like this earned you a $10k fee the first time and a 5 year ban from running any kind of business in the state if you repeat it, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem.
> The problem is that these sort of things[...] seems to always be answered with "no, because it's a poor people problem".
It's not just that. There are people that will outright deny that it's happening. The reasoning trotted out is that if it were true that this were happening then it would be squashed. In other words, if it were happening, then it would not be happening. From the article:
> According to a 2018 report by Good Jobs, between January 2000 to 2018, Walmart paid over $1.4bn in fines and settlements over wage theft violations, FedEx paid over $500m during the same period, and Bank of America paid over $380m.
Sans data about Walmart's $1.4bn in fines, they'll reason to themselves that Walmart, even if it's not somewhere they personally would ever shop, is a reputable company, therefore this isn't something that happens at Walmart.
I have experience firsthand (from a low spot in my life) that FedEx continues to do the same thing, especially to people who are powerless to do anything about it. To wit:
Their warehouse workers get paid low wages and the arrangement is that you need to be available between 4:00 AM and ~10:30. It's not that you'll be working during those hours. No, instead what happens is the night before they determine how high of a load they have and then set the hours for that time. So you as a worker call in at around 9:00 PM the night before, listen to a recorded message that states e.g. "On Tuesday, February 13, package sorters will begin work at 5:30". So far not so good, but there's nothing especially illegal about this is as far as I know. (It stretches morality and ethics, however.) What is illegal as I understand it is incidents where they tell you to report to work at that time, people show up, and then find that the timeclocks are papered over with a sign saying not to clock in because there was an issue at the warehouse overnight and the systems aren't running, so they've moved the clock-in time ahead 45 minutes to when they expect the systems to be up and running. You are expected to wait there off the clock despite not being paid and being expected not to leave.
It's not just that. There are people that will outright deny that it's happening. The reasoning trotted out is that if it were true that this were happening then it would be squashed. In other words, if it were happening, then it would not be happening. From the article:
> According to a 2018 report by Good Jobs, between January 2000 to 2018, Walmart paid over $1.4bn in fines and settlements over wage theft violations, FedEx paid over $500m during the same period, and Bank of America paid over $380m.
Sans data about Walmart's $1.4bn in fines, they'll reason to themselves that Walmart, even if it's not somewhere they personally would ever shop, is a reputable company, therefore this isn't something that happens at Walmart.
I have experience firsthand (from a low spot in my life) that FedEx continues to do the same thing, especially to people who are powerless to do anything about it. To wit:
Their warehouse workers get paid low wages and the arrangement is that you need to be available between 4:00 AM and ~10:30. It's not that you'll be working during those hours. No, instead what happens is the night before they determine how high of a load they have and then set the hours for that time. So you as a worker call in at around 9:00 PM the night before, listen to a recorded message that states e.g. "On Tuesday, February 13, package sorters will begin work at 5:30". So far not so good, but there's nothing especially illegal about this is as far as I know. (It stretches morality and ethics, however.) What is illegal as I understand it is incidents where they tell you to report to work at that time, people show up, and then find that the timeclocks are papered over with a sign saying not to clock in because there was an issue at the warehouse overnight and the systems aren't running, so they've moved the clock-in time ahead 45 minutes to when they expect the systems to be up and running. You are expected to wait there off the clock despite not being paid and being expected not to leave.
> if it were happening, then it would not be happening.
Note that this is US law enforcement in general. The "if middle america were using drugs at the same rate of inner cities then we'd see arrest rates at the same levels" argument we here. While studies show that drug use is similar between these groups, enforcement in cities, specifically against minority groups is much higher.
Note that this is US law enforcement in general. The "if middle america were using drugs at the same rate of inner cities then we'd see arrest rates at the same levels" argument we here. While studies show that drug use is similar between these groups, enforcement in cities, specifically against minority groups is much higher.
Indeed the overdose data seems to indicate a worse problem in rural areas, with West Virginia topping the per capita OD rate:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mor...
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mor...
“Their warehouse workers get paid low wages and the arrangement is that you need to be available between 4:00 AM and ~10:30. It's not that you'll be working during those hours. No, instead what happens is the night before they determine how high of a load they have and then set the hours for that time. ”
One of my buddies said they did this to them. I don’t know how common it is but it does happen. They were satisfied with their pay, though, compared to what many jobs in the area offered.
One of my buddies said they did this to them. I don’t know how common it is but it does happen. They were satisfied with their pay, though, compared to what many jobs in the area offered.
> An anonymous tip and a few inspections of staff logs and payrolls would make it pretty easy to make this disappear.
And culturally treating it like any other theft: a crime that should subject the thief, in a practical sense, to the risk of imprisonment.
And culturally treating it like any other theft: a crime that should subject the thief, in a practical sense, to the risk of imprisonment.
Property crimes are rarely enforced against the ownership class. Law enforcement in the US exists to enforce the social order and class structure; they have no legal obligation to investigate or prosecute crimes.
The system is working as intended.
The system is working as intended.
Always has been.
Government is quite literally a criminal organization except it was decided by someone (people, representatives, a monarch, whatever) that this particular one is not criminal and any others like it are, within self-described boundaries.
It might or might not be doing criminal things (as in, things we associate with criminal), but it wants and needs a monopoly on those things, otherwise it risks dissolution by internal and/or external forces. It’s thus obvious it’ll prioritize protecting the mafia bosses/sovereigns/elites and thugs/enforcers.
Government is quite literally a criminal organization except it was decided by someone (people, representatives, a monarch, whatever) that this particular one is not criminal and any others like it are, within self-described boundaries.
It might or might not be doing criminal things (as in, things we associate with criminal), but it wants and needs a monopoly on those things, otherwise it risks dissolution by internal and/or external forces. It’s thus obvious it’ll prioritize protecting the mafia bosses/sovereigns/elites and thugs/enforcers.
[deleted]
That's why I described it as a cultural, not a legal problem.
In reality....
If you steal $100 worth of food from a store, they'll call the cops and arrest you.
If the store steals wages from you in the tune of $1000+, <POOF> its a.... CIVIL MATTER (waves hands).
If you steal $100 worth of food from a store, they'll call the cops and arrest you.
If the store steals wages from you in the tune of $1000+, <POOF> its a.... CIVIL MATTER (waves hands).
> If you steal $100 worth of food from a store, they'll call the cops and arrest you.
And if you're a person of color, if you try to pass a counterfeit $20 bill (unclear if you even know it's counterfeit) then the police just murder you and the person in charge of it gets a cheesecake sentence
And if you're a person of color, if you try to pass a counterfeit $20 bill (unclear if you even know it's counterfeit) then the police just murder you and the person in charge of it gets a cheesecake sentence
Nah.
No one will get arrested for even stealing $1000s of dollars of luxury items on camera (at least in CA, a trend setter for other states).
https://amhsnews.org/10386/justice-awareness/shoplifting-the...
> On September 30th, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill No. 553, essentially making it illegal for retail workers to confront looters, burglars, and shoplifters.
> A Walgreens employee working in San Francisco told a reporter that thieves come around 15-20 times per day
> any theft under $950 is only considered a misdemeanor, which means it doesn’t lead to anything punitive by law
Edit: Present data countering the virtue signaling and get downvoted. Keep it up folks.
No one will get arrested for even stealing $1000s of dollars of luxury items on camera (at least in CA, a trend setter for other states).
https://amhsnews.org/10386/justice-awareness/shoplifting-the...
> On September 30th, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill No. 553, essentially making it illegal for retail workers to confront looters, burglars, and shoplifters.
> A Walgreens employee working in San Francisco told a reporter that thieves come around 15-20 times per day
> any theft under $950 is only considered a misdemeanor, which means it doesn’t lead to anything punitive by law
Edit: Present data countering the virtue signaling and get downvoted. Keep it up folks.
God, this is such a tired take. I see it all the time, usually referencing how California is weak on crime, yada yada yada.
California, in fact, has one of the lowest felony theft thresholds out of any of the states. In fact, it has the 10th lowest felony threshold in the union. [1]
It was actually Oklahoma who started the trend to increase the felony threshold in the early 2000s.
Newsom passed the bill you referenced so that minimum wage workers aren’t playing security for their employers. This bill did not raise the felony threshold.
Do you want to know which states have the highest felony theft thresholds? It’s Texas and Wisconsin at $2500. In 2010, California went from a threshold of $400 to $950. In 2015, Texas went from a threshold of $1500 to $2500, so California’s threshold has always been much lower even in the recent past. [2]
So no, California has not actually been any sort of trendsetter when it comes to felony theft thresholds, but it certainly is a convenient bogeyman.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/felony-thef...
[2] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri...
California, in fact, has one of the lowest felony theft thresholds out of any of the states. In fact, it has the 10th lowest felony threshold in the union. [1]
It was actually Oklahoma who started the trend to increase the felony threshold in the early 2000s.
Newsom passed the bill you referenced so that minimum wage workers aren’t playing security for their employers. This bill did not raise the felony threshold.
Do you want to know which states have the highest felony theft thresholds? It’s Texas and Wisconsin at $2500. In 2010, California went from a threshold of $400 to $950. In 2015, Texas went from a threshold of $1500 to $2500, so California’s threshold has always been much lower even in the recent past. [2]
So no, California has not actually been any sort of trendsetter when it comes to felony theft thresholds, but it certainly is a convenient bogeyman.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/felony-thef...
[2] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri...
Hell, I worked at $retailer for a time, and even their statements were to "DO NOT ENGAGE SHOPLIFTERS". Worse yet, I can scarcely imagine some $12/hr being told to chase after shoplifters... That's gonna end up being shot or shivved.
And frankly, there were times in which I saw people steal food. And in those cases, I never saw a thing! Especially when formula was being "acquired".
One time, during Black Friday, someone stole a whole register full of cash. Again, not my job and not my problem.
And frankly, there were times in which I saw people steal food. And in those cases, I never saw a thing! Especially when formula was being "acquired".
One time, during Black Friday, someone stole a whole register full of cash. Again, not my job and not my problem.
That’s because it’s a liability issue. Better to let someone steal a $100 item than get sued for $1000000 because an employee chased them into the parking lot and got stabbed.
You do realize that people who steal formula use it to cut drugs?
https://city-attorney.columbus.gov/pdf/press/babyformulaband...
There are a lot of organizations that give out formula for free but not at scale required for nefarious uses.
https://city-attorney.columbus.gov/pdf/press/babyformulaband...
There are a lot of organizations that give out formula for free but not at scale required for nefarious uses.
I feel like that is the least committal press release that could exist about this topic. The police might be correct but the facts described aren't as clear cut as they're making it.
> Wilson has a history of drug offenses: felony drug abuse, felony possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
"Offenses" is carrying the whole team here. All this says is that he was charged with the crime of doing drugs while black. I could have been arrested for all of these at one time in my life or another. Without a trafficking charge they're just speculating he might be a dealer.
> While a black market exists for stolen baby formula to be resold for its intended purpose, reports indicate that baby formula also is used as a cutting agent for cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine by drug dealers looking to dilute their product and stretch their supply.
So he could be cutting drugs with it, or he could just be stealing it to sell directly. He even could even be selling it to actual drug dealers. Not saying that's better but the police kinda gloss over that as presented that's the more likely option.
I promise I'm not trying to drag you or anything but I'm originally from Columbus and you have to take anything the CPD says with a shaker of salt. Columbus is a fairly boring city and so CPD always tries to punch up the stories.
> Wilson has a history of drug offenses: felony drug abuse, felony possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.
"Offenses" is carrying the whole team here. All this says is that he was charged with the crime of doing drugs while black. I could have been arrested for all of these at one time in my life or another. Without a trafficking charge they're just speculating he might be a dealer.
> While a black market exists for stolen baby formula to be resold for its intended purpose, reports indicate that baby formula also is used as a cutting agent for cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine by drug dealers looking to dilute their product and stretch their supply.
So he could be cutting drugs with it, or he could just be stealing it to sell directly. He even could even be selling it to actual drug dealers. Not saying that's better but the police kinda gloss over that as presented that's the more likely option.
I promise I'm not trying to drag you or anything but I'm originally from Columbus and you have to take anything the CPD says with a shaker of salt. Columbus is a fairly boring city and so CPD always tries to punch up the stories.
Low income mothers can get formula from the government.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic
It was probably all theft to exchange for drugs.
During the pandemic there was a formula shortage and allowing theft rather than punishing it probably ensured some children went without unnecessarily.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic
It was probably all theft to exchange for drugs.
During the pandemic there was a formula shortage and allowing theft rather than punishing it probably ensured some children went without unnecessarily.
Any means testing (and I do mean ANY) will always exclude people who have an actual need who'll never be able to get.
And really, if 1 out of a thousand "cuts drugs" with formula, so be it. At least that's non-toxic... and frankly, laughable as DARE propaganda.
And really, if 1 out of a thousand "cuts drugs" with formula, so be it. At least that's non-toxic... and frankly, laughable as DARE propaganda.
Here is a list of places with free baby formula and stuff in the Bay Area most without means testing:
https://www.211bayarea.org/sanfrancisco/food/food-programs/f...
https://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/san_francisco_and_s...
Just recently there was a baby formula shortage. And we were not prosecuting gangs stealing formula. Shameless and laughable.
https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/form...
Edit: To person calling me a techbro below, I can't provide data for 1000s of cities in the US, genius. Feel free to do so.
Non tech folks also live in the US (you would know if you live in the US). Also look up why we are discussing the Bay Area.
https://www.211bayarea.org/sanfrancisco/food/food-programs/f...
https://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/san_francisco_and_s...
Just recently there was a baby formula shortage. And we were not prosecuting gangs stealing formula. Shameless and laughable.
https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/form...
Edit: To person calling me a techbro below, I can't provide data for 1000s of cities in the US, genius. Feel free to do so.
Non tech folks also live in the US (you would know if you live in the US). Also look up why we are discussing the Bay Area.
The Bay Area is not the USA, techbro.
I can't provide data for 1000s of cities in the US, genius. Feel free to do so.
You provide data for zero other parts of the US.
Non tech folks also live in the US (you would know if you live in the US).
Also look up why we are discussing the Bay Area.
Non tech folks also live in the US (you would know if you live in the US).
Also look up why we are discussing the Bay Area.
Half of infants born in the US receive WIC. Can't be that hard.
Look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself you honestly believe drug dealers are stealing formula to cut drugs with rather than mom's just need to feed their babies
a lot of stolen inventory is resold for money but it's then in turn sold to moms on street markets (or sometimes back to unscrupulous store owners at a discount off wholesale to resell, sometimes via a proxy reseller). so you may be unhappy with who profits in various ways but it's evidently going to moms one way or the other
Maybe you should stop looking at yourself in the mirror and look at the data?
As a parent, I feel people like you are the reason formula ends up being unavailable for real babies as you enable gangs to steal them driving up cost.
Here is a list of places with free baby formula and stuff in the Bay Area:
https://www.211bayarea.org/sanfrancisco/food/food-programs/f...
https://www.findhelp.org/goods/diapers-%26-formula--san-jose...
https://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/san_francisco_and_s...
One advice: Stop with harmful virtue signaling. It is easy to virtue signal like you do here with looking at any data or bearing any of the real cost of virtue signaling. I will repeat. People like you are the reason formula ends up being unavailable for real babies as you enable gangs to steal them driving up cost and causing shortages during real crises. As a parent this is frustrating and rage inducing.
https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/form...
As a parent, I feel people like you are the reason formula ends up being unavailable for real babies as you enable gangs to steal them driving up cost.
Here is a list of places with free baby formula and stuff in the Bay Area:
https://www.211bayarea.org/sanfrancisco/food/food-programs/f...
https://www.findhelp.org/goods/diapers-%26-formula--san-jose...
https://www.needhelppayingbills.com/html/san_francisco_and_s...
