4 ms·

Also interesting to note that all the major retail chains commit wage theft at least comparable to their losses to retail theft, and workers can reliably expect

Also interesting to note that all the major retail chains commit wage theft at least comparable to their losses to retail theft, and workers can reliably expect that the law won't protect them from that. You got a take on that one? What has the state abdicated there and what should their or our response be?

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
There, the state is failing in their responsibility to prevent wage theft and people should be mad about that too!
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I notice the 'violence' disappeared from this response. Vigilante justice only for the homeless, not people in nice suits? > the monopoly on “legitimate” violence held by the state comes with a very clear obligation to either use that monopoly or allow others to use violence
  - nradov 4y ago
    Protecting one's own property is not vigilante justice.
  - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
    It is unclear to me what vigilante justice against wage theft would look like, that wouldn’t be just like “shooting into a crowd”, hitting some number of bystanders who are blameless- but I encourage you to figure out what a moral form of it would look like!
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      It was your suggestion that people be allowed to use violence if the state didn't use it. Why do I need to think of moral ways for that violence to be applied?
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        The point was about recourse and prevention. It is clear how someone can plausibly use violence to actually protect themselves and their possessions when the law refuses to. It is a lot less clear what that looks like in terms of wage theft. Maybe threatening violence and demanding your back pay? Maybe stealing it? I do think there should be a burden to attempt to use the legal options if one is available.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Taking matters into your own hands in terms of wage theft might include demanding payment with the threat of violence, or forcibly taking what you are owed. I think both of these would be morally justified. The main difference between defending yourself and property and wage restitution is one is proactive to prevent the harm, and the other is retroactive. Given that the harm has already taken place in the case of wage theft, I think there is at least some duty to attempt to use the existing legal processes.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    The people who are stealing wages are easy to find after the fact and their crime leaves a paper trail. If the homeless person leaves the area with the property you’ll likely never see them again.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  California actually has more protective, robust wage protection laws and enforcement than most states.
iancmceachern 4y ago
Also major retail chains participate in "dead peasant" insurance schemes. They buy high dollar life insurance policies on their employees and cash in when they die, giving nothing to the family. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insuran... It doesn't mean they should have to endure theft, it just means they are taking advantage of their workforce.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

There, the state is failing in their responsibility to prevent wage theft and people should be mad about that too!

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I notice the 'violence' disappeared from this response. Vigilante justice only for the homeless, not people in nice suits? > the monopoly on “legitimate” violence held by the state comes with a very clear obligation to either use that monopoly or allow others to use violence
- nradov 4y ago
  Protecting one's own property is not vigilante justice.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  It is unclear to me what vigilante justice against wage theft would look like, that wouldn’t be just like “shooting into a crowd”, hitting some number of bystanders who are blameless- but I encourage you to figure out what a moral form of it would look like!
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    It was your suggestion that people be allowed to use violence if the state didn't use it. Why do I need to think of moral ways for that violence to be applied?
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      The point was about recourse and prevention. It is clear how someone can plausibly use violence to actually protect themselves and their possessions when the law refuses to. It is a lot less clear what that looks like in terms of wage theft. Maybe threatening violence and demanding your back pay? Maybe stealing it? I do think there should be a burden to attempt to use the legal options if one is available.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Taking matters into your own hands in terms of wage theft might include demanding payment with the threat of violence, or forcibly taking what you are owed. I think both of these would be morally justified. The main difference between defending yourself and property and wage restitution is one is proactive to prevent the harm, and the other is retroactive. Given that the harm has already taken place in the case of wage theft, I think there is at least some duty to attempt to use the existing legal processes.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  The people who are stealing wages are easy to find after the fact and their crime leaves a paper trail. If the homeless person leaves the area with the property you’ll likely never see them again.
iancmceachern 4y ago
California actually has more protective, robust wage protection laws and enforcement than most states.

iancmceachern 4y ago

Also major retail chains participate in "dead peasant" insurance schemes. They buy high dollar life insurance policies on their employees and cash in when they die, giving nothing to the family. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insuran... It doesn't mean they should have to endure theft, it just means they are taking advantage of their workforce.