Wage theft

[Gun Nut]

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.

You bolded the wrong part of your post. I referred by way of quotation the part about employees being ignorant, NOT the part you bolded about it being THEIR responsibility to not be ignorant of their rights in order to have those rights.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"FREE CHOICE" includes KNOWING what the terms are and agreeing to them by choosing to continue . . .

. . . continue doing the transaction even if you don't like the terms.


You make the choice, KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE CHOOSING

= a "Free Choice"
​

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.

No, there's a difference -- employee steals company property -- if this theft is done secretly.

It's "no problems" ONLY as long as the employee tells the employer s/he is stealing the stuff, or if it says in the contract that the employee can walk off with anything he can lay hands on.

So unless it says so in the contract, it's not the same thing as the employer "withholding" wages which he never agreed to pay. If he pays only 1 penny per day, and the worker agrees to that, then it's not "theft," because it's agreed to by both parties. But the employer did not agree to the worker taking away company property, so it's not in the contract and really is "theft" or taking something fraudulently.

They also can walk away from the deal anytime they like.

Only if they know the theft is happening. Like the employee knows the "theft" (by the employer) is happening but chooses to continue working anyway. When you KNOW what's happening, then it's a free choice, but if one party is sneaking and taking from the other secretly, then it's not a free choice by the one being stolen from.

 

[DBT]

If a worker has commitments and jobs are hard to get, his options are poor. This is not a matter of 'freedom to quit.' He may hate his job but his commitments prevent him from quitting. To be compelled to stay is not a state of freedom.

 

[ZiprHead]

. . . continue doing the transaction even if you don't like the terms.


You make the choice, KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE CHOOSING

= a "Free Choice"
​

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.

No, there's a difference -- employee steals company property -- if this theft is done secretly.

It's "no problems" ONLY as long as the employee tells the employer s/he is stealing the stuff, or if it says in the contract that the employee can walk off with anything he can lay hands on.

So unless it says so in the contract, it's not the same thing as the employer "withholding" wages which he never agreed to pay. If he pays only 1 penny per day, and the worker agrees to that, then it's not "theft," because it's agreed to by both parties. But the employer did not agree to the worker taking away company property, so it's not in the contract and really is "theft" or taking something fraudulently.

They also can walk away from the deal anytime they like.

Only if they know the theft is happening. Like the employee knows the "theft" (by the employer) is happening but chooses to continue working anyway. When you KNOW what's happening, then it's a free choice, but if one party is sneaking and taking from the other secretly, then it's not a free choice by the one being stolen from.

Wow, just wow!

In your very first post, you said this:

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.

So apparently rule breaking by employers is just fine but rule breaking by employees is bad.

 

[Bronzeage]

...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.

Most people will refrain from taking cash from the drawer. That's too well defined a line. What a worker does when they fill undervalued is simply slow down. The employer thinks they are paying for an hours labor, but it's taking an hour and twenty minutes to get it. There are an uncountable number of ways a worker can increase the friction in any process.

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

You bolded the wrong part of your post.

Nope. I bolded the correct part.

I referred by way of quotation the part about employees being ignorant, NOT the part you bolded about it being THEIR responsibility to not be ignorant of their rights in order to have those rights.

Many employees are ignorant. Whats controversial about that statement?
Look at the word "responsibility". It's a conjunction of two words - response and ability.
If workers are being robbed and they dont respond there must be a reason why they dont. Inability (ignorance)

 

[Lion IRC]

. . . No, there's a difference -- employee steals company property -- if this theft is done secretly.

The employee thinks that their withheld wages, their unpaid wages, their underpaid wages are their property
If the employee doesn't know they are being robbed of their lawful entitlement - that theft is done secretly.
This is #goose/gander #pot/kettle stuff.

Don't make me reach for my bible Lumpy

Now, if you are talking about an employer who lawfully pays their worker the very lowest wage allowable, I would certainly agree that's not wage theft - that's the economics of supply and demand. Workers cant sell their labor if there's no one willing to buy it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

. . . continue doing the transaction even if you don't like the terms.


You make the choice, KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE CHOOSING

= a "Free Choice"
​

No, there's a difference -- employee steals company property -- if this theft is done secretly.