One advice: Stop with harmful virtue signaling. It is easy to virtue signal like you do here with looking at any data or bearing any of the real cost of virtue signaling. I will repeat. People like you are the reason formula ends up being unavailable for real babies as you enable gangs to steal them driving up cost and causing shortages during real crises. As a parent this is frustrating and rage inducing.
https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/infantandtoddlernutrition/form...
How about we both:
1) Support low income people by giving them formula if they need it, AND
2) End the war on drugs and move people into treatment instead of the carceral slave system
Sounds like a win-win.
1) Support low income people by giving them formula if they need it, AND
2) End the war on drugs and move people into treatment instead of the carceral slave system
Sounds like a win-win.
>As a parent, I feel people like you are the reason...
You must have missed the part of the post where they stated:
>I worked at $retailer for a time, and even their statements were to "DO NOT ENGAGE SHOPLIFTERS".
"People like [them]" are being told from their employers to not engage shoplifters.
You must have missed the part of the post where they stated:
>I worked at $retailer for a time, and even their statements were to "DO NOT ENGAGE SHOPLIFTERS".
"People like [them]" are being told from their employers to not engage shoplifters.
Which incident receives media coverage as it happens?
Given the breathless reporting of "MAJOR CHAIN STORE SHUTS DOWN SINGLE BUSINESS DUE TO EXTREME THEFT", yeah.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/as-retailers-close-stores-...
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/28/1202264923/major-retailers-bl...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/target-store-closures-theft-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/target-closing-stores-2023-san-...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/target-stores-theft-1.69794...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11965589/The-stores...
------------------------
However, on the actual wage theft side, is scattered articles about a single bad company, or policies from stuffy think tanks and "boring" and non-sensationalized sources.
https://www.cohousedems.com/news/wage-theft-prevention-passe...
https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2024/2024-10.html
https://www.propublica.org/article/wage-theft-law-new-york-v...
https://blog.dol.gov/2024/02/07/protecting-workers-rights-at...
https://calmatters.org/politics/capitol/2024/01/wage-theft-c...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/as-retailers-close-stores-...
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/28/1202264923/major-retailers-bl...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/target-store-closures-theft-...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/target-closing-stores-2023-san-...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/business/target-retail-theft-...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/target-stores-theft-1.69794...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11965589/The-stores...
------------------------
However, on the actual wage theft side, is scattered articles about a single bad company, or policies from stuffy think tanks and "boring" and non-sensationalized sources.
https://www.cohousedems.com/news/wage-theft-prevention-passe...
https://www.dir.ca.gov/DIRNews/2024/2024-10.html
https://www.propublica.org/article/wage-theft-law-new-york-v...
https://blog.dol.gov/2024/02/07/protecting-workers-rights-at...
https://calmatters.org/politics/capitol/2024/01/wage-theft-c...
The Target store closings (in Seattle) were not due to violence/theft but rather a cost cutting measure; Target lied.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/target-store-closures-theft-...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/target-store-closures-theft-...
That article proves nothing of the sort. Shutting down stores that have too much theft is a cost cutting measure, and keeping stores open that have more theft but far more sales doesn’t invalidate it.
I live two blocks from that store (the ballard one which was shut down). It was the worst targeted store i've ever seen. It was about 1/3 'groceries' while sitting within a block of two larger and cheaper grocery stores. All the stock that people would actually be interested in, home goods and the like (because the neighborhood lacks a store for that), were extremely thin on the shelves. Either because they didn't stock items are they were always sold out because they were meeting a neighborhood demand.
Was there theft at that store.. I don't doubt it but never saw it in all the times i was in there searching, often without success, for some home item that would suit my place.
It was just a bad target variant store that was plopped into the middle of a neighborhood that ended up being specialized in the wrong thing, if any target mucky muck had ever walked the neighborhood before putting the store in it could have been very successful (because we could really use a store where I can buy various home goods without jumping in my car and driving 10-15m).
Was there theft at that store.. I don't doubt it but never saw it in all the times i was in there searching, often without success, for some home item that would suit my place.
It was just a bad target variant store that was plopped into the middle of a neighborhood that ended up being specialized in the wrong thing, if any target mucky muck had ever walked the neighborhood before putting the store in it could have been very successful (because we could really use a store where I can buy various home goods without jumping in my car and driving 10-15m).
I lived in 65th for the first half of COVID, so I want to that Target moderately regularly. Yes Ballard Market had better groceries (among the best in Seattle actually), but I’ve never seen Target as a grocery store. For the
home goods we needed it was adequate, though my roommates Amazon subscription had to fill in some gaps. To your point about it not having the items you needed, I wouldn’t be inclined to separate that from the theft problem. If your stuff
keeps getting stolen, you’ll be inclined to stock less stuff, especially if you don’t have sufficient sales to afford retrofitting locking cabinets everywhere and staffing sufficient to tend to them all.
I'm not sure people are stealing a lot of shower caddies or little office/bathroom garbage cans...
The entire "Theft is driving up prices" narrative was bullshit. The national retail federation, the very group that is the lobbying voice of the retail industry, found that a majority of retail stores complained about theft, but if you look at the reported shrink numbers, they have been the same for 30 years. There has not been widespread increase in theft, by their own numbers.
It gets even worse than just the media. A bunch of legislation has been proposed or passed specifically to target "organized retail theft." In Virginia, legislation upped the designation for "stealing several thousand dollars of stuff with other people" to the same felony category as stabbing somebody while jack shit is done to crack down on wage theft.
If people don't care about the $ severity of the crime, what is it they care about to keep this going as it does?
> It's unfair competition though, so it's really important that this doesn't happen. A restaurant that wants do to the right thing shouldn't have to worry about a few % worse competitiveness on wages because the asshat across the street has his staff work for free.
The true crime is as always the impact on businesses.
The true crime is as always the impact on businesses.
I think it’s worth calling out that failing to enforce regulations corrodes entire industries to the point that it’s impossible to compete in many sectors of it without breaking the law and screwing over workers (and maybe also customers!)
It’s a way in which this is bad that folks may not immediately connect to it.
It’s a way in which this is bad that folks may not immediately connect to it.
> The true crime is as always the impact on businesses
It's hard to tell if you meant this as sarcasm or not, but... it really is a big deal. If all your competitors are screwing their employees in order to increase their margins, that means they can out-compete your on price. Which means you can either screw _your_ employees.. or risk going out of business. And eventually, the only players left are the ones that are screwing their employees.
So yes, if you want to look out for employees, then you need to look out for businesses by making sure everyone is following the same rules. That doesn't mean the businesses themselves are more important, just that their health is vital to the well-being of the employees.
It's hard to tell if you meant this as sarcasm or not, but... it really is a big deal. If all your competitors are screwing their employees in order to increase their margins, that means they can out-compete your on price. Which means you can either screw _your_ employees.. or risk going out of business. And eventually, the only players left are the ones that are screwing their employees.
So yes, if you want to look out for employees, then you need to look out for businesses by making sure everyone is following the same rules. That doesn't mean the businesses themselves are more important, just that their health is vital to the well-being of the employees.
I’m absolutely being sarcastic.
The context is that the OP complained about one business colluding with others by way of informal no-hire lists for employees that don’t tolerate this wage theft. The response to that is to focus on how other businesses that don’t collude will get out-competed…
And yeah I’m pretty sick of this framing. It’s an anecdote where employees are direct victims, and then the focus gets shifted to hypothetical and indirect victims (businesses). Even in my own social democratic place of residence there seems to be dominant narrative of “job creators” and how we need to “create jobs”, the outcome of which is to sacrifice things in order to directly benefit businesses in order to (ostensibly, in rhetoric) benefit workers. This was concretely demonstrated when, during the pandemic, the right-wing government was very insistent on giving handouts to failing businesses that obviously were going to have a hard time (like the travel industry) under the guise of “protecting jobs”. Meanwhile, the government proposed that we should temporarily make it easier for employers to put employees on temporary leave (whatever the English/American term is) in order for them to not just die. Which is fine in itself… except they wanted tax payers and workers to dis-proportionally pay for this temporary measure. What’s the only thing that made them “change their minds”? Labor groups and other such organizations.
And then there was inflation, a predictable outcome of the spending-spree during the pandemic. So the central bank raised the rent. And again. And again. And the acknowledged consequence of that was that the poorest among us would struggle to make ends meet. But that’s not a problem at all—that a predictable outcome of a previous spending spree on businesses would impact regular people and make some people have to choose between mortgage/rent or food; not a problem. That’s just Economics.
What’s the problem with corrupt politicians? On one hand you can simply say that the problem is that corrupt politicians corrupt the political system. On the other hand you can frame it as the outing of corrupt politicians causes “political distrust” and a “crisis of legitimacy” among the (stupid) voters. So you re-frame the issue as a few bad apples (politicians) which causes the real problem of voters/regular people becoming (justifiably) cynical and distrustful of the whole system. That’s the power of framing.
And that’s why I don’t buy into the framing of helping businesses in order to (pinky swear) really helping workers. Yeah, those hand-out to businesses? Oh would you look at that—a “profit party” half a year later for the shareholders. Who woulda thunk it. But too bad about that inflation, though. Guess you should rethink owning a car or having hobbies other than taking walks in the park.
The context is that the OP complained about one business colluding with others by way of informal no-hire lists for employees that don’t tolerate this wage theft. The response to that is to focus on how other businesses that don’t collude will get out-competed…
And yeah I’m pretty sick of this framing. It’s an anecdote where employees are direct victims, and then the focus gets shifted to hypothetical and indirect victims (businesses). Even in my own social democratic place of residence there seems to be dominant narrative of “job creators” and how we need to “create jobs”, the outcome of which is to sacrifice things in order to directly benefit businesses in order to (ostensibly, in rhetoric) benefit workers. This was concretely demonstrated when, during the pandemic, the right-wing government was very insistent on giving handouts to failing businesses that obviously were going to have a hard time (like the travel industry) under the guise of “protecting jobs”. Meanwhile, the government proposed that we should temporarily make it easier for employers to put employees on temporary leave (whatever the English/American term is) in order for them to not just die. Which is fine in itself… except they wanted tax payers and workers to dis-proportionally pay for this temporary measure. What’s the only thing that made them “change their minds”? Labor groups and other such organizations.
And then there was inflation, a predictable outcome of the spending-spree during the pandemic. So the central bank raised the rent. And again. And again. And the acknowledged consequence of that was that the poorest among us would struggle to make ends meet. But that’s not a problem at all—that a predictable outcome of a previous spending spree on businesses would impact regular people and make some people have to choose between mortgage/rent or food; not a problem. That’s just Economics.
What’s the problem with corrupt politicians? On one hand you can simply say that the problem is that corrupt politicians corrupt the political system. On the other hand you can frame it as the outing of corrupt politicians causes “political distrust” and a “crisis of legitimacy” among the (stupid) voters. So you re-frame the issue as a few bad apples (politicians) which causes the real problem of voters/regular people becoming (justifiably) cynical and distrustful of the whole system. That’s the power of framing.
And that’s why I don’t buy into the framing of helping businesses in order to (pinky swear) really helping workers. Yeah, those hand-out to businesses? Oh would you look at that—a “profit party” half a year later for the shareholders. Who woulda thunk it. But too bad about that inflation, though. Guess you should rethink owning a car or having hobbies other than taking walks in the park.
> And yeah I’m pretty sick of this framing. It’s an anecdote where employees are direct victims, and then the focus gets shifted to hypothetical and indirect victims (businesses).
No, the focus gets shifted to
> We need to make sure that businesses that _do_ treat their employees well are able to succeed. And, to do that, we make sure that treating their employees well isn't turned into a penalty. We make sure that all companies are playing by the same rules.
The thread went like this
>>> Businesses should not be able to steal wages from their employees, and we should punish them harshly
>> Yes, if businesses can get away with that, then the ones that treat workers well will go out of business
> (you) Stop making this about the business being a victim here
Seriously, what the heck. Everything about that bit of the thread was about making sure it's better for businesses to treat employees well.
No, the focus gets shifted to
> We need to make sure that businesses that _do_ treat their employees well are able to succeed. And, to do that, we make sure that treating their employees well isn't turned into a penalty. We make sure that all companies are playing by the same rules.
The thread went like this
>>> Businesses should not be able to steal wages from their employees, and we should punish them harshly
>> Yes, if businesses can get away with that, then the ones that treat workers well will go out of business
> (you) Stop making this about the business being a victim here
Seriously, what the heck. Everything about that bit of the thread was about making sure it's better for businesses to treat employees well.
Then nothing I say is gonna make you understand.
[deleted]
The Honest Employers Guild should sponsor investigations and lawsuits against the criminals to drive them out of business, like that company that buys anti-Tesla Super Bowl ads.
Amazing pettiness from the owners for what is essentially $10 worth of labor (or less)
This sums up much of american rural small business... I started working at 12 and had many random jobs between 12-18 that were run by awful people.
Our family has a small farm, my parents didn't think we did enough of that and put me in a white van full of migrant workers at 12 years old (hey the 80s!) to go pick produce in a field all day... It was grueling work but I got a first hand account of migrant farm workers and the way they are treated.
Our family has a small farm, my parents didn't think we did enough of that and put me in a white van full of migrant workers at 12 years old (hey the 80s!) to go pick produce in a field all day... It was grueling work but I got a first hand account of migrant farm workers and the way they are treated.
vdaea(4)
I think some managers use petty potential conflicts to filter out people that are not naive, have a backbone or are not desperate enough to succumb.
A worker that does not put up with petty BS is surely less likely to put up with major BS (like wrongful termination when getting pregnant or whatever).
A worker that does not put up with petty BS is surely less likely to put up with major BS (like wrongful termination when getting pregnant or whatever).
It adds up. Multiply by the number of employees by the number of weeks in a year by the number of restaurants owned by the total number of ways in which the employees are deprived of small amounts at a time.
$10/week/employee adds up over decades.
But is it worth the resentment from said employees? Having to deal with the revolving door of naive new staff that needs to be trained, get up to speed, then leaves again when they realize they're being stiffed or they can do better? It just doesn't feel sustainable.
Not to mention the chance that you'll be found out by the authorities; I want to believe the punishment for wage theft is much more than the savings. Of course, that depends on how many people report it and how much evidence can be retrieved I suppose.
Not to mention the chance that you'll be found out by the authorities; I want to believe the punishment for wage theft is much more than the savings. Of course, that depends on how many people report it and how much evidence can be retrieved I suppose.
It's worth it to the tune of $50 billion per year with only $3 billion recovered
It sounds like a lot, until you realize it's only roughly $30 per year per employee in the US (roughly).
There's no justification in being shitty to your fellow citizen over this paltry sum of money. None.
There's no justification in being shitty to your fellow citizen over this paltry sum of money. None.
It really doesn't.
Can't buy your way out moral bankruptcy with $10,400 over 2 decades.
Can't buy your way out moral bankruptcy with $10,400 over 2 decades.
Similarly, I worked for a restaurant in high school that abused tips to pay wages for non-servers. When I was hired I asked about tips, and was told "yep, you get tip share". It turns out "tip share" meant "you get a flat wage, and we pay for it using tips from the servers".
I turned down a job at a nice Italian place to work there because of that lie and a $1 difference per hour in the base wage.
I turned down a job at a nice Italian place to work there because of that lie and a $1 difference per hour in the base wage.
I honestly think managers responsible for this sort of thing should go to prison for it. That would end these sort of practices really quick.
But somehow companies seem to have more rights than people.
But somehow companies seem to have more rights than people.
>I think it only ended up costing me $7/week in wages - but if I stole $7 out of the till each week for a year in a half I'd be charged with a felony.
These are not comparable as working an extra 15 minutes is a consensual tranaction where getting $7 stolen from the business was an unconsensual transaction. A better comparison would be along for a $7 per week raise.
