You're viewing a single thread.
That's literally not the definition.
https://wagetheftisacrime.com/
Don't dilute the definition of the crime with nonsense.
Boss asks everyone to come in unpaid for a mandatory meeting? That's wage theft.
They lock you in the store when you're off the clock to "clean up the store"? That's wage theft.
Stolen tips, no overtime pay for overtime work, altering timecard punches? All wage theft.
Making too much profit and not passing it to employees may be highly unethical, but it's not legally wage theft.
Making too much profit and not passing it to employees may be highly unethical, but it's not legally wage theft.
That's capitalism.
Tank tank tank
That's not capitalism.
That’s not not capitalism.
It's not a basis of capitalism by definition, but it sure seems inevitable with the equally-inevitable greedy mindset that seems to go along with it. How's that?
it is the definition of capitalism, as defined by Marx, who coined it.
Marx criticized capitalism, but the capitalist theory is generally attributed to Adam Smith from his works about 45 years prior to Marx's birth.
try reading source material.
it is.
I'm not religious but.... preach.
I'm a hard-core athiest, too, bro. People can preach things other than religion. This person is simply preaching truth.
Thank you. I came to say something similar. Wage theft is already a big legal problem that doesn't get enough attention or action to fix it. Don't intentionally mix it with a separate ethical issue making the legal issue even less likely to be addressed. They are similar, even related, issues. But they are not the same, nor will they be addressed the same. Don't conflate them.
Thank you for this. I used to hear the term "wage theft" and associate it with underpaying workers relative to the value they produce, until I learned that wage theft refers to underpaying workers relative to what they're contractually entitled to.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that it's a problem to pay workers far less than the value they give, but "you're not paying me what I'm worth" is not as egregious a problem as "you're not paying me what you agreed to pay me."
In most cases, underpayment can't be fixed by an individual for themselves without a wide scale strike (which many workers aren't in a good position to risk,) but wage theft is currently illegal and can be addressed by filing a complaint. So it's better to keep it clear what wage theft is so that the average worker doesn't dismiss it as some communist idea, at least until wage theft is no longer the greatest form of theft in the US.
And "lemon" has a very specific definition when applied to used cars so that dealerships can sell junkers with engines that blow up after 6 months and get away with it. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't make the car any less of a lemon.
I agree that it is wrong. However, in your example you were sold a bad car either way. Wage theft is stealing/keeping wages you are legally owed, while not sharing the profits, while again still wrong, nothing was stolen from you. You just weren't given more.
"you weren't given more" is too weak. What happens is you are not given a fair share of the value of your work
Correct, but, a contract was made. You agreed to work a certain amount of time doing a certain job for a certain pay. Upon completion of that work you're paid what was agreed to in the contract.
I don't like it either but there's a reason it's not illegal. Immoral, maybe, but not illegal.
You and your employer agreed on what that value of your work is prior to you completing it. So long as they do their part, it's not wage theft any more than making a low-ball offer on something you see on Craigslist is theft of product. In either case, one party is free to refuse. Both can renegotiate from there, or either one can walk away from it all.
Well "fair" is subjective, I was just objectively describing what is happening.
it is stealing, even if it is in accordance with a contract. those contracts are signed between unequal parties, effectively under duress
I've never signed an employment contract under duress. But this is exactly why I suggest to people to always be searching for another job, which means the next contract you sign absolutely does not need to be made under duress. Every job ive left I've had something lined up.
But that being said, even if what you say is true, that doesn't mean any arbitrary thing you think should have been included actually should have been included. So trying to paint increased profits for the owner as theft because still doesn't hold water. Sure you should have gotten more, but was that it? Probably not because plenty of people take these jobs not under duress with no profit sharing.
you've never been faced with homelessness or hunger or lack of medical care if you didn't take a job?
You claimed they were signed under duress, I pointed out that I know this isn't always the case. But I even addressed your point assuming your claim was true.