It's "no problems" ONLY as long as the employee tells the employer s/he is stealing the stuff, or if it says in the contract that the employee can walk off with anything he can lay hands on.

So unless it says so in the contract, it's not the same thing as the employer "withholding" wages which he never agreed to pay. If he pays only 1 penny per day, and the worker agrees to that, then it's not "theft," because it's agreed to by both parties. But the employer did not agree to the worker taking away company property, so it's not in the contract and really is "theft" or taking something fraudulently.




Only if they know the theft is happening. Like the employee knows the "theft" (by the employer) is happening but chooses to continue working anyway. When you KNOW what's happening, then it's a free choice, but if one party is sneaking and taking from the other secretly, then it's not a free choice by the one being stolen from.

Wow, just wow!

In your very first post, you said this:

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.

So apparently rule breaking by employers is just fine but rule breaking by employees is bad.

No, "circumvent" mostly means legally. The laws inherently leave open many ways to be circumvented, and the fact is that many laws have to be circumvented, especially business regulations, in order for society to function.

There are many laws which, if really enforced, would greatly damage society. I can name many. Zoning laws, e.g. Many of them are NOT enforced intentionally, because it would be stupid and harmful to everyone.

So the circumvention by employers is partly legal, even allowed in the law, but also tacitly legal, or DE FACTO legal because there's no serious intention to enforce certain laws in most cases. Rather, those laws are enforced selectively in certain cases.

There is nothing wrong with that kind of "RULE"-breaking. There's lots of it, and everyone experiences examples of it at one time or another. There has to be that kind of rule-breaking for the good of society. And the employees know it and understand it. Many would rather keep their job than have the rules enforced which would cause the business to shut down.

But secretly stealing from someone who thinks you're not doing it is always harmful to society.

The "Do not steal" rule is not a silly government regulation interfering with legitimate commerce.

And there are necessary regulations. But not the ones which dictate prices to anyone -- to buyer or seller -- employer or employee. Those rules are needed only by uncompetitive crybabies and do more damage than benefit to society.

 

[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.

Most people will refrain from taking cash from the drawer. That's too well defined a line. What a worker does when they feel undervalued is simply slow down. The employer thinks they are paying for an hours labor, but it's taking an hour and twenty minutes to get it.

That's probably a legitimate way for the employee to fight back. But the employer knows about it and can choose to replace the worker. It's OK as long as the employer has the freedom to decide that someone else should replace this worker. But he doesn't decide that because there's no one else who would be any better. So it's a legitimate free choice on both sides.

There are an uncountable number of ways a worker can increase the friction in any process.

Its fine, but both sides must have the freedom to say no to the other. And if the law protects that worker against being fired, then this violates free choice and is bad for society. No one should deprive either of their right to make the choice -- the choice to quit the job or stay, and the choice either to retain or fire the worker.

What hurts the economy is whenever the state interferes with that individual free choice. Or ANYONE interferes other than just the individual buyer & seller (employer & worker).

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Pandering to a select class of victims makes us all worse off.

If a worker has commitments and jobs are hard to get, his options are poor. This is not a matter of 'freedom to quit.' He may hate his job but his commitments prevent him from quitting. To be compelled to stay is not a state of freedom.

That's the crybaby argument. ALL decisions are COMPELLED by the circumstances. By that meaning of "free choice" there is no such thing as a free choice.

There's no decision about working and buying and selling which is not dictated by circumstances in order for the decision-maker to get the best result, according to whatever the circumstances dictate.

So it's just life which dictates our choices to us. It's not the employer or the buyer or seller or anyone else who's denying any free choice to someone, but just the facts of life.

But by your crybaby argument, we are never free to make any choices, so we can go on whining and whining forever that life is unfair.

Just because life can be tough doesn't mean you're not free to quit. It's never an excuse for imposing something onto someone else, like driving up the price of labor, simply because some people find that life is tough.

Driving up the cost of labor, no matter what the excuse -- like pandering to some uncompetitive crybabies -- only makes everyone else worse off. The rest of society has to pay that arbitrarily-high cost. The only system best for everyone is one where the prices for everything are set by supply-and-demand in a competitive marketplace. Not by a whining select class of crybabies demanding special favor at everyone else's expense.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Laws dictating wage levels are often impractical and should not be enforced, and often are not.

