> You don't own your employer's money until it's paid to you.
I think you’re conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you.
If you live in an apartment, does your landlord own your rent even if you haven't paid it? Should tenants who don't pay rent be guilty of theft? If not, then what's the difference?
>You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you.
You don't. You own a IOU until it hits your bank account. The difference is subtle, but you can see it manifest during bankruptcy. Employee salaries are pretty high on the list in terms of "which creditors get paid first", but AFAIK they're subordinate to secured debt. That means it's definitely possible for you to lose the money you "owned", which does not fit with the common definition of "own". For one, you don't have exclusive control of it.
> I think you’re conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you.
"Own"... in what sense? Legally? If I went to withdraw that money from my employer's bank account, would they let me, or would they tell me that's not my money, even though it was supposed to be paid to me?
"They" was referring to the bank, not the employer.
> it matters that you're legally entitled to it and a court would enforce it and have it paid to you.
They wouldn't do it in the same situation as theft I think, though, which is kind of my point. Like if a coworker who joined the week after you got paid from the funds that should've gone to you the week before, and they were already aware of the practice, they would not be receiving "stolen goods" and I'm pretty sure a court would not say you'd be entitled to claw it back from the other employee because the funds somehow actually belonged to you. (Because they didn't; they were merely owed a.k.a. promised-that-they-would-someday-belong to you.)
If it helps, I see this as somewhat (not entirely) similar to the difference between stocks and stock options. Just because you have the option to get some stocks, that doesn't mean you own the stocks.
That really makes no difference, sure, if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it, they would happily give you your money.
A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer because that is your money, legally, after performing your work duties per your employment contract and labor law.
Because then you would own the money after the court legally transfers the ownership. They don't belong to you beforehand, is what I'm saying.
> A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back from your employer
Not from the other employee. You completely missed the points of my examples, especially the one about receiving stolen goods. Try reading them again.
If you just want to call it theft despite all the differences it has with actual theft, I obviously can't stop you, but I tried to explain precisely some rather important differences in how they're treated.
You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it.
You don't claw it back from your co-worker because money is fungible and just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money. That's money owed to them from your employer who also owes you money.
Honestly I ignored that initially in my response because I thought the example was a bit contrived and because of my above reasoning didn't really hold water.
> You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and enforcing it.
> just because they received money that could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money
These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm saying in the second one. This is exactly how the money isn't yours! That money in the bank isn't yours either just because the employer could've paid you with it!
I'm not sure where to go from here (I feel like you just made my point for me) but if we still disagree then I guess we might just have to leave it a that.
I think we differ on the semantics, I see "This money is owed to me" as I own that money. I may not physically have it in my possession but I have mechanisms to retrieve it and that is wherein ownership is for me. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something.
> These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm saying in the second one. This is exactly how the money isn't yours! That money in the bank isn't yours either just because the employer could've paid you with it!
By my above clarification does it make sense from my viewpoint if I now say something like, "That money is mine, my employer is simply holding it for me, because I could use the courts to retrieve it if they said they don't want to give it to me."
You don't have to agree I just want to make sure I'm getting my point across.
> I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You can obviously lend something and it still belongs to you even though someone else possesses it.
I'm saying that if something has previously belonged to someone else, it will not be yours until and unless either (a) its existing owner, or (b) a valid legal procedure actually transfers the ownership. Moreover, until that is the case, you cannot take possession of it without the consent of the owners, and doing so would not make you its owner. Furthermore, a mere contract that you would be paid $X by Y time does not imply you will be the owner of $X of the payer's money at Y time (nor earlier). It is merely a promise to transfer ownership, which may or may not occur due to numerous reasons both inside and outside the employer's control. Just like how a stock option is a promise to transfer stock, not a grant of ownership of the stock, and just like how that has nothing to do with your physical possession of anything.
I'm pretty sure it's possible to write a contract that actually grants you ownership of some funds by a certain time, but I'd bet no employer would agree to that. Precisely because it would have quite different legal implications than merely a promise of payment.
I get the feeling the confusion here is that you're conflating moral ownership with legal ownership. That you have a moral right to something and that there exists a legal procedure to grant you ownership doesn't mean you are the legal owner before that procedure occurs.
I'm going to do something never before done on the internet and change my position. I think you've convinced me that there is a difference.