These are not comparable as working an extra 15 minutes is a consensual tranaction where getting $7 stolen from the business was an unconsensual transaction. A better comparison would be along for a $7 per week raise.
It's not really consent if you are being coerced by your employer.
> not only would they fire you
If they did so could you not bring up the suspicious timing with the labour board?
If they did so could you not bring up the suspicious timing with the labour board?
Obviously every state is different, and all state labor departments do surely go after wage theft to some extent. But as an example, my state does not have a "department of labor" - too commie! Instead it's the Department of Economic Opportunity. So one might imagine how much effort they put into small-time wage disputes.
i think you are underestimating how competitive businesses are - someone knowing that a competitor is exploiting an illegal advantage , has all the incentive in the world to report that illegal business practice and shame that competitor.
You have to be operating in a very narrow niche or a very small community for illegal behavior to be the norm.
what most employees don't know is that this type of theft is often a smokescreen for theft by a manager or someone below ownership.
mention to owner anonymously, if no action, report the business that does this to you, put it on yelp, and move on.
You have to be operating in a very narrow niche or a very small community for illegal behavior to be the norm.
what most employees don't know is that this type of theft is often a smokescreen for theft by a manager or someone below ownership.
mention to owner anonymously, if no action, report the business that does this to you, put it on yelp, and move on.
This is more of a shade of gray, but I think over-assigning side work is also a form of unpaid labor that managers allow to happen to their front house staff as well.
I worked at Texas Roadhouse as a kid and this was the norm even for a chain.
This is tangential, but part of the reason why I dislike talking to servers about the tipped minimum wage. Because it seems they deliberately don't want to understand the full context of the law. Or fully the type of work they are in.
What you are describing is typically called "side work". Basically work that is not directly related to waiting a table. Folding napkins, putting up chairs, moving tables, etc. Even in cases where the restaurant clocks in their workers for every minute they are doing work, servers complain about doing side work because "it costs them money". And they want the federal minimum wage during that time.
Which naively makes sense. But that's not at all how tipped wages work under the law. The formula is basically: (([hours worked] * [tipped minimum wage]) + [tips earned in pay period]) / [hours worked] = [hourly wage over pay period]
So if you work 10 hours in a pay period, that's $21.30. If you collected $51.20 in tips during that time, you made $72.50 or $7.25/hr (based on current federal minimum wage, obviously numbers are different for different areas where the minimum wage is different from the federal). The restaurant is in the clear. Even if you worked 5 hours doing "side work" and 5 hours waiting tables where you got $51.20 in tips.
Servers want to essentially prorate every minute they are not physically collecting a tip it seems. Worked an hour and every table stiffed you? They want $7.25 for that hour. Regardless of the fact that the previous hour they took in $20 in tips.
Serving is more akin to being an independent contractor. You need to make hay while the sun is shining. The fat sustains you through the lean. You look at your per hour over the aggregate, not counting every hour. It's why contractors charge the rates they charge. If you are only billing half the year, those billings need to support you through the other half.
Now, in your case, the reason they don't want you to clock in isn't to save $7 over a week. It's to up your average. Which is still wrong. Let's say at your current rate of collecting tips, you totaled $225 over 30 hours. That's $7.50. Restaurant doesn't owe you anything. Now, $225 over 32.5 hours (your low end over 5 days), that's only $6.92 / hour. The restaurant is short, not $7, but $41.28
And true, If you instead made $300 over those 30 hours, the extra 2.5 hours don't even matter to you. Your check wouldn't have been that different. But, it's money that's not coming from their pockets and it's really to push people near the bubble over their limit.
What you are describing is typically called "side work". Basically work that is not directly related to waiting a table. Folding napkins, putting up chairs, moving tables, etc. Even in cases where the restaurant clocks in their workers for every minute they are doing work, servers complain about doing side work because "it costs them money". And they want the federal minimum wage during that time.
Which naively makes sense. But that's not at all how tipped wages work under the law. The formula is basically: (([hours worked] * [tipped minimum wage]) + [tips earned in pay period]) / [hours worked] = [hourly wage over pay period]
So if you work 10 hours in a pay period, that's $21.30. If you collected $51.20 in tips during that time, you made $72.50 or $7.25/hr (based on current federal minimum wage, obviously numbers are different for different areas where the minimum wage is different from the federal). The restaurant is in the clear. Even if you worked 5 hours doing "side work" and 5 hours waiting tables where you got $51.20 in tips.
Servers want to essentially prorate every minute they are not physically collecting a tip it seems. Worked an hour and every table stiffed you? They want $7.25 for that hour. Regardless of the fact that the previous hour they took in $20 in tips.
Serving is more akin to being an independent contractor. You need to make hay while the sun is shining. The fat sustains you through the lean. You look at your per hour over the aggregate, not counting every hour. It's why contractors charge the rates they charge. If you are only billing half the year, those billings need to support you through the other half.
Now, in your case, the reason they don't want you to clock in isn't to save $7 over a week. It's to up your average. Which is still wrong. Let's say at your current rate of collecting tips, you totaled $225 over 30 hours. That's $7.50. Restaurant doesn't owe you anything. Now, $225 over 32.5 hours (your low end over 5 days), that's only $6.92 / hour. The restaurant is short, not $7, but $41.28
And true, If you instead made $300 over those 30 hours, the extra 2.5 hours don't even matter to you. Your check wouldn't have been that different. But, it's money that's not coming from their pockets and it's really to push people near the bubble over their limit.
In the state of California, tips are a gratuity paid on top of minimum wage. This is also how it works in many other states, in Canada, and in many countries around the world.
So you earn $16/hr for all time you’re at work, plus tips.
Which is how it should be. You’re being employed. Those tips are for the employee, not a gratuity for the owner to offset their costs.
“Tipped wages” are just another form of theft, bought by the restaurant lobby.
So you earn $16/hr for all time you’re at work, plus tips.
Which is how it should be. You’re being employed. Those tips are for the employee, not a gratuity for the owner to offset their costs.
“Tipped wages” are just another form of theft, bought by the restaurant lobby.
> In the state of California, tips are a gratuity paid on top of minimum wage. This is also how it works in many other states, in Canada, and in many countries around the world.
> So you earn $16/hr for all time you’re at work, plus tips.
This is not true. According to California Waitress & Bartender Minimum Wage Laws California Tipped Minimum Wage Laws for 2023, 2024 [1],
> California labor law allows tipped employees to be paid a lower cash wage than the standard California minimum wage by their employers, with different allowed tip credits applying to different classes of employer.
That lower amount is $11 or $12 per hour, depending on the size of the company (vs the normal $16/hour rate for non-tipped employees).
The numbers are lower for most (all?) of the rest of the country.
[1] https://www.minimum-wage.org/california/tipped-employee-mini...
> So you earn $16/hr for all time you’re at work, plus tips.
This is not true. According to California Waitress & Bartender Minimum Wage Laws California Tipped Minimum Wage Laws for 2023, 2024 [1],
> California labor law allows tipped employees to be paid a lower cash wage than the standard California minimum wage by their employers, with different allowed tip credits applying to different classes of employer.
That lower amount is $11 or $12 per hour, depending on the size of the company (vs the normal $16/hour rate for non-tipped employees).
The numbers are lower for most (all?) of the rest of the country.
[1] https://www.minimum-wage.org/california/tipped-employee-mini...
No, this entire you're working for $2 an hour and hoping to earn tips shit needs to end.
>They want $7.25 for that hour. Regardless of the fact that the previous hour they took in $20 in tips.
Good. It is the companies job to pay the minimum wage rate per hour regardless of weather customer come in or not. If the restaurant industry cannot survive this they have no legal right to slave wages to survive.
>They want $7.25 for that hour. Regardless of the fact that the previous hour they took in $20 in tips.
Good. It is the companies job to pay the minimum wage rate per hour regardless of weather customer come in or not. If the restaurant industry cannot survive this they have no legal right to slave wages to survive.
They do have a "legal" and ethical right federally in the USA (some smaller jurisdictions have stronger rules but that's not typical). But perhaps you mean to argue they shouldn't have a legal right, or don't have a "moral" right. I have worked restaurants and believe that minimum wage should be meted out on a per-hour basis because of the way the current system mis-aligns incentives.
The restaurant owner is encouraged to keep the restaurant open much later than "profitable" hours because the cost of the additional late-night hours is only $2.13/hour per employee. So if even one table comes in during the 11PM to 1AM hours, that breaks even for the business. The business owner benefits from externalizing the true cost of staying open for those hours onto the employees. The workers end up working a lot of no-profit hours.
If they were making $7.25/hr then the incentives would be (more) aligned for them to keep working those hours.
But currently this is NOT a legal requirement. So your statement "they have no legal right to slave wages to survive" drips with hyperbole.
The restaurant owner is encouraged to keep the restaurant open much later than "profitable" hours because the cost of the additional late-night hours is only $2.13/hour per employee. So if even one table comes in during the 11PM to 1AM hours, that breaks even for the business. The business owner benefits from externalizing the true cost of staying open for those hours onto the employees. The workers end up working a lot of no-profit hours.
If they were making $7.25/hr then the incentives would be (more) aligned for them to keep working those hours.
But currently this is NOT a legal requirement. So your statement "they have no legal right to slave wages to survive" drips with hyperbole.
> But currently this is NOT a legal requirement
It is in California, Oregon, and Washington. And probably a few other places in the US.
It is in California, Oregon, and Washington. And probably a few other places in the US.
bena(1)
One of the clearest illustrations of the deeply injust structural power imbalance at the heart of our economic system is wage theft.
If your employer withholds $20 from your paycheck it's a civil violation of contract law. You have to go through an extremely onerous and convoluted process that very likely won't go anywhere.
If, in response, you decide to pay yourself by taking $20 from the till, that's criminal theft. You will be arrested by the police, sent to jail, and charged in the criminal justice system.
If your employer withholds $20 from your paycheck it's a civil violation of contract law. You have to go through an extremely onerous and convoluted process that very likely won't go anywhere.
If, in response, you decide to pay yourself by taking $20 from the till, that's criminal theft. You will be arrested by the police, sent to jail, and charged in the criminal justice system.
To be fair, it also works the other way --
If you withhold $20 from a bill payment, the worst that happens is collections. The company has to go through an extremely onerous and convoluted process that very likely won't go anywhere.
If, in response, a company employee decides to settle the bill themselves by visiting your home and stealing $20 from your wallet, that's criminal theft. They will be arrested by the police, sent to jail, and charged in the criminal justice system.
In the end, the imbalance isn't fundamentally one between employers and employees -- it's the fact that stealing is a very different situation than not paying money owed.
Of course it does benefit employers in the end, since they get to receive work now and pay later. Which makes you wonder why it's never become a thing for workers to receive their daily/weekly/biweekly wages or salary at the start of the period? In which case any wage theft would come from quitting the job before the end of the period.
If you withhold $20 from a bill payment, the worst that happens is collections. The company has to go through an extremely onerous and convoluted process that very likely won't go anywhere.
If, in response, a company employee decides to settle the bill themselves by visiting your home and stealing $20 from your wallet, that's criminal theft. They will be arrested by the police, sent to jail, and charged in the criminal justice system.
In the end, the imbalance isn't fundamentally one between employers and employees -- it's the fact that stealing is a very different situation than not paying money owed.
Of course it does benefit employers in the end, since they get to receive work now and pay later. Which makes you wonder why it's never become a thing for workers to receive their daily/weekly/biweekly wages or salary at the start of the period? In which case any wage theft would come from quitting the job before the end of the period.
> the worst that happens is collections
> (...) by visiting your home and stealing $20 from your wallet
You are being dishonest here.
Here's my version:
If you withhold $20 from a bill payment, the worst that can happen is having to pay an extra fee, getting a utility shut off, and a permanent hit to your credit score.
If you charge a customer an extra "service improvement fee" or "credit card surcharge" or a $400 "Mod Seq Other Qhp" (an actual line from a bill I have in front of me), they'll have to pay it.
> (...) by visiting your home and stealing $20 from your wallet
You are being dishonest here.
Here's my version:
If you withhold $20 from a bill payment, the worst that can happen is having to pay an extra fee, getting a utility shut off, and a permanent hit to your credit score.
If you charge a customer an extra "service improvement fee" or "credit card surcharge" or a $400 "Mod Seq Other Qhp" (an actual line from a bill I have in front of me), they'll have to pay it.
> You are being dishonest here.
That's entirely uncalled for.
My point was clear and, yes, honest.
Obviously there are additional complications in both directions. Yes, if you don't pay your electric bill of course it will eventually get shut off. But if an employer stops paying their employees they eventually quit. If you're late in paying there may be a fine. Courts also fine employers punitive amounts for non-payment of wages.
The situations aren't identical but my point stands that debt and stealing are different concepts and can go in both directions.
And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation.
That's entirely uncalled for.
My point was clear and, yes, honest.
Obviously there are additional complications in both directions. Yes, if you don't pay your electric bill of course it will eventually get shut off. But if an employer stops paying their employees they eventually quit. If you're late in paying there may be a fine. Courts also fine employers punitive amounts for non-payment of wages.
The situations aren't identical but my point stands that debt and stealing are different concepts and can go in both directions.
And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation.
Your comparison added breaking and entering!
> And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation
Doesn't it? I'm sure employers withholding wages have some sort of itemized justification too.
> And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation
Doesn't it? I'm sure employers withholding wages have some sort of itemized justification too.
Fine, they pickpocket you for $20 in the park.
You're focusing on the wrong detail. My overall point is clear. You're wrong to say I'm being dishonest -- I was obviously trying to draw an equivalence. Pickpocketing is a better example, but I think my intention was clear.
You're focusing on the wrong detail. My overall point is clear. You're wrong to say I'm being dishonest -- I was obviously trying to draw an equivalence. Pickpocketing is a better example, but I think my intention was clear.
[deleted]
I'm 5 days late to your disagreement, but regardless: I think the choice of word "dishonest" implies that CGs post was fraudulent in nature, and was a poor word choice unless RR has some reason to believe that CG knows the truth to be different from was you stated. Disingenuous might be closer to what RR meant if RR thought that CG knew that there is an imbalance but chose to focus on treating the situation as both parties have equal weight in the relationship.
I think that the original comment that CG replied to was making an important point about the balance of power between the two parties.
An employee working for an employer vs a customer of that same employer is not equivalent.
You shouldn't compare a person working for an employer with the hopes that they will receive a future paycheck for the work they are doing today (a paycheck that they likely are relying on to make good on commitments that they have) with a customer that receives a service today with the promise to pay it in the future (even though the service provider is also relying on that future payment to make good on commitments that they have made).
There is almost always an imbalance of power between an employee and an employer.
An employee might be doing identical work that a contractor could do, but as a contractor you might expect to be paid up front in partial or full, which an employee would not be able to expect.
It is more complicated with a customer and a service provider in terms of the balance of power. If you only have one option for who provides heat to your house that your children live in, then the provider has more power than the customer. If you like to drink at a bar when you have extra cash then the customer has more autonomy in that relationship than the bar.
One can come up with examples where the employee has more power over the employer, but it is more rare and not what the article in question is discussing.
I think that the original comment that CG replied to was making an important point about the balance of power between the two parties.
An employee working for an employer vs a customer of that same employer is not equivalent.
You shouldn't compare a person working for an employer with the hopes that they will receive a future paycheck for the work they are doing today (a paycheck that they likely are relying on to make good on commitments that they have) with a customer that receives a service today with the promise to pay it in the future (even though the service provider is also relying on that future payment to make good on commitments that they have made).
There is almost always an imbalance of power between an employee and an employer.
An employee might be doing identical work that a contractor could do, but as a contractor you might expect to be paid up front in partial or full, which an employee would not be able to expect.