. . . No, there's a difference -- employee steals company property -- if this theft is done secretly.

The employee thinks that their withheld wages, their unpaid wages, their underpaid wages are their property

But those WITHHELD wages, or UNPAID wages, and UNDERPAID wages, are only the part which the employer AGREED to pay but did not pay. Only the part which the employer contracted with the worker to pay to the worker are the part which the worker is entitled to as his property.

Anything else, which was not agreed to, is not the property or entitlement of the worker, and as long as it's understood what was to be paid, regardless of any dumb law saying otherwise, it's only the understood agreement between the buyer & seller which determines what each side is entitled to.

The only ambiguity in this is if there is no clear agreement between them about it, and especially if either side is dishonest in telling the other what the terms are. But the only dispute between workers and employers is that the worker is angry about being paid those "slave wages" which he agreed to out of desperation to get the job. He's not being deceived, but agreed to the low wage as his best choice.

Of course the employer is guilty of fraud if he's dishonest about what is to be paid. But that's not the complaint by workers. Their complaint is that it's just not fair that the employer could replace him with someone else. It's the "unfair" power the employer has, not any dishonesty. They both agree on the terms, and the worker hates the employer for not being more generous. It's not about the employer lying or being fraudulent.

If the employee doesn't know they are being robbed of their lawful entitlement - that theft is done secretly.

What the employee doesn't know is something the law says. He's not being robbed, so that isn't what he doesn't know -- he just doesn't know there's a law pretending to dictate what the right wage is.

They're not being robbed just because there's a law saying they should be paid more than their market value. Laws protecting a slave-owner's entitlement to own a slave doesn't mean those slaves were robbing the owner if they caused the owner to think the law was changed and now he has to pay them, or has to let them go free. No, if the wrong-doer is ignorant of a law which sanctions his wrong-doing, that doesn't mean he's being robbed if the victims of his crime benefit from his ignorance of the bad law.

The one who is ignorant is not automatically entitled to something. If he's ignorant that he's really being robbed, then he's being cheated because he's really being robbed, not because he's ignorant. But just being ignorant of a bad law which you could benefit from does not mean you're being robbed by someone who benefits from your ignorance of that law.

This is #goose/gander #pot/kettle stuff.

No, what's sauce for the one who is robbing by violating a legitimate contract/agreement is not sauce for the one sneaking around stealing someone else's property.

Or, the one who benefits from another's ignorance but otherwise is doing nothing wrong is not guilty, whereas someone who benefits from another's ignorance and is doing something wrong is guilty.

That a law is passed making something illegal doesn't make that something wrong. Freeing a slave was illegal, but it wasn't wrong. If the law you violate is bad law, then it's not wrong to violate it, though you're still wrong if you violate it THINKING it's wrong and it's not wrong. And the bad law might still be enforced and the violator punished, like freeing a slave was illegal and was punished. But it's not wrong just because there's a law making it illegal. There are millions of examples of this.

Doing what's practical is always right -- meaning sometimes the law has to be enforced because it's practical, but also sometimes not because it's impractical to enforce it, as in the case of many regulations, including bad labor laws pretending to dictate the right wage to pay.

And there are many bad laws today (or partly bad) which are not enforced in some cases because it would be more harm than good. That's tacitly agreed to in our society. And in almost every society.

A good example was the underground economy in Soviet Russia, also in Cuba. That black market was tolerated because everyone knew that it was bad for society to enforce the laws against those businesses.

So you have to give something more than just the claim that there's a law saying something is wrong. That alone doesn't make it wrong.

And it's never wrong for an employer to pay a low wage if the worker agrees to the deal and knows how much the wage is. If you can prove there's fraud somewhere, then you might claim the employer is guilty of some kind of "theft," but it can't just be that there's a dumb law, like a law allowing slavery, and that someone is being deprived of his entitlement to a slave because he doesn't know of that law.

No, there has to be something more than just the would-be victim's ignorance of a bad law which he might benefit from if only he knew of it.

