OT: Tipping culture

[PRAVan1996]

Somewhat related story:

Went to Newks for lunch this weekend. Went to pay and the lady taking the order reached across and hit $0 for tip, but then says "Don't tip these fools, they mess up the orders too much. If you want to leave a tip you can put it here" and taps the plastic TIPS jar next to her order screen. I'm thinking to myself "damn is the food service industry so jacked up that workers are now resorting to trying to steal tips from their fellow employees?"

The dude in the back makes the sandwich. A second person probably puts the sandwich on a plate, and then grabs whatever side you ordered and adds it to the plate. Then a third person is the runner to bring the tray to my table. And I'm making my own drink. But you want me to skip all them and put a cash tip directly in your jar because you stood there and pushed buttons on a screen? I don't tip at counter-service places anyway, but if I ever do start, the person taking the order is the 5th person in line to get one.

I don't think the tip jar is just for the cashier. If I had to guess, tips through the card system probably don't make it to the people actually in the restaurant. Putting a cash tip jar there might be their way of trying to keep tips from disappearing to some regional or corporate office.

 

[PRAVan1996]

I will add to this. If you pick up from a restaurant there is two ways of looking at this. One, the whole purpose of picking up from the restaurant is because you didn't want to deal with tipping or doing the whole sit down thing. The other way to think about it is the person serving the pickup line didn't have a choice in what station or which section they are working. They get the shaft because it is their turn to work the pick up orders.

I usually tip around 10% for pick up orders, but I can easily see why most wouldn't. I just have pity on that person.

I've been tipping the full 20% on pickup orders. Usually with what we're ordering, the difference between 10%, 15% and 20% isn't more than a few dollars so it isn't really an issue for us to tip 20%.

And I have noticed that at the places we order from most often, we'll get some extra stuff thrown in - a five-piece appetizer will have six or seven pieces or there's extra garlic bread or whatever. At one place, we've been ordering pickup for so long (and tipping well) that the owner usually throws in a half-pint of the homemade ice cream they sell.

So being a good tipper has its perks.

 

[Chesusdog]

A number of places are moving to an automatic 20% and they split it between the server and the back of house help. They're also adding that 3% credit card fee as well. You're getting hit at almost 25%. Then, they want you to give the server more when you pay out. 17 you sit down restaurants! 17 you!

I had this one happen to me. I was at a conference in Orange Beach a couple months back, and the wife and I decided to order take-out from one of the resort restaurants. Not room-service, just take out. Didn't notice until I was checking out the next day that the server tipped themselves $20ish bucks on our $90 takeout. Seriously considered going to raise hell, but it was the company's money and not worth my time.

 

[NukeDogg]

I don't think the tip jar is just for the cashier. If I had to guess, tips through the card system probably don't make it to the people actually in the restaurant. Putting a cash tip jar there might be their way of trying to keep tips from disappearing to some regional or corporate office.

I wondered that myself, and as always cash is preferable to an electronic/traceable payment. But combined with what she said about the cook staff messing up orders all the time (she said "don't tip these fools...."), the implication was "don't tip them, tip me" which really didn't sit well with me.

 

[dogmatic001]

Aramark has the same set up at MSU concession stands and I don't pay it.

I think it's weak management from our AD's office to let them hit up fans for a tip at the register for nothing. This could be stopped. It's ********, and it also makes the transaction slower.

 

[TrueMaroonGrind]

I think it's weak management from our AD's office to let them hit up fans for a tip at the register for nothing. This could be stopped. It's ********, and it also makes the transaction slower.

I’ve seen this at most sports venues now. The Grizz concession stand workers hit no tip for you before you pay.

 

[baddawggy]

17 tipping...that is all!

 

[paindonthurt]

I don't think the tip jar is just for the cashier. If I had to guess, tips through the card system probably don't make it to the people actually in the restaurant. Putting a cash tip jar there might be their way of trying to keep tips from disappearing to some regional or corporate office.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting the owner of restaurant takes this money for themselves?

 

[Maroon13]

Egg bowl this year in Oxford.... I'm buying a beer from the cart. I ask for a couple of beers. While she is looking at her phone, she says we are sold out of all them. We only have ..(names various seltzers..) Still looking at phone. I look over in her cooler. I see a coors light. I ask for the coors light. She says again, "we are sold out." Me: "I'm looking at it." She pulls herself away from her phone and hands me the beer. Zero tip.

that beer helped me get through Rogers trying to .... give us an exciting ending.

 

[johnson86-1]

What does this mean? Are you suggesting the owner of restaurant takes this money for themselves?

I don't think it's uncommon for restaurants to divide tips, at least between waiters and bartenders and busboys if not between front of house and back of house. And of course once the money passes through a middle man, there is always an opportunity for the middleman to skim some, and I'm sure most waiters and waitresses don't document every credit card tip they get unless they are suspicious they're getting screwed, and even if they do, if the busboys and bartenders are getting tipped out by multiples waitresses, then they can't tell if they are getting the percentage claimed by the manager unless every waiter tracks their tips. I can see why ownesr or managers at corporate owned restaurants would think they could take some and never be caught.

 

[FQDawg]

What does this mean? Are you suggesting the owner of restaurant takes this money for themselves?

My brother has worked in the service industry for almost 25 years. Owners/managers stealing tips of front line employees in restaurants and bars is a huge problem. Just google tip theft and you'll see dozens of links that try to help employees with that issue.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this chart - and it doesn't specifically break out tip theft - but I've seen others like it over the years. Wage-related theft is by far the No. 1 type of theft in the U.S.