It is more complicated with a customer and a service provider in terms of the balance of power. If you only have one option for who provides heat to your house that your children live in, then the provider has more power than the customer. If you like to drink at a bar when you have extra cash then the customer has more autonomy in that relationship than the bar.
One can come up with examples where the employee has more power over the employer, but it is more rare and not what the article in question is discussing.
Because business owners and politicians working for the economy decide that. It’s fun to come up with rules that would fix imbalance but curious how you think such rules can happen without deeper (however achievable) changes to society predicating them outside current norms (eg voting and waiting; maybe organizing around getting more people to vote and wait with you)
Voters decide things too. But that's not just a hot-button issue for any voter I've ever met. Why not?
It actually wouldn't be too hard to implement without wage theft in either direction -- mandate some kind of escrow functionality by law, built into direct deposit.
In other words, if you work daily, the money is deposited in "escrow mode" at the start of your shift, and you can verify it in your banking app. But it's not released until you clock out. Or if your salary is every two weeks, it's deposited in escrow mode at the start of the period. At the end of the business day each day, a day's proportion is automatically released unless the bank is informed that your employment has been terminated.
But the point is that businesses could never try to save money by not paying their employees, because they couldn't get the money back anyways. If your boss doesn't approve that you completed the day's work when you actually did, the money stays in escrow until it gets settled by a court.
So I don't buy that it's just because business owners and politicians "decide" things. If voters wanted what I just described, it could easily happen. But I just came up with this proposal on my own -- I've never heard it described by anyone. It's not something voters seem to care about. Why not?
It actually wouldn't be too hard to implement without wage theft in either direction -- mandate some kind of escrow functionality by law, built into direct deposit.
In other words, if you work daily, the money is deposited in "escrow mode" at the start of your shift, and you can verify it in your banking app. But it's not released until you clock out. Or if your salary is every two weeks, it's deposited in escrow mode at the start of the period. At the end of the business day each day, a day's proportion is automatically released unless the bank is informed that your employment has been terminated.
But the point is that businesses could never try to save money by not paying their employees, because they couldn't get the money back anyways. If your boss doesn't approve that you completed the day's work when you actually did, the money stays in escrow until it gets settled by a court.
So I don't buy that it's just because business owners and politicians "decide" things. If voters wanted what I just described, it could easily happen. But I just came up with this proposal on my own -- I've never heard it described by anyone. It's not something voters seem to care about. Why not?
Voters are also disenfranchised from other forms of coordinated action (which have historically caused many of the nice things we enjoy today) by the unresolved tension of belief in voting’s power and its routinely disappointing results
> "If your boss doesn't approve that you completed the day's work when you actually did, the money stays in escrow until it gets settled by a court."
Boss: "Your court hearing will be in 2-6 months, you'll need to take time off work to go to court and I'll get the company lawyer to argue our side so you'll need to pay for a lawyer to argue your side. You'll need to risk losing and being lumbered with court costs on top, and extra time and costs for a retrial. Or ... you could stay an extra hour tomorrow and I'll approve today's salary release. What do you say, low-wage labourer?"
Boss: "Your court hearing will be in 2-6 months, you'll need to take time off work to go to court and I'll get the company lawyer to argue our side so you'll need to pay for a lawyer to argue your side. You'll need to risk losing and being lumbered with court costs on top, and extra time and costs for a retrial. Or ... you could stay an extra hour tomorrow and I'll approve today's salary release. What do you say, low-wage labourer?"
That's a separate issue, which is trying to skimp on overtime on an individual basis.
My point is regarding companies that simply don't pay for whole weeks' or months' worth of payroll, for whole teams of people, to try to get out of paying wages entirely. Which happens for businesses that hire people for single projects and then let them go (like construction), or businesses that wind up going out of business but where the owner can at least lose less money (common in restaurants, cafes).
My point is regarding companies that simply don't pay for whole weeks' or months' worth of payroll, for whole teams of people, to try to get out of paying wages entirely. Which happens for businesses that hire people for single projects and then let them go (like construction), or businesses that wind up going out of business but where the owner can at least lose less money (common in restaurants, cafes).
Justice delayed is justice denied. There should be an express lane where you collect those wages from social security and employers just get an unavoidable tax bill.
that's because the state is designed to protect capital and not its citizens. we can use the process of government to change that.
The government is run entirely by capitalists, so good luck with that.
yup. that's what needs to change first.
starves to death
[deleted]
what is this even talking about?
it's a snarky comment trying to conflate democratic control of government with communism, i know, but it's ignorant, not funny, nor is it an original joke.
i enjoy edgy humor, but let's stop making jokes about the tragic fate of people in the USSR in an attempt to make an ideological point.
it's a snarky comment trying to conflate democratic control of government with communism, i know, but it's ignorant, not funny, nor is it an original joke.
i enjoy edgy humor, but let's stop making jokes about the tragic fate of people in the USSR in an attempt to make an ideological point.
I wonder if there has ever been a case (I'm sure there has) where someone stole say a $20 from the register, because the manager owed them $20. And whether the fact they could prove the manager owed them money made any difference in the theft case.
No, that's not how it works.
And thank goodness. In the same way, if you go to a restaurant and walk out without paying, but you've been there before and paid with a credit card, they're not allowed to go back and charge that credit card by the amount you stiffed them.
If you want your money, you need to go through the courts. You can't just take money you're owed, no matter if there's a debt or not. Not until a court says you can.
And thank goodness. In the same way, if you go to a restaurant and walk out without paying, but you've been there before and paid with a credit card, they're not allowed to go back and charge that credit card by the amount you stiffed them.
If you want your money, you need to go through the courts. You can't just take money you're owed, no matter if there's a debt or not. Not until a court says you can.
This only makes sense if the courts/government are functioning properly and in a timely manner.
As the article points out, this is not the case, so the rational course of action is to do something else, as seen in less developed countries with lower societal trust.
As the article points out, this is not the case, so the rational course of action is to do something else, as seen in less developed countries with lower societal trust.
Courts generally take a dim view of “self help,” however just it may be.
Well they shouldn't. Legislators should make recovery on debt for employees be self-service just like normal debt recovery.
Really there ought to be a pretty straightforwards system. You go to the local court showing your employment contract and proof of hours worked. Court contacts employer same day (could be automated phone system or e-mail) with X days to respond (ideally like 1 or 2). If no response, or no satisfactory response, you are given a certificate you can take to the business's bank to withdraw from their accounts directly, just like a wage garnishment. Why won't legislators think of solutions to such basic issues, instead of spending time on endless culture war nonsense? This seems like one of these things that ought to be 'easy.' Also allow for substantial interest penalties, like seven percent per day or something.
Really there ought to be a pretty straightforwards system. You go to the local court showing your employment contract and proof of hours worked. Court contacts employer same day (could be automated phone system or e-mail) with X days to respond (ideally like 1 or 2). If no response, or no satisfactory response, you are given a certificate you can take to the business's bank to withdraw from their accounts directly, just like a wage garnishment. Why won't legislators think of solutions to such basic issues, instead of spending time on endless culture war nonsense? This seems like one of these things that ought to be 'easy.' Also allow for substantial interest penalties, like seven percent per day or something.
I don't understand. This is what courts do, just not as fast.
If it were "self-service" as you suggest, it would be open to abuse of tons of people falsely claiming wage theft, to make an easy buck.
Companies can't be required to respond in 1 or 2 days. They need time to gather facts, especially when people can be out sick, busy with other work, etc. And they need to be able to present them to a judge and allow for cross-examination. Courts are designed to be fair and protect the rights of both sides, not to be fast.
Also I don't know what you mean about "normal debt recovery" being "self-service"? It isn't.
If it were "self-service" as you suggest, it would be open to abuse of tons of people falsely claiming wage theft, to make an easy buck.
Companies can't be required to respond in 1 or 2 days. They need time to gather facts, especially when people can be out sick, busy with other work, etc. And they need to be able to present them to a judge and allow for cross-examination. Courts are designed to be fair and protect the rights of both sides, not to be fast.
Also I don't know what you mean about "normal debt recovery" being "self-service"? It isn't.
Two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the law I'm afraid. That said, there's been plenty of cases where the punishment for a crime was lessened due to the circumstances, like assault in self-defense. Dunno if that applies to theft vs wage theft though.
That said, it's not a crime if you don't get caught. This too goes both ways.
That said, it's not a crime if you don't get caught. This too goes both ways.
If I were on a jury, I'd acquit. I have been on a grand jury and did choose several times not to indict someone that didn't do anything wrong. Juries are the final check on government power and jurists ought to exercise that power appropriately.
There's a ~90% chance it won't even go to trial.
> Two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the law I'm afraid
Of course it doesn't. But you'd still think that the one theft couldn't be reprimanded by a court while the other was handwaved at the same time. What would be interesting wouldn't be if someone could get away with that (they couldn't, and shouldn't) but whether the fact that the matter was taken to court - presumably by the employer who was also guilty of a provable crime - led to any consequences for the employer.
Of course it doesn't. But you'd still think that the one theft couldn't be reprimanded by a court while the other was handwaved at the same time. What would be interesting wouldn't be if someone could get away with that (they couldn't, and shouldn't) but whether the fact that the matter was taken to court - presumably by the employer who was also guilty of a provable crime - led to any consequences for the employer.
And take on my employer's responsibility to tax that $20 correctly? No thanks.
There are plenty of cases where this defense is used.
It's always treated like bullshit because it is. You don't get to decide how I settle my debts. If I owe you $20, you don't get to confiscate whatever you want of mine of what you deem is of equal value.
It's always treated like bullshit because it is. You don't get to decide how I settle my debts. If I owe you $20, you don't get to confiscate whatever you want of mine of what you deem is of equal value.
Not quite true, DOL will go to bat for you and fine the employer and get you paid. Violations of labor law are not simply small claims civil matters. Some employers get large fines.
The whole article is about how DOL mostly doesn't go to bat for people. Of $50 bil in wage theft, DOL recovered ~$3 bil.
Ultimately dealing with the DOL will hurt the employer financially, but the employee probably won’t see anything from it.
The lawyers will though.
The lawyers will though.
> Ultimately dealing with the DOL will hurt the employer financially
It looks like corporations make far more money stealing from workers than they'd ever lose in their dealings with the DOL. If enforcement were inevitable and fines high enough to actually hurt no company would ever dare steal from their employees, but because they do (and at such large scales) we know that they make more money from theft than they risk losing by stealing.
It looks like corporations make far more money stealing from workers than they'd ever lose in their dealings with the DOL. If enforcement were inevitable and fines high enough to actually hurt no company would ever dare steal from their employees, but because they do (and at such large scales) we know that they make more money from theft than they risk losing by stealing.
It's not about the fines. It's about the cost of hiring attorneys to deal with the DOL complaint itself. I agree that scale matters though.
Often times it is due to the employee not properly documenting anything. They still have to prove they are owed the money. you cannot just go to the DOL and claim you owed something with no proof.
The problem is that when the fine is the "cost of doing business" nothing really changes. Criminal charges/jail time (i.e. holding people responsible for these violations) might help keep businesses in check.
I think the point is the employer simply gets a fine while the reverse would see criminal penalty. This lopsided application of the law shows it was rigged from the start. We should be holding managers and whoever gave them the order criminally liable.
That's because in one case you're stealing from an individual, and in the other from a business. The former group is usually not well organized, uneducated wrt the according laws, and too scared to go against the guy paying them. Their discontent with the establishment is usually unleashed in the most nonsensical ways, like we saw during covid. Anti-maskers/-vaxxers had a disproportionate amount of people from these kind of low-skilled exploited jobs.
That's b/c they are entirely different situations. You can't "pay yourself" taking money from the till, it isn't pay, it's just theft you justify taking from the wages you believe you are owed. You are only owed those wages on the basis of a contract, and that contract won't allow you to take anything from the till.
Theft is "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it". Not being paid isn't the same, no matter if you try to equate the two on a numerical basis.
It would be more accurate to call "wage theft" as "labour theft". But then, labour isn't as easily stolen outside a contract. The fact is, if you aren't compensated, you can stop providing labour, and any right to a wage usually has a contract associated that can be taken to court.
Someone stealing from a till can steal potentially unlimited amounts before an employer discovers it, and there may be no record proving what is missing.
It's not great how hard it is to recover unpaid wages, but there's no injustice in theft being criminal in comparison. Also, there are circumstances that contract violations can lead to criminal charges (e.g. fraud), but in general if a valid contract is in places, penalties are not criminal (e.g. monetary).
Theft is "the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it". Not being paid isn't the same, no matter if you try to equate the two on a numerical basis.
It would be more accurate to call "wage theft" as "labour theft". But then, labour isn't as easily stolen outside a contract. The fact is, if you aren't compensated, you can stop providing labour, and any right to a wage usually has a contract associated that can be taken to court.
Someone stealing from a till can steal potentially unlimited amounts before an employer discovers it, and there may be no record proving what is missing.
It's not great how hard it is to recover unpaid wages, but there's no injustice in theft being criminal in comparison. Also, there are circumstances that contract violations can lead to criminal charges (e.g. fraud), but in general if a valid contract is in places, penalties are not criminal (e.g. monetary).
What you're saying makes sense from a procedural sense, but the article pointing out that there's 50B in stolen wages means that the punishment for wage theft isn't aligned with what's needed. In fact, the power imbalance between employer and employee means that it's far harder to for employees to recover their wages or punish the other party -- which, to me, means that the state needs to do even more to help.
50B in stolen wages is an estimate. The devil is in the details, on how they came up with that number.
There is a power imbalance, there should be more done to take employers to court. I'd be more interested in the effect on long-term low waged employees, than temporary high-schoolers.
There is a power imbalance, there should be more done to take employers to court. I'd be more interested in the effect on long-term low waged employees, than temporary high-schoolers.
Well a simple reason could be probability of person take money and disappearing vs institution/business withhold person's money and disappearing.
To be clear I am not defending it. If anything I was on receiving end of this behavior from a douchebag employer.
To be clear I am not defending it. If anything I was on receiving end of this behavior from a douchebag employer.
People thinking wage theft only affects lower wage workers, let me tell you how tech companies commit wage theft:
1. Having annual components to wages (RSUs, bonuses), making you work all year and firing you just before they have to pay you.
2. Having no overtime for salaried employees
3. Having employees work extra responsibilities that are not part of the job description by promising promotions and then not giving it to them
1. Having annual components to wages (RSUs, bonuses), making you work all year and firing you just before they have to pay you.
2. Having no overtime for salaried employees
3. Having employees work extra responsibilities that are not part of the job description by promising promotions and then not giving it to them
The promise of salary work in America is such one sided bullcrap. Get paid the same amount of to get your work done no matter the time it takes. if it takes 6 hours or 12 hours, you'll get the same amount. But if you don't work at least 40hrs a week on salary, we're docking your pay. Oh but also, you don't get paid for any hours over 8 in a day. Salary!
> But if you don't work at least 40hrs a week on salary, we're docking your pay.
I've never encountered such a system in my 20+ years being paid a salary. What companies do this? Worked for two European firms (including one very large one) and two large American firms during that time. Is it something small companies try to do?
I've never encountered such a system in my 20+ years being paid a salary. What companies do this? Worked for two European firms (including one very large one) and two large American firms during that time. Is it something small companies try to do?
It tends to be on the lower end of the salaried world and/or less desired employers. I think it’s also increasingly less common in general. But there are many companies that time clock their salaried professionals or require time sheets. For instance, as a higher end example, Goldman Sachs requires most employees to file a time sheet allocating their work to the nearest hour. The reality is people just put in 40 hours regardless, but depending on the line manager it can be more tightly controlled. In some operations roles where cost control is a big deal and hours are billed back to the upstream revenue producing departments, time sheets are scrutinized closely.