Don't make me reach for my bible Lumpy

"It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Lumpy to be wrong." I don't know the chapter and verse off hand, but it's in there somewhere.

Now, if you are talking about an employer who lawfully pays their worker the very lowest wage allowable, . . .

"allowable" like slave labor was allowable in the South, and so it was "theft" for those slaves to escape, or for someone to help them escape. No, what's "allowable" in the law does not determine what is theft or what is a crime. Rather, (good) law is determined by what we already know is theft and crime, and then the laws are mostly enforced, as it's practical. But when the laws are flawed, it's not crime or theft to violate them as practical reality requires.

Of course sometimes that bad law is enforced anyway, and someone can be convicted of a "crime" or of "theft" even though they're not really guilty. But when that bad law is NOT enforced, from practical reality, that is accepted in our society and is not theft or crime, despite the bad law.

. . . very lowest wage allowable, I would certainly agree that's not wage theft - that's the economics of supply and demand. Workers can't sell their labor if there's no one willing to buy it.

But also it is the norm, in some cases, for the actual wage to be lower than what is "allowable," and this is accepted out of practical necessity, because society would be worse off if the law was enforced, and everyone knows that.

There's not agreement on when it's practical and when it's not. But you can't just claim that because a law is being broken, there is therefore a "crime" like "theft" taking place. Unless you mean that the slave-owner was being robbed when his slave escaped.

 

[Lion IRC]

.....But those WITHHELD wages, or UNPAID wages, and UNDERPAID wages, are only the part which the employer AGREED to pay but did not pay. Only the part which the employer contracted with the worker to pay to the worker are the part which the worker is entitled to as his property.

Anything else, which was not agreed to, is not the property or entitlement of the worker...

I agree with but this is much different to....what they dont know wont hurt them argument.
Ignorance of your entitlements is not consent to have them withheld.

.....regardless of any dumb law saying otherwise,

WHOA...slow down there pal. The law is the law.
Employers cant rob their workers (or vice versa) just because they think the law is dumb.

.....But the only dispute between workers and employers is that the worker is angry about being paid those "slave wages" which he agreed to out of desperation to get the job. He's not being deceived, but agreed to the low wage as his best choice.

We're not arguing about the fairness of the economic laws which (very efficiently) determine how high or low your wage might be...or whether you're unemployed, or whether your business goes bankrupt because you arent selling enough to pay your wages bill.

.....Of course the employer is guilty of fraud if he's dishonest about what is to be paid. But that's not the complaint by workers. Their complaint is that it's just not fair that the employer could replace him with someone else. It's the "unfair" power the employer has, not any dishonesty. They both agree on the terms, and the worker hates the employer for not being more generous.

I thought this thread was about the illegality of literal wage theft, not the philosophy of 'unfairness'.

...That a law is passed making something illegal doesn't make that something wrong.
...And there are many bad laws today
...But it's not wrong just because there's a law making it illegal
...you have to give something more than just the claim that there's a law saying something is wrong.

You have just given a green light to aggrieved workers to ignore whatever laws they dont like.

.....A good example was the underground economy in Soviet Russia

Fun fact about the USSR. Every worker was told they had "the right" to have a job.
What that really meant in Marxist newspeak dialectic was "nobody has the right not to work"

.....Don't make me reach for my bible Lumpy

"It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Lumpy to be wrong." I don't know the chapter and verse off hand, but it's in there somewhere

LOL. Thats same the verse I use.

 

[DBT]

If a worker has commitments and jobs are hard to get, his options are poor. This is not a matter of 'freedom to quit.' He may hate his job but his commitments prevent him from quitting. To be compelled to stay is not a state of freedom.

That's the crybaby argument. ALL decisions are COMPELLED by the circumstances. By that meaning of "free choice" there is no such thing as a free choice.

There's no decision about working and buying and selling which is not dictated by circumstances in order for the decision-maker to get the best result, according to whatever the circumstances dictate.

So it's just life which dictates our choices to us. It's not the employer or the buyer or seller or anyone else who's denying any free choice to someone, but just the facts of life.

But by your crybaby argument, we are never free to make any choices, so we can go on whining and whining forever that life is unfair.