 

[johnson86-1]

My brother has worked in the service industry for almost 25 years. Owners/managers stealing tips of front line employees is a huge problem. Just google tip theft and you'll see dozens of links that try to help employees with that issue.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this chart - and it doesn't specifically break out tip theft - but I've seen others like it over the years. Wage-related theft is by far the No. 1 type of theft in the U.S.

You can't compare wage theft to theft because most people insist on including things that are not actual theft in the term wage theft. What they call wage theft is often (usually? mostly?) a compensation structure that both parties mutually agree upon but that doesn't comply with a federal or state statute or regulation that restricts what pay structures are permissible. Common ones involve payment activities at the beginning or end of the shift that are not "work" but still demand the employees time (e.g., if an employee has to go through security procedures such as a pat down at the beginning and end of the shift, is that time they must be compensated for? What if it's just waiting in line in a car to enter or exit a security gate?), not knowing rules regarding mandatory paid breaks, not knowing the rules for "stand-by" or "on-call" pay, letting hourly workers have access to work email outside of work hours, miscalculating overtime when there is compensation other than straight hourly pay, etc.

There are actual instances of theft too where employers shave time off time sheets or direct employees to not record time that is clearly compensable time, and that is fairly compared to things like burglary or larceny or embezzlement, but "theft" is not a good word to describe both an employee and employer agreeing to something and both getting what they agreed upon, but that agreement being disfavored under the law.

 

[Dawg1976]

I picked up some food at an Orange Beach restaurant a couple of weeks ago and to my surprise their monitor showed 3,5,7% and other for tipping options. And they had a tip jar. They used to have the higher rates listed. I splurged and gave them 7%.

 

[FQDawg]

You can't compare wage theft to theft because most people insist on including things that are not actual theft in the term wage theft. What they call wage theft is often (usually? mostly?) a compensation structure that both parties mutually agree upon but that doesn't comply with a federal or state statute or regulation that restricts what pay structures are permissible. Common ones involve payment activities at the beginning or end of the shift that are not "work" but still demand the employees time (e.g., if an employee has to go through security procedures such as a pat down at the beginning and end of the shift, is that time they must be compensated for? What if it's just waiting in line in a car to enter or exit a security gate?), not knowing rules regarding mandatory paid breaks, not knowing the rules for "stand-by" or "on-call" pay, letting hourly workers have access to work email outside of work hours, miscalculating overtime when there is compensation other than straight hourly pay, etc.

There are actual instances of theft too where employers shave time off time sheets or direct employees to not record time that is clearly compensable time, and that is fairly compared to things like burglary or larceny or embezzlement, but "theft" is not a good word to describe both an employee and employer agreeing to something and both getting what they agreed upon, but that agreement being disfavored under the law.

That's not how it works. An agreement that violates the law is absolutely wage theft. Just because an employer might be able to convince an employee to participate in a tip pool where tips are shared with managers or back of house employees (just to make up an example of something that is illegal) doesn't make it "not wage theft." Owners/managers try to do that stuff because they think the employees won't know any better. And an employer not understanding the rules/regulations around breaks or overtime pay is not remotely a mitigating factor in their favor.

Those laws and regulations are there for a reason - to protect employees from employers that would try to take advantage of them.

 

[johnson86-1]

That's not how it works. An agreement that violates the law is absolutely wage theft. Just because an employer might be able to convince an employee to participate in a tip pool where tips are shared with managers or back of house employees (just to make up an example of something that is illegal) doesn't make it "not wage theft." Owners/managers try to do that stuff because they think the employees won't know any better. And an employer not understanding the rules/regulations around breaks or overtime pay is not remotely a mitigating factor in their favor.

Those laws and regulations are there for a reason - to protect employees from employers that would try to take advantage of them.

I did not say that it's not "wage theft". I pointed out that it was wage theft and that's why it's not useful to compare wage theft to other types of theft. It's defined in a way to make it not a useful comparison. And I didn't even opine on whether the it's a good or bad thing that you need an employment lawyer to be able to employ people and not violate one regulation or another. I just pointed out that it's a different type of problem from what is commonly referred to as theft.

 

[FQDawg]

I did not say that it's not "wage theft". I pointed out that it was wage theft and that's why it's not useful to compare wage theft to other types of theft. It's defined in a way to make it not a useful comparison. And I didn't even opine on whether the it's a good or bad thing that you need an employment lawyer to be able to employ people and not violate one regulation or another. I just pointed out that it's a different type of problem from what is commonly referred to as theft.

You said, and I quote:

most people insist on including things that are not actual theft in the term wage theft. What they call wage theft is often (usually? mostly?) a compensation structure that both parties mutually agree upon but that doesn't comply with a federal or state statute or regulation that restricts what pay structures are permissible.

And then listed a few examples that are quite clearly theft. Put another way... If an employee is entitled to something (tips or overtime pay, etc...) and the employer withholds it, that's not fundamentally different than if that employer were to go steal something out of that employee's car. In both examples, the employer is taking something that belongs to the employee. That is theft. The fact that we have different terms for different types of theft doesn't mean they aren't all examples of theft.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Panaera is preposterously over-priced as it is

Panera is one of those places that the first few times I went, years ago, I really liked. Then I either something changed, or I changed, but I just don't find anything there that is worth what I pay.

