3 ms·

Indeed, it opens up the topic to a wider question - why are some things counted as crimes and others not? For example, why isn't wage theft included in the NCV

Indeed, it opens up the topic to a wider question - why are some things counted as crimes and others not? For example, why isn't wage theft included in the NCVS? Surface-level answer: because in most jurisdictions, it's not a criminal offense. Steal $100 from your employer? Go to jail. Your employer requires unpaid overtime adding up to $1,000? A slap on the wrist at best. Yet employees are victims to billions of dollars of wage theft every year! "Sixty-eight percent of the surveyed workers experienced at least one pay-related violation in the week prior to the survey. On average the workers in the three cities lost a total of $2,634 annually due to workplace violations, out of an average income of $17,616, which translates into wage theft of fifteen percent of income." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft . Does the NCVS list that over half of employees are victims of wage theft? Why, it's almost as if the laws were structured against poor people in favor of business. Hmm, and ethnic minorities are overrepresented in the poor population. What about the illegal collusion between Silicon Valley companies to suppress worker wages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... . Were all 64,000 employees counted as victims in the NCVS? Again, no, because that was a civil suit, not a crime that the police should be involved in. But again, why is it under civil law, not criminal? (There's no hint that this wage theft is due to racism.) Or, were the events leading to the lead poisoning of the water of Flint, MI and its coverups a crime? If so, why isn't the population of Flint included as victims? If not, why not? Or, in discussions related to the 'school-prison nexus', when disproportionate disciplinary actions are taken against students of color, are those students counted as victims? Why or why not? You are correct. All this inconvenient data indeed makes people dismiss the 'simple "the police are racist"' and replace it with "the system is both racist and biased in favor of the rich".

