Wage theft

[Lumpenproletariat]

...Just because govt. passes laws requiring employers to pay workers more than they're worth and the employer finds ways to circumvent these laws does not constitute "theft" by that employer.

Wouldn't this argument cut both ways?

...I'm not paid as much as I deserve, so I will take what's rightfully mine - some printer cartridges, a bit of office stationery, a little bit of cash from the till.

No it's not the same.

When the employer circumvents a bad law which interferes with business (wage/compensation terms), it's agreed to by the employee, who is free to quit if he doesn't like the terms. (Just because the terms are less than ideal doesn't change the fact that he's agreeing to it as his best option, or best deal he can get.) There's nothing secret or fraudulent about it. Both employer and employee know what the terms are, and either is free to reject it. It is a voluntary contract with each side being honest with the other, and each side agreeing to it.

But if an employee secretly steals from the employer because he demands more, that's not a voluntary contract between the employer and employee. Rather, the employee is violating the terms which they both agreed to.

(Unless you mean the employer really knows of this "theft" by the worker and chooses to ignore it because he needs that worker.)

 

[DBT]

...Just because govt. passes laws requiring employers to pay workers more than they're worth and the employer finds ways to circumvent these laws does not constitute "theft" by that employer.

Wouldn't this argument cut both ways?

...I'm not paid as much as I deserve, so I will take what's rightfully mine - some printer cartridges, a bit of office stationery, a little bit of cash from the till.

No it's not the same.

When the employer circumvents a bad law which interferes with business (wage/compensation terms), it's agreed to by the employee, who is free to quit if he doesn't like the terms. (Just because the terms are less than ideal doesn't change the fact that he's agreeing to it as his best option, or best deal he can get.) There's nothing secret or fraudulent about it. Both employer and employee know what the terms are, and either is free to reject it. It is a voluntary contract with each side being honest with the other, and each side agreeing to it.

But if an employee secretly steals from the employer because he demands more, that's not a voluntary contract between the employer and employee. Rather, the employee is violating the terms which they both agreed to.

(Unless you mean the employer really knows of this "theft" by the worker and chooses to ignore it because he needs that worker.)

An employee may be free to quit in principle but not in practice. Financial obligations, mortgage, personal loans, raising a family, a shortage of openings their the field of work, etc, may make it very difficult or even impossible to quit.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

...Just because govt. passes laws requiring employers to pay workers more than they're worth and the employer finds ways to circumvent these laws does not constitute "theft" by that employer.

Wouldn't this argument cut both ways?

...I'm not paid as much as I deserve, so I will take what's rightfully mine - some printer cartridges, a bit of office stationery, a little bit of cash from the till.

No it's not the same.

When the employer circumvents a bad law which interferes with business (wage/compensation terms), it's agreed to by the employee, who is free to quit if he doesn't like the terms. (Just because the terms are less than ideal doesn't change the fact that he's agreeing to it as his best option, or best deal he can get.) There's nothing secret or fraudulent about it. Both employer and employee know what the terms are, and either is free to reject it. It is a voluntary contract with each side being honest with the other, and each side agreeing to it.

But if an employee secretly steals from the employer because he demands more, that's not a voluntary contract between the employer and employee. Rather, the employee is violating the terms which they both agreed to.

(Unless you mean the employer really knows of this "theft" by the worker and chooses to ignore it because he needs that worker.)

An employee may be free to quit in principle but not in practice. Financial obligations, mortgage, personal loans, . . .

But the employer is not the cause of any of those problems.

You're free to quit, as long as the employer is not threatening you with some kind of punishment. If he offers you $1/day wage take-it-or-leave-it, that does not restrict your freedom at all, because you're no worse off than if that employer had not existed.

If you're in dire straits because of something the employer had nothing to do with, and he offers you $1/day take-it-or-leave-it, you are totally free to accept or refuse it, no matter how down-and-out you are. The poor are better off if employers are allowed to offer them $1/day take-it-or-leave-it. If they refuse it, they're no worse off than if the employer had not existed.

But if the employer puts a gun to your head, it curtails your freedom. Only if force is used, threatening to make you worse off, is your freedom curtailed. Whereas if he just leaves you the same as you were before, then his $1/day offer did you no harm.

. . . mortgage, personal loans, raising a family, a shortage of openings their the field of work, etc, may make it very difficult or even impossible to quit.

By that logic, no one is ever "free" to do anything, because all our choices are dictated by such difficulties in the world, imposed by nature, by reality. If that makes it not "free," then it's the same as saying we're never "free" to make any choices, and the word "free" should not even exist.

It's better to leave the employers and workers free to make the choices, each acting in their individual interest. All interference from outside can only make it worse, never better.

 

[DBT]

No it's not the same.

When the employer circumvents a bad law which interferes with business (wage/compensation terms), it's agreed to by the employee, who is free to quit if he doesn't like the terms. (Just because the terms are less than ideal doesn't change the fact that he's agreeing to it as his best option, or best deal he can get.) There's nothing secret or fraudulent about it. Both employer and employee know what the terms are, and either is free to reject it. It is a voluntary contract with each side being honest with the other, and each side agreeing to it.