 

[mstateglfr]

You can't compare wage theft to theft because most people insist on including things that are not actual theft in the term wage theft. What they call wage theft is often (usually? mostly?) a compensation structure that both parties mutually agree upon but that doesn't comply with a federal or state statute or regulation that restricts what pay structures are permissible. Common ones involve payment activities at the beginning or end of the shift that are not "work" but still demand the employees time (e.g., if an employee has to go through security procedures such as a pat down at the beginning and end of the shift, is that time they must be compensated for? What if it's just waiting in line in a car to enter or exit a security gate?), not knowing rules regarding mandatory paid breaks, not knowing the rules for "stand-by" or "on-call" pay, letting hourly workers have access to work email outside of work hours, miscalculating overtime when there is compensation other than straight hourly pay, etc.

There are actual instances of theft too where employers shave time off time sheets or direct employees to not record time that is clearly compensable time, and that is fairly compared to things like burglary or larceny or embezzlement, but "theft" is not a good word to describe both an employee and employer agreeing to something and both getting what they agreed upon, but that agreement being disfavored under the law.

I think wage theft can absolutely be compared to 'theft' because it is theft. Both parties may agree on it, but since there is an inherent imbalance in most employment situations where wage theft occurs, laws had to be put in place to help protect the party with less power. So when laws are broken, theft has occurred.

Examples of wage theft that are theft-
- straight up not paying an employee for work performed.
- being paid less than min wage and the situation not being one of the exceptions to the min wage laws.
- not reimbursing for business expenses that qualify for reimbursement.
- not allowing employee to use accrued sick time.
- not paying overtime.
- not giving tips to workers and instead keeping them for the business.
- classifying employees as independent contractors and treating them as what they are- employees.

Low wage workers are the group who this impacts the most- this means employees are often less educated and/or immigrants who dont have access, knowledge, or power to force change.


I recognize that you cited examples that are fairly compared to things like burglary, and if this really is just an issue of you not liking the word 'theft', I guess thats a semantics issue more than a fundamental disagreement.
I strongly disagree with your claim that 'theft' isnt a good word to use since both parties agreed and the agreement is illegal. Again, there is a power dynamic when it comes to employment and it is the responsibility of employers to follow employment laws.
Pleading ignorance is no excuse. 'Oh I am so sorry your Honor, I didnt know the rules around mandatory paid breaks.' Nope. 'Apologies your Honor, I didnt realize I had to pay him for the work he performed.' Nope.




I want it to be called 'theft' because that is a charged term. It is a biased term. It is a term that identifies one party as responsible and in the wrong.
I want it to be called theft because I want employers to be held responsible for their actions.
There can absolutely be context and circumstances can be considered when an incident happens, so when someone genuinely doesnt realize they violated labor laws they have a chance to make it right and not be further penalized.
But I want it to be called theft because those who willingly and knowingly violate labor laws and effectively steal from employees as a result should go to jail. Small business owners, large employers- doesnt matter. People who willingly and knowingly engage in wage theft activities should be viewed by society the same way someone who steals Airpods is viewed. They are engaging in criminal behavior and individuals should be held responsible. None of this 'fine the business' crap- it is clear that what we have done up to now is not enough since this continues to occur.

Until the penalty exceeds the benefit, this will continue to be an issue that hurts society.

 

[YesIAmAPirate]

My wife worked in a restaurant years ago when she was in college. She said that, where she worked, all tips went into a pool. They were then split percentage wise between wait staff and kitchen staff. For instance, 70% of tips were divided evenly between the wait staff and 30% was divided between the kitchen staff (I don't know the exact percentages). So basically, the best waitress and the worst waitress walked away with even pay and the same for cooks. Not sure if it is like that at other places or if this was just where she worked

 

[horshack.sixpack]

My brother has worked in the service industry for almost 25 years. Owners/managers stealing tips of front line employees in restaurants and bars is a huge problem. Just google tip theft and you'll see dozens of links that try to help employees with that issue.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this chart - and it doesn't specifically break out tip theft - but I've seen others like it over the years. Wage-related theft is by far the No. 1 type of theft in the U.S.

Interestingly enough, I think that our culture makes us more susceptible. I've been "victim" of overtime, rest break and off the clock violations, but at the time, I just was trying to get by and considered it "being a good employee/hard worker". I don't think I would see it the same way if I were in that position today, but if I absolutely had to have the job and had few alternatives, I think I would tough it out.

 

[RockyDog]

DoorDash is the opposite of the inflated percentages for tips. Only used it once but I had a $40 order I think after all the fees were added and the max suggested tip was $5. The restaurant was close so $5 wouldn't be some horrible tip based on time, but I feel like $5 is basically the minimum tip for somebody if you're too lazy to get off your *** and pick up food and it definitely shouldn't be the max option. Had to go back into the order and add a tip after the fact, which I'm sure a lot of people just assume since they picked the max available option, it must have been a fair/good tip.

Not sure what delivery drivers expect, but they should give some sort of suggested tip based on distance. The percentage tip makes way less sense for a delivery driver than a waiter. Have a pizza place nearby that I get delivery from basically when I don't need to drive, and what I would consider a fair tip ends up being a huge percentage of the total bill just because we're not ordering that much. On the flipside, I don't feel like dropping $25 on a total roundtrip distance of four miles just because we have a bigger group of people. I'm not going to give you just $4 for a $20 order, but I'm also not going to give you $25 for a $125 order. Not sure if delivery drivers think that's ****** or not.

ANY tip is better than none.

