5 ms·

Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check? It's my understanding that people get arrested for that, it's not left just to lawyers and civil contract cou

Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check? It's my understanding that people get arrested for that, it's not left just to lawyers and civil contract courts (which not everyone can afford). Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc. I'd be curious how other countries might handle this better, there's often places that have already done a good job of figuring stuff like this out. The cynic in me worries that dollars count more than votes, and that the system is not as interested in protecting employees as it is protecting employers.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check? That does not happen, not at the level of say shoplifting or something At most you can make a complaint, which will go to a prosecutor which will then decide if they want to file criminal charges, at which point the police would arrest someone. Which rarely happens for a single bad check. It is almost always CIVIL unless there is some other crime involved like identity theft, even then it would have to be wide scale You know what, that is the same process for Wage Theft. You file a complaint with the dept of labor, the dept of labor will investigate and if the problem is wide scale they will issue fines or even criminal indictment if they view it as malicious >Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc. The problem here is wage theft is not often as cut and dry as you make it out to be, most often is not an employer refusing to pay wages or writting a bad check for wages. It manifests as forcing an employee to work during their lunch or break, refusing to pay earned vacation time/PTO when someone quits, paying strait time instead of OT rates for Overtime, misidentifying an employee as exempt denying them OT, etc. These are all things that are harder to prove and in some cases can be honest mistakes.
- mikem170 4y ago
  I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft. But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local prosecutors are frustrated with what is going on? How come we allow stuff like this, pulling out the stops for shoplifters, but not wage-theives? How come people argue in favor of the one but not the other?
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted here show often gets recovered. The problem here and why you are seeing private security is because unlike with wage theft when someone reports shoplifting or other property crime it is often completely ignored, with out even a response at all from the government. You have this world view that is the exact opposite of reality, where by you believe wage theft is completely ignored by everyone but entire armies are fighting shoplifting how about instead of engaging with whataboutism, strawmans and redherrings we talk about the actual issues of criminality
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Thank you!
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - mikem170 4y ago
        I don't think that the parent understood where I was coming from when he called my position a what-about strawman. I'm sure that was in good part because I didn't do a good job of communicating what I was thinking. I attempted to fix that with additional information. Understanding what others are thinking and why is often helpful, especially in a democracy.
    - mikem170 4y ago
      I agree that wage-theft specifically is a tangent here. But I do believe there is more to talk about, this isn't something to dismiss so easily. Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards with not enough training or accountability to selectively enforce laws in public spaces as they see fit, sometimes abusing law abiding citizens, as mentioned [0] earlier in this thread? Is that ok? Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence? Even though it is easier to go after shoplifters than some other criminals, does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok? Wouldn't it be better if the store owners lobbied for more police and/or reforms (to make additional police more palatable to the public), or maybe move their businesses or close? That's what other crime victims have to do. Lots of crime victims are ignored by the government. There's nothing special about the victims of shoplifting, there are many other crimes that impact more people, as the parent poster mentioned with wage theft. Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers, armed guards for hire with 40 hours of training roaming the streets, and let everyone else fend for themselves? That might be a bad feedback loop, where those with money have their own police, and those without live more in danger. There are a number of other countries that have devolved to this. Hopefully I did a better job describing what I was thinking, above. I don't see the justification for this one set of victims to be able to hire armed guards roaming the streets and harassing law abiding citizens, opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves. I trust abuses such as described in the original parent comment's linked article are the exception, but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things. I game for feedback or your thoughts on the above, if you have any. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prosecutors-downtown-portland-wary-role-of-private-security/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...

phpisthebest 4y ago

>>Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check? That does not happen, not at the level of say shoplifting or something At most you can make a complaint, which will go to a prosecutor which will then decide if they want to file criminal charges, at which point the police would arrest someone. Which rarely happens for a single bad check. It is almost always CIVIL unless there is some other crime involved like identity theft, even then it would have to be wide scale You know what, that is the same process for Wage Theft. You file a complaint with the dept of labor, the dept of labor will investigate and if the problem is wide scale they will issue fines or even criminal indictment if they view it as malicious >Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc. The problem here is wage theft is not often as cut and dry as you make it out to be, most often is not an employer refusing to pay wages or writting a bad check for wages. It manifests as forcing an employee to work during their lunch or break, refusing to pay earned vacation time/PTO when someone quits, paying strait time instead of OT rates for Overtime, misidentifying an employee as exempt denying them OT, etc. These are all things that are harder to prove and in some cases can be honest mistakes.

mikem170 4y ago
I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft. But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local prosecutors are frustrated with what is going on? How come we allow stuff like this, pulling out the stops for shoplifters, but not wage-theives? How come people argue in favor of the one but not the other?
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted here show often gets recovered. The problem here and why you are seeing private security is because unlike with wage theft when someone reports shoplifting or other property crime it is often completely ignored, with out even a response at all from the government. You have this world view that is the exact opposite of reality, where by you believe wage theft is completely ignored by everyone but entire armies are fighting shoplifting how about instead of engaging with whataboutism, strawmans and redherrings we talk about the actual issues of criminality
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Thank you!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikem170 4y ago
      I don't think that the parent understood where I was coming from when he called my position a what-about strawman. I'm sure that was in good part because I didn't do a good job of communicating what I was thinking. I attempted to fix that with additional information. Understanding what others are thinking and why is often helpful, especially in a democracy.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    I agree that wage-theft specifically is a tangent here. But I do believe there is more to talk about, this isn't something to dismiss so easily. Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards with not enough training or accountability to selectively enforce laws in public spaces as they see fit, sometimes abusing law abiding citizens, as mentioned [0] earlier in this thread? Is that ok? Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence? Even though it is easier to go after shoplifters than some other criminals, does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok? Wouldn't it be better if the store owners lobbied for more police and/or reforms (to make additional police more palatable to the public), or maybe move their businesses or close? That's what other crime victims have to do. Lots of crime victims are ignored by the government. There's nothing special about the victims of shoplifting, there are many other crimes that impact more people, as the parent poster mentioned with wage theft. Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers, armed guards for hire with 40 hours of training roaming the streets, and let everyone else fend for themselves? That might be a bad feedback loop, where those with money have their own police, and those without live more in danger. There are a number of other countries that have devolved to this. Hopefully I did a better job describing what I was thinking, above. I don't see the justification for this one set of victims to be able to hire armed guards roaming the streets and harassing law abiding citizens, opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves. I trust abuses such as described in the original parent comment's linked article are the exception, but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things. I game for feedback or your thoughts on the above, if you have any. [0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prosecutors-downtown-portland-wary-role-of-private-security/ https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...