But if an employee secretly steals from the employer because he demands more, that's not a voluntary contract between the employer and employee. Rather, the employee is violating the terms which they both agreed to.

(Unless you mean the employer really knows of this "theft" by the worker and chooses to ignore it because he needs that worker.)

An employee may be free to quit in principle but not in practice. Financial obligations, mortgage, personal loans, . . .

But the employer is not the cause of any of those problems.

You're free to quit, as long as the employer is not threatening you with some kind of punishment. If he offers you $1/day wage take-it-or-leave-it, that does not restrict your freedom at all, because you're no worse off than if that employer had not existed.

If you're in dire straits because of something the employer had nothing to do with, and he offers you $1/day take-it-or-leave-it, you are totally free to accept or refuse it, no matter how down-and-out you are. The poor are better off if employers are allowed to offer them $1/day take-it-or-leave-it. If they refuse it, they're no worse off than if the employer had not existed.

But if the employer puts a gun to your head, it curtails your freedom. Only if force is used, threatening to make you worse off, is your freedom curtailed. Whereas if he just leaves you the same as you were before, then his $1/day offer did you no harm.

. . . mortgage, personal loans, raising a family, a shortage of openings their the field of work, etc, may make it very difficult or even impossible to quit.

By that logic, no one is ever "free" to do anything, because all our choices are dictated by such difficulties in the world, imposed by nature, by reality. If that makes it not "free," then it's the same as saying we're never "free" to make any choices, and the word "free" should not even exist.

It's better to leave the employers and workers free to make the choices, each acting in their individual interest. All interference from outside can only make it worse, never better.

I didn't say it was the employers fault or that nobody is 'ever free to do anything,' just that things are not always as simple or straightforward as you say. Glibly stating that employees are 'free to quit' doesn't represent the situation of many workers.

 

[ZiprHead]

But the employer is not the cause of any of those problems.

You're free to quit, as long as the employer is not threatening you with some kind of punishment. If he offers you $1/day wage take-it-or-leave-it, that does not restrict your freedom at all, because you're no worse off than if that employer had not existed.

If you're in dire straits because of something the employer had nothing to do with, and he offers you $1/day take-it-or-leave-it, you are totally free to accept or refuse it, no matter how down-and-out you are. The poor are better off if employers are allowed to offer them $1/day take-it-or-leave-it. If they refuse it, they're no worse off than if the employer had not existed.

But if the employer puts a gun to your head, it curtails your freedom. Only if force is used, threatening to make you worse off, is your freedom curtailed. Whereas if he just leaves you the same as you were before, then his $1/day offer did you no harm.

. . . mortgage, personal loans, raising a family, a shortage of openings their the field of work, etc, may make it very difficult or even impossible to quit.

By that logic, no one is ever "free" to do anything, because all our choices are dictated by such difficulties in the world, imposed by nature, by reality. If that makes it not "free," then it's the same as saying we're never "free" to make any choices, and the word "free" should not even exist.

It's better to leave the employers and workers free to make the choices, each acting in their individual interest. All interference from outside can only make it worse, never better.

I didn't say it was the employers fault or that nobody is 'ever free to do anything,' just that things are not always as simple or straightforward as you say. Glibly stating that employees are 'free to quit' doesn't represent the situation of many workers.

Yeah, Lumpen has never been big on reality that doesn't fit his pre-concieved notions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But the employer is not the cause of any of those problems.

You're free to quit, as long as the employer is not threatening you with some kind of punishment. If he offers you $1/day wage take-it-or-leave-it, that does not restrict your freedom at all, because you're no worse off than if that employer had not existed.

If you're in dire straits because of something the employer had nothing to do with, and he offers you $1/day take-it-or-leave-it, you are totally free to accept or refuse it, no matter how down-and-out you are. The poor are better off if employers are allowed to offer them $1/day take-it-or-leave-it. If they refuse it, they're no worse off than if the employer had not existed.

But if the employer puts a gun to your head, it curtails your freedom. Only if force is used, threatening to make you worse off, is your freedom curtailed. Whereas if he just leaves you the same as you were before, then his $1/day offer did you no harm.

. . . mortgage, personal loans, raising a family, a shortage of openings their the field of work, etc, may make it very difficult or even impossible to quit.

By that logic, no one is ever "free" to do anything, because all our choices are dictated by such difficulties in the world, imposed by nature, by reality. If that makes it not "free," then it's the same as saying we're never "free" to make any choices, and the word "free" should not even exist.

It's better to leave the employers and workers free to make the choices, each acting in their individual interest. All interference from outside can only make it worse, never better.

I didn't say it was the employers fault or that . . .

So then what you're saying has nothing to do with our topic title "wage theft," which insinuates that the employers are guilty of something if they pay less than a certain amount someone wants them to pay.

. . . or that nobody is 'ever free to do anything,' just that things are not always as simple or straightforward as you say.

You said more than that: you said simplistically and straightforwardly "An employee may be free to quit in principle but not in practice" which is false. S/he is free to quit in practice, and sometimes chooses to quit, or sometimes chooses not to quit because it's difficult, but it's still a free choice. Just because a choice is difficult does not mean it isn't free in practice.

Glibly stating that employees are 'free to quit' doesn't represent the situation of many workers.