chuckee 5y ago
A moment ago the conversation was about violent crime and "over-policing creates racist bias in crime data". Now it's about laws treating corporate crimes more leniently. You raise good points, and use them to deftly move past all the claims of racism that homicide statistics and victim surveys largely (but not entirely) refute.
- geofft 5y ago
  I think the wage theft point is relevant (I was going to bring it up too) for two reasons: 1. Directly, wage theft affects people's ability to get out of poverty and build wealth. Wage theft is a problem that disproportionately affects lower-income people (because they're more likely to rely on wages, instead of salaries or investments) and is disproportionately worse for lower-wealth people (because they can't as easily absorb a loss of $1,000 by covering it out of savings). We know, from those very same victim surveys, that poverty correlates with crime. In fact https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household-poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household-poverty-a... points out that poverty correlates with being a victim of crime. 2. Less directly, but more interestingly from a philosophical standpoint, wage theft is a great example of a crime where how you classify it impacts statistics. Victim surveys tend to look at robberies. Wage theft isn't a "robbery," but if you lose $1,000 from your employer, that's much worse for you than being mugged at knife-point and losing $100 from your wallet. And if you look at homicides: Los Angeles has 200-something homicides per year. It also has 40-something police-caused deaths per year, which are generally not called "homicides." It also has 200-something deaths from car accidents a year, which are also generally not called "homicides." You're equally dead through any of these means, but crime surveys create a specific definition of "violent crime" that only looks at certain forms of violence.
- eesmith 5y ago
  And you've deftly moved past the question "How do you determine if the police are being successful?" Is your metric only homicide statistics? geofft commented "police refusing to take police reports or saying that something is a civil matter". My examples were meant to reinforce that issue, where crime statistics place far less weight on theft of services than theft of property, even when the monetary amounts involved are similar. FWIW, wage theft isn't only a corporate crime. If I promise to pay someone to mow my lawn, and he does it, and I don't pay him (perhaps threatening to call the police because I suspect he's an immigrant without work papers), then that's also wage theft, even though I am not a corporation.
  - chuckee 5y ago
Chris2048 5y ago
> Your employer requires unpaid overtime adding up to $1,000? A slap on the wrist at best. Because the two are not at all the same. I would imagine the reason is that everything should already be on record, and you'd be expected to take said employer to court. That said, if employer tried to explicitly commit fraud e.g. forge documents, illegal employment, I'd expect someone to see jail time. Theft, on the other hand, is inherently off-the-record and fraudulent. Also, if said employer forced you to work I'd expect to see punishment vs asking (possibly illegally) for you to work overtime - in the case of theft no-one gets the right to refuse. > But again, why is it under civil law, not criminal? NAL but I think its something to do with breaking/violating contracts versus the law. It makes sense to me. You seem to be focusing on the sums involved rather than the context of the theft. > it's almost as if the laws were structured against poor people in favor of business legal action is expected (in the US) to be funded by the participants, i.e. they put in a stake. This means those with less money will always have fewer options. A small business can also suffer this way. The flip side is those with wealth have more to lose, and big pockets often attract lawsuits. What we perhaps need is better union - no-win-no-fee lawyers to help combat wage theft, but I suspect the cost of layers now is so high that lower salaries just aren't worth the fight - 2634 USD pa might not cover a lot, so you'd need to pool resources and make it all v efficient. I'd be interested in what barriers there are to this. > lead poisoning of the water of Flint, MI and its coverups a crime? I think it should be, absolutely. The whole think with Depont dumping shit in rivers is also terrible. I wish the government were more pro-active in punishing these actions, and I'm quite frankly surprised how little action there is - a sign of corruption at a higher level?
- eesmith 5y ago
  > and you'd be expected to take said employer to court Which, as you seem to concur, makes it hard for low-wage workers to fight against wage theft. > Theft, on the other hand, is inherently off-the-record and fraudulent. The Wikipedia entry for wage theft links to https://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176677299/construction-booming-in-texas-but-many-workers-pay-dearly https://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176677299/construction-boomin... with an example of an employer not paying $1,200 in wages until the employee went to the Texas Workforce Commission. Why should theft of $1,200 cash be a criminal act, while theft of $1,200 worth of services is not? I don't see how this isn't fraudulent. There's no right to refuse after you've already done the work. And the employee must have originally arranged the work off-the-record because you don't tell the government you had an employee you paid $0. The Wikipedia article points to other types of wage theft, like employee misclassification, which seems very much like either forging documents or illegal employment. > I'd expect someone to see jail time And if they don't, what do you expect to happen? Because wage theft is rarely punished at all, much less resulting in jail time. > legal action is expected (in the US) to be funded by the participants In civil law, yes. Not criminal law. Why is wage theft not part of criminal law (excepting a few jurisdictions), even for those cases where the employer is doing things off-the-record, fraudulently, and the employee has no right to refuse? Even within civil law, why is the civil liability to employer so low? There's less need to pool resources if wage theft had treble damages.

chuckee 5y ago

A moment ago the conversation was about violent crime and "over-policing creates racist bias in crime data". Now it's about laws treating corporate crimes more leniently. You raise good points, and use them to deftly move past all the claims of racism that homicide statistics and victim surveys largely (but not entirely) refute.

