4 ms·

> Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies If Bob signs a contract for Alice to paint a fence for $800 and a copy-paste error transfers h

> Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies If Bob signs a contract for Alice to paint a fence for $800 and a copy-paste error transfers her $1000 instead, yes. But if the copy-paste error happened before the contract was signed? Leading to Bob promising Alice $1000 and signing a contract promising it? Then in all probability, Bob will end up paying the contract amount.

ajross 4y ago
Compensation for at-will employees does not constitute a contract. That's what "at-will" means, basically. In the breakdown of good faith interaction, the remedy (for both sides) is largely limited to the ability to walk away. But yes: if these were contractors Amazon had hired it would be very different.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  This is nonsense, possibly triggered by a misunderstanding of what the word "contract" denotes. An at-will employee and their employer contract that for each hour of work (or each ~week salaried) performed by employee on instructions from employer, employer will pay to employee $X. Just because such a contract doesn't contain any term indicating the length of time an employee will work doesn't make it less of a contract. As further evidence, if at-will employment were not a contractual agreement there'd be no recourse for the employee to recover unpaid wages. And yet unpaid wages are recoverable.
  - ajross 4y ago
    That's getting needless sticky about definitions, and harming understanding of the point, potentially leading people to think that these Amazon workers are going to get their raises, which they clearly won't. Let me be more concrete: am employer presenting you with a plan for future compensation[1] in an existing employment relationship does not constitute a contract. They can pay you what they want to pay you. [1] Your back wages argument doesn't apply here. These people never got paid at all.
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      None of which has anything to do with at-will employment. Since you do appear to have a good understanding of the situation, this leads me to the only possible conclusion that you were deliberately spreading disinformation about at will employment for some purpose.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    Yeah … employer handbooks are considered contracts. Every raise I’ve ever received has been accompanied by a “contract” hr puts in my folder.
    - ajross 4y ago
      So frustrating to see this interpretation repeated here. No, that's not correct, because it if were correct these Amazon folks would have an open and shut case to keep their raises, and they don't. That's not the way compensation works. It might be the way one side or the other wants it to work in some situation, but it's not. You get paid what your employer offers. Your employer gets to keep the employees that want to stay. Period. Work done for contract is a real thing, it's just not applicable here. When you hire a plumber or a caterer or a security consultancy, you write up a contract ahead of time describing exactly the work to be done and the bill to be paid, and then get the courts to enforce that when needed. That is simply not the way that salaried employment works in the USA. It's not.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        You’re wrong. “Work for contract” is irrelevant to there being contracts used for salaried jobs. There was a contract involved, but it sounds like it was covering the period starting in October - so Amazon just has to cancel it and say “actually this is how much we will be paying you” and employees have the same option to reject the new contract terms as they do the existing contract: quitting before the new terms become active.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        You’re wrong and spreading confusion. Every job I’ve had has had a contract, and it’s usually “we pay what we want, we terminate you when we want, and you quit when you want.”
        ajross 4y ago
        No, no, no. That's not a "contract", it's just a document. Go google "seven elements of a contract" (the basic definition in common law) and note that at-will employment simply lacks several (the big one being "certainty"). In particular a "contract" that says "you can do whatever" is clearly not a contract under common law. Now, sure, it's true that some elements of an employment agreement may constitute contracts and may have been enforced by courts. Back wages are a big one, obviously. Likewise promised benefits being denied, etc... But at-will compensation and termination just don't qualify. They don't. The Amazon workers can't sue for their mistake raises under contract law becuase those raises don't constitute contracts. Period.
tomatocracy 4y ago
This area of law is usually a bit more nuanced than "what you wrote is the contract". If both parties thought the contract said $800 when it was signed (and if that could be proven...) then that might well be enough for a court to either read the contract as if it said $800, or to void it entirely.
- benj111 4y ago
  If both parties thought it said $800, why are they going to court about it? A contract is an agreement between parties. Parties are free to agree to changes to the contract.
  - Closi 4y ago
    I think they are an example, the problem here is (I believe): * Both parties (AMZ & Employer) signed up to a bonus % in the contract * There was a document that stated % was equivalent to $ which was miscalculated * Employer agreed to pay whatever the % in the contract was, employee believed they were getting the $ in the estimate.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  > If both parties thought the contract said This has zero to do with the actual matter at hand, given that the people getting the raises 100% believed they were getting raises.
jklinger410 4y ago
To save all the bickering here, the final answer is that the corporation always wins. No matter what the mistake. Let the lawyers get together and do a retroactive class-action lawsuit to solve it. But Amazon will do whatever it wants until that suit comes through.
wperron 4y ago
Actually the most apt comparison here is if Bob sends over a contract for $1000, but then goes "oh no I'm sorry, I really meant $800" There are not takebacks here. Actually, I know there legally could be, as these situations aren't always black and white, however the company, being such a position of power compared to the employee, loses all goodwill in this situation. If I were in this situation, I would already be sending out feelers.

