[deleted]
By letting the capitalistic class write the laws we let them dictate the morality of the country.
Submitted 11 months ago by STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world to aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/31336a5a-a7c9-4e19-bbec-567a0af774f7.jpeg
Comments
BassDroid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yes but which one leads to worse consequences despite taking the same value of currency?
FrederikNJS@lemm.ee 11 months ago
So let’s see… Here in Denmark:
-
If I steal the equivalent of $100 from a store, they will call the police, the police will apprehend me, take back the $100, and give me a fine. If the robbery seems to be professional, then it could also result in jail time up to 1 year and 6 months.
-
If my employer shorts my paycheck by the equivalent of $100, then I contact my union. The union contacts the company and tells the company to pay me within a week or two. If the company doesn’t pay me within the deadline, the union will declare the company bankrupt, and the bankruptcy proceedings start by liquidating the company and paying me my missing wages along with the guaranteed pay that relates to being fired, which depends on how long I have been employed. (1 month pay if I have been employed less than 6 months, 3 months pay if employed 6 months to 3 years, 4 months pay if employed for 3 to 6 years, 5 months pay if employed 6 to 9 years, and 6 months pay if employed more than 9 years.)
-
xkforce@lemmy.world 11 months ago
This is an argument for punishing wage theft not that crime is a made up concept.
deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
Of course it’s a social construct, just like everything else that matters is. If you don’t want your live to be determined by social constructs, you would have to live alone in the woods.
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I think the broader point is that, if crime is a social construct, it’s not natural and unchanging, we can redefine what crime is.
foofy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Did anyone think we couldn’t? We regularly elect people to do that job.
deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
That’s still not a point at all, just like saying “maybe political change would be good”. Like, of course there are incidents where common sense morality and legal practice don’t match, that’s where lawmakers should step in and change something.
AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Things that are social constructs can be modified with the social contract and should be modified to suit the will of the governed.
Social constructs that operate without the approval of the membership seem to be bad constructs that should probably not be built that way.
deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip 11 months ago
It’s really the exception for any aspect of reality to be operating with the approval of everyone affected. Things being socially constructed doesn’t mean they are less real, or that they are somehow easier to change. After all, “convincing people that they should think differently about some social construct” is just a clumsy definition of politics.
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Counterpoint:
Failure to pay someone money they are owed resulting in jail time only sounds good when you imagine employers being carted off for not paying employees what they’re owed.
It’s not so fun when you consider a mother of 2 carted off for missing a car payment.
ignotum@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Good point, let’s not bring jail into the equation and just do it how it’s done today:
If a mother of 2 misses her car payment, they take her car
So if your boss misses their payment for your labour, you should take back your labour, destroy whatever you’ve made but not been paid for
darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee 11 months ago
That wouldn’t be practical for most things, especially disposables or perishables like food. It’d be best simply to fine the owner or garnish their bank account. The IRS should enforce wage theft cases since they’re the ones with the power to do that.
Globeparasite@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yes, also what will happen if you walk out the store with 100€ of groceries depend mostly on how you react. The thing, is, its not because they’re poor that they are going to steal. Homeless people steal a pack of pasta and a water bottle, not a month worth of food. It does happen, though if someone walk out with 100€ there is more chance he is walking out with a tv than pasta, be an asshole and be belligerant.
In the end the difference goes back to surveillance, it is very easy to prove you are walking out of the store with 100€ of things, there much less surveillance that would even be legal today to see they are paying you correctly. Don’t be fooled by the politicians who say “let’s just bails every robbers and shoplifter cause bosses withold pays” because this is a zero investment solution. For the politician its just writing, no need to rework the system that is causing the issue or deploy law enforcement. This is literally politics without action, which is indeed nonsensical
bort@feddit.de 11 months ago
my last boss still owes me >6000€ in wages. I have been struggling for half a year now to get him to pay.
meanwhile: When I order something from amazon, and the bank-transfer bounces, I am in for new kind of hell of late-fees and incasso-mail.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 7 months ago
TALK TO A LAWYER and sue him
geissi@feddit.de 11 months ago
There is a difference for missing a payment and completely refusing to pay what is owed.
WhyDoesntThisThingWork@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Crime is a social construct = wage theft is a social construct, and according to the law of internet arguments something being a social construct means it doesn’t matter and/or it’s dumb to complain about it, so don’t worry, it’s all fine.
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I think the broader point is that, if crime is a social construct, it’s not natural and unchanging, we can redefine what crime is.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Who comes up with this shit?
All I have to do is make 1 or 2 phone calls to get my $100 pay, ASAP.
Superorgizznism@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Take twenty seconds to Google wage theft vs other theft, then come back and respond again.
Delphia@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The boss counts the till at the end of the day for the same reason you should keep a diary with your hours worked including times and spend the 5 minutes to add it all up and check that you’re being paid correctly.
They dont trust you, so you dont trust them.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 11 months ago
No. I know my rights. Not my problem if others don’t stand up for themselves.
Still makes this a shit graphic.
CluckN@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Who comes up with this shit?
All I have to do is make 1 or 2 phone calls to get my $100 pay, ASAP.
Delphia@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yeah this is pretty absurd.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE INTENT!