Glibly stating that they are not in practice free to quit misrepresents all of them.

Which ones' situation does "free to quit" not represent? Only those who would be shot by the employer if they try to quit, or whose employer created their difficult situation, and who would be better off if the employer (having caused all their problems) had never existed.

Just because it's a tough choice for them to make does not mean it isn't a free choice in practice, or that the employer is guilty, as the Marxist title of our topic glibly brands them as guilty.

 

[DBT]

I didn't say it was the employers fault or that . . .

So then what you're saying has nothing to do with our topic title "wage theft," which insinuates that the employers are guilty of something if they pay less than a certain amount someone wants them to pay.

No, I am not laying blame on this business or that business for what is an inherent imbalance of power between employer and employee,ie, little or no negotiation. Where a contract or set of conditions may be presented on a take it or leave it basis. Unless the applicant has skills that are in demand and difficult to find, which is a different matter.

You said more than that: you said simplistically and straightforwardly "An employee may be free to quit in principle but not in practice" which is false. S/he is free to quit in practice, and sometimes chooses to quit, or sometimes chooses not to quit because it's difficult, but it's still a free choice. Just because a choice is difficult does not mean it isn't free in practice.

You misunderstand what I said. It is the financial circumstances of an employee that may make it very difficult for them to quit in spite of having the ability in principle to quit. There may be a shortage of positions, what is available may be no better than what they currently have, etc. It is not as simple easy as you make out.

Glibly stating that they are not in practice free to quit misrepresents all of them.

You ignore circumstances that don't allow a worker to quit. A shortage of jobs in their field, financial commitments, better paid positions not available, etc.

Which ones' situation does "free to quit" not represent? Only those who would be shot by the employer if they try to quit, or whose employer created their difficult situation, and who would be better off if the employer (having caused all their problems) had never existed.

Again, 'free to quit' is not the same as being 'able to quit' due to extenuating circumstances

Just because it's a tough choice for them to make does not mean it isn't a free choice in practice, or that the employer is guilty, as the Marxist title of our topic glibly brands them as guilty.

There may be very little actual choice, they are in principle free to quit but if they have nothing better to go to, there is nothing to gain by quitting. In which case, why choose to quit...is just because you can? How many workers would do that?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If you're free to quit, then you're not being "forced" to work, and it's a free choice.

No, I am not laying blame on this business or that business for what is an inherent imbalance of power between employer and employee, i.e., little or no negotiation. Where a contract or set of conditions may be presented on a take it or leave it basis. Unless the applicant has skills that are in demand and difficult to find, which is a different matter.

OK, so we agree. The employer is doing nothing wrong, no matter how low is the wage, and the decision by the worker to accept a low-wage job is a free choice.

You misunderstand what I said. It is the financial circumstances of an employee that may make it very difficult for them to quit in spite of having the ability in principle to quit.

Despite whether it's difficult, it's still a free choice by the worker, to quit or to stay in the job, or take the new job at a very low wage. It's always a free choice, no matter how difficult the circumstances were, as long as the reason for the choice is not in response to a threat of violence from the employer.

There may be a shortage of positions, what is available may be no better than what they currently have, etc. It is not as simple easy as you make out.

Regardless whether it's simple, the choice is a free choice as long as the employer is not threatening the employee, so that the choice is not in response to that threat.

You ignore circumstances that don't allow a worker to quit.

Whatever those circumstances are, it is still a free choice, as long as no one is intimidating the worker to make that choice with a threat of harm unless he makes the choice being dictated by that one threatening the harm.

A shortage of jobs in their field, financial commitments, better paid positions not available, etc.

Regardless of all those, it's still a free choice, as long as no one is intimidating the worker to make the choice by threatening harm if he does not make the "right" choice.

Only those who would be shot by the employer if they try to quit, or whose employer created their difficult situation, and who would be better off if the employer (having caused all their problems) had never existed.

Again, 'free to quit' is not the same as being 'able to quit' due to extenuating circumstances.

Regardless of any extenuating circumstances, the decision by the worker to take a low-wage job is ALWAYS a free choice, as long as no one is threatening harm to him if he refuses to do it.

My original point is still correct: "You're not 'being forced to' work if you're free to quit." And you're free to quit if no one (e.g., the employer) is threatening you with harm if you decide to quit and walk away from it.

Just because it's a tough choice for them to make does not mean it isn't a free choice in practice, or that the employer is guilty, as the Marxist title of our topic glibly brands them as guilty.

There may be very little actual choice, they are in principle free to quit but if they . . .

No matter how little actual choice there is, the offer to them of $1 per day subtracts zero from their range of choices. The employer is imposing nothing on them whatever, and is adding no restriction whatever onto them, by offering them a low-wage job, even if it's only 1 cents per day, or per week. The worker is just as free to reject that, or accept it, as he is free to take the same job at $100 per hour. It doesn't matter how unattractive the job offer is -- it still adds no extra restraint, or reduced freedom to the worker, to offer him that low-wage job. So the choice to take it is a totally free choice, and the employer is guilty of nothing whatever by making the offer, no matter how low the wage offer is. Because to offer nothing at all is still leaving the worker just as free and unthreatened. No freedom is denied to the worker by offering him nothing.