ajross 4y ago

Compensation for at-will employees does not constitute a contract. That's what "at-will" means, basically. In the breakdown of good faith interaction, the remedy (for both sides) is largely limited to the ability to walk away. But yes: if these were contractors Amazon had hired it would be very different.

puffoflogic 4y ago
This is nonsense, possibly triggered by a misunderstanding of what the word "contract" denotes. An at-will employee and their employer contract that for each hour of work (or each ~week salaried) performed by employee on instructions from employer, employer will pay to employee $X. Just because such a contract doesn't contain any term indicating the length of time an employee will work doesn't make it less of a contract. As further evidence, if at-will employment were not a contractual agreement there'd be no recourse for the employee to recover unpaid wages. And yet unpaid wages are recoverable.
- ajross 4y ago
  That's getting needless sticky about definitions, and harming understanding of the point, potentially leading people to think that these Amazon workers are going to get their raises, which they clearly won't. Let me be more concrete: am employer presenting you with a plan for future compensation[1] in an existing employment relationship does not constitute a contract. They can pay you what they want to pay you. [1] Your back wages argument doesn't apply here. These people never got paid at all.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    None of which has anything to do with at-will employment. Since you do appear to have a good understanding of the situation, this leads me to the only possible conclusion that you were deliberately spreading disinformation about at will employment for some purpose.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Yeah … employer handbooks are considered contracts. Every raise I’ve ever received has been accompanied by a “contract” hr puts in my folder.
  - ajross 4y ago
    So frustrating to see this interpretation repeated here. No, that's not correct, because it if were correct these Amazon folks would have an open and shut case to keep their raises, and they don't. That's not the way compensation works. It might be the way one side or the other wants it to work in some situation, but it's not. You get paid what your employer offers. Your employer gets to keep the employees that want to stay. Period. Work done for contract is a real thing, it's just not applicable here. When you hire a plumber or a caterer or a security consultancy, you write up a contract ahead of time describing exactly the work to be done and the bill to be paid, and then get the courts to enforce that when needed. That is simply not the way that salaried employment works in the USA. It's not.
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      You’re wrong. “Work for contract” is irrelevant to there being contracts used for salaried jobs. There was a contract involved, but it sounds like it was covering the period starting in October - so Amazon just has to cancel it and say “actually this is how much we will be paying you” and employees have the same option to reject the new contract terms as they do the existing contract: quitting before the new terms become active.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      You’re wrong and spreading confusion. Every job I’ve had has had a contract, and it’s usually “we pay what we want, we terminate you when we want, and you quit when you want.”
      - ajross 4y ago
        No, no, no. That's not a "contract", it's just a document. Go google "seven elements of a contract" (the basic definition in common law) and note that at-will employment simply lacks several (the big one being "certainty"). In particular a "contract" that says "you can do whatever" is clearly not a contract under common law. Now, sure, it's true that some elements of an employment agreement may constitute contracts and may have been enforced by courts. Back wages are a big one, obviously. Likewise promised benefits being denied, etc... But at-will compensation and termination just don't qualify. They don't. The Amazon workers can't sue for their mistake raises under contract law becuase those raises don't constitute contracts. Period.

tomatocracy 4y ago

This area of law is usually a bit more nuanced than "what you wrote is the contract". If both parties thought the contract said $800 when it was signed (and if that could be proven...) then that might well be enough for a court to either read the contract as if it said $800, or to void it entirely.

benj111 4y ago
If both parties thought it said $800, why are they going to court about it? A contract is an agreement between parties. Parties are free to agree to changes to the contract.
- Closi 4y ago
  I think they are an example, the problem here is (I believe): * Both parties (AMZ & Employer) signed up to a bonus % in the contract * There was a document that stated % was equivalent to $ which was miscalculated * Employer agreed to pay whatever the % in the contract was, employee believed they were getting the $ in the estimate.
TomSwirly 4y ago
> If both parties thought the contract said This has zero to do with the actual matter at hand, given that the people getting the raises 100% believed they were getting raises.

jklinger410 4y ago

To save all the bickering here, the final answer is that the corporation always wins. No matter what the mistake. Let the lawyers get together and do a retroactive class-action lawsuit to solve it. But Amazon will do whatever it wants until that suit comes through.

wperron 4y ago

Actually the most apt comparison here is if Bob sends over a contract for $1000, but then goes "oh no I'm sorry, I really meant $800" There are not takebacks here. Actually, I know there legally could be, as these situations aren't always black and white, however the company, being such a position of power compared to the employee, loses all goodwill in this situation. If I were in this situation, I would already be sending out feelers.