4 ms·
A "bad" worker who you are happy to see go is still entitled to all of his pay. In the article, the business owners keep suggesting that it was bad performance
by hapless 3y ago
A "bad" worker who you are happy to see go is still entitled to all of his pay.
In the article, the business owners keep suggesting that it was bad performance, or a bad attitude, or something like that, that justifies this behavior. But, factually, both as a matter of law and custom, nothing justifies this.
If a fellow works for you on an agreed rate, you are obliged to pay him. If you are not, ultimately, happy with an employee, that doesn't mean you get to keep his last paycheck.
- Dylan16807 3y ago> If a fellow works for you on an agreed rate, you are obliged to pay him. If you are not, ultimately, happy with an employee, that doesn't mean you get to keep his last paycheck. That still suggests a circumstance (the fellow not in fact working) where you could withhold the paycheck, but I don't think such a withholding is generally possible.
- hapless 3y ago1. that fact is not disputed in the article 2. hours worked, and "working," have legal meaning, which, again, is not disputed by either party in america, if you contract with a fellow to work, and you find the work unsuitable, you can discharge him quite easily. but you still owe him his wages!
- josephcsible 3y agoIf "employer", "employee", and "wages" were replaced with "tenant", "landlord", and "rent", respectively, would the same still hold? If not, why not?
- Sanzig 3y agoI'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Non-payment of rent is a straightforward sure-fire cause for eviction practically everywhere. Even jurisdictions that allow a tenant to withhold rent to cover things like emergency repairs usually require a ruling from the housing tribunal to do so.
- josephcsible 3y agoIf you broke your lease and made your final payment in oily pennies, would that ever be okay?
- hapless 3y agoNo, of course not. You are tilting at windmills. No one has suggested non-payment followed by spiteful "payment" would be suitable for a dispute with a landlord. You have invented a villain who does not exist.
- GauntletWizard 3y agoWould you support using the full power of the law to recover lost rent? Significant, state-imposed fines for rent that was withheld but owed, even after eviction?
- hapless 3y agoThat is an important political question that has relatively little to do with intentional, spiteful "payment" There are a number of reasons rents paid to landlords are treated somewhat differently from wages paid to workers! Those are deeply political and important, and not super relevant here In the narrowly relevant question: No one would ever accept a spite-filled "rent" paid to a landlord in the form of oil-covered pennies, provided only as a means of spiting the creditor