geofft 5y ago
I think the wage theft point is relevant (I was going to bring it up too) for two reasons: 1. Directly, wage theft affects people's ability to get out of poverty and build wealth. Wage theft is a problem that disproportionately affects lower-income people (because they're more likely to rely on wages, instead of salaries or investments) and is disproportionately worse for lower-wealth people (because they can't as easily absorb a loss of $1,000 by covering it out of savings). We know, from those very same victim surveys, that poverty correlates with crime. In fact https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household-poverty-and-nonfatal-violent-victimization-2008-2012 https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/household-poverty-a... points out that poverty correlates with being a victim of crime. 2. Less directly, but more interestingly from a philosophical standpoint, wage theft is a great example of a crime where how you classify it impacts statistics. Victim surveys tend to look at robberies. Wage theft isn't a "robbery," but if you lose $1,000 from your employer, that's much worse for you than being mugged at knife-point and losing $100 from your wallet. And if you look at homicides: Los Angeles has 200-something homicides per year. It also has 40-something police-caused deaths per year, which are generally not called "homicides." It also has 200-something deaths from car accidents a year, which are also generally not called "homicides." You're equally dead through any of these means, but crime surveys create a specific definition of "violent crime" that only looks at certain forms of violence.
eesmith 5y ago
And you've deftly moved past the question "How do you determine if the police are being successful?" Is your metric only homicide statistics? geofft commented "police refusing to take police reports or saying that something is a civil matter". My examples were meant to reinforce that issue, where crime statistics place far less weight on theft of services than theft of property, even when the monetary amounts involved are similar. FWIW, wage theft isn't only a corporate crime. If I promise to pay someone to mow my lawn, and he does it, and I don't pay him (perhaps threatening to call the police because I suspect he's an immigrant without work papers), then that's also wage theft, even though I am not a corporation.
- chuckee 5y ago

Chris2048 5y ago

> Your employer requires unpaid overtime adding up to $1,000? A slap on the wrist at best. Because the two are not at all the same. I would imagine the reason is that everything should already be on record, and you'd be expected to take said employer to court. That said, if employer tried to explicitly commit fraud e.g. forge documents, illegal employment, I'd expect someone to see jail time. Theft, on the other hand, is inherently off-the-record and fraudulent. Also, if said employer forced you to work I'd expect to see punishment vs asking (possibly illegally) for you to work overtime - in the case of theft no-one gets the right to refuse. > But again, why is it under civil law, not criminal? NAL but I think its something to do with breaking/violating contracts versus the law. It makes sense to me. You seem to be focusing on the sums involved rather than the context of the theft. > it's almost as if the laws were structured against poor people in favor of business legal action is expected (in the US) to be funded by the participants, i.e. they put in a stake. This means those with less money will always have fewer options. A small business can also suffer this way. The flip side is those with wealth have more to lose, and big pockets often attract lawsuits. What we perhaps need is better union - no-win-no-fee lawyers to help combat wage theft, but I suspect the cost of layers now is so high that lower salaries just aren't worth the fight - 2634 USD pa might not cover a lot, so you'd need to pool resources and make it all v efficient. I'd be interested in what barriers there are to this. > lead poisoning of the water of Flint, MI and its coverups a crime? I think it should be, absolutely. The whole think with Depont dumping shit in rivers is also terrible. I wish the government were more pro-active in punishing these actions, and I'm quite frankly surprised how little action there is - a sign of corruption at a higher level?

eesmith 5y ago
> and you'd be expected to take said employer to court Which, as you seem to concur, makes it hard for low-wage workers to fight against wage theft. > Theft, on the other hand, is inherently off-the-record and fraudulent. The Wikipedia entry for wage theft links to https://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176677299/construction-booming-in-texas-but-many-workers-pay-dearly https://www.npr.org/2013/04/10/176677299/construction-boomin... with an example of an employer not paying $1,200 in wages until the employee went to the Texas Workforce Commission. Why should theft of $1,200 cash be a criminal act, while theft of $1,200 worth of services is not? I don't see how this isn't fraudulent. There's no right to refuse after you've already done the work. And the employee must have originally arranged the work off-the-record because you don't tell the government you had an employee you paid $0. The Wikipedia article points to other types of wage theft, like employee misclassification, which seems very much like either forging documents or illegal employment. > I'd expect someone to see jail time And if they don't, what do you expect to happen? Because wage theft is rarely punished at all, much less resulting in jail time. > legal action is expected (in the US) to be funded by the participants In civil law, yes. Not criminal law. Why is wage theft not part of criminal law (excepting a few jurisdictions), even for those cases where the employer is doing things off-the-record, fraudulently, and the employee has no right to refuse? Even within civil law, why is the civil liability to employer so low? There's less need to pool resources if wage theft had treble damages.