Whatever is denied to that worker was already the case, regardless what offer the employer makes, or if he makes no offer at all.

. . . they are in principle free to quit but if they have nothing better to go to, there is nothing to gain by quitting. In which case, why choose to quit...is just because you can? How many workers would do that?

Just because a particular choice seems to be the best one to take, with the alternative being unthinkable, does not mean it isn't a free choice, as long as the one offering it is not the one depriving the worker of other choices.

Saying there are virtually no other choices available to the worker still doesn't change the fact that he is free to accept or reject the low-wage job offer. Just because this offer is the least bad of many bad alternatives does not make this choice any less free. It is a totally free choice, unless someone is threatening him with harm to him if he makes the "wrong" choice.

 

[DBT]

OK, so we agree. The employer is doing nothing wrong, no matter how low is the wage, and the decision by the worker to accept a low-wage job is a free choice.

No we don't agree on that at all. I said that there is a imbalance of power which effects the ability of an employee or applicant to negotiate better pay and conditions. This is often accepted as a normal employer, employee or applicant relationship and that nobody is doing anything wrong, yet the system is weighed heavily in favour of the employer. Which makes it extremely difficult for employees to improve their pay and conditions without forming a union and taking some form of collective action.

Whatever those circumstances are, it is still a free choice, as long as no one is intimidating the worker to make that choice with a threat of harm unless he makes the choice being dictated by that one threatening the harm.

Free choice? How is it a 'free choice' if you can quit but the job down the road is offering nothing better? What exactly is the free choice here? You confuse 'freedom' with 'ability - you are able to choose but the options are poor - someone holds a gun to your head and asks you to hand over your wallet....are you are 'free to choose' or is a choice being forced upon you?

Regardless of all those, it's still a free choice, as long as no one is intimidating the worker to make the choice by threatening harm if he does not make the "right" choice.

No it's not. A choice between between one job and another job with exactly the same pay and conditions is not much of an option. An improvement in pay and conditions offers a genuine alternative. Why change for no benefit, but who would not consider something that offers better pay and conditions?

My original point is still correct: "You're not 'being forced to' work if you're free to quit." And you're free to quit if no one (e.g., the employer) is threatening you with harm if you decide to quit and walk away from it.

Your original point is still false because it completely disregards need. The need for an income, the need to support oneself and/or one's family, to meet obligations, expenses, etc.

 

[SLD]

Who signs a non-compete which binds you after involuntary separation of employment (termination)?

People who need a job. BTW: non compete aren't enforceable in most states.

Right and right. But the Company usually has legal on retainer so no skin off their teeth to threaten, cajole and otherwise coerce.
After selling startup #2, the acquiring Company took issue with the pre-existing name of the parent Company we had had in place since prior to the inception of the entity that they purchased, as it contained a character subset that was common to both the brand they purchased and the parent Company we retained. Our lawyers basically told us "you will certainly win if you go to court over this, and it will cost between 100 and 200 thousand, which the court may or may not order your purchaser to pay". We changed the name of our parent Company.

Non competes are in fact often enforced. It depends on the type of job (sales in particular) and other factors. They can’t be of unlimited time and geographic scope. Nevertheless the company is happy to try and force enforcement of even illegal ones as you say. They can screw you out of a lot.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

If you're free to say no to the job offer, you're free and not a slave -- even if you take the job and it pays only $1/day.

OK, so we agree. The employer is doing nothing wrong, no matter how low is the wage, and the decision by the worker to accept a low-wage job is a free choice.

No we don't agree on that at all. I said that there is an imbalance of power which effects the ability of an employee or applicant to negotiate better pay and conditions.

But "imbalance of power" is the norm between any two parties in a transaction. Whichever has more $$$ has more power than the other. That doesn't mean that the one who has more is doing anything wrong, or that the one who has less can't make a free choice. Whenever I buy something at WalMart, there is an imbalance between that seller (WalMart) and me, but just because WalMart has more wealth than I have, and has more power, doesn't change the fact that I'm making a free choice. And it's not automatically wrong for one side in the transaction to have more power than the other.

So, the employer is doing nothing wrong, i.e., is not guilty of anything just from holding more power, and the employee is making a free choice, even though s/he has less.

This is often accepted as a normal employer, employee or applicant relationship and that nobody is doing anything wrong, yet the system is weighed heavily in favour of the employer.

Doesn't matter. The employer is not wrong just because s/he has more. Just as it's not wrong that WalMart has more than I have and sells me something. That inequality of power or wealth does not contaminate the transaction and make it wrong.

Which makes it extremely difficult for employees to improve their pay and conditions without forming a union and taking some form of collective action.

Hey, something is DIFFICULT in life -- Whoever heard of such a thing! something is difficult for someone. So therefore anyone you do business with is doing wrong to you because you have some difficulty in life? You're not "free" to make choices because something in life is difficult? You're a slave to everyone you transact with because you have some difficulty in life?

Or, you must not ever do any business with anyone who has more than you have, because that's a wrong to you and makes you a slave to them? How do you survive, not being able to do any business without first taking steps to ensure that the one you're dealing with has no more than you have? You can't ever shop, except after first making sure the store owner is equally poor as you?

