> 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

> 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.