Just because life can be tough doesn't mean you're not free to quit. It's never an excuse for imposing something onto someone else, like driving up the price of labor, simply because some people find that life is tough.

Driving up the cost of labor, no matter what the excuse -- like pandering to some uncompetitive crybabies -- only makes everyone else worse off. The rest of society has to pay that arbitrarily-high cost. The only system best for everyone is one where the prices for everything are set by supply-and-demand in a competitive marketplace. Not by a whining select class of crybabies demanding special favor at everyone else's expense.

There is a big difference between having the option to quit, to go to better job with higher pay, and not having a suitable job to go to, yet being unhappy in your current workplace and unable to quit because of financial reasons.

This is not a matter of compulsion, but option. Decision making requires viable options. If the option is not available, the worker is not free to quit.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Sometimes it's OK to disobey a bad law. It depends.

If the law is bad enough, and there's a practical way to circumvent it -- go for it!

Ignorance of your entitlements is not consent to have them withheld.

But the only entitlement is whatever the worker and employer agreed to in their contract. Whatever the employer agreed to pay is what the worker is entitled to. Nothing more.

If the state passes a law saying the employer owes more, this has no more legitimacy than passing a law making someone the slave of someone else. Some such laws are passed and enforced, but if the employer can find a way to circumvent it, there's nothing wrong with it. And there are many examples of bad laws being circumvented, in one way or another, and society just accepts it, knowing that many bad laws should not be enforced because they're impractical.

But you're right that some such laws are enforced, and people generally don't understand the damage done by it. The laws can be pretty bad in some cases, and are still enforced. But luckily they can be defeated in many cases. Like the oppressive laws in Soviet Russia against the private landowners/businesses who were able to sell their product anyway, as the government often looked the other way. There are probably examples of this in every country, with little enough damage to be shrugged off as just another evil we have to put up with. But when those laws can be circumvented, it's a win-win for society in general.

.....regardless of any dumb law saying otherwise, . . .

WHOA...slow down there pal. The law is the law.

No, there are good laws and bad laws. Slavery was the law, but it was sometimes circumvented. It's OK to circumvent bad laws if you can. They can be circumvented both legally and illegally. Either is OK if there's a practical way to do it. You're right that in some cases they are enforced and nothing can be done about it. Like slavery was enforced. But it's always OK to circumvent it if possible. In some cases it's even the norm to circumvent bad laws.

Employers can't rob their workers (or vice versa) just because they think the law is dumb.

By that logic, the slave-owners were being robbed when their slave escaped.

It's not robbery if the terms between the worker and employer are being upheld by both sides. If the worker is being paid what was agreed to by them, and he continues working according to those terms, then it's not robbery if the employer disregards the law saying he has to pay more. Of course he might get caught and punished, etc. It might be more prudent to pay it, to avoid getting caught. Just as it was prudent for slaves to remain on the plantation rather than running away and risk getting caught and being punished.

But it's not wrong to circumvent a bad law if you can get away with it.

I thought this thread was about the illegality of literal wage theft, not the philosophy of 'unfairness'.

OK, but there is no "wage theft" if you only mean something the state adds to the contract between the employer and worker. As long as the employer pays what is agreed to between worker and employer, then there is no "wage theft" even if the state passes a law requiring the employer to pay more and he does not pay it. Unless, again, you think it was "theft" to take the slave-owner's slave away to freedom. Just because a bad law exists making someone a criminal who did nothing wrong does not make that person a criminal.

It's true you can call it "theft" just as it was "theft" to deprive the slave-owner of his slave. But only in the sense that there was bad law making something illegal which was not wrong or criminal.

...That a law is passed making something illegal doesn't make that something wrong.
...And there are many bad laws today
...But it's not wrong just because there's a law making it illegal
...you have to give something more than just the claim that there's a law saying something is wrong.

You have just given a green light to aggrieved workers to ignore whatever laws they don't like.

If "laws they don't like" means laws they know are wrong -- yes, if there's a way to circumvent them it might be appropriate. But you have to name what laws you have in mind. Most laws are probably necessary, even if imperfect, and it's wrong to disobey them if there's minimum damage done by them, or especially if they cause more benefit than whatever harm they do.

