3 ms·

Well you're missing crucial information. First of all, under paga you simply file to the lwda the grievances of the employer and they decide if they want to do

Well you're missing crucial information. First of all, under paga you simply file to the lwda the grievances of the employer and they decide if they want to do the work of investigation or just hire you, at 25% when any lawyer will charge you 33-40%, to investigate for them. Of course the defense would call it the 'sue your boss' law because it is only used when your boss breaks the law and you are forced to sue them in order to utilise the legal system to ensure compliance of the legal code. This is a labor dispute, the entire relationship between the parties is based on money, if an employer has been stealing income of course money is going to be attached to the concept of justice. > better solutions Better solutions to what? Employers breaking the laws? What can you suggest? Asking that question is what created the labor code. > the damage they do is not visible till later where it is already huge. Can you elaborate on what you meant by this?

scotty79 10y ago
>> better solutions >Better solutions to what? Employers breaking the laws? What can you suggest? I'd suggest fining employer an amount it will feel punishing. Also sometimes additionally some people that were in charge at the time. If the employees were harmed financially (they didn't get some money they should get as employees) the debt to them should be formally recognized. If employees were harmed in non-financial ways it could be translated to money but it should be solely on the base what was the harm and how much harm was done to them as human beings regardless of how much they earned and where they worked and on what position. They should be awarded some financial aid from the government for that (because it's the government is the one that failed to force the employer to obey the rules). This fund could be financed by fines. Most important part of the idea is that punishment relies solely on actions performed by employer and it's financial status so that it feels the punishment and compensation for harmed depends solely on non-financial damage done to employee without taking into account how rich was employer or employee. >> the damage they do is not visible till later where it is already huge. >Can you elaborate on what you meant by this? You attach money to imprisoning people, it works for a while for both running the prison system and making (or saving) money while doing so. After a while you end up with disproportional population of inmates because it turned out that making jailing people profitable might have that effect in the long run. Hospitals create bodies that make purchases of medical supplies and equipment for them to save money by buying in bulk and having stronger bargaining position. At some point someone has a brilliant money making (saving) idea that instead of paying to run those bodies from hospitals funds according to the needs it could be better if they could take a percentage of value of orders they execute. Bodies become independent, profitable, privatized. Behold, you just created incredibly powerful middle man that has incentive for the medical supplies to be as expensive as possible. After a while you notice what you've done because now you have a healthcare that's at least twice as expensive and any comparable healthcare in the world. There are more examples like that. Civil forfeiture. Lobbying. Pretty much pick anything wrong in the US and you'll almost always find money making scheme somewhere among the causes that seemed like a good idea at a time when it was introduced.

scotty79 10y ago

>> better solutions >Better solutions to what? Employers breaking the laws? What can you suggest? I'd suggest fining employer an amount it will feel punishing. Also sometimes additionally some people that were in charge at the time. If the employees were harmed financially (they didn't get some money they should get as employees) the debt to them should be formally recognized. If employees were harmed in non-financial ways it could be translated to money but it should be solely on the base what was the harm and how much harm was done to them as human beings regardless of how much they earned and where they worked and on what position. They should be awarded some financial aid from the government for that (because it's the government is the one that failed to force the employer to obey the rules). This fund could be financed by fines. Most important part of the idea is that punishment relies solely on actions performed by employer and it's financial status so that it feels the punishment and compensation for harmed depends solely on non-financial damage done to employee without taking into account how rich was employer or employee. >> the damage they do is not visible till later where it is already huge. >Can you elaborate on what you meant by this? You attach money to imprisoning people, it works for a while for both running the prison system and making (or saving) money while doing so. After a while you end up with disproportional population of inmates because it turned out that making jailing people profitable might have that effect in the long run. Hospitals create bodies that make purchases of medical supplies and equipment for them to save money by buying in bulk and having stronger bargaining position. At some point someone has a brilliant money making (saving) idea that instead of paying to run those bodies from hospitals funds according to the needs it could be better if they could take a percentage of value of orders they execute. Bodies become independent, profitable, privatized. Behold, you just created incredibly powerful middle man that has incentive for the medical supplies to be as expensive as possible. After a while you notice what you've done because now you have a healthcare that's at least twice as expensive and any comparable healthcare in the world. There are more examples like that. Civil forfeiture. Lobbying. Pretty much pick anything wrong in the US and you'll almost always find money making scheme somewhere among the causes that seemed like a good idea at a time when it was introduced.