Whatever those circumstances are, it is still a free choice, as long as no one is intimidating the worker to make that choice with a threat of harm unless he makes the choice being dictated by that one threatening the harm.

Free choice? How is it a 'free choice' if you can quit but the job down the road is offering nothing better?

How is it NOT a free choice? It's your decision which job is the better deal for you. No one else decides it for you. That makes it a free choice -- that you decide it for yourself and no one else imposes their decision upon you against your will.

As opposed to a slave-owner who takes away that choice and imposes the decision onto you, disregarding your preference.

What exactly is the free choice here?

That you make the decision instead of someone else deciding for you such as the slave-owners did to the slaves.

You confuse 'freedom' with 'ability - you are able to choose but the options are poor - someone holds a gun to your head and asks you to hand over your wallet....are you are 'free to choose' or is a choice being forced upon you?

It's being forced upon you because the one doing this is making you worse off than you would be if he did not exist. Unlike the employer who holds no gun to your head and makes you no worse off by offering you that $1-per-day job which you can refuse -- and when you refuse it you're no worse off than you were when no offer was made. So, by offering you this choice the employer made you no worse off and you're free to go on with your life as you would have anyway, unlike the thug holding the gun to your head and demanding your wallet. He's making you worse off by the choice he "offers" to you.

Regardless of all those, it's still a free choice, as long as no one is intimidating the worker to make the choice by threatening harm if he does not make the "right" choice.

No it's not. A choice between between one job and another job with exactly the same pay and conditions is not much of an option.

But it's your choice what is the better option, or not better. You're free to make the decision, with that job offer not doing you any harm or making you worse off. Just because both offers are equally (un)attractive doesn't change the fact that it's your decision and you're not made worse off by either of those jobs being offered to you, as long as you're free to refuse them if that's your choice. "Free" means you have the choice, not that the choices are necessarily better. It's up to you to decide what's better or not better, and whether you'll do either of those jobs. It's you who decides if you'll do it, not someone else deciding for you.

An improvement in pay and conditions offers a genuine alternative.

Of course, we all want an "improvement" in our pay. I want an additional million $$$ beyond what I have. Just because you don't have every "improvement" you want doesn't mean you're not free to make your choices. No matter what we have, we can always imagine having still more.

Why change for no benefit, but who would not consider something that offers better pay and conditions?

As long as it's your choice, you're "free" and not a slave, regardless what bad offers are made to you. If you're free to turn it down, that's a free choice. What's NOT "free" is for the job to be imposed upon you without allowing you to make the choice.

My original point is still correct: "You're not 'being forced to' work if you're free to quit." And you're free to quit if no one (e.g., the employer) is threatening you with harm if you decide to quit and walk away from it.

Your original point is still false because it completely disregards need.

We're all disregarding "need" every day, every moment. Right now there's a starving child in Haiti which you're disregarding. Just because someone somewhere has a need which you ignore doesn't mean you're doing anything wrong to them or that they are not free.

The employer has no obligation to take care of every job applicant who shows up and demands to be taken care of. Each one -- worker and employer -- is free to "disregard" the need or wishes of the other. Each one decides if the transaction is in his/her interest and is not violating the other's rights by saying "no" to the deal.

The need for an income, the need to support oneself and/or one's family, to meet obligations, expenses, etc.

That starving child (or its parent) in Haiti has need for an income and support to meet obligations and expenses. Why are you disregarding their need?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Right and right. But the Company usually has legal on retainer so no skin off their teeth to threaten, cajole and otherwise coerce.
After selling startup #2, the acquiring Company took issue with the pre-existing name of the parent Company we had had in place since prior to the inception of the entity that they purchased, as it contained a character subset that was common to both the brand they purchased and the parent Company we retained. Our lawyers basically told us "you will certainly win if you go to court over this, and it will cost between 100 and 200 thousand, which the court may or may not order your purchaser to pay". We changed the name of our parent Company.

Non competes are in fact often enforced. It depends on the type of job (sales in particular) and other factors. They can’t be of unlimited time and geographic scope. Nevertheless the company is happy to try and force enforcement of even illegal ones as you say. They can screw you out of a lot.

It really depends on the state. In Oregon and Washington, they are very hard to enforce against non C level employees who leave companies.

 

[DBT]

But "imbalance of power" is the norm between any two parties in a transaction.

Not necessarily. If a business needs people with skills that are high demand the balance of negotiating power swings in favour of workers who have that skill. Plus if workers are unionized and are able to negotiate collectively, that tends balance the power dynamic. That is the point.

Whichever has more $$$ has more power than the other. That doesn't mean that the one who has more is doing anything wrong, or that the one who has less can't make a free choice. Whenever I buy something at WalMart, there is an imbalance between that seller (WalMart) and me, but just because WalMart has more wealth than I have, and has more power, doesn't change the fact that I'm making a free choice. And it's not automatically wrong for one side in the transaction to have more power than the other, So, the employer is doing nothing wrong, i.e., is not guilty of anything just from holding more power, and the employee is making a free choice, even though s/he has less.

Why are you fixated on someone ''doing something wrong?'' The issue is systemic. Without collective bargaining the power lies heavily in favour of the employer, individual workers can simply be told, this is what we are paying, take it or leave it.