Before the pandemic I drove for Uber. Their mileage and payment fee is ok so any generous tip really added to the total for each trip.

During the pandemic I drove for Waitr and Doordash really hadn't gotten into the Jxn area that much yet. But the food delivery services pay a TERRIBLE fee per trip and the driver's main source of income is based off tip. So, if you have a bunch of trips with no tip, your pay per hour is terribly low.

For example, I encountered this more often than I liked. I picked up an order from a fast food restaurant in Flowood. You have to get out of the car, go inside and wait on the order, however slow or fast that is. Then you drive that order 5, 10, 15 miles away and your fee for that order is something criminally low, like 2.75 or 3 dollars. If you get a no tip, you have spent probably a minimum of 25 minutes of your time and however much gas for 3 bucks. I had many of those where I'd have to drive from Flowood to Brandon, or Flowood to Pearl, sometimes further and get a no tip.

Food delivery during Covid was very lucrative even for a part timer like myself. Now, I don't think it's all that special, but it is still a nice way to earn some side money IF you don't get continually stiffed.

 

[FQDawg]

Interestingly enough, I think that our culture makes us more susceptible. I've been "victim" of overtime, rest break and off the clock violations, but at the time, I just was trying to get by and considered it "being a good employee/hard worker". I don't think I would see it the same way if I were in that position today, but if I absolutely had to have the job and had few alternatives, I think I would tough it out.

I've been there, too. At my first full-time job out of college, I regularly worked 10+ hour days even though I was salaried (and ineligible for overtime) because I was under the mistaken impression that hard work was rewarded. After about a year of that, I realized that not only was I not going to be rewarded for the extra work I was putting in but also that my manager had started shifting more work to me because he knew I'd be there late. Meanwhile, he was "clocking out" at 5 p.m. on the dot.

Now, I am very protective of my time and refuse to do any work I'm not getting paid for. I get paid for 40 hours, so I work 40 hours. I don't even mind the occasional night or weekend for an event or special project but only if it's something I know about in advance and can plan for. And I make sure I keep track of that time and take it as comp time later.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I've been there, too. At my first full-time job out of college, I regularly worked 10+ hour days even though I was salaried (and ineligible for overtime) because I was under the mistaken impression that hard work was rewarded. After about a year of that, I realized that not only was I not going to be rewarded for the extra work I was putting in but also that my manager had started shifting more work to me because he knew I'd be there late. Meanwhile, he was "clocking out" at 5 p.m. on the dot.

Now, I am very protective of my time and refuse to do any work I'm not getting paid for. I get paid for 40 hours, so I work 40 hours. I don't even mind the occasional night or weekend for an event or special project but only if it's something I know about in advance and can plan for. And I make sure I keep track of that time and take it as comp time later.

Every company will ride the horse that runs! You just have to figure out it you are getting extra comp for that effort and if it is worth it.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

My wife worked in a restaurant years ago when she was in college. She said that, where she worked, all tips went into a pool. They were then split percentage wise between wait staff and kitchen staff. For instance, 70% of tips were divided evenly between the wait staff and 30% was divided between the kitchen staff (I don't know the exact percentages). So basically, the best waitress and the worst waitress walked away with even pay and the same for cooks. Not sure if it is like that at other places or if this was just where she worked

Pretty sure that Primos had to pay some fine because you aren't legally allowed to split tips with back of house staff? May have that wrong...

 

[johnson86-1]

You said, and I quote:



And then listed a few examples that are quite clearly theft. Put another way... If an employee is entitled to something (tips or overtime pay, etc...) and the employer withholds it, that's not fundamentally different than if that employer were to go steal something out of that employee's car. In both examples, the employer is taking something that belongs to the employee. That is theft. The fact that we have different terms for different types of theft doesn't mean they aren't all examples of theft.

Making an agreement that is illegal under the law isn't theft. If you hire a prostitute and pay her, her accepting payment isn't theft of your money under any normal usage of the word anymore than you having sex with her was rape. Whether you think there should or should not be laws against prostitution doesn't change the fact that theft just isn't a good word to describe it.

Again, there is actual theft of wages also, but that's not all that the term "wage theft" is used to describe.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Making an agreement that is illegal under the law isn't theft. If you hire a prostitute and pay her, her accepting payment isn't theft of your money under any normal usage of the word anymore than you having sex with her was rape. Whether you think there should or should not be laws against prostitution doesn't change the fact that theft just isn't a good word to describe it.

Again, there is actual theft of wages also, but that's not all that the term "wage theft" is used to describe.

Thanks J, good stuff. Always like reading your takes sir. At least most of the time.

 

[johnson86-1]

I think wage theft can absolutely be compared to 'theft' because it is theft. Both parties may agree on it, but since there is an inherent imbalance in most employment situations where wage theft occurs, laws had to be put in place to help protect the party with less power. So when laws are broken, theft has occurred.

Examples of wage theft that are theft-
- straight up not paying an employee for work performed.
- being paid less than min wage and the situation not being one of the exceptions to the min wage laws.
- not reimbursing for business expenses that qualify for reimbursement.
- not allowing employee to use accrued sick time.
- not paying overtime.
- not giving tips to workers and instead keeping them for the business.
- classifying employees as independent contractors and treating them as what they are- employees.

Low wage workers are the group who this impacts the most- this means employees are often less educated and/or immigrants who dont have access, knowledge, or power to force change.