I worked for one of the largest firms in the US, and they required us to report our hours worked every week, docking us if we worked less than 40 hours.
What’s their name
Not sure if its something small companies do, but it certainly isn't something that only small companies do. I've worked for multiple in the Fortune 100 and 500 ranks, and each and every one of them do this.
What companies have you been at in 20+ years that you have not experienced it at?
What companies have you been at in 20+ years that you have not experienced it at?
Salaried used to mean you were paid a certain amount for working there and there was no accounting for time, vacation, or sick. It was the pinnacle of professional work, included two hour three martini lunches daily, and the ability to harass the hourly pool in various ways.
Overtime and various other hourly worker protections led to more and more work being classified as salaried, and with it, a removal of the “perks” for most salaried people.
Generally the primary perk that still follows salaried work though is the concept of vacation, sick time, and benefits albeit rationed and beancounted now.
Overtime and various other hourly worker protections led to more and more work being classified as salaried, and with it, a removal of the “perks” for most salaried people.
Generally the primary perk that still follows salaried work though is the concept of vacation, sick time, and benefits albeit rationed and beancounted now.
To be fair, it can also work out the other way, if your employer is decent.
I'm on salary, and I'm only expected to get the work done that's on my plate, and respond to emails etc within a reasonable time frame (eg, if I get an email at 4pm on a Friday, and I don't respond to it till 11:30am Monday, that's fine so long as it's not an emergency).
If I get my work done and there's still time in the day, I'm not expected to invent busywork for myself.
But I do recognize that I'm extremely lucky to have the kind of conditions I do here.
I'm on salary, and I'm only expected to get the work done that's on my plate, and respond to emails etc within a reasonable time frame (eg, if I get an email at 4pm on a Friday, and I don't respond to it till 11:30am Monday, that's fine so long as it's not an emergency).
If I get my work done and there's still time in the day, I'm not expected to invent busywork for myself.
But I do recognize that I'm extremely lucky to have the kind of conditions I do here.
Don't forget illegal collusion to lower wages, like the one top Silicon Valley firms carried out 10 year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
I’m pretty sure a major reason for the current form of big tech interviews is to slow the rate of job-hopping, to suppress wage growth.
> Having no overtime for salaried employees
Or even worse, instating mandatory unpaid overtime.
I would love to see Pagerduty stats by job and position. I'm pretty sure the number of devs on 24/7 rotations is way higher than it should.
Or even worse, instating mandatory unpaid overtime.
I would love to see Pagerduty stats by job and position. I'm pretty sure the number of devs on 24/7 rotations is way higher than it should.
> Having no overtime for salaried employees
This is just the definition of "salaried employee".
This is just the definition of "salaried employee".
The whole idea of salary is ridiculous. The FLSA needs to be fixed so that forcing workers to work 24/7 is explicitly banned.
This is particularly true for workers whose jobs are computer based. Companies think they can pay one shift of workers to keep the computers running 24/7. It should not be that way.
If a company wants its computing infrastructure running 24/7 it should pay for 3 shifts of workers. If not then shut down the systems at 5pm like any normal business.
Email/IM should also be disabled for workers who aren't actively on shift. Any expectation of monitoring email/IM/phone should be counted as work that requires payment and for which there is a maximum number of allowed hours a week.
This is particularly true for workers whose jobs are computer based. Companies think they can pay one shift of workers to keep the computers running 24/7. It should not be that way.
If a company wants its computing infrastructure running 24/7 it should pay for 3 shifts of workers. If not then shut down the systems at 5pm like any normal business.
Email/IM should also be disabled for workers who aren't actively on shift. Any expectation of monitoring email/IM/phone should be counted as work that requires payment and for which there is a maximum number of allowed hours a week.
See the European Working Time Directive for a good example of how this can be enacted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003
NB a lot of employers will ask you to sign a contract self-excluding you from its protections on your first day. ("it's not mandatory, we'd just like everyone to sign it :)" )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive_2003
NB a lot of employers will ask you to sign a contract self-excluding you from its protections on your first day. ("it's not mandatory, we'd just like everyone to sign it :)" )
Yup. Used to work as an SRE, we were on-call 24/7 for PagerDuty (which, thankfully, wasn't horrific, but...). The company was "ramping up" for three shifts/follow-the-sun/whatever.
Over a year later, they were still "ramping up". Not a single interview had taken place, to the best of my knowledge.
Over a year later, they were still "ramping up". Not a single interview had taken place, to the best of my knowledge.
Got off the banning of crap, leave people choice. Most teams I’ve been on have had the option to control our own on call schedule. And every time we’ve picked 24/7 less often instead of “follow the sun” more often.
I'm salaried, my contract says that I owe them 37.5h a week.
Surely if I'm doing my work in much less and stop working, I'm stealing. When I'm waking up at 2am to handle an incident and still have to clock in the day after, "that's part of the job".
Favors only go one way
Surely if I'm doing my work in much less and stop working, I'm stealing. When I'm waking up at 2am to handle an incident and still have to clock in the day after, "that's part of the job".
Favors only go one way
There's a term Employers use: "time theft". For the time that employees were paid for but didn't do work.
Plenty of good examples: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22time+theft%22+us
Plenty of good examples: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22time+theft%22+us
I’ve never “had to clock in the day after” without taking my own time to make up for after hours calls. Maybe I’ve just gotten lucky but seems obvious to me. Usually managers will say “take the day off” if the night was bad.
Not saying that I disagree with the definition but most companies aren't happy when I have to leave the office earlier to visit a doctor and will expect me to work until the 40 hours are met.
So while the legal definition is true that I get paid a fixed amount "regardless of work hours" the societal expectation is that I'll meet the 40 hours, 40+ makes me a "work hard, play hard", and everything under is me being lazy regardless of whether I hit my productivity goals or not.
I once closed my Microsoft Teams off 15 minutes earlier than the expected and my manager was telling me to inform her next time that I'm leaving, and I work from home. Micromanaging at its finest.
So while the legal definition is true that I get paid a fixed amount "regardless of work hours" the societal expectation is that I'll meet the 40 hours, 40+ makes me a "work hard, play hard", and everything under is me being lazy regardless of whether I hit my productivity goals or not.
I once closed my Microsoft Teams off 15 minutes earlier than the expected and my manager was telling me to inform her next time that I'm leaving, and I work from home. Micromanaging at its finest.
Right, but it’s still wage theft when you make people work twice as much because they’re “salaried”.
How are they "made"? These are highly paid employees earning market rates.
I think you're saying that salaried employees are exempt from overtime, which is not true (in the US).
Everyone is eligible for overtime if they're paid hourly. Certain classes of jobs are exempt from overtime if they're salaried. For example, an Amazon warehouse can't make a picker salaried and then demand free overtime hours.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime/fact-sheets has the breakdown of can be overtime exempt. As a couple of examples, blue-collar workers and first responders can not, in general, be overtime exempt.
Everyone is eligible for overtime if they're paid hourly. Certain classes of jobs are exempt from overtime if they're salaried. For example, an Amazon warehouse can't make a picker salaried and then demand free overtime hours.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime/fact-sheets has the breakdown of can be overtime exempt. As a couple of examples, blue-collar workers and first responders can not, in general, be overtime exempt.
These are legalized forms of wage theft, the article is about the illegal forms. But yes the legal ones are just as unpleasant
Maybe, but I know of a case where a contractor for a fortune 500 company working in IT had I think some of his salary stolen (in Texas).
The company released the contract and he was put on the bench working for the contracting firm on their projects. They would pay him once per month. They fired him after a few months, not pay him is back pay.
He filed a claim with Texas, nothing was done. When he told me (a year or 2 later) I said he should file with the Federal Gov, but he did not want to.
So it can happen in office work too.
The company released the contract and he was put on the bench working for the contracting firm on their projects. They would pay him once per month. They fired him after a few months, not pay him is back pay.
He filed a claim with Texas, nothing was done. When he told me (a year or 2 later) I said he should file with the Federal Gov, but he did not want to.
So it can happen in office work too.
They do it in more direct ways, too. You might be surprised how long some people will work with only the promise of future payment. You might be surprised how long someone can go on committing wage theft (and other general fraud) without repercussion.
I'm self-employed and have made it a standard practice to look up court records on any new client I'm considering to take on. It has been eye opening.
I'm self-employed and have made it a standard practice to look up court records on any new client I'm considering to take on. It has been eye opening.
Verbal promises about a promotion/payrise and then pulling the rug is also common.
"Times are tough" is a refrain I've been hearing from employers since the 2009 recession. Somehow the economy is never good from an employer's point of view--just varying degrees of bad--so they can never afford those raises they promised.
Add long 410K match vesting schedules to that list.
That's not theft. It's not even really unethical. It's well-understood that the value of RSUs is not guaranteed. Nor is bonus pay. For one, this kind of comp only typically applies to people earning a base salary way above the median and that anyone accepting comp in terms of company or personal performance is willingly signing on to accept the risk.
Usually equity compensation is in lieu of base salary, so the base salary is often below median for comparable work at a comparable company that doesn’t offer equity. For instance Amazon is famous for offering absurdly low base salaries relative to their talent competitors. Wall Street is famous for this too. However bonus based compensation is outsized, often to account for the risk.
The problem comes with laying people off in December prior to bonuses. You’ve taken a year of work under the presence of a bonus compensation and then yanked the rug out after squeezing every last ounce of work from a year. They could of course just not pay a bonus, but often internal compensation guidance requires proving a fireable performance problem while layoffs just require basic reporting to labor departments.
Calling this theft is extreme, but it’s definitely ripping employees off and treating them badly. The imprudence mismatch is that the employee is much less able to afford the shenanigans than the employer benefits, and a year of an employees career is a much larger share of total lifetime earnings than the corporations benefit as a percentage of its total lifetime revenues (or compensation expenses as the case may be). This makes it wrong, but not illegal.
The problem comes with laying people off in December prior to bonuses. You’ve taken a year of work under the presence of a bonus compensation and then yanked the rug out after squeezing every last ounce of work from a year. They could of course just not pay a bonus, but often internal compensation guidance requires proving a fireable performance problem while layoffs just require basic reporting to labor departments.
Calling this theft is extreme, but it’s definitely ripping employees off and treating them badly. The imprudence mismatch is that the employee is much less able to afford the shenanigans than the employer benefits, and a year of an employees career is a much larger share of total lifetime earnings than the corporations benefit as a percentage of its total lifetime revenues (or compensation expenses as the case may be). This makes it wrong, but not illegal.
It is theft; it is definitely highly unethical; RSUs are guaranteed pay; doesn’t matter if salary is above median; willingly signing a contract because companies have better bargaining power doesn’t make it right.
The above comment said specifically they are end-of-year grants. That's a bonus and it's never ever guaranteed. Fired or not, they can just say "no bonuses this" and it's 100% the employer's prerogative. Happened to me plenty of times in down years. Not to mention, stock is inherently volatile so 1000 shares can be worth an arbitrary amount.
Any promises not made in writing and signed by both parties aren’t promises. None of these are theft, just poor business skills on the part of the employees.
Get it in writing so you can sue later, or don’t ever count on it. It’s basic business skills.
Get it in writing so you can sue later, or don’t ever count on it. It’s basic business skills.
> It’s basic business skills
Job offers are often take it or leave it, because of the inherent power dynamics in the industry. These “basic business skills” will essentially leave you out of a job.
Job offers are often take it or leave it, because of the inherent power dynamics in the industry. These “basic business skills” will essentially leave you out of a job.
So? Taking the job blocks someone else out of it. Both are good people, so overall it doesn't matter who gets the job. The root of the problem lies elsewhere.
What a terrible world to live in, where you can lie to your employees and as long as it's not in a contract, they deserve it for not having the "business skills" to know you could get away with lying.
Oral contracts are legally enforceable.
Your claim is that any crime where the evidence is destroyed isn't a crime.
Your claim is that any crime where the evidence is destroyed isn't a crime.
Only if you can prove the conversation happened which is almost never the case.
>Oral contracts are legally enforceable.
I once heard a judge say "An oral contract is worth the paper it is printed on".
It may be enforceable if there is a bunch of corroborating evidence that multiple people were told this and are willing to testify in court to that case. But you'll find, especially in right to work states, getting people to speak against the company is difficult.
I once heard a judge say "An oral contract is worth the paper it is printed on".
It may be enforceable if there is a bunch of corroborating evidence that multiple people were told this and are willing to testify in court to that case. But you'll find, especially in right to work states, getting people to speak against the company is difficult.
Scams shouldn't be illegal as you're stupid if you get scammed, just get smarter idiots.
> A bartender in Orlando, Florida who requested to remain anonymous because they still work in the industry, said they started a new bartending job in May and pushed back when they found out their hourly wage was just a daily rate of $30, despite working eight-hour shifts.
> “I reminded my manager that paying less than minimum wage was illegal, and added a link to a law firm’s page about it. He fired me,” the worker said. “Getting fired for not wanting to be paid below the already insanely low minimum wage after working in the industry for over 20 years was pretty rough.”
> The worker attempted to file a complaint with the US Department of Labor and the Florida attorney general’s office but was told they only prioritize higher wage violations and never heard back after being told someone would follow up.
> “I reminded my manager that paying less than minimum wage was illegal, and added a link to a law firm’s page about it. He fired me,” the worker said. “Getting fired for not wanting to be paid below the already insanely low minimum wage after working in the industry for over 20 years was pretty rough.”
> The worker attempted to file a complaint with the US Department of Labor and the Florida attorney general’s office but was told they only prioritize higher wage violations and never heard back after being told someone would follow up.
Florida AG has unlimited funds for CYA but not to help the people who most need it. Figures.
Workaccount2(2)
The standard civil courts pipeline sucks as a mechanism for labor rights protection. You'll need expedited courts and a speedier process to dissuade this kind of thing. It needs to be as straightforward as child support law.
"You'll need expedited courts and a speedier process to dissuade this kind of thing. It needs to be as straightforward as child support law."
All courts are backlogged, many for years. Even "simple" issues can easily take 6+ months.
Child support law isn't that straightforward. It generally isn't even tied to the actual costs to raise the child. It's also rife with abuse for things like unreported income, misusing the money, etc.
All courts are backlogged, many for years. Even "simple" issues can easily take 6+ months.
Child support law isn't that straightforward. It generally isn't even tied to the actual costs to raise the child. It's also rife with abuse for things like unreported income, misusing the money, etc.
My wife took a former employer to small claims court. It was as straight forward as it gets.
Unfortunately, not enough people know about small claims court. I agree.. It's very easy. My dad had several cases in it when some contractors really messed up our house. Very quick resolution.
> “The process for filing a wage-theft complaint form is very onerous and cumbersome, so there’s an immediate obstacle in the process itself. But once that form is filed, it takes months if not years for the department of labor to even investigate it.”
It's different if you're just trying to get what you're obviously owed (especially if small-claims covers it) vs trying to stop the employer from pulling the same shit over and over.
The department of labor doesn't make you whole. It investigates failure to adhere to regulations.
If you are owned money, go to small claims court. If a thousand employees are owed money, the time spent for the company becomes painful indeed, and these court cases will raise the notoriety of the company in the department of labor's view.
Even so, the department of labor has it's own procedures it has to follow to make a fair investigation.
If you are owned money, go to small claims court. If a thousand employees are owed money, the time spent for the company becomes painful indeed, and these court cases will raise the notoriety of the company in the department of labor's view.
Even so, the department of labor has it's own procedures it has to follow to make a fair investigation.
So we have here an anecdote vs. a biased narrative hmmm
I actually think this is a great idea (though very hard to implement). We have special courts and systems for different things, it would be a great idea to have courts dedicated to just resolving employer-employee disputes.
There's no voting solution to gaining that unfortunately
Well, not today.