Which a business, being largely profit driven, keep running costs to a minimum, etc, may naturally seek to take advantage of. To say they are ''doing nothing wrong'' doesn't address the issue of industrial relations, minimizing exploitation and ensuring fair pay and conditions for all workers. Especially those in a vulnerable position.


The Vulnerable Workforce

Abstract: This article discusses one of the major challenges of US workplace policy: protecting roughly 35m workers who are vulnerable to a variety of major risks in the workplace. After laying out the dimensions of this problem, I show that the vulnerable workforce is concentrated in a subset of sectors with distinctive industry characteristics. Examining how employer organizations relate to one another in these sectors provides insight into some of the causes as well as possible solutions for redressing workforce vulnerability in the US as well as other countries facing similar problems

The capacity of our society to mangle people who lack the power to stand up for their own rights is virtually limitless. (Senator Walter Mondale [US Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 1970: 5112])

Vulnerability can be defined in a variety of ways. In terms of employment security, it refers to the precarious nature of the employment rela-tionship and increased risk of losing one’s job. In terms of earnings, it means receiving wages that are close to (or sometimes below) the statutory minimum and subject to de facto reductions via being asked to work ‘off the clock’, with-out being paid overtime as required by the law or, in extreme cases, simply not being paid for work performed (Greenhouse, 2008; Shulman, 2003).Workforce)''

There are your examples of not only exploitation, not only 'doing something wrong' but outright wage theft.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Pandering to one high-profile group of workers only drives up the costs to everyone else -- whom you ignore.

But "imbalance of power" is the norm between any two parties in a transaction.

Not necessarily. If a business needs people with skills that are high demand the balance of negotiating power swings in favour of workers who have that skill.

So in a few cases the balance is equal. But when it's not, it doesn't matter. It's totally irrelevant that there is this power, or that anyone is equal or unequal to anyone else.

The norm is that those with more of this "power" will do better in negotiating, which is fine. There is nothing wrong with the fact that those with higher skill have more power, and that those with less skill have less power. It is the norm that those who have more economic power will do better. Shouldn't someone with more skill (more power) earn more than someone with less skill? Or shouldn't someone offering a higher price get more in return? What's wrong with the "imbalance of power" favoring those who have more?

Plus if workers are unionized and are able to negotiate collectively, that tends balance the power dynamic. That is the point.

There is no need to "balance" anything. Everyone wants more power than they have. That's no reason to say they're automatically entitled to it. If they have less to offer in the negotiating, that's their problem. There's no need for society to correct a supposed power imbalance between parties to a transaction.

Whichever has more $$$ has more power than the other. That doesn't mean that the one who has more is doing anything wrong, or that the one who has less can't make a free choice. Whenever I buy something at WalMart, there is an imbalance between that seller (WalMart) and me, but just because WalMart has more wealth than I have, and has more power, doesn't change the fact that I'm making a free choice. And it's not automatically wrong for one side in the transaction to have more power than the other, So, the employer is doing nothing wrong, i.e., is not guilty of anything just from holding more power, and the employee is making a free choice, even though s/he has less.

Why are you fixated on someone ''doing something wrong?'' The issue is systemic. Without collective bargaining the power lies heavily in favour of the employer, individual workers can simply be told, this is what we are paying, take it or leave it.

So what? There's nothing wrong with it, so why are you bringing it up? There's no need to change that if there's nothing wrong with it. So everything is fine about this and let's move on to something that needs changing.

When I reject a product at WalMart, I'm saying to them: this is what I'll pay -- take it or leave it. Same thing with an employer or any other buyer of something. So what? Take it or leave it. That's America, that's the market. Each party to the transaction says what his/her terms are, and the other one can take it or leave it. And you agree there's nothing wrong with it, so why are making a fuss over it?

Which a business, being largely profit driven, keep running costs to a minimum, etc, may naturally seek to take advantage of.

Fine, they take advantage of low cost. Like they should. Good capitalist or consumer -- get the best deal, the lowest price. So then what's the problem?

To say they are ''doing nothing wrong'' doesn't address the issue of industrial relations, minimizing exploitation and . . .

What issue? There is nothing wrong with relating industrially or taking advantage of a good deal. There's no reason to minimize anything as long as everyone is making a free choice to work or not to work, or to buy or not to buy, or to sell or not to sell. If you don't like the deal or the terms, you're free to walk away from it. That's all that matters.

. . . and ensuring fair pay and conditions for all workers.

We can't ensure your subjective feelings about what is "fair" for everyone. If the guy is free to refuse that job, or quit, what else is not "fair"? Why won't you let someone who is desperate offer his labor at a low price in order that he can have a job rather than starve? If he can't find a job at "fair" pay, because that price is higher than any employer thinks he's worth, what's wrong with letting him take something lower so he won't starve? Why do you insist that he be prohibited from having any job at all if he's unable to find one at the "fair pay and conditions" that you want to impose onto everyone whether it's in their interest or not?

Especially those in a vulnerable position.

Everyone is in a "vulnerable" position. This is touch-feely language, not about facts. By your delusion, no one is "free" to make any choice, because all our choices are dictated by the "vulnerable" position we're in.

