4 ms·

> You don't own your employer's money until it's paid to you. I think you’re conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most definitely do “own” the funds you

> You don't own your employer's money until it's paid to you. I think you’re conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you.

dataflow 5y ago
> I think you’re conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you. "Own"... in what sense? Legally? If I went to withdraw that money from my employer's bank account, would they let me, or would they tell me that's not my money, even though it was supposed to be paid to me?
- Grimm1 5y ago
  It doesn't matter what your employer would do it matters that you're legally entitled to it and a court would enforce it and have it paid to you. Your private employer doesn't have the ability to define ownership. Governments, and by extension the judiciary, however typically are granted that.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > It doesn't matter what your employer would do "They" was referring to the bank, not the employer. > it matters that you're legally entitled to it and a court would enforce it and have it paid to you. They wouldn't do it in the same situation as theft I think, though, which is kind of my point. Like if a coworker who joined the week after you got paid from the funds that should've gone to you the week before, and they were already aware of the practice, they would not be receiving "stolen goods" and I'm pretty sure a court would not say you'd be entitled to claw it back from the other employee because the funds somehow actually belonged to you. (Because they didn't; they were merely owed a.k.a. promised-that-they-would-someday-belong to you.) If it helps, I see this as somewhat (not entirely) similar to the difference between stocks and stock options. Just because you have the option to get some stocks, that doesn't mean you own the stocks.
    - Grimm1 5y ago
      That really makes no difference, sure, if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it, they would happily give you your money. A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer because that is your money, legally, after performing your work duties per your employment contract and labor law.
      - dataflow 5y ago
        > if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it Because then you would own the money after the court legally transfers the ownership. They don't belong to you beforehand, is what I'm saying. > A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer Not from the other employee. You completely missed the points of my examples, especially the one about receiving stolen goods. Try reading them again. If you just want to call it theft despite all the differences it has with actual theft, I obviously can't stop you, but I tried to explain precisely some rather important differences in how they're treated.
        Grimm1 5y ago
        You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it. You don't claw it back from your co-worker because money is fungible and just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money. That's money owed to them from your employer who also owes you money. Honestly I ignored that initially in my response because I thought the example was a bit contrived and because of my above reasoning didn't really hold water.
        dataflow 5y ago
        > You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it. > just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm saying in the second one. This is exactly how the money isn't yours! That money in the bank isn't yours either just because the employer could've paid you with it! I'm not sure where to go from here (I feel like you just made my point for me) but if we still disagree then I guess we might just have to leave it a that.
- Joeri 5y ago
  Are you arguing in good faith? It is clear that the employer owes a debt to the employee as soon as the labor is performed per the labor agreement. The employee owns the debt. In theory they could sue to get that debt paid, in practice they probably can’t afford to.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > Are you arguing in good faith? Yes? Kind of insulting that you ask, but thanks for at least asking instead of just accusing. > It is clear that the employer owes a debt to the employee as soon as the labor is performed per the labor agreement. The employee owns the debt. The employee owns the debt, not the funds. That's precisely the reason the employee needs to sue: he doesn't own the money yet. Otherwise he wouldn't need to sue; it would already be his and he could take possession of it. Consider this: if the employee went into the employer's drawer and took out cash to get his pay without authorization, is that legal? I'm pretty sure that's theft, despite him legally owning the debt. Which I think is why you don't see e.g. underpaid cashiers going around removing cash from registers to repay stolen wages. If it helps, you can also look at this from another angle: stolen goods can in general be returned directly to their owners. And stolen goods are in general illegal to possess knowingly. Now what would happen if that money was subsequently paid to another employee? Could the first one claw it back on the basis that it was theirs? No, I'm pretty sure he'd get to keep it because the money never actually "belonged" to the first employee. Or if the second employee was already aware of the wage having been "stolen" from the first one, is he now also a criminal for receiving stolen goods? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but you're welcome to fact-check me on all these; I'm happy to learn more.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gruez 5y ago
>You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you. You don't. You own a IOU until it hits your bank account. The difference is subtle, but you can see it manifest during bankruptcy. Employee salaries are pretty high on the list in terms of "which creditors get paid first", but AFAIK they're subordinate to secured debt. That means it's definitely possible for you to lose the money you "owned", which does not fit with the common definition of "own". For one, you don't have exclusive control of it.
josephcsible 5y ago
If you live in an apartment, does your landlord own your rent even if you haven't paid it? Should tenants who don't pay rent be guilty of theft? If not, then what's the difference?

dataflow 5y ago

> I think you’re conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you. "Own"... in what sense? Legally? If I went to withdraw that money from my employer's bank account, would they let me, or would they tell me that's not my money, even though it was supposed to be paid to me?