But if this year you vote for candidates who are more favorable to labor than the other candidates, and then you continue making that (part of) your strategy over the course of several elections, you can start to shift things. Especially if you can get other people on board with the movement.
It's not like the current situation came about by chance or some cosmic inevitability: the right wing in America has been consistently showing up and voting in larger numbers for decades to get where we are.
But if this year you vote for candidates who are more favorable to labor than the other candidates, and then you continue making that (part of) your strategy over the course of several elections, you can start to shift things. Especially if you can get other people on board with the movement.
It's not like the current situation came about by chance or some cosmic inevitability: the right wing in America has been consistently showing up and voting in larger numbers for decades to get where we are.
You would have happily voted for Hindenburg?
Labor wins that we have today have come from coordinated labor movements across partisan lines, not from voting and waiting on service from politicians
Labor wins that we have today have come from coordinated labor movements across partisan lines, not from voting and waiting on service from politicians
I'm afraid I don't know offhand who Hindenburg is, nor even what country he was running in, but:
In the US, due to the winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system, if Hindenburg was running against a candidate in the general election who was even one step worse than he was, then yes, I would have voted for him. Even if his platform included kicking puppies and stealing candy from babies. (Because, remember, in this hypothetical, his opponent's platform includes, say, setting fire to puppies and kicking babies.) Any other choice, under the system we have here, is mathematically certain to increase the chance of the candidate I like least winning.
Voting is not saying "I like this person and agree with everything they say." It is saying "I think that, of the two choices on offer, this person is the most likely to move the county/state/country toward the situation I prefer."
It's not about whether the vote makes me happy. It's about whether it makes the world a marginally better place than the realistic alternatives.
In the US, due to the winner-take-all, first-past-the-post voting system, if Hindenburg was running against a candidate in the general election who was even one step worse than he was, then yes, I would have voted for him. Even if his platform included kicking puppies and stealing candy from babies. (Because, remember, in this hypothetical, his opponent's platform includes, say, setting fire to puppies and kicking babies.) Any other choice, under the system we have here, is mathematically certain to increase the chance of the candidate I like least winning.
Voting is not saying "I like this person and agree with everything they say." It is saying "I think that, of the two choices on offer, this person is the most likely to move the county/state/country toward the situation I prefer."
It's not about whether the vote makes me happy. It's about whether it makes the world a marginally better place than the realistic alternatives.
Hindenburg was voted as the ideologically safe choice in the opposite direction of hitler but he then in turn granted takeover powers to Hitler anyway some interesting period of history to learn more about/analyze
Ah, gotcha. If I ever learned that level of detail about Hitler's rise to power, I'm afraid I've since forgotten it.
Well, in the case where the choices are Hindenburg (who, at that point in time, may or may not choose to give power to Hitler), or Hitler...Hindenburg is objectively the correct choice.
It's also a great demonstration that the time to be trying to get yourself better options is before it gets to that point.
Well, in the case where the choices are Hindenburg (who, at that point in time, may or may not choose to give power to Hitler), or Hitler...Hindenburg is objectively the correct choice.
It's also a great demonstration that the time to be trying to get yourself better options is before it gets to that point.
A point of a demonstration of an extreme like that is a reflection on how fragile and disenfranchising a tactic voting can be. It's argued voting tames people from increasingly illegal alternative action which has historically been found necessary toward labor conditions improvements that we enjoy today (such as through wildcat strikes) or tames them into highly hierarchical and process bound forms of group coordination. Where the sum is a shapeshifting ruling class that largely works toward its own interests regardless of flavor or how often they bow to the power of popular or private interest movements.
I find those arguments unpersuasive.
Voting and other forms of activism are not mutually exclusive, and removing voting from the equation does not particularly make those other forms more attractive, particularly given the likely reasons for people not to engage in other forms of activism today.
Voting and other forms of activism are not mutually exclusive, and removing voting from the equation does not particularly make those other forms more attractive, particularly given the likely reasons for people not to engage in other forms of activism today.
It should be as easy as going to the police.
In America, going to the police isn’t that easy. They will issue you a police report number for your insurance claim, but they are under zero obligation to investigate or prevent any crime.
They’ve been quiet quitting across the country since the George Floyd protests and they are working less than ever. Police interventions have been going down, crime has been going up, but staffing and funding has been mostly flat. They’re just not doing their jobs because they know if they hold out, funding will increase.
Also sometimes they just kill you.
Even if I were a victim of a major crime I wouldn’t contact the police in the USA unless I needed a police report number for my insurance claim. They’re probably not going to do anything and they might make things a million times worse.
They’ve been quiet quitting across the country since the George Floyd protests and they are working less than ever. Police interventions have been going down, crime has been going up, but staffing and funding has been mostly flat. They’re just not doing their jobs because they know if they hold out, funding will increase.
Also sometimes they just kill you.
Even if I were a victim of a major crime I wouldn’t contact the police in the USA unless I needed a police report number for my insurance claim. They’re probably not going to do anything and they might make things a million times worse.
This predates the BLM movement and such.
I’m aware of maybe ten or so property crimes committed against friends, family, and employers, with damage and theft ranging from low-thousands (2024 dollars—some of these were decades ago) to $20k or so. I’ve never once known the police to do anything but scoff at the notion and treat you like an idiot if you go in thinking they’re going to investigate anything at all, no matter how much evidence is available.
And all the people concerned were/are white and middle class, for the record. Even then, nothing.
It’s one of the reasons I tepidly support the more extreme end of “defund”. Let fucking wal-mart or whoever’s getting actual value from the cops pay for them. Me and mine surely aren’t getting our money’s worth.
I’m aware of maybe ten or so property crimes committed against friends, family, and employers, with damage and theft ranging from low-thousands (2024 dollars—some of these were decades ago) to $20k or so. I’ve never once known the police to do anything but scoff at the notion and treat you like an idiot if you go in thinking they’re going to investigate anything at all, no matter how much evidence is available.
And all the people concerned were/are white and middle class, for the record. Even then, nothing.
It’s one of the reasons I tepidly support the more extreme end of “defund”. Let fucking wal-mart or whoever’s getting actual value from the cops pay for them. Me and mine surely aren’t getting our money’s worth.
Indeed, "the cops won't do anything if you get robbed" is a meme among even the most conservative average people. Yet the "back the blue" support persists. Can you imagine if firefighters took your emergency call, never showed up, and still had half the country support giving them MORE funding and less accountability?
Hell, the clearance rate on murders is %50, and that includes a substantial chunk of people incorrectly found guilty despite the cops having DNA evidence that would exonerate them.
Hell, the clearance rate on murders is %50, and that includes a substantial chunk of people incorrectly found guilty despite the cops having DNA evidence that would exonerate them.
According to FBI data, crime is actually decreasing year on year in almost every metric despite police dereliction of duty. Ironically this is creating a stronger case for further police budget cuts and moving that money towards non-traditional policing alternatives. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/29/us/crime-data-fbi-homicid...
It is, it's a state-level thing, and that serves as a check on companies that scale to be national or international.
Makes lobbying over 50x more complicated.
The fact that a UK publication is on about it should be a clear signal that the authors are being influenced by an international interest would like to simplify the process.
Probably chipotle
Here's a page that lists like, a third of the state agencies, I guess, hope this helps! : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Labour
Makes lobbying over 50x more complicated.
The fact that a UK publication is on about it should be a clear signal that the authors are being influenced by an international interest would like to simplify the process.
Probably chipotle
Here's a page that lists like, a third of the state agencies, I guess, hope this helps! : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Labour
> The fact that a UK publication is on about it should be a clear signal that the authors are being influenced by an international interest would like to simplify the process.
The Guardian has had an office in the US to produce local content for over a decade, now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US
The Guardian has had an office in the US to produce local content for over a decade, now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US
Guardian is an Anglo left-wing activist journalism org. They aren't a corporate front. They report things the captured US media avoids.
Going to the police is dangerous. Cops hurt people, both intentionally and unintentionally. Never ever talk to cops unless you are legally compelled to do so, and only then with a lawyer.
Getting the cops involved is like showing up with an assault rifle. Even if you intend that no one gets hurt, it's a a dangerous escalation.
Getting the cops involved is like showing up with an assault rifle. Even if you intend that no one gets hurt, it's a a dangerous escalation.
At a previous employer, the employee handbook defined “wage theft” as failure to work the required number of hours as agreed defined in the employee’s contract.
I distinctly remember that the handbook used the term “wage theft” and not “time card theft” or “fraud”.
I distinctly remember that the handbook used the term “wage theft” and not “time card theft” or “fraud”.
> Eventually Martinez and several of his co-workers left after not getting paid for four weeks of work.
If my employer fails to make even a single paycheck I would immediately be looking for another job because the chances are that it isn't that they're looking for free labor, but rather that they have cashflow problems. I am not interested to depend on a sinking ship for my income.
If my employer fails to make even a single paycheck I would immediately be looking for another job because the chances are that it isn't that they're looking for free labor, but rather that they have cashflow problems. I am not interested to depend on a sinking ship for my income.
When the cash flow of an income-generating investment changes, a disciplined investor will rebalance to reduce the risk to their portfolio to the desired level. For many people their job is their major investment.
Even above and beyond that. Worked for a company where the owner had admirably bootstrapped himself from working in a copier room at a law firm to owning a large copy/print/scan business that handled law firms in two cities and was a millionaire mid-late 20s.
Would give me my check (after repeatedly asking, though never "late"), and usually say something like "this will cash today, but if you can wait til Monday or Tuesday, I'd prefer that".
Hell no. I went downstairs within minutes every time and put that straight in the bank, and I did it over the teller (we banked with the same bank, so it was processed immediately).
Would give me my check (after repeatedly asking, though never "late"), and usually say something like "this will cash today, but if you can wait til Monday or Tuesday, I'd prefer that".
Hell no. I went downstairs within minutes every time and put that straight in the bank, and I did it over the teller (we banked with the same bank, so it was processed immediately).
Seeing some other comments about unfair power dynamics: Parking.
Parking lot fines where you are accused of misusing a lot and fined: https://globalnews.ca/news/10217661/bc-man-private-parking-c...
Or being charged a fine when you were never there (due to someone reporting your number): https://globalnews.ca/news/9668618/bc-woman-fights-parking-v...
Or when trying to find another working machine your vehicle was ticketed even after being explained it would be waived (sorry, video): https://globalnews.ca/video/10283604/fort-langley-parking-ti...
Parking lot fines where you are accused of misusing a lot and fined: https://globalnews.ca/news/10217661/bc-man-private-parking-c...
Or being charged a fine when you were never there (due to someone reporting your number): https://globalnews.ca/news/9668618/bc-woman-fights-parking-v...
Or when trying to find another working machine your vehicle was ticketed even after being explained it would be waived (sorry, video): https://globalnews.ca/video/10283604/fort-langley-parking-ti...
So, one thing that surprises me about this article is the lack of mention of the tax authorities. At least in this country, hell hath no fury like a tax authority which thinks it isn't getting all the payroll tax it's entitled to, and it's one of the easier types of evasion for them to go after. Why isn't the IRS chasing these employers?
I believe it is a difficult to avoid byproduct of a competitive society (so basicly all). Contractors/suppliers compete with lower price that need to be balanced some way, employees compete with their willingness to work cheaper or more to have any kind of income at all sometimes. Some do it for greed only, employee and employer alike. I know someone, well paid construction engineer, who was willing to get into a shady situation so both his employee and himself can save on taxes, sharing financial gain of pretending non-employment relationship. This involved payment in bulk for months of work which at a financial downturn ended up in not getting paid - along multitude of exuses and promises - loosing almost 2 years of work worth of money for the engineer and the need to find someone else to work for in a desperate time risking the livelyhood of his family. Meanwhile his previous 'partner' in crime of course fluorished instead of sharing the loss too after the benefits. The engineer had no means to do anything being an accomplice for long, both dependent on the partner's payment but without any small means to put pressure on them. Exposed completely.
It is too easy to be smartass about someone else's life and situation but since individual employees are always more fragile than organizations the best to avoid extreme competition advantages like above and have reserves for situations when an organization stops paying - e.g. being on the brink of collapse - so one can have better position of pressuring by not working until payment arrives in parallel of looking for other possibilities in case the likely eventuality of loosing job comes.
Of course this is what is almost impossible to achive for most, especially for the most vulnerable: there will always someone to take the place of 'troublesome' employees, sometimes for less or offering more. As a product of desperation (in lack of reserves and possibilities but the need of buying food for the family). Shady figures exploit this. Unity against exploitation would help but we rather compete to raise above others.
It is too easy to be smartass about someone else's life and situation but since individual employees are always more fragile than organizations the best to avoid extreme competition advantages like above and have reserves for situations when an organization stops paying - e.g. being on the brink of collapse - so one can have better position of pressuring by not working until payment arrives in parallel of looking for other possibilities in case the likely eventuality of loosing job comes.
Of course this is what is almost impossible to achive for most, especially for the most vulnerable: there will always someone to take the place of 'troublesome' employees, sometimes for less or offering more. As a product of desperation (in lack of reserves and possibilities but the need of buying food for the family). Shady figures exploit this. Unity against exploitation would help but we rather compete to raise above others.
Slaving:
Not paying for work.
Internships: some may be legit, most are slave labor schemes with many being deeply institutionalized in systems such as healthcare and education.
Lower than minimum wage with an expectation that tips will make up the difference (just be done with tipping, pay at least minimum wage, and raise food prices).
Mistreatment
Not paying for work.
Internships: some may be legit, most are slave labor schemes with many being deeply institutionalized in systems such as healthcare and education.
Lower than minimum wage with an expectation that tips will make up the difference (just be done with tipping, pay at least minimum wage, and raise food prices).
Mistreatment
That is not the definition of slavery. Slavery is being forced to work.
Logically and morally speaking, if not semantically speaking given a logically and morally inadequate definition for a highly political word, that's completely false.
Virtually everyone is forced to work, or face death. Being forced to work is the de facto human experience. Effectively, there isn't a choice to work or not.
Presenting work as a choice is closely analagous to presenting eating as a choice
Pay, or relative lack thereof, is what defines degree of slavery (complete or partial).
The only real arguments being a.) if one is paid what the work is worth and b.) how much of that pay is retaken in the form of taxes (direct or indirect like when company towns, or estates, recoup most of the pay in the form of costs to the laborer).
Therefore, we will add an additional form of enslavement process: purposefully (often illegally) diulting the value of labor so that it is cheaper.
If a serf is "paid" but the boss and landlord recoups nearly all of that pay in rent and taxes, is the serf a slave?
Few moral and logical people would say no.
Slaver hand-waving deserves to be called out.
Virtually everyone is forced to work, or face death. Being forced to work is the de facto human experience. Effectively, there isn't a choice to work or not.
Presenting work as a choice is closely analagous to presenting eating as a choice
Pay, or relative lack thereof, is what defines degree of slavery (complete or partial).
The only real arguments being a.) if one is paid what the work is worth and b.) how much of that pay is retaken in the form of taxes (direct or indirect like when company towns, or estates, recoup most of the pay in the form of costs to the laborer).
Therefore, we will add an additional form of enslavement process: purposefully (often illegally) diulting the value of labor so that it is cheaper.
If a serf is "paid" but the boss and landlord recoups nearly all of that pay in rent and taxes, is the serf a slave?
Few moral and logical people would say no.
Slaver hand-waving deserves to be called out.
I would amend that slavery is being forced to work for a single person/corporation with a massive penalty for trying to change it.
It deserves to be amended to a far greater degree than that, but also the above statement isn't relevant when there is only one "employer" available. Which has often been the case, historically, and maybe more so in the future.
The tipping thing is insane. I live in a rather progressive city, very pro labor. Many local restaurants have added small fees to your bill, often called something like "living wage fee" or something similar, the implication being it's a fee to help improve the wages the staff get.