I recognize that you cited examples that are fairly compared to things like burglary, and if this really is just an issue of you not liking the word 'theft', I guess thats a semantics issue more than a fundamental disagreement.
I strongly disagree with your claim that 'theft' isnt a good word to use since both parties agreed and the agreement is illegal. Again, there is a power dynamic when it comes to employment and it is the responsibility of employers to follow employment laws.
Pleading ignorance is no excuse. 'Oh I am so sorry your Honor, I didnt know the rules around mandatory paid breaks.' Nope. 'Apologies your Honor, I didnt realize I had to pay him for the work he performed.' Nope.




I want it to be called 'theft' because that is a charged term. It is a biased term. It is a term that identifies one party as responsible and in the wrong.
I want it to be called theft because I want employers to be held responsible for their actions.
There can absolutely be context and circumstances can be considered when an incident happens, so when someone genuinely doesnt realize they violated labor laws they have a chance to make it right and not be further penalized.
But I want it to be called theft because those who willingly and knowingly violate labor laws and effectively steal from employees as a result should go to jail. Small business owners, large employers- doesnt matter. People who willingly and knowingly engage in wage theft activities should be viewed by society the same way someone who steals Airpods is viewed. They are engaging in criminal behavior and individuals should be held responsible. None of this 'fine the business' crap- it is clear that what we have done up to now is not enough since this continues to occur.

Until the penalty exceeds the benefit, this will continue to be an issue that hurts society.

It's not a semantics issue. It's an intellectual honesty issue. You understand that you are trying to use a charged term but while that's politically effective a lot of times, it makes everything dysfunctional when people can't just talk about ideas with a good faith intention on winning on ideas rather than getting people to react emotionally and illogically.

There are times that employers intentionally steal from employees and theft is a completely appropriate term. But if you want to make the argument that failing to hire an experienced labor and employment lawyer to review all of your compensation practices should be treated as just a grave misdeed by employers as intentional theft, you should make that argument. The reason people use the dishonest rhetorical trick of calling it wage theft is because they fear (I think rightly) that most people would not agree with them. Most people would think the complexity of just running a small business with a handful of employees is absurd if they realized how many pitfalls there are.

 

[FQDawg]

Making an agreement that is illegal under the law isn't theft. If you hire a prostitute and pay her, her accepting payment isn't theft of your money under any normal usage of the word anymore than you having sex with her was rape. Whether you think there should or should not be laws against prostitution doesn't change the fact that theft just isn't a good word to describe it.

Again, there is actual theft of wages also, but that's not all that the term "wage theft" is used to describe.

Sure, in general, making an agreement that is illegal isn't necessarily theft. But someone paying a prostitute isn't the same thing as an employer hiring an employee. In the prostitution example, there are only two parties - one person is paying another for a service. In the case of the restaurant or bar example, there are three parties: the customer who pays the tip, the employee who has earned the tip and the owner who may be preventing the employee from receiving the tip they have earned.

These are the examples you gave of things that you think shouldn't be considered theft:

1. Common ones involve payment activities at the beginning or end of the shift that are not "work" but still demand the employees time
   1. if an employee has to go through security procedures such as a pat down at the beginning and end of the shift, is that time they must be compensated for?​
   2. What if it's just waiting in line in a car to enter or exit a security gate?​
2. not knowing rules regarding mandatory paid breaks,
3. not knowing the rules for "stand-by" or "on-call" pay,
4. letting hourly workers have access to work email outside of work hours,
5. miscalculating overtime when there is compensation other than straight hourly pay, etc.

For point 1... Broadly speaking, employees should be compensated for activities that are work-related. If someone has to prep a station before their shift starts, they should be paid for that time. Your hypotheticals in point 1 are so specific that it's impossible to apply any meaning to them more broadly.

Points 2 and 3 are absolutely wage theft. If an employer withholds money that an employee has earned simply because that employer doesn't know the applicable laws, it is wage theft. Similarly, making an employee work extra because you don't allow them mandatory breaks is also wage theft if you don't compensate them for that time. If it's unintentional or an honest mistake and the employer makes fair restitution when the situation is explained to them, then fine. But there are a million stories about employers taking advantage of young or inexperienced workers and not paying them what they're owed.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying with Point 4. My guess is you mean making hourly employees respond to work-related emails outside of the hours in which they're clocked in. If that's the case (which I can't imagine is very common), not paying them for those hours they are technically working (by responding to emails) is wage theft. But feel free to clarify this point if I've misunderstood.

Point 5 is similar to points 2-3... not paying or underpaying someone the overtime they've earned is most definitely wage theft. Again, if it's an honest mistake and is willingly corrected, fine. But it happening maliciously fairly regularly is something that is well-documented in this country.

I honestly can't think of an example of the term "wage theft" being used to describe something that isn't actually wage theft.

 

[mstateglfr]

It's not a semantics issue. It's an intellectual honesty issue. You understand that you are trying to use a charged term but while that's politically effective a lot of times, it makes everything dysfunctional when people can't just talk about ideas with a good faith intention on winning on ideas rather than getting people to react emotionally and illogically.

There are times that employers intentionally steal from employees and theft is a completely appropriate term. But if you want to make the argument that failing to hire an experienced labor and employment lawyer to review all of your compensation practices should be treated as just a grave misdeed by employers as intentional theft, you should make that argument. The reason people use the dishonest rhetorical trick of calling it wage theft is because they fear (I think rightly) that most people would not agree with them. Most people would think the complexity of just running a small business with a handful of employees is absurd if they realized how many pitfalls there are.