Though I'm not sold that in most matters of practicality it would have that much of an impact because if I'm able to compel you to give me X through something like "a valid legal procedure" then I at least had a claim to ownership of X to begin with, which I can use to get possession of X and full ownership, in your sense, of X. It just took me a few extra steps instead of a neat transfer by the person I'm compelling through the legal procedure but at the end I still get X.
The only other thing I see here is that with stock options, execution is legally optional and a decision made by the person with the option. It's not legally optional to pay someone wages if they're employed under a standard wage contract and that decision isn't made by the employee to not be paid it's being made by the employer that's an important distinction.
Anyway, whether I have X or a magic token (in this case the government) that upon using it will force you to give me X makes no difference to me, still got X. If it didn't contracts would be worthless and we both know that's not typically the case. So if anything I see it as a distinction ultimately without difference but I guess there is value in seeing the distinction anyway.
Anyway good conversation and I imagine we still have some disagreement here but I'm going to go enjoy my Saturday evening, have a good one yourself!
I think you too are talking past each other because both of you are focusing only on the money, and not the obligation, and just looking at the money, and who owns it is not how modern finance works.
Modern finance is essentially the Art of I.O.U's.
Before Grimm1's instance of someone else getting hired on, your hypothetical employer has their affairs set up such that expected payroll is met. Payroll is calculated as a function of headcount, and often, the business owner/primary equityholder are the end eater's of any financial shortfalls. They get paid last. Payroll must be paid first, vendors generally fall somewhere in between, and are somewhat more flexible in how you can accommodate them, as long as you make good on it.
Grimm1's scenario would therefore properly play out as the Owner doesn't take home as much (honestly any profit if things have deteriorated to the point you can't meet payroll).
The courts do not look favorably on not paying your people, and in bankruptcy, your payroll obligations take primacy(I think).
You (dataflow) don't necessarily paint the most accurate picture in the sense that the liability does in fact exist in a materially fashion. You can "call it" in the same way that a bank can do a "margin call", which usually requires getting an agent of the court involved.
The sad thing is, legal representation/effective litigation has such a high barrier to entry, that most people don't even realize they can. The other problem is the additional legal costs may jeopardize a business to the point it death spirals, ensuring you never get made whole.
USPS is an interesting case, because I'm not sure what else might be in play due to it's quasi-public nature. A federal institution cannot go into arrears. (Literally, a lot of Federal managers won't even be comfortable letting you do volunteer work in my experience). They have to furlough on budget shortfalls. But USPS is not "Federal" like most Executive agencies, as they are still technically private, or have been operated that way, while also being Constitutionally mandated to exist.
USPS as I recall, is also one of the only employers required to pre-fund their pension liabilities. Unlike everyone else in the private sector who apparently aren't.
Are you arguing in good faith? It is clear that the employer owes a debt to the employee as soon as the labor is performed per the labor agreement. The employee owns the debt. In theory they could sue to get that debt paid, in practice they probably can’t afford to.
Yes? Kind of insulting that you ask, but thanks for at least asking instead of just accusing.
> It is clear that the employer owes a debt to the employee as soon as the labor is performed per the labor agreement. The employee owns the debt.
The employee owns the debt, not the funds. That's precisely the reason the employee needs to sue: he doesn't own the money yet. Otherwise he wouldn't need to sue; it would already be his and he could take possession of it.
Consider this: if the employee went into the employer's drawer and took out cash to get his pay without authorization, is that legal? I'm pretty sure that's theft, despite him legally owning the debt. Which I think is why you don't see e.g. underpaid cashiers going around removing cash from registers to repay stolen wages.
If it helps, you can also look at this from another angle: stolen goods can in general be returned directly to their owners. And stolen goods are in general illegal to possess knowingly. Now what would happen if that money was subsequently paid to another employee? Could the first one claw it back on the basis that it was theirs? No, I'm pretty sure he'd get to keep it because the money never actually "belonged" to the first employee. Or if the second employee was already aware of the wage having been "stolen" from the first one, is he now also a criminal for receiving stolen goods? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but you're welcome to fact-check me on all these; I'm happy to learn more.
I think you’re conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most definitely do “own” the funds you’ve earned even if your employer has not yet paid them out to you.