I wonder if there has ever been a case (I'm sure there has) where someone stole say a $20 from the register, because the manager owed them $20. And whether the fact they could prove the manager owed them money made any difference in the theft case.
And thank goodness. In the same way, if you go to a restaurant and walk out without paying, but you've been there before and paid with a credit card, they're not allowed to go back and charge that credit card by the amount you stiffed them.
If you want your money, you need to go through the courts. You can't just take money you're owed, no matter if there's a debt or not. Not until a court says you can.
This only makes sense if the courts/government are functioning properly and in a timely manner.
As the article points out, this is not the case, so the rational course of action is to do something else, as seen in less developed countries with lower societal trust.
Well they shouldn't. Legislators should make recovery on debt for employees be self-service just like normal debt recovery.
Really there ought to be a pretty straightforwards system. You go to the local court showing your employment contract and proof of hours worked. Court contacts employer same day (could be automated phone system or e-mail) with X days to respond (ideally like 1 or 2). If no response, or no satisfactory response, you are given a certificate you can take to the business's bank to withdraw from their accounts directly, just like a wage garnishment. Why won't legislators think of solutions to such basic issues, instead of spending time on endless culture war nonsense? This seems like one of these things that ought to be 'easy.' Also allow for substantial interest penalties, like seven percent per day or something.
I don't understand. This is what courts do, just not as fast.
If it were "self-service" as you suggest, it would be open to abuse of tons of people falsely claiming wage theft, to make an easy buck.
Companies can't be required to respond in 1 or 2 days. They need time to gather facts, especially when people can be out sick, busy with other work, etc. And they need to be able to present them to a judge and allow for cross-examination. Courts are designed to be fair and protect the rights of both sides, not to be fast.
Also I don't know what you mean about "normal debt recovery" being "self-service"? It isn't.
Two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the law I'm afraid. That said, there's been plenty of cases where the punishment for a crime was lessened due to the circumstances, like assault in self-defense. Dunno if that applies to theft vs wage theft though.
That said, it's not a crime if you don't get caught. This too goes both ways.
If I were on a jury, I'd acquit. I have been on a grand jury and did choose several times not to indict someone that didn't do anything wrong. Juries are the final check on government power and jurists ought to exercise that power appropriately.
> Two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the law I'm afraid
Of course it doesn't. But you'd still think that the one theft couldn't be reprimanded by a court while the other was handwaved at the same time. What would be interesting wouldn't be if someone could get away with that (they couldn't, and shouldn't) but whether the fact that the matter was taken to court - presumably by the employer who was also guilty of a provable crime - led to any consequences for the employer.
There are plenty of cases where this defense is used.
It's always treated like bullshit because it is. You don't get to decide how I settle my debts. If I owe you $20, you don't get to confiscate whatever you want of mine of what you deem is of equal value.