Grimm1 5y ago
It doesn't matter what your employer would do it matters that you're legally entitled to it and a court would enforce it and have it paid to you. Your private employer doesn't have the ability to define ownership. Governments, and by extension the judiciary, however typically are granted that.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > It doesn't matter what your employer would do "They" was referring to the bank, not the employer. > it matters that you're legally entitled to it and a court would enforce it and have it paid to you. They wouldn't do it in the same situation as theft I think, though, which is kind of my point. Like if a coworker who joined the week after you got paid from the funds that should've gone to you the week before, and they were already aware of the practice, they would not be receiving "stolen goods" and I'm pretty sure a court would not say you'd be entitled to claw it back from the other employee because the funds somehow actually belonged to you. (Because they didn't; they were merely owed a.k.a. promised-that-they-would-someday-belong to you.) If it helps, I see this as somewhat (not entirely) similar to the difference between stocks and stock options. Just because you have the option to get some stocks, that doesn't mean you own the stocks.
  - Grimm1 5y ago
    That really makes no difference, sure, if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it, they would happily give you your money. A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer because that is your money, legally, after performing your work duties per your employment contract and labor law.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      > if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it Because then you would own the money after the court legally transfers the ownership. They don't belong to you beforehand, is what I'm saying. > A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer Not from the other employee. You completely missed the points of my examples, especially the one about receiving stolen goods. Try reading them again. If you just want to call it theft despite all the differences it has with actual theft, I obviously can't stop you, but I tried to explain precisely some rather important differences in how they're treated.
      - Grimm1 5y ago
        You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it. You don't claw it back from your co-worker because money is fungible and just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money. That's money owed to them from your employer who also owes you money. Honestly I ignored that initially in my response because I thought the example was a bit contrived and because of my above reasoning didn't really hold water.
        dataflow 5y ago
        > You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it. > just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm saying in the second one. This is exactly how the money isn't yours! That money in the bank isn't yours either just because the employer could've paid you with it! I'm not sure where to go from here (I feel like you just made my point for me) but if we still disagree then I guess we might just have to leave it a that.
Joeri 5y ago
Are you arguing in good faith? It is clear that the employer owes a debt to the employee as soon as the labor is performed per the labor agreement. The employee owns the debt. In theory they could sue to get that debt paid, in practice they probably can’t afford to.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > Are you arguing in good faith? Yes? Kind of insulting that you ask, but thanks for at least asking instead of just accusing. > It is clear that the employer owes a debt to the employee as soon as the labor is performed per the labor agreement. The employee owns the debt. The employee owns the debt, not the funds. That's precisely the reason the employee needs to sue: he doesn't own the money yet. Otherwise he wouldn't need to sue; it would already be his and he could take possession of it. Consider this: if the employee went into the employer's drawer and took out cash to get his pay without authorization, is that legal? I'm pretty sure that's theft, despite him legally owning the debt. Which I think is why you don't see e.g. underpaid cashiers going around removing cash from registers to repay stolen wages. If it helps, you can also look at this from another angle: stolen goods can in general be returned directly to their owners. And stolen goods are in general illegal to possess knowingly. Now what would happen if that money was subsequently paid to another employee? Could the first one claw it back on the basis that it was theirs? No, I'm pretty sure he'd get to keep it because the money never actually "belonged" to the first employee. Or if the second employee was already aware of the wage having been "stolen" from the first one, is he now also a criminal for receiving stolen goods? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but you're welcome to fact-check me on all these; I'm happy to learn more.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

>You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you. You don't. You own a IOU until it hits your bank account. The difference is subtle, but you can see it manifest during bankruptcy. Employee salaries are pretty high on the list in terms of "which creditors get paid first", but AFAIK they're subordinate to secured debt. That means it's definitely possible for you to lose the money you "owned", which does not fit with the common definition of "own". For one, you don't have exclusive control of it.

josephcsible 5y ago

If you live in an apartment, does your landlord own your rent even if you haven't paid it? Should tenants who don't pay rent be guilty of theft? If not, then what's the difference?