Oh my gosh, I am shocked that on SPS, I am being told that a mischaracterization of a term needs to be changed because it is an intellectual honesty issue. This is wild, given the gross mischaracterizations people continually post on here day after day in OT threads that are about social and political issues.
Pot kettle and whatnot.

Ok so that aside, yeah it is a charged term. And yes I dont view everything included as 'theft' in the classic sense. But if you have sick time and are effectively banned from using it because your employer is sketch as 17, that sick time is essentially being stolen from you because that time has monetary value. That isnt theft in the classic sense, yet it is still theft.

I said there needs to be a difference in how ignorance and intentional violations are handled. Ignorance should be resolved with restitution and perhaps some education. Intentional violations should be handled with fines and perhaps jail time. Theft over $1000 in my state is a felony. If an employer knows they are breaking labor laws and effectively forcing employees to comply or be fired, then that is an intentional violation.

 

[PRAVan1996]

What does this mean? Are you suggesting the owner of restaurant takes this money for themselves?

Yes. Happens all the time.

 

[BingleCocktail]

I JEST LIKE TIPPING M00 C0WS

 

[PRAVan1996]

It's not a semantics issue. It's an intellectual honesty issue. You understand that you are trying to use a charged term but while that's politically effective a lot of times, it makes everything dysfunctional when people can't just talk about ideas with a good faith intention on winning on ideas rather than getting people to react emotionally and illogically.

There are times that employers intentionally steal from employees and theft is a completely appropriate term. But if you want to make the argument that failing to hire an experienced labor and employment lawyer to review all of your compensation practices should be treated as just a grave misdeed by employers as intentional theft, you should make that argument. The reason people use the dishonest rhetorical trick of calling it wage theft is because they fear (I think rightly) that most people would not agree with them. Most people would think the complexity of just running a small business with a handful of employees is absurd if they realized how many pitfalls there are.

You seem to have a narrow definition of the word "theft" that doesn't seem to be entirely accurate as it relates to labor law.

You also seem to be implying that not hiring an employment lawyer means that it's not a big deal when an employer doesn't pay a worker properly and that's just not very good logic. It'd be like telling the IRS "I didn't intentionally underpay my taxes. It just happened because I didn't hire a CPA so that makes it OK."

I don't own a business but if I did, I'd make damn sure I understood the laws around paying the people who work for me.

 

[johnson86-1]

You seem to have a narrow definition of the word "theft" that doesn't seem to be entirely accurate as it relates to labor law.

Theft is not really a part of labor law. That's my point. There are actual thefts that occur, but the term "wage theft" is used to apply to stuff that is outside the scope of what anybody would think of as theft generally.

You also seem to be implying that not hiring an employment lawyer means that it's not a big deal when an employer doesn't pay a worker properly and that's just not very good logic. It'd be like telling the IRS "I didn't intentionally underpay my taxes. It just happened because I didn't hire a CPA so that makes it OK."

No, my point is that you're unlikely to get it right without hiring an employment lawyer. Basically all small businesses are unknowingly violating a lot of statutes and/or regulations. But if they tried to pay for all the legal expertise they needed, they'd never get off the ground. They pretty much just have to give it their best shot and hope whatever noncompliance they have either doesn't get caught or involves minor consequences.

I don't own a business but if I did, I'd make damn sure I understood the laws around paying the people who work for me.

That's all good and well but you're probably not the type of person that starts a business in part because you'd be paralyzed trying to figure out how to navigate all the laws and regulations. Don't know that it's a good thing that people that are really worried about complying with the law are incentivized to not start their own business.

 

[FQDawg]

Theft is not really a part of labor law. That's my point. There are actual thefts that occur, but the term "wage theft" is used to apply to stuff that is outside the scope of what anybody would think of as theft generally.

I still haven't seen you give an example of something that people call wage theft that isn't actually wage theft.

If it helps, this is from the Economic Policy Institute:

"Wage theft occurs any time employees do not receive wages to which they are legally entitled for their labor. This could take many forms, including paying workers less than the minimum wage, not paying overtime premiums to workers who work more than 40 hours a week, or asking employees to work “off the clock” before or after their shifts.

Even the theft of seemingly small amounts of time can have a large impact. Consider a full-time, minimum wage worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour who works just 15 minutes “off the clock” before and after their shift every day. That extra half-hour of unpaid work each day represents a loss to the worker (and a gain to the employer) of around $1,400 per year, including the overtime premiums they should have been paid. That’s nearly 10% of their annual earnings lost to their employer that can’t be used for utilities, groceries, rent, or other necessities."

No, my point is that you're unlikely to get it right without hiring an employment lawyer. Basically all small businesses are unknowingly violating a lot of statutes and/or regulations. But if they tried to pay for all the legal expertise they needed, they'd never get off the ground. They pretty much just have to give it their best shot and hope whatever noncompliance they have either doesn't get caught or involves minor consequences.

Unknowing or not, if a business underpays an employee, it's wage theft. And if a business can't be viable unless they're able to get a pass for violating labor law, then maybe it doesn't deserve to be viable.

I think maybe you're focusing on businesses that might do it accidentally? That it's only wage theft if an employer does it intentionally? If so, that's not really the right way to look at it. As I said earlier, if it is an honest mistake and the employer fixes it, then fine. I don't think we have to treat employers who accidentally underpay employees the same as employers who purposefully underpay employees.

But even if it's an honest mistake it's still wage theft.