The Vulnerable Workforce

Abstract: This article discusses one of the major challenges of US workplace policy: protecting roughly 35m workers who are vulnerable to a variety of major risks in the workplace. After laying out the dimensions of this problem, I show that the vulnerable workforce is concentrated in a subset of sectors with distinctive industry characteristics. Examining how employer organizations relate to one another in these sectors provides insight into some of the causes as well as possible solutions for redressing workforce vulnerability in the US as well as other countries facing similar problems

The capacity of our society to mangle people who lack the power to stand up for their own rights is virtually limitless. (Senator Walter Mondale [US Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, 1970: 5112])

So what if there are professional propaganda demagogue speech-makers who blabber back at you the babble-nonsense jargon you want to hear? What's the point? This blabber doesn't prove anything. Nor does a magazine article putting out the same blabber. It's all subjective touchy-feely slogans from your Left-wing propaganda preachers pandering to crybabies and telling them what they want to hear.

Vulnerability can be defined in a variety of ways. In terms of employment security, it refers to the precarious nature of the employment relationship and increased risk of losing one’s job.

Or one's business. EVERYONE is "vulnerable" of losing whatever they have, or their security. And what about the person who has no job at all? Why do you want to impose higher prices on him by driving up the labor cost so that everything is made more expensive? When you pander to these crybabies whining about their job, you're only hurting others somewhere else who will have to pay the cost for it. Your pandering to them ends up inflicting more damage onto people generally.

In terms of earnings, it means receiving wages that are close to (or sometimes below) the statutory minimum and subject to de . . .

They're free to quit. So what's the problem? There are plenty of other people who have no job at all, and yet by pandering to these crybabies who demand higher wage, you're stomping your foot down on poor consumers who will have to pay higher prices because of it.

. . . subject to de facto reductions via being asked to work ‘off the clock’, with-out being paid overtime as required by the law or, in extreme cases, . . .

Then let them resign. The employer, and anyone else, is entitled to circumvent bad laws, and we all do it whenever we can. There are hundreds of ways to do it. Many workers and businesses could not exist if they had to obey every law imposed onto us, forcing us to make bad choices and be less productive and less efficient. If all those laws/regulations were strictly enforced, there would be massive layoffs and huge cuts in production and reduced standard of living overall.

. . . in extreme cases, simply not being paid for work performed (Greenhouse, 2008; Shulman, 2003).Workforce)''

You probably did not read that document and have no idea what it's about. Or if you do, then explain what work they were not paid for. You're probably distorting what it says. If it's true someone was denied the agreed wage for work done, there is legal recourse in courts to sue that company. This is a phony example. It's probably about being paid for something the worker and employer agreed would not be paid because it's part of a phony law imposing a requirement like overtime, which could easily be circumvented and would impose excessive cost onto the production and necessitate layoffs in order to comply with it.

There are many stupid labor laws which both employers and workers agree to ignore because of the damage it would do to the business and the workers who would have to be laid off.

There are your examples of not only exploitation, not only 'doing something wrong' but outright wage theft.

You've given no example of anything. Nothing to show how workers are not free to quit if they don't like the wages or conditions. You cannot show how an employer limits the freedom of a worker by offering him a low-wage job. Even if it's only $ .01 per day -- that worker is free to quit. Or that job applicant is free to turn it down. You have no example showing otherwise. All you have are blow-hard slogans from demagogues pandering to crybabies.

 

[DBT]

So in a few cases the balance is equal. But when it's not, it doesn't matter. It's totally irrelevant that there is this power, or that anyone is equal or unequal to anyone else.

The norm is that those with more of this "power" will do better in negotiating, which is fine. There is nothing wrong with the fact that those with higher skill have more power, and that those with less skill have less power. It is the norm that those who have more economic power will do better. Shouldn't someone with more skill (more power) earn more than someone with less skill? Or shouldn't someone offering a higher price get more in return? What's wrong with the "imbalance of power" favoring those who have more?

Walls of text again.

I'll just point out again that you are twisting what I say to suit your own position. The point was that the balance of power is typically in favour of the employer unless they have need for skills that are difficult to obtain, at which point they are compelled to offer rates of pay that may attract someone with the needed skills. This does not represent all workers, certainly not those in the lower socioeconomic sector, so what you say does not relate to that sector, what I say or the article on worker exploitation that I quoted....which you ignore, distort or dismiss whenever the occasion suits you.

Once more;

Sectoral Concentration of Workplace Vulnerability

''How pervasive is workforce vulnerability? Given the many different dimen-sions that may be used to describe vulnerable workers, it is difficult to provide a single measure regarding the extent of vulnerable employment in the USA. One reasonable proxy is defining vulnerability in terms of low-wage work. Low-wage work is usually measured either in terms of earned income relative to what is required by a family to purchase basic needs, or by ranking jobs in the labor market based on the overall wage distribution. Using a definition related to the poverty level, Boushey et al. (2007) estimate that there were about 35m low-wage jobs in 2006. If one uses a definition based on the broader income distribution, where low-wage work is defined as earning two-thirds of the male median wage, the number climbs to 44m jobs.Although either definition of low-wage work is somewhat arbitrary, both of the earlier estimates represent a large percentage of total US employment. But the estimates mask the fact that vulnerable workers are concentrated in certain segments of the labor market. One way to reveal this is comparing the distri-bution of low-wage jobs against the overall distribution of employment across sectors. Using a definition based on the relation of earnings to the federal pov-erty level, Osterman (2008) finds that retail, food services and drinking places, and health care together account for more than 40 percent of all low-wage workers. ''

There is no need to "balance" anything. Everyone wants more power than they have. That's no reason to say they're automatically entitled to it. If they have less to offer in the negotiating, that's their problem. There's no need for society to correct a supposed power imbalance between parties to a transaction.

