4 ms·

> the worst that happens is collections > (...) by visiting your home and stealing $20 from your wallet You are being dishonest here. Here's my version: If

by remram 3y ago

> the worst that happens is collections > (...) by visiting your home and stealing $20 from your wallet You are being dishonest here. Here's my version: If you withhold $20 from a bill payment, the worst that can happen is having to pay an extra fee, getting a utility shut off, and a permanent hit to your credit score. If you charge a customer an extra "service improvement fee" or "credit card surcharge" or a $400 "Mod Seq Other Qhp" (an actual line from a bill I have in front of me), they'll have to pay it.

crazygringo 3y ago
> You are being dishonest here. That's entirely uncalled for. My point was clear and, yes, honest. Obviously there are additional complications in both directions. Yes, if you don't pay your electric bill of course it will eventually get shut off. But if an employer stops paying their employees they eventually quit. If you're late in paying there may be a fine. Courts also fine employers punitive amounts for non-payment of wages. The situations aren't identical but my point stands that debt and stealing are different concepts and can go in both directions. And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation.
- remram 3y ago
  Your comparison added breaking and entering! > And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation Doesn't it? I'm sure employers withholding wages have some sort of itemized justification too.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Fine, they pickpocket you for $20 in the park. You're focusing on the wrong detail. My overall point is clear. You're wrong to say I'm being dishonest -- I was obviously trying to draw an equivalence. Pickpocketing is a better example, but I think my intention was clear.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - edub 3y ago
      I'm 5 days late to your disagreement, but regardless: I think the choice of word "dishonest" implies that CGs post was fraudulent in nature, and was a poor word choice unless RR has some reason to believe that CG knows the truth to be different from was you stated. Disingenuous might be closer to what RR meant if RR thought that CG knew that there is an imbalance but chose to focus on treating the situation as both parties have equal weight in the relationship. I think that the original comment that CG replied to was making an important point about the balance of power between the two parties. An employee working for an employer vs a customer of that same employer is not equivalent. You shouldn't compare a person working for an employer with the hopes that they will receive a future paycheck for the work they are doing today (a paycheck that they likely are relying on to make good on commitments that they have) with a customer that receives a service today with the promise to pay it in the future (even though the service provider is also relying on that future payment to make good on commitments that they have made). There is almost always an imbalance of power between an employee and an employer. An employee might be doing identical work that a contractor could do, but as a contractor you might expect to be paid up front in partial or full, which an employee would not be able to expect. It is more complicated with a customer and a service provider in terms of the balance of power. If you only have one option for who provides heat to your house that your children live in, then the provider has more power than the customer. If you like to drink at a bar when you have extra cash then the customer has more autonomy in that relationship than the bar. One can come up with examples where the employee has more power over the employer, but it is more rare and not what the article in question is discussing.

by remram 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

> You are being dishonest here. That's entirely uncalled for. My point was clear and, yes, honest. Obviously there are additional complications in both directions. Yes, if you don't pay your electric bill of course it will eventually get shut off. But if an employer stops paying their employees they eventually quit. If you're late in paying there may be a fine. Courts also fine employers punitive amounts for non-payment of wages. The situations aren't identical but my point stands that debt and stealing are different concepts and can go in both directions. And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation.

remram 3y ago
Your comparison added breaking and entering! > And random line items added to a bill have nothing to do with this conversation Doesn't it? I'm sure employers withholding wages have some sort of itemized justification too.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Fine, they pickpocket you for $20 in the park. You're focusing on the wrong detail. My overall point is clear. You're wrong to say I'm being dishonest -- I was obviously trying to draw an equivalence. Pickpocketing is a better example, but I think my intention was clear.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - edub 3y ago
    I'm 5 days late to your disagreement, but regardless: I think the choice of word "dishonest" implies that CGs post was fraudulent in nature, and was a poor word choice unless RR has some reason to believe that CG knows the truth to be different from was you stated. Disingenuous might be closer to what RR meant if RR thought that CG knew that there is an imbalance but chose to focus on treating the situation as both parties have equal weight in the relationship. I think that the original comment that CG replied to was making an important point about the balance of power between the two parties. An employee working for an employer vs a customer of that same employer is not equivalent. You shouldn't compare a person working for an employer with the hopes that they will receive a future paycheck for the work they are doing today (a paycheck that they likely are relying on to make good on commitments that they have) with a customer that receives a service today with the promise to pay it in the future (even though the service provider is also relying on that future payment to make good on commitments that they have made). There is almost always an imbalance of power between an employee and an employer. An employee might be doing identical work that a contractor could do, but as a contractor you might expect to be paid up front in partial or full, which an employee would not be able to expect. It is more complicated with a customer and a service provider in terms of the balance of power. If you only have one option for who provides heat to your house that your children live in, then the provider has more power than the customer. If you like to drink at a bar when you have extra cash then the customer has more autonomy in that relationship than the bar. One can come up with examples where the employee has more power over the employer, but it is more rare and not what the article in question is discussing.