 

[johnson86-1]

I still haven't seen you give an example of something that people call wage theft that isn't actually wage theft.

I'm not arguing that what people call "wage theft" isn't "wage theft". "Wage theft" is a term that was made up relatively recently and it was made up because they wanted to create an emotional reaction by implying that "wage theft" is no different than simply stealing from somebody. Sometimes it isn't any different. Sometimes it's not like theft at all.

If it helps, this is from the Economic Policy Institute:

"Wage theft occurs any time employees do not receive wages to which they are legally entitled for their labor. This could take many forms, including paying workers less than the minimum wage, not paying overtime premiums to workers who work more than 40 hours a week, or asking employees to work “off the clock” before or after their shifts.

Even the theft of seemingly small amounts of time can have a large impact. Consider a full-time, minimum wage worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour who works just 15 minutes “off the clock” before and after their shift every day. That extra half-hour of unpaid work each day represents a loss to the worker (and a gain to the employer) of around $1,400 per year, including the overtime premiums they should have been paid. That’s nearly 10% of their annual earnings lost to their employer that can’t be used for utilities, groceries, rent, or other necessities."


Unknowing or not, if a business underpays an employee, it's wage theft. And if a business can't be viable unless they're able to get a pass for violating labor law, then maybe it doesn't deserve to be viable.

Again, this is incredibly naive and ignorant. Practically no business can get off the ground while 100% complying with the law. Even if they can easily economically comply with every applicable law, they can't afford to pay for the legal expertise that would identify all the things they need to do and it's not like it's obvious what the law is.

I think maybe you're focusing on businesses that might do it accidentally? That it's only wage theft if an employer does it intentionally? If so, that's not really the right way to look at it. As I said earlier, if it is an honest mistake and the employer fixes it, then fine. I don't think we have to treat employers who accidentally underpay employees the same as employers who purposefully underpay employees.

But even if it's an honest mistake it's still wage theft.

And that's a pretty convincing argument of why wage theft is an intentionally dishonest term. If you ask most people the question: "Should it be legal for a person to make a potential employee a job offer under which they will work 50 hours a week and get paid $1,000 per week?", I think most people would say that should be legal. I think if you asked them if the employer that makes that offer and then pays their employee according to those terms should be called a thief, they'd wonder what in the hell you're talking about, and asking them if the employer should be called a wage thief wouldn't lessen their confusion.

 

[mstateglfr]

I'm not arguing that what people call "wage theft" isn't "wage theft". "Wage theft" is a term that was made up relatively recently and it was made up because they wanted to create an emotional reaction by implying that "wage theft" is no different than simply stealing from somebody. Sometimes it isn't any different. Sometimes it's not like theft at all.

What would you like to call it?
Do you think it should just be called 'theft' and handled accordingly? Do you think that since it is often passive instead of active(what we traditionally think of as 'theft') that it should be called something different?

It really boils down to what I just posted- active vs passive theft.
If its active theft like stealing a car, grabbing a purse, or lifting some Airpods, then it is easy to see thru a 'good vs bad' lens because the bad person is actively harming others.
But this whole wage theft thing? Well that is passive. It isnt like the employer is handing an employee $1000 and then grabbing $200 and running away. The employer is passively taking that money by ensuring the employee never sees it in the first place. And all too often I see or hear arguments that excuse the employer's actions because the employer didnt know better, or because the employee agreed even though it violated labor law, or because...well really its all BS so various excuses are just that- excuses.


Cool that you view it as theft. Lets start arresting these people and having them tried for the theft they commit.

 

[FQDawg]

I'm not arguing that what people call "wage theft" isn't "wage theft". "Wage theft" is a term that was made up relatively recently and it was made up because they wanted to create an emotional reaction by implying that "wage theft" is no different than simply stealing from somebody. Sometimes it isn't any different. Sometimes it's not like theft at all.

I'm not implying it, I'm directly stating it. Wage theft is exactly the same thing as stealing from somebody. And I'm not phrasing it that way to get an emotional reaction. I'm phrasing it that way because that's what it is. But feel free to give me an example of something that people call wage theft that you think isn't like theft at all.

Again, this is incredibly naive and ignorant. Practically no business can get off the ground while 100% complying with the law. Even if they can easily economically comply with every applicable law, they can't afford to pay for the legal expertise that would identify all the things they need to do and it's not like it's obvious what the law is.

This is some galaxy brain logic here. Businesses can't get off the ground unless they can skirt the law? Again, try telling that to a judge. "Your honor, it's true I underpaid my employees but I only did it because I was trying to get my business off the ground and I couldn't afford to pay someone to help me figure out employment law."

And that's a pretty convincing argument of why wage theft is an intentionally dishonest term. If you ask most people the question: "Should it be legal for a person to make a potential employee a job offer under which they will work 50 hours a week and get paid $1,000 per week?", I think most people would say that should be legal. I think if you asked them if the employer that makes that offer and then pays their employee according to those terms should be called a thief, they'd wonder what in the hell you're talking about, and asking them if the employer should be called a wage thief wouldn't lessen their confusion.

In your example, "most people" would be wrong. You can want that scenario to be legal all you want but the fact is that anything beyond 40 hours for an hourly employee is considered overtime and is required to be paid as such. Just because an employer offers that deal and an employee accepts it doesn't make it legal. As has been mentioned, there are a ton of unscrupulous employers who are trying to take advantage of employees who might not know better. And an employer innocently not knowing the rules around that doesn't change the fact that it's wage theft.