That everyone may want more power, money and status does not negate the problem that currently exists, a concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population, who have little or no incentive to change things.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Bottom line: worker is FREE to quit, and it's not "WAGE THEFT"

So in a few cases the balance is equal. But when it's not, it doesn't matter. It's totally irrelevant that there is this power, or that anyone is equal or unequal to anyone else.

The norm is that those with more of this "power" will do better in negotiating, which is fine. There is nothing wrong with the fact that those with higher skill have more power, and that those with less skill have less power. It is the norm that those who have more economic power will do better. Shouldn't someone with more skill (more power) earn more than someone with less skill? Or shouldn't someone offering a higher price get more in return? What's wrong with the "imbalance of power" favoring those who have more?

Walls of text again.

I'll just point out again that you are twisting what I say to suit your own position. The point was that the balance of power is typically in favour of the employer unless they have need for skills that are difficult to obtain, at which point they are compelled to offer rates of pay that may attract someone with the needed skills. This does not represent all workers, certainly not those in the lower socioeconomic sector, so what you say does not relate to that sector, what I say or the article on worker exploitation that I quoted....which you ignore, distort or dismiss whenever the occasion suits you.

Once more;

Sectoral Concentration of Workplace Vulnerability

''How pervasive is workforce vulnerability? Given the many different dimen-sions that may be used to describe vulnerable workers, it is difficult to provide a single measure regarding the extent of vulnerable employment in the USA. One reasonable proxy is defining vulnerability in terms of low-wage work. Low-wage work is usually measured either in terms of earned income relative to what is required by a family to purchase basic needs, or by ranking jobs in the labor market based on the overall wage distribution. Using a definition related to the poverty level, Boushey et al. (2007) estimate that there were about 35m low-wage jobs in 2006. If one uses a definition based on the broader income distribution, where low-wage work is defined as earning two-thirds of the male median wage, the number climbs to 44m jobs.Although either definition of low-wage work is somewhat arbitrary, both of the earlier estimates represent a large percentage of total US employment. But the estimates mask the fact that vulnerable workers are concentrated in certain segments of the labor market. One way to reveal this is comparing the distri-bution of low-wage jobs against the overall distribution of employment across sectors. Using a definition based on the relation of earnings to the federal pov-erty level, Osterman (2008) finds that retail, food services and drinking places, and health care together account for more than 40 percent of all low-wage workers. ''

There is no need to "balance" anything. Everyone wants more power than they have. That's no reason to say they're automatically entitled to it. If they have less to offer in the negotiating, that's their problem. There's no need for society to correct a supposed power imbalance between parties to a transaction.

That everyone may want more power, money and status does not negate the problem that currently exists, a concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population, who have little or no incentive to change things.

Your "Walls of text" are no longer addressing what my "Walls of text" said at the beginning:

You're not "being forced to" work if you're free to quit.


The decision to take the $1/day job is a free choice by the desperate job-seeker, so he's not being FORCED to work. Also, it's not "Wage Theft" just because the employer pays less than the worker or the government wants him to pay.

This is what my "Walls of Text" are about, and nothing in your "Walls of Text" is now addressing that.

 

[DBT]

Your "free to quit" is, and has always been a strawman. It has been pointed out enough times that if job vacancies are in short supply, a worker is not "free to quit," that a worker with commitments cannot just quit, that given no better prospects, quitting gets the worker who quits nowhere. A worker is not necessarily 'free to quit."

 

[Lion IRC]

Obviously someone who is the victim of wage theft can fix the problem by quitting.
But by Lumpy's reasoning, the worker (in turn) can continuously steal from their employer and if the employer doesn't like it, no problems. They also can walk away from the deal anytime they like.
YAY.
Free enterprise.

 

[Gun Nut]

.

So many of the wage theft examples in the Ipetrich Op happen because of employee ignorance.

This is true about many (most?) crimes. Ignorance of a Security flaw eventually results in exploitation of that flaw.

It was the security guards ignorance that allowed the bank robbers to steal.
It was the fraud victim's ignorance of the confidence game that allowed the fraudsters to steal.

Are you suggesting that everyone is responsible for policing the environment around them at all times and in all situations? When is not knowing something a reason a law stops applying to you? This sounds like a defund the police argument... People need to police their own interactions instead of the police, right?

 

[Lion IRC]

If you're in a disadvantaged position and your employer has all or most of the negotiating strength, the best protection you have against wage theft is to study your legal rights and pay attention to whether or not they are being infringed.

So many of the wage theft examples in the Ipetrich Op happen because of employee ignorance.

This is true...

Yep. It sure is.
And it's problematic because people who dont know they are being robbed or that what is happening to them is illegal, tend not to contact the police.