Except it's a 3% fee! I'm paying $50 for steak, surely you can just freaking charge me $52 and pay the staff what they deserve?! Why all this nonsense around adding fees like you're the local cable company? You've spent more editing your printed menus to include this new disclaimer than it would cost to just pay your damn staff!
Except it's a 3% fee! I'm paying $50 for steak, surely you can just freaking charge me $52 and pay the staff what they deserve?! Why all this nonsense around adding fees like you're the local cable company? You've spent more editing your printed menus to include this new disclaimer than it would cost to just pay your damn staff!
It's much more insidious than you let on. It's plain lying about the cost of the service (food in this case) so they get you in the door, then bait-and-switch you when you get the bill.
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing you live in Seattle. I've been noticing the same thing all over, and honestly it should be highly illegal.
Just a hunch, but I'm guessing you live in Seattle. I've been noticing the same thing all over, and honestly it should be highly illegal.
Wait until you find out how much of that actually makes it into the pockets of the servers.
Not only in the US, I would say - in general - wage-theft is indeed the actual business model of most outsourcing/"consulting" businesses.
Seek a rent, sweat the asset: more and more business-as-usual today.
Seek a rent, sweat the asset: more and more business-as-usual today.
The article starts with a scenario from commercial construction in which pay to workers was delayed at times and some ultimately never collected. The commercial construction industry can be a risky environment. I spent some time in this supply chain and the monthly billing to the owner was always a nail biting experience similar to a rocket launch. Is every sub billing for the right amount of labor and materials? Do we have evidence that materials delivered but not installed are on site and secure, or did some of it grow legs over the weekend? How is the owner's liquidity? Are the business drivers that justified the investment (eg. tenants) still a go? Because if not, the financing will pull out.
While the Guardian likes to imply that the first company upstream of the workers is a thief, the reality is far more complex. There might be some dealings that could be called theft but, before you get to those, you'd have to remove all the dealings that involve a risky chain of transactions that failed somewhere along the line.
While the Guardian likes to imply that the first company upstream of the workers is a thief, the reality is far more complex. There might be some dealings that could be called theft but, before you get to those, you'd have to remove all the dealings that involve a risky chain of transactions that failed somewhere along the line.
When it is actual theft why the owners/authors of said theft are not charged criminally? Why laws are asymmetric? When Hertz complains about car theft while there is none the renters are getting charged.
Refusing to pay your bills is treated the same for private persons, you just don't call that rent theft. Calling being late with a payment theft doesn't make it theft.
I am very happy that I don't get treated like a criminal just because I forgot to pay a bill, I don't see why companies should be treated differently.
I am very happy that I don't get treated like a criminal just because I forgot to pay a bill, I don't see why companies should be treated differently.
I am all for fairness. Then explain why people are being criminally charged for car theft when there is none. It was malicious reporting with the purpose of settling later. Meanwhile no one at Hertz is currently facing criminal penalties for initiating the false arrests with law enforcement.
>"I don't see why companies should be treated differently."
In this case I'd love people to get away with fraud / theft / etc. After all big companies commit it left and right and gets away with it.
>"I don't see why companies should be treated differently."
In this case I'd love people to get away with fraud / theft / etc. After all big companies commit it left and right and gets away with it.
Again, we are not talking about "late checks" here. Say youre renting an apartment. It costs 3000 a month but you only pay 2500 a month. Is that ok? Should you be allowed to live in that apartment?
You're all over this thread trying to miscategorize wage theft as "paying a bill late".
It's not. It's systematically _not ever_ paying monies owed, on an ongoing basis. And given the number of interactions you've had on this where this has been explained, it seems to be deliberately obtuse on your part by now.
This in between you trying to describe it as a small, almost non-existent problem, and when it does happen, it's non-profitable small businesses just struggling to keep the lights on.
Very hard to assume good faith here.
It's not. It's systematically _not ever_ paying monies owed, on an ongoing basis. And given the number of interactions you've had on this where this has been explained, it seems to be deliberately obtuse on your part by now.
This in between you trying to describe it as a small, almost non-existent problem, and when it does happen, it's non-profitable small businesses just struggling to keep the lights on.
Very hard to assume good faith here.
The answer is in the name of our economic system:
Capital -ism.
We basically put a big flashing sign right out front saying whose interests are the top priority.
Capital -ism.
We basically put a big flashing sign right out front saying whose interests are the top priority.
That's such a yellow-press non-answer. Annoyed interpretations of the name of something doesn't offer any insight into, or affect the reality of, the thing.
I think it’s interesting that the labeling and the observed behavior of the system really do match.
Again, you've made no claims, only voiced vague notions of your distaste
I claim that the name “capitalism” states whose interests are favored in our system. That’s a claim, and it’s not vague.
Also I didn’t voice distaste.
Also I didn’t voice distaste.
It's hard to interpret "We basically put a big flashing sign right out front saying whose interests are the top priority" as anything but distaste, just as it's hard to parse "the name “capitalism” states whose interests are favored in our system" as anything but a favorable verisimilitude. Whose capital? Construction contractors? Service industry bosses? How exactly are they favored? Clearly wage theft is a well-understood phenomenon, so wouldn't it be a greater indictment of the legal system backing the law than the system that rests on top of it? How is any of this unique to a capitalist system and prevented in, say, command economies?
> How is any of this unique to a capitalist system and prevented in, say, command economies?
Social-capitalist economies (the “social democracies” and adjacent) tend to do better job at this particular thing. Unions are pretty damn effective at cutting down on employers failing to follow through on their obligations, for one thing, and other states do a better job of supporting and incubating those organizations, besides whatever else they do in statute and enforcement to curb the power of capital to behave poorly.
The US tends to center its capitalist nature more than other states, is why I suggested we wear it rather “on our sleeve”.
“Why does this liquid taste like apples?”
“My brother in Christ: the label reads ‘Apple Juice’”
Social-capitalist economies (the “social democracies” and adjacent) tend to do better job at this particular thing. Unions are pretty damn effective at cutting down on employers failing to follow through on their obligations, for one thing, and other states do a better job of supporting and incubating those organizations, besides whatever else they do in statute and enforcement to curb the power of capital to behave poorly.
The US tends to center its capitalist nature more than other states, is why I suggested we wear it rather “on our sleeve”.
“Why does this liquid taste like apples?”
“My brother in Christ: the label reads ‘Apple Juice’”
> MBIC
No need to start flinging poo.
> Social-capitalist economies (the “social democracies” and adjacent) tend to do better job at this particular thing.
Can you point to a social capitalist country that does a demonstrably better job as a direct result of being a social-capitalist/social democratic/democratic socialist policies? From a cursory search, the US shares in wage theft being a problem with the UK, Australia, Germany and Sweden (granted to a lesser extent for the last two), and I have no doubt a slew of others as well.
No need to start flinging poo.
> Social-capitalist economies (the “social democracies” and adjacent) tend to do better job at this particular thing.
Can you point to a social capitalist country that does a demonstrably better job as a direct result of being a social-capitalist/social democratic/democratic socialist policies? From a cursory search, the US shares in wage theft being a problem with the UK, Australia, Germany and Sweden (granted to a lesser extent for the last two), and I have no doubt a slew of others as well.
(Not GP) I think this is fair enough of an answer, I agree with you.
Though, when complaining about capitalism to try to improve it, it is probably best to mention social-capitalism as what you are advocating for.
Due to the recent political climate (e.g. the Russian invasion) communists are also complaining about capitalism on online forums as a way to advocate for it, which I believe is why GP thought you were talking about command economies. I thought so, too.
Though, when complaining about capitalism to try to improve it, it is probably best to mention social-capitalism as what you are advocating for.
Due to the recent political climate (e.g. the Russian invasion) communists are also complaining about capitalism on online forums as a way to advocate for it, which I believe is why GP thought you were talking about command economies. I thought so, too.
Ah, fair point. The most extreme ideology I even kind of identify with is left-libertarianism, for the record, and mostly I’d just like a better social safety net, better social services, better consumer protection (this, overall, helps the market! Markets are pretty awesome and we definitely should work to keep them healthy and helpful) and stronger unions. I reckon that’s about as good as a large state can get, in the current environment.
I get the communism association given the origin of the term “capitalism”, though it’s been pretty thoroughly adopted and embraced by, well, capitalists. But no, I’m not a fan of communism and didn’t mean to give that impression.
In a world where political labelling can be so very misleading (“people’s democratic republic”) I just find it a bit amusing, and maybe even refreshing, that we tend to self-label our system as capitalist (among other things, to be fair) and that’s pretty damn honest. Take the term fairly literally and it’s a good guide to what you see actually happening, and what you ought to try to do to attain greater privileges and protections. We announce exactly what our deal is.
[edit] more to the point, I wasn’t even trying to get into a what’s-better discussion, just pointing out that thing from the last paragraph, really.
I get the communism association given the origin of the term “capitalism”, though it’s been pretty thoroughly adopted and embraced by, well, capitalists. But no, I’m not a fan of communism and didn’t mean to give that impression.
In a world where political labelling can be so very misleading (“people’s democratic republic”) I just find it a bit amusing, and maybe even refreshing, that we tend to self-label our system as capitalist (among other things, to be fair) and that’s pretty damn honest. Take the term fairly literally and it’s a good guide to what you see actually happening, and what you ought to try to do to attain greater privileges and protections. We announce exactly what our deal is.
[edit] more to the point, I wasn’t even trying to get into a what’s-better discussion, just pointing out that thing from the last paragraph, really.
Worth noting that lawmakers in New York, where the focus of this piece is, recently unveiled a trio of bills[0] aimed at curtailing wage theft, effectively shutting down businesses that steal $1k or more from their employees.
[0] https://www.propublica.org/article/wage-theft-law-new-york-v...
[0] https://www.propublica.org/article/wage-theft-law-new-york-v...
Thank tour union if you have one.
When I was young my parents to my fathers employer to court for wage theft and won.
My mother always meticulously logged when my father clocked in and when he clocked out. All my life she did this.
At one employer they immediately noticed my father wasn't getting paid what he should be. So they let it rack up to a decent amount and took them to court. The judge took the years of time logs as proper documentation.
My mother always meticulously logged when my father clocked in and when he clocked out. All my life she did this.
At one employer they immediately noticed my father wasn't getting paid what he should be. So they let it rack up to a decent amount and took them to court. The judge took the years of time logs as proper documentation.
This has happened to me! In a programming job, no less!
Is this something which could be addressed through the use of a specialized AI assistant?
The biggest barrier to uncompensated workers is the cost of litigation. If the worker could represent themselves effectively, then this would stop.
Is this something which could be addressed through the use of a specialized AI assistant?
The biggest barrier to uncompensated workers is the cost of litigation. If the worker could represent themselves effectively, then this would stop.
[deleted]
>Is this something which could be addressed through the use of a specialized AI assistant?
JFC tech workers sometimes. Just unionize man, that's like the whole point of unions. An "AI assistant" that was effective would be telling you the same thing. You can't convince your boss that paying you what you are owed is the correct choice, you don't have any power in the relationship. Whether they are right or not, they BELIEVE you are eminently replaceable.
JFC tech workers sometimes. Just unionize man, that's like the whole point of unions. An "AI assistant" that was effective would be telling you the same thing. You can't convince your boss that paying you what you are owed is the correct choice, you don't have any power in the relationship. Whether they are right or not, they BELIEVE you are eminently replaceable.
JFC tech workers sometimes. Just unionize man
Basically, people don't want to do the lawsuit, because they don't know how and to pay for the expertise, it would cost more than the paycheck.
The most straightforward way to fix it, is to make the expertise low or zero cost.
An "AI assistant" that was effective would be telling you the same thing.
No, it would tell me how to conduct the lawsuit.
Below is what ChatGPT-4 just told me. Had I known back then, I would have just done this. (And I note that the lawyer who told me it would cost me more than I would get back didn't tell me a lot of this!)
User
I have been shorted $4000 on my last paycheck when I was let go by a software company in Columbia, South Carolina. What is the jurisprudence on being shorted pay, what do I have to prove, and how do I go about bringing the lawsuit.
ChatGPT
In a situation where you've been shorted on your final paycheck, the specific steps you can take and the jurisprudence around it largely depend on both federal and state laws. Here's a general overview of what you need to know and potential steps you could take, specifically tailored to Columbia, South Carolina:
Jurisprudence on Being Shorted Pay
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): At the federal level, the FLSA requires that employees are paid for all hours worked. If an employer fails to pay you what you're owed, you may have a claim under the FLSA.
State Laws: South Carolina has its own labor laws that complement federal laws. While South Carolina does not have specific laws governing the timing of final paychecks for terminated employees, employers are generally expected to adhere to the agreed-upon terms of pay. If no specific terms are set, then they must follow the usual pay schedule.
What You Have to Prove
To bring a successful claim for unpaid wages, you typically need to prove:
The Amount Owed: Documentation or evidence of the agreed-upon wages and the shortfall in your final paycheck. Hours Worked: Evidence of the hours you worked for which you have not been paid. This could include time sheets, emails, or other records. Attempts to Resolve: It's often beneficial to show that you've made reasonable attempts to resolve the issue with your employer before resorting to legal action. Steps to Take Review Employment Agreement: Check your employment contract or any official documentation regarding pay rates, schedules, and termination policies.
Gather Documentation: Compile all relevant documents, including pay stubs, employment contracts, correspondence with the employer about your pay, and any records of hours worked.
Attempt to Resolve Directly: It's often recommended to attempt to resolve the issue with your employer directly. Sometimes, pay discrepancies are due to clerical errors and can be corrected without legal action.
File a Wage Claim: If direct resolution isn't possible, you can file a wage claim with the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (SCLLR). While SCLLR does not handle wage disputes directly, they can guide you on the process and what state resources might be available.
Consult with an Attorney: Consider consulting with an employment law attorney who is familiar with South Carolina's laws. An attorney can advise you on the best course of action, whether it's negotiating a settlement or filing a lawsuit. They can also help you understand your rights and the strengths of your case.
Small Claims Court: For amounts under a certain threshold (which varies by state), you might be able to bring a claim in small claims court without the need for an attorney. In South Carolina, the limit for small claims court is $7,500.
Federal Claim: If your case involves violations of federal law (such as FLSA violations), you might also have the option to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division.
Each case is unique, so it's important to get personalized legal advice. An attorney can help you navigate the specific procedures and ensure your rights are protected throughout the process.
Basically, people don't want to do the lawsuit, because they don't know how and to pay for the expertise, it would cost more than the paycheck.
The most straightforward way to fix it, is to make the expertise low or zero cost.
An "AI assistant" that was effective would be telling you the same thing.
No, it would tell me how to conduct the lawsuit.
Below is what ChatGPT-4 just told me. Had I known back then, I would have just done this. (And I note that the lawyer who told me it would cost me more than I would get back didn't tell me a lot of this!)
User
I have been shorted $4000 on my last paycheck when I was let go by a software company in Columbia, South Carolina. What is the jurisprudence on being shorted pay, what do I have to prove, and how do I go about bringing the lawsuit.
ChatGPT
In a situation where you've been shorted on your final paycheck, the specific steps you can take and the jurisprudence around it largely depend on both federal and state laws. Here's a general overview of what you need to know and potential steps you could take, specifically tailored to Columbia, South Carolina:
Jurisprudence on Being Shorted Pay
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): At the federal level, the FLSA requires that employees are paid for all hours worked. If an employer fails to pay you what you're owed, you may have a claim under the FLSA.
State Laws: South Carolina has its own labor laws that complement federal laws. While South Carolina does not have specific laws governing the timing of final paychecks for terminated employees, employers are generally expected to adhere to the agreed-upon terms of pay. If no specific terms are set, then they must follow the usual pay schedule.
