3 ms·
Right, and in that case the worker would not be punished for the illegal activities of the employer.
by talmand 10y ago
Right, and in that case the worker would not be punished for the illegal activities of the employer.
- pedrocr 10y agoIn this analogy the worker is Ireland and the employer Apple. The analogy would be that the worker must now receive, and the employer now pay, the difference between the contract and the minimum wage. Just like Apple must now pay and Ireland now receive the extra tax.
- talmand 10y agoI require extra explanation. Are you saying that Apple wrote Ireland's tax laws that have been deemed improper?
- mechagodzilla 10y agoIreland gave Apple tax breaks that were not theirs to give. Just as a worker can't give a break to an employer and work for less than minimum wage (even if they want to, and even if they wrote the contract!). The ruling was effectively saying "Apple does actually owe those taxes to Ireland, even if they were willing to forgo them, since it is against EU rules for Ireland to give tax breaks of that nature." It actually is reasonably equivalent to a court declaring a company needs to give backpay to a worker to make their wages equivalent to minimum wage, even if the worker doesn't want the money.