4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > There's no right to refuse after you've already done the work You implicitly agree to take on a debt when you don't ask for payment upfront, but either way you still should have a contract of some sort. Just because you call it theft doesn't make it so - failure to deliver on a promise (contract) doesn't retroactively become theft. > the employee must have originally arranged the work off-the-record Illegally?.. You don't get the same protection of law if you conspire to stiff the taxman. > And if they don't, what do you expect to happen? Because wage theft.. My comment wrt expectation was about fraud, not "wage theft". > even for those cases where the employer is doing things off-the-record, fraudulently, and the employee has no right to refuse? off-the-record and fraudulent activity should be punished, but I see no evidence it is being ignored. If employees are also complicit, maybe that's the reason these cases are not heard. > why is the civil liability to employer so low? presumably b/c, without fraud, there should be all the evidence/materials to prove wrong doing in the normal manner (i.e. in court). I agree, though, that those who do it blatantly should be additionally punished if it seems they are banking on poor organisation/resources of their employees.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Shrug. Okay, let's take your points as true, and agree that wage theft shouldn't be criminalized more than it already it. Why are the enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" - so underfunded as compared to the police, even when we're talking about comparable economic effects in the billions of dollars? When talking about correlations between race and being a "victim", why should we only (or primarily) consider criminal statistics? Is there a national equivalent of the National Crime Victimization Survey which covers wage theft, workplace harassment, and other illegal activities which aren't part of criminal law? I dunno. Me code.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      > enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" The taxman isn't formally concerned with wage theft, they are concerned with (tax) fraud. I'm not sure what other enforcement agencies there would be - the Department of Labour? > When talking about correlations between race and being a "victim", why should we only (or primarily) consider criminal statistics? We shouldn't, but that's a generalisation of the original question: why is wage theft not treated like a criminal offence. Also, correlations with race doesn't imply causation: If race correlates with X then anything that correlates with X will also correlate with race. Race correlates with wealth, so anything that correlates with wealth can be spuriously correlated to race. If you normalise for wealth and the racial correlation disappears (I do not know if this is the case) then you have a stronger case for a (primary) cause. > which covers wage theft, workplace harassment presumably court cases and lawsuit in non-criminal cases. and other non-legal things such as polls and complaints. But I'm not sure why you expand this to workplace harassment etc - legal resources should be better provided at the lower end, but the courts are the proper place for these civil issues, not criminalising (recategorising) everything for the sake of fixing a funding problem.

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.

Chris2048 5y ago
> There's no right to refuse after you've already done the work You implicitly agree to take on a debt when you don't ask for payment upfront, but either way you still should have a contract of some sort. Just because you call it theft doesn't make it so - failure to deliver on a promise (contract) doesn't retroactively become theft. > the employee must have originally arranged the work off-the-record Illegally?.. You don't get the same protection of law if you conspire to stiff the taxman. > And if they don't, what do you expect to happen? Because wage theft.. My comment wrt expectation was about fraud, not "wage theft". > even for those cases where the employer is doing things off-the-record, fraudulently, and the employee has no right to refuse? off-the-record and fraudulent activity should be punished, but I see no evidence it is being ignored. If employees are also complicit, maybe that's the reason these cases are not heard. > why is the civil liability to employer so low? presumably b/c, without fraud, there should be all the evidence/materials to prove wrong doing in the normal manner (i.e. in court). I agree, though, that those who do it blatantly should be additionally punished if it seems they are banking on poor organisation/resources of their employees.
- eesmith 5y ago
  Shrug. Okay, let's take your points as true, and agree that wage theft shouldn't be criminalized more than it already it. Why are the enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" - so underfunded as compared to the police, even when we're talking about comparable economic effects in the billions of dollars? When talking about correlations between race and being a "victim", why should we only (or primarily) consider criminal statistics? Is there a national equivalent of the National Crime Victimization Survey which covers wage theft, workplace harassment, and other illegal activities which aren't part of criminal law? I dunno. Me code.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > enforcement agencies responsible for preventing wage theft - including "the taxman" The taxman isn't formally concerned with wage theft, they are concerned with (tax) fraud. I'm not sure what other enforcement agencies there would be - the Department of Labour? > When talking about correlations between race and being a "victim", why should we only (or primarily) consider criminal statistics? We shouldn't, but that's a generalisation of the original question: why is wage theft not treated like a criminal offence. Also, correlations with race doesn't imply causation: If race correlates with X then anything that correlates with X will also correlate with race. Race correlates with wealth, so anything that correlates with wealth can be spuriously correlated to race. If you normalise for wealth and the racial correlation disappears (I do not know if this is the case) then you have a stronger case for a (primary) cause. > which covers wage theft, workplace harassment presumably court cases and lawsuit in non-criminal cases. and other non-legal things such as polls and complaints. But I'm not sure why you expand this to workplace harassment etc - legal resources should be better provided at the lower end, but the courts are the proper place for these civil issues, not criminalising (recategorising) everything for the sake of fixing a funding problem.