What You Have to Prove
To bring a successful claim for unpaid wages, you typically need to prove:
The Amount Owed: Documentation or evidence of the agreed-upon wages and the shortfall in your final paycheck. Hours Worked: Evidence of the hours you worked for which you have not been paid. This could include time sheets, emails, or other records. Attempts to Resolve: It's often beneficial to show that you've made reasonable attempts to resolve the issue with your employer before resorting to legal action. Steps to Take Review Employment Agreement: Check your employment contract or any official documentation regarding pay rates, schedules, and termination policies.
Gather Documentation: Compile all relevant documents, including pay stubs, employment contracts, correspondence with the employer about your pay, and any records of hours worked.
Attempt to Resolve Directly: It's often recommended to attempt to resolve the issue with your employer directly. Sometimes, pay discrepancies are due to clerical errors and can be corrected without legal action.
File a Wage Claim: If direct resolution isn't possible, you can file a wage claim with the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (SCLLR). While SCLLR does not handle wage disputes directly, they can guide you on the process and what state resources might be available.
Consult with an Attorney: Consider consulting with an employment law attorney who is familiar with South Carolina's laws. An attorney can advise you on the best course of action, whether it's negotiating a settlement or filing a lawsuit. They can also help you understand your rights and the strengths of your case.
Small Claims Court: For amounts under a certain threshold (which varies by state), you might be able to bring a claim in small claims court without the need for an attorney. In South Carolina, the limit for small claims court is $7,500.
Federal Claim: If your case involves violations of federal law (such as FLSA violations), you might also have the option to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division.
Each case is unique, so it's important to get personalized legal advice. An attorney can help you navigate the specific procedures and ensure your rights are protected throughout the process.
I know this is not the same thing but there is another form of what I consider wage theft that is totally legal in my state. That is the ability of an employer to pay almost half of minimum wage based on the fact that the employee gets tips. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped
In my state...Idaho...employees can be paid as low as $3.35 (if I am reading that correctly). I know many people local who worked under this law for many years. The town I am in it costs approx 2x the average "renters salary" to afford to live. We currently have constant "now hiring" signs on almost every building. One of the largest employers in the area uses this law to pay their people peanuts. The only ones who can afford to stay in this town are the ones who already had houses before the "doubling" that happened over the last 5 years...and often they are on edge too.
But you know..."Go ruthless capitalism".
In my state...Idaho...employees can be paid as low as $3.35 (if I am reading that correctly). I know many people local who worked under this law for many years. The town I am in it costs approx 2x the average "renters salary" to afford to live. We currently have constant "now hiring" signs on almost every building. One of the largest employers in the area uses this law to pay their people peanuts. The only ones who can afford to stay in this town are the ones who already had houses before the "doubling" that happened over the last 5 years...and often they are on edge too.
But you know..."Go ruthless capitalism".
I am generally not very fond of unions, but prevent wage theft is a very important function Unions have historically done very well. If there ever was an argument for unions, better contract enforcement would be it.
the hypocritical nature of companies that employ wage theft is something else too... companies like walmart, walgreens, cvs, etc are largely responsible for "organized retail crime" being showcased in the media... and they use this complaint when they close locations in poor neighborhoods and create pharmacy deserts (and to be clear, it seems to be a big lie)... but they'll try to get their outrageously larger wage theft settlements buried
many media outlets are complicit with this, and are either getting completely fooled by these PR tactics or simply don't care
many media outlets are complicit with this, and are either getting completely fooled by these PR tactics or simply don't care
This topic always reminds me of one of my first jobs as a young adult. It was a call center, for political polling.
The facility was foul, we had rats running around, frequent minor electrocutions from improperly maintained power and of course, all sorts of backhanded tactics to avoid paying employees what they were owed.
At some point, someone had enough and reported something to OSHA - I’m not sure what, but the day the inspector showed up, our supervisors came around the office telling us all that we had better lie to the inspector because if we tell the truth, they’ll shut us down for weeks and no one will be able to pay their rent.
I wonder how many other people struggle with that issue daily. The inability to try to make their employer do the bare minimum out of fear of losing what they do have.
The facility was foul, we had rats running around, frequent minor electrocutions from improperly maintained power and of course, all sorts of backhanded tactics to avoid paying employees what they were owed.
At some point, someone had enough and reported something to OSHA - I’m not sure what, but the day the inspector showed up, our supervisors came around the office telling us all that we had better lie to the inspector because if we tell the truth, they’ll shut us down for weeks and no one will be able to pay their rent.
I wonder how many other people struggle with that issue daily. The inability to try to make their employer do the bare minimum out of fear of losing what they do have.
So what you do is you have a system where employees can claim unpaid wages from a government agency who pays them and then goes after the company that didn’t pay to recover the money.
I happened to find out what the Danish laws for not getting paid on time are, as the company I was working for got into financial trouble. If you're not paid on time, you can send a letter setting a deadline for the payment - typically a week or two. If you're not paid by then, you get to declare the company bankrupt. You can stop working, and you will get the next three month's payment from a state-run fund, even if you find other work. Isn't socialism just wonderful?
The US never ceases to surprise me
That's so medieval and backward for a country like that
That's so medieval and backward for a country like that
If I'm not mistaken, we are the only country which has a founding document enshrining chattel slavery. Many of the issues in the USA stem from this, amendments notwithstanding - it's a stain on everything, arguments in the top legal court, the Supreme Court, frequently bring up the historicity so we are constantly enmeshed in very old and sometimes medieval thinking, i.e. recent abortion decision referenced many legal arguments that preceded modern biology or medicine.
Which document? I can't find where the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution enshrine chattel slavery. None mention slavery directly, eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_the_United_States_... says there are only indirect references.
Brazil's independence from Brazil was declared in 1822 and recognized in 1825. "Slavery was legitimated as a historical institution in the Brazilian Constitution of 1824 in the right to own property." says https://oxfordre.com/latinamericanhistory/display/10.1093/ac...
More specifically, just like the US Constitution does not mention slavery, https://constitutionalstudies.wisc.edu/index.php/cs/article/... writes:
"Given its Enlightenment inspiration and proclaimed liberal spirit the Brazilian Constitution of 1824 never explicitly employed the words slave or slavery. But it did implicitly recognize the slaveholding character of Brazilian society when it subtly confessed the inequality among men. To some extent it had to, for the far-reaching consequences of the slave-master relationship were too important to be fully ignored. The solution the constituent found was to borrow categories from Roman law.5 Article 6 of the Charta established that Brazilians were those born in Brazil, either ingenuous or freed. Ingenuous were those born free, while freed were those born slaves but manumitted (Ribas 1880, 49)." ..
It seems that "masters could revoke a granted manumission in case of ingratitude."
Brazil did not abolish slavery until 1888.
Brazil's independence from Brazil was declared in 1822 and recognized in 1825. "Slavery was legitimated as a historical institution in the Brazilian Constitution of 1824 in the right to own property." says https://oxfordre.com/latinamericanhistory/display/10.1093/ac...
More specifically, just like the US Constitution does not mention slavery, https://constitutionalstudies.wisc.edu/index.php/cs/article/... writes:
"Given its Enlightenment inspiration and proclaimed liberal spirit the Brazilian Constitution of 1824 never explicitly employed the words slave or slavery. But it did implicitly recognize the slaveholding character of Brazilian society when it subtly confessed the inequality among men. To some extent it had to, for the far-reaching consequences of the slave-master relationship were too important to be fully ignored. The solution the constituent found was to borrow categories from Roman law.5 Article 6 of the Charta established that Brazilians were those born in Brazil, either ingenuous or freed. Ingenuous were those born free, while freed were those born slaves but manumitted (Ribas 1880, 49)." ..
It seems that "masters could revoke a granted manumission in case of ingratitude."
Brazil did not abolish slavery until 1888.
what bothers me is that the country with the most dominant military sometimes looks like it might turn bad which would not be good for the rest of the world
This happened to me, from a big "trusted" company.
Bet attorneys and Gov did.
Unions Unions Unions
Thanks to whom I enjoy two days off a week and, the safety dude immediately corrected something I'd pointed out as dangerous 5 years ago.
So join one and work to make it better.
(2023)
I wonder if the workers still owe taxes on the unpaid wages. I bet the gov't plays it that way, leaving the burden on the victims of the crime.
So, you're telling me yet another intervention, this time minimum wage fiat, doesn't work?
Who could have thought?
Who could have thought?
There’s the law, and then there is enforcement of the law.
Are you a libertarian? Much wage theft is not paying for time worked - a violation of one of the sacred Contracts you little rascals love so much.
I don't know how you make the jump from human exploitation to "there's too much interventions".
Libertarians and ultra capitalists see the building on fire and complain that we have too many firefighters. Let this building auto-regulate! To some degree it's probably the same mechanisms of self-deception that conspiracy theorists use to make themselves feel good and superior for having seen the light.
There is no magic effect of the capitalism system. It eats workers and shits billionaires. It won't self correct. And arguably yes, all the regulations are just patches to the system, but short of a revolution and changing the system itself, that's the best there is for now.
Libertarians and ultra capitalists see the building on fire and complain that we have too many firefighters. Let this building auto-regulate! To some degree it's probably the same mechanisms of self-deception that conspiracy theorists use to make themselves feel good and superior for having seen the light.
There is no magic effect of the capitalism system. It eats workers and shits billionaires. It won't self correct. And arguably yes, all the regulations are just patches to the system, but short of a revolution and changing the system itself, that's the best there is for now.
From the article:
>> There are numerous forms of wage theft, from employers not compensating workers for time worked, violating minimum wage and overtime laws, misclassifying employees as independent contractors, not providing legally required meal breaks, confiscating worker tips, or illegally taking deductions from worker wages.
Yeah, one of those isn't like the others. I know unions and the tax people hate it, but some people are perfectly happy to be independent contractors.
Having said all that, for all the others make the company directors personally liable.
>> There are numerous forms of wage theft, from employers not compensating workers for time worked, violating minimum wage and overtime laws, misclassifying employees as independent contractors, not providing legally required meal breaks, confiscating worker tips, or illegally taking deductions from worker wages.
Yeah, one of those isn't like the others. I know unions and the tax people hate it, but some people are perfectly happy to be independent contractors.
Having said all that, for all the others make the company directors personally liable.
They don't mean "Uber driver" or "Tech Consultant", they mean when businesses hire someone as a contractor for a set of roles and responsibilities that are legally a job, usually followed up by exploiting that distinction to pay less than minimum wage or flout other federal labor laws. Here is the latest ruling on how the distinction is made:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/10/2024-00...
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/10/2024-00...
There's also the jobs where folks thing they're an employee but are being reported by the business as a contractor, to effectively pay less and also save on required tax and benefit compensation.
I'm happy if the driver of the classification is to the benefit of the employee. In the UK, it is mostly driven by the need to maximise tax revenue.
Usually people are happy to be independent contractors because of the autonomy it brings.
The issue with misclassification is that a number of jobs don't actually have the level of autonomy needed to be legally classified as an independent contractor, and yet the company classifies them as one anyway to skimp out on benefits.
The issue with misclassification is that a number of jobs don't actually have the level of autonomy needed to be legally classified as an independent contractor, and yet the company classifies them as one anyway to skimp out on benefits.
> some people are perfectly happy to be independent contractors.
Literally nobody is denying that. The issue is that many companies are also happy to use the classification to their advantage when the roles don't meet the legal standard their society has put forth as the requirement for someone to be an independent contractor (largely e.g. genuine independence in their work).
Literally nobody is denying that. The issue is that many companies are also happy to use the classification to their advantage when the roles don't meet the legal standard their society has put forth as the requirement for someone to be an independent contractor (largely e.g. genuine independence in their work).
Absolutely.
This however is empathically and clearly not about people who enjoy perks of independent contracting. I'm aware of no union or "tax people" in my circle who deny that reality.
This is about people who have NO perks of independent contracting and NO perks of being an employee.
I've had several friends in such situations - from sleezy sketchy places, to standard practice at bug research institutions.
(The down votes, fwiw, are probably not because people disagree with your political stance, lest you feel like a martyr, but from possibly intentional obtuse misrepresentation of article and issue).
This however is empathically and clearly not about people who enjoy perks of independent contracting. I'm aware of no union or "tax people" in my circle who deny that reality.
This is about people who have NO perks of independent contracting and NO perks of being an employee.
I've had several friends in such situations - from sleezy sketchy places, to standard practice at bug research institutions.
(The down votes, fwiw, are probably not because people disagree with your political stance, lest you feel like a martyr, but from possibly intentional obtuse misrepresentation of article and issue).
>>I'm aware of no union or "tax people" in my circle who deny that reality.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-off-payroll-workin...
>> (The down votes, fwiw, are probably not because people disagree with your political stance, lest you feel like a martyr, but from possibly intentional obtuse misrepresentation of article and issue).
I think I'll cope with the loss of imaginary internet points, and there is no obtuse misrepresentation. Clearly your reading comprehension is struggling. I said that:
>>>> There are numerous forms of wage theft, from employers not compensating workers for time worked, violating minimum wage and overtime laws, misclassifying employees as independent contractors, not providing legally required meal breaks, confiscating worker tips, or illegally taking deductions from worker wages.
>> Yeah, one of those isn't like the others. I know unions and the tax people hate it, but some people are perfectly happy to be independent contractors.
I can't think of anyone that would like to be paid less than minimum wage, or not get paid overtime for instance, but I can think of plenty of people (especially in the UK) that would have liked to have continued as independent contractors (in IT, broadcasting, lorry driving or wherever).
Often under the guise of protecting the vulnerable, over broad legislation is passed that affects more than just (EG) the Uber Eats driver.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/understanding-off-payroll-workin...
>> (The down votes, fwiw, are probably not because people disagree with your political stance, lest you feel like a martyr, but from possibly intentional obtuse misrepresentation of article and issue).
I think I'll cope with the loss of imaginary internet points, and there is no obtuse misrepresentation. Clearly your reading comprehension is struggling. I said that:
>>>> There are numerous forms of wage theft, from employers not compensating workers for time worked, violating minimum wage and overtime laws, misclassifying employees as independent contractors, not providing legally required meal breaks, confiscating worker tips, or illegally taking deductions from worker wages.
>> Yeah, one of those isn't like the others. I know unions and the tax people hate it, but some people are perfectly happy to be independent contractors.
I can't think of anyone that would like to be paid less than minimum wage, or not get paid overtime for instance, but I can think of plenty of people (especially in the UK) that would have liked to have continued as independent contractors (in IT, broadcasting, lorry driving or wherever).
Often under the guise of protecting the vulnerable, over broad legislation is passed that affects more than just (EG) the Uber Eats driver.
Plenty of jobs will pay you the state/federal minimum wage on a 1099. And if that is the case you aren't a contractor because a real contractor knows there is running costs to dba that aren't factored into those low pay rates. And as labor court has determined repeatedly, if you can't choose pay, hours, or location you aren't a contractor.
> misclassifying
Another one is misclassifying non exempt employees as exempt, and not paying them for more than 40 hours per week. Big in immigrant circles where one or two people will operate a 24/7 or near 24/7 business and be called “managers” when they have no management autonomy.
For example, one of my jobs right out of high school was waiting tables at a local restaurant. If you were opening, the expectation from owners and management was you'd get in early to help open but would wait 15 minutes before service started before clocking in. So on those days you'd do 30-45 minutes of fully unpaid labor. There was well understood that if you complained about this not only would they fire you but they'd call up all their industry buddies and you'd basically be on every other restaurants no-hire list. At the time I was pretty naive and didn't think much of it, just figured that's the way the world worked. Doing the math, because I always made more than the tipped minimum wage, I think it only ended up costing me $7/week in wages - but if I stole $7 out of the till each week for a year in a half I'd be charged with a felony.