You'd have to name what particular law you mean. Obviously in many cases a particular law has to be enforced regardless if someone doesn't like it. In general we should comply even if we have a legitimate complaint. Usually an annoying law does little harm, so there's no good reason to disobey it.

But to dictate to someone what price they must pay, interfering in a private transaction between the buyer and seller, is an egregious intrusion into people's lives, in the same category as slavery, though not as severe, and it's OK if buyers and sellers resist such unwarranted interference into their private lives. No one can give a good reason why government should dictate to individuals what prices they should pay or charge in a transaction. Such interference should mostly be resisted by buyers and sellers if there's a practical way to resist it.

 

[DBT]

Decisions require viable options. No options means no possible, realizable decisions to make. The worker feels trapped in the crappy job that he or she hates. It happens all the time.

 

[Lion IRC]

Employers can't rob their workers (or vice versa) just because they think the law is dumb.

By that logic, the slave-owners were being robbed when their slave escaped.

Yep. That is the logic.
And the latter day equivalents of those ancient slave owners would think it unfair (cry baby / whinny unfairness) that the government prevents them from putting their workers in chains. But so what?

How do you tell workers not to steal from their employer whilst simultaneously letting employers ignore laws they find 'dumb'?

ETA - There would be a lot of atheists who find God's laws dumb.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Employers can't rob their workers (or vice versa) just because they think the law is dumb.

By that logic, the slave-owners were being robbed when their slave escaped.

Yep. That is the logic.
And the latter day equivalents of those ancient slave owners would think it unfair (cry baby / whinny unfairness) that the government prevents them from putting their workers in chains. But so what?

How do you tell workers not to steal from their employer whilst simultaneously letting employers ignore laws they find 'dumb'?

ETA - There would be a lot of atheists who find God's laws dumb.

It depends on which god is laying down the law. I always preferred the laws laid down by Wakan Tank or the Great Spirt!

 

[DBT]

I'm not aware of any laws that come from God.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Decisions require viable options. No options means no possible, realizable decisions to make. The worker feels trapped in the crappy job that he or she hates. It happens all the time.

Bummer!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Employers can't rob their workers (or vice versa) just because they think the law is dumb.

By that logic, the slave-owners were being robbed when their slave escaped.

Yep. That is the logic.
And the latter day equivalents of those ancient slave owners would think it unfair (cry baby / whinny unfairness) that the government prevents them from putting their workers in chains. But so what?

Who? What metaphorical "chains" are you talking about?

Decisions should be based on the truth. Which is that the slave-owners were not being robbed if their slave escaped, regardless what the slave-owner thought.

And you're not stealing if you refuse to pay someone something you did not agree to pay, and they agreed to work for you for only the wage you both agreed to. That the state says you owe more than what the two of you agreed does not make it "stealing" anymore than if the state says you are entitled to enslave someone. What you owe is what you agreed to with the seller, not what the state says.

How do you tell workers not to steal from their employer whilst simultaneously letting employers ignore laws they find 'dumb'?

How do you tell anyone that stealing is wrong if you're unable to explain why it's wrong? As you cannot if you equate it with the employer being honest and paying the worker what he agreed to pay them and they had the free choice whether to do that transaction for that price.

You can't claim something is "right" or "wrong" solely on the grounds that there is a law requiring it, or prohibiting it. There has to be some reason beyond simply that there is a law mandating it.

You have to say what the reason is, or why it must be so, regardless of there being a law imposing it.

ETA - There would be a lot of atheists who find God's laws dumb.

Meaning the law has to always be enforced whether we like it or not, which is false. The fact is that there are some dumb laws, and also laws which should not be enforced in some cases. There are many examples.

You can't simply demand that a law has to be enforced if you're unwilling to explain why it's a good law serving a necessary purpose. "It's the law!" is not good enough. There are far too many cases where the law is wrong, even cases where the state chooses not to enforce it, where the police choose not to enforce it.

So, if some employers are "getting away" with circumventing certain bad labor laws, the reason inevitably is that it's a bad law which would do more harm than good if it was enforced (or enforced in all cases), and there is a tacit agreement not to enforce it (or to interpret it so that it's not enforced (not applicable) in that case where the employer is "getting away" with circumventing it).