The Department of Labor uses almost your exact scenario (just with different figures) to show it's not legal. Emphasis mine.

Salary for Workweek Exceeding 40 Hours: A fixed salary for a regular workweek longer than 40 hours does not discharge FLSA statutory obligations. For example, an employee may be hired to work a 45 hour workweek for a weekly salary of $405. In this instance the regular rate is obtained by dividing the $405 straight-time salary by 45 hours, resulting in a regular rate of $9.00. The employee is then due additional overtime computed by multiplying the 5 overtime hours by one-half the regular rate of pay ($4.50 x 5 = $22.50).

In your example, if the employer pays the employee $1,000 for 50 hours, it's wage theft. The employer actually owes him $1,100 for that 50 hours. $1,000 for 50 hours is $20 per hour. The employee is then owed for the extra 10 hours he worked. That's another $100 (10 hours at $10 an hour). That's not emotional, it's just the law.

 

[johnson86-1]

I'm not implying it, I'm directly stating it. Wage theft is exactly the same thing as stealing from somebody. And I'm not phrasing it that way to get an emotional reaction. I'm phrasing it that way because that's what it is. But feel free to give me an example of something that people call wage theft that you think isn't like theft at all.

The employer that you call a thief could have paid a few hundred dollars to an attorney to structure the offer, and the attorney could have come back and said that the offer should be for $18.18 an hour, usual hours of 50 hours a week, for a total weekly pay of $999.90 and all the sudden he's not a thief by paying the employee less overall? Or maybe the lawyer could really earn his pay and tell the employer that even though the job has relatively low pay, the job duties actually qualify the position as exempt and the employer should see if he can just offer the position with a salary even lower. So maybe the employer can successfully convince the employee to take a salary that is just $10 less per week (1%), and only pay him $990 per week for the same work. So now he pays $520 less per year and is not a thief? Even better. And he saves almost another $40 in FICA.

How is your opinion that wage theft is exactly the same thing as stealing from somebody not absurd?

This is some galaxy brain logic here. Businesses can't get off the ground unless they can skirt the law? Again, try telling that to a judge. "Your honor, it's true I underpaid my employees but I only did it because I was trying to get my business off the ground and I couldn't afford to pay someone to help me figure out employment law."


In your example, "most people" would be wrong. You can want that scenario to be legal all you want but the fact is that anything beyond 40 hours for an hourly employee is considered overtime and is required to be paid as such. Just because an employer offers that deal and an employee accepts it doesn't make it legal. As has been mentioned, there are a ton of unscrupulous employers who are trying to take advantage of employees who might not know better. And an employer innocently not knowing the rules around that doesn't change the fact that it's wage theft.

The Department of Labor uses almost your exact scenario (just with different figures) to show it's not legal. Emphasis mine.



In your example, if the employer pays the employee $1,000 for 50 hours, it's wage theft. The employer actually owes him $1,100 for that 50 hours. $1,000 for 50 hours is $20 per hour. The employee is then owed for the extra 10 hours he worked. That's another $100 (10 hours at $10 an hour). That's not emotional, it's just the law.

You actually can't tell enough from my example to know whether it's wage theft. You can have an exempt position with minimum hour requirements, even if you can't deduct from their pay when they are short. And the minimum salary is actually provided as a per week amount, so the $1,000 per week for 50 hours of work doesn't necessarily mean there is wage theft. You'd have to know more details. But sure, it's easy for small businesses to just know the law and comply with it.

 

[FQDawg]

The employer that you call a thief could have paid a few hundred dollars to an attorney to structure the offer, and the attorney could have come back and said that the offer should be for $18.18 an hour, usual hours of 50 hours a week, for a total weekly pay of $999.90 and all the sudden he's not a thief by paying the employee less overall?

This issue isn't the hourly rate, it's how many hours an hourly employee is working. Anything over 40 hours that isn't compensated at time and a half is wage theft. I'm honestly not sure why you have a problem with that characterization. It's the law and it's meant to stop employers from making hourly employees work extra hours without being paid for it.

Or maybe the lawyer could really earn his pay and tell the employer that even though the job has relatively low pay, the job duties actually qualify the position as exempt and the employer should see if he can just offer the position with a salary even lower. So maybe the employer can successfully convince the employee to take a salary that is just $10 less per week (1%), and only pay him $990 per week for the same work. So now he pays $520 less per year and is not a thief? Even better. And he saves almost another $40 in FICA.

If you're changing your argument to say that there are different rules and requirements for difference classifications of employees, congratulations on moving those goalposts. If you have a problem with the way different employees are classified and the rules around those classifications, your argument isn't with me. You should contact the Department of Labor. Or write to your representatives in Washington and ask them to make changes to the FLSA. Side note, this page is a good reference on the FLSA.

Also, I'm glad to see your fictional business owner can finally afford to consult with a professional advisor.

How is your opinion that wage theft is exactly the same thing as stealing from somebody not absurd?

Because theft is theft. As Glfr said above, there's no appreciable difference between snatching $200 out of my hand and illegally withholding $200 that I've earned.

But sure, it's easy for small businesses to just know the law and comply with it.

It doesn't matter if it's "easy" or not. The law is the law. If an employee has earned a certain amount of money, whether through hours worked or salary or tips, and the employer gives them less than that amount, it's wage theft.

 

[skipper.sixpack]

Man..
Y’all need to have a loser leave town match to settle this