It doesn't sound to me that you are approaching this in good faith.
your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
Lemon actually has a set legal definition as well. A car isn't a lemon because you don't like it, or even if it breaks down immediately after you buy it.
It even varies BY STATE.
https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/vehicle-lemon-laws-by-state/
So here:
"To qualify for protection, the defect must be reported to the manufacturer and given a reasonable number of attempts to perform the repair. If the vehicle is out of service for 30 calendar days or more, you may pursue a replacement or refund."
But across the river:
"If your car experiences a serious defect or a problem that makes it unreliable or unsafe within 2 years or 24,000 miles of delivery, you may send a written request asking for a replacement vehicle."
Matilda’s Dad has entered the chat.
Yep. Big bird's description is the increase of exploitation on the workers. Wage theft is denying wages you are due. Very similar in how they effect you and how they feel, definitionally different.
And legally different. As long as the employer is paying a legal wage and abiding by all the overtime, meal, and tip laws, it's not illegal to pay someone less than they're worth.
I remember my first encounter with wage theft. Fortunately, I was drilled with the whole DONT WORK FOR FREE philosophy.
Boss asked me to go grab some things from the supermarket before my shift. I said am I on the clock? He said, "It's on the way. What's the problem?"
I pretended like I forgot and played stupid. And he sent me back out AFTER I clocked in.
I'd have been like "What's my budget?" and filled out an expense report and billed for my time. LOL.
Youre so right, exploration through waged labour isn't even illegal!
youre like that douche who scolded me for telling someone retail workers minimum wages are .30c higher than they actually are. Oh youre technically right, thank god we're building a bridge and that .30c really makes a difference.
Its not a technicality though, it's a completely different thing.
I think it's worth keeping 'wage theft' to that particular definition, to help with tackling what is a big problem and legally recognised (as illegal). And, as someone else said, so workers don't dismiss it as a far-off ideal and miss the chance to fight for their illegally-stolen wages.
Wage theft in the sense of theft of fair share of generated value/profit, needs a new name.
How about profit theft? Value theft?
After all, calling it wages already accepts the idea of owners and employees.
It's not diluting the definition, it's expanding the definition.
"Legally" just means words written on paper, words that can be changed with legislation.
Don't get this twisted, the law isn't some unchanging monolith just because modern governance has been at a standstill when it comes to legislation. There's "legal" ways to expand the definition until what Big Bird is saying is the legal definition.
I would argue expanding the definition is important, because people need to see spending millions on stock buybacks while cutting wages and cutting jobs to all help boost the stock as the theft of value that it is.
Further, language evolves and if there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who refuse to accept that the definition of words can grow and change. So spare me the pearl clutching over the "proper, legal definition." This is solarpunk memes, not boringdystopia memes.
Things have meaning. In the process of expanding the meaning, the meaning is made less pointed. If it has less of a point, it becomes broad (or diluted). So to make the original point, one must find new words, since the original definition has been so watered down and broadened.
Go tell that to the likes of Baudrillard and Derrida.
Referencing people whose communication styles are notoriously difficult to understand for average people is not great support for your point.
Once we can assume the "common person" is well versed in post structuralism, we can have that chat. Until then, I'm good with a pragmatic approach to linguistics.
The actual currently defined wage theft is already illegal. The law simply needs to be properly enforced.
While I agree with the substance of this post, that underpaying labor to funnel wealth to owners is wrong, that is currently not illegal. (Pro tip: it's capitalism.)
Each of these two problems requires a vastly different solution. Conflating the two only makes it more difficult to solve either.
The definition of words can change, but you've made me notice: there's something more insidious and dishonest potentially going on here.
"Name is definition" is not just making a linguistic association, which, as you say, can change across time and community.
It's also saying, "when you heard name before, what the speaker meant was definition." Which, in this case, can be a lie. That's abuse of teaching authority.
Now that's not the whole of it, and you have a point. Just you made me notice this aspect now.
Chiming in with those who want to keep the specific meaning of wage theft, to better address that already-egregious problem, how about a new name for this.
Value theft. Or, Profit theft.