4 ms·

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

• 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.
          • salawat 5y ago
            I think you too are talking past each other because both of you are focusing only on the money, and not the obligation, and just looking at the money, and who owns it is not how modern finance works. Modern finance is essentially the Art of I.O.U's. Before Grimm1's instance of someone else getting hired on, your hypothetical employer has their affairs set up such that expected payroll is met. Payroll is calculated as a function of headcount, and often, the business owner/primary equityholder are the end eater's of any financial shortfalls. They get paid last. Payroll must be paid first, vendors generally fall somewhere in between, and are somewhat more flexible in how you can accommodate them, as long as you make good on it. Grimm1's scenario would therefore properly play out as the Owner doesn't take home as much (honestly any profit if things have deteriorated to the point you can't meet payroll). The courts do not look favorably on not paying your people, and in bankruptcy, your payroll obligations take primacy(I think). You (dataflow) don't necessarily paint the most accurate picture in the sense that the liability does in fact exist in a materially fashion. You can "call it" in the same way that a bank can do a "margin call", which usually requires getting an agent of the court involved. The sad thing is, legal representation/effective litigation has such a high barrier to entry, that most people don't even realize they can. The other problem is the additional legal costs may jeopardize a business to the point it death spirals, ensuring you never get made whole. USPS is an interesting case, because I'm not sure what else might be in play due to it's quasi-public nature. A federal institution cannot go into arrears. (Literally, a lot of Federal managers won't even be comfortable letting you do volunteer work in my experience). They have to furlough on budget shortfalls. But USPS is not "Federal" like most Executive agencies, as they are still technically private, or have been operated that way, while also being Constitutionally mandated to exist. USPS as I recall, is also one of the only employers required to pre-fund their pension liabilities. Unlike everyone else in the private sector who apparently aren't.