If my boss goes into my locker and lifts $100 from my wallet the same thing happens to him as if I take it from the till. If he fucks up my pay he can shrug and say it was an honest mistake. Same as how I have a garage full of the sorting tubs we use at work for organising things because I “accidentally” brought them home with work in them and “forgot” to bring them back.
shalafi@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’ve found Americans are woefully ignorant of employment law. But the employers are not.
Employers are scared shitless of a call from the state labor board. 2 jobs ago I had a really weaselly, small time, company owner. My god, the things that man would say and do to fuck you around. But he stayed within the law and did not fuck around on paychecks."
One time I was shorted $200. Honest mistake. He called me personally and said he would give me $200 out of his wallet, that afternoon, if it was not in my bank account by EOB.
My last job was for a payroll firm. I don’t think it’s common knowledge, but most places farm out the payroll. Let the experts handle it because the laws and taxes get complex in a hurry. Even our shitty clients wouldn’t play around with pay.
Example; You work overtime and aren’t paid, or paid correctly. You call the labor board and the employer is on the hook to prove your hours. One call, guilty until proven innocent, and it’s on them. If they cannot, the labor board defaults to the employee.
“I worked 80-hours a week for these assholes and got paid for 40!”
Aight. One call and the employer shows your signature agreeing to the hours worked, or they pay. All of it. Every time.
guyrocket@kbin.social 11 months ago
Unpopular opinion: I find this comparison a bit off. Compare your theft from the till to your boss taking $100 from your pocket and it seems more even.
Croquette@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
If he shaft you for a 100$ on your paycheck or he takes it from from your pocket, it’s still the same thing. You are a 100$ short by malicious intent.
deweydecibel@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Right but, as far as the law is concerned, shorting you $100 is not the same as stealing it from you, because you did not possess it until it was given to you. But that does not mean it isn’t a crime, it’s just considered a different type of crime.
Stealing from a tin is theft of money in someone else’s possession to which you have no right to.
You are owed your wages. It would be a crime not to pay what you are owed, to fullfil their binding legal obligation. We call it theft (because it is) but the distinction is that it’s a failure to deliver something in your possession.
And the reason the punishment isn’t the same is because if we jail people for failure to pay money they owe someone else, it is going to hurt the poor faaaar worse than the wealthy or the business owners.
It’s just not a good analogy.
irmoz@reddthat.com 11 months ago
Why’s that?
Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Intent?
Taking $100 is theft. Period. You can’t accidentally pocket $100 out of a register.
Boss shorting your check $100 could be an accident. Often not even their accident these days with payroll soft. Until it happens consistently it’s not intentional.
KombatWombat@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Because the most reasonable explanation for being shorted on a paycheck is an accounting error, meaning no malice intended. Unless the employer tried to keep the money after realizing the mistake, they should at most be given a fine.
Assuming the original post meant robbing the store, that’s quite different. There is malicious intent to deprive strangers of their money, and probably at threat of violence. Or even if it was just unattended, the theft is still done with malicious intent. The last situation is much like pickpocketing, so the analogy fits.
Aceticon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If the Law was fair the same amount of harm would be punished by the same sized penalty, quite independently of the method by which such harm was inflicted, and taking $100 from your pocket inflicts exactly the same amount of harm as shorting your paycheck by $100.
IronKrill@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
There is a reason murder and manslaughter are punished differently. Intent matters when judging people. If you accidentally break an item in a store, that should be treated differently and someone runningnin there and purposefully smashing the same item.
count_dongulus@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The quote is still in the wrong mindset with bad use of language.
It’s not withholding. It’s stealing. It’s thievery.
fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Wage fucking theft, everyone.
Patches@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
The largest theft by the numbers in the United States
Something_Complex@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The place burns down misteriously in both cenarios?
recapitated@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Setting aside morals and ethics for a moment, intent (and malice) is a key component of crimes. Unfortunately it’s easier to show in some cases than others. It’s also worth noting that the at-will contract goes both ways in this case. Unfortunately there is an insurmountable power imbalance in this situation.
I was about to say I’m glad I was never in this situation, but I just remembered a time where I switched from an employee to a contractor and stopped getting paid.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Hopefully you only mean economic crime.
c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Just because the rich are protected from their white collar crime doesn’t mean the concept of crime as a whole is a social construct.
Crime exists, crime is crime. Your boss short changing you money wouldn’t get the same reaction as lifting money from the till but you’d still have legal recourse to either get the money from them or take legal action to sue them.
Double standards under the law doesn’t equal “crime is an invented concept.”
Mozingo@lemmy.world 11 months ago
From my understanding a social construct is something that is that is formed through an agreement between people in a society as opposed to something that is an objective observation of phyiscial reality. Like for example money is a social construct, because we all agree that it has value and treat it as such, even though objectively a hundred dollar bill is just a piece of cloth and otherwise would only have as much value as any other piece of cloth. Democracy is a social construct, marriage, the calandar, gender norms, fashion, and crime are all social constructs. It doesn’t mean they aren’t “real” things, just that they’re only real because we all collectively agree they’re real.
If you don’t agree with that definition, I’m curious what you think a social construct is and what things you would believe to be social constructs?
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 11 months ago
oh cool, another person who doesn’t understand what “social construct” means, but tries to dismiss it…
Nougat@kbin.social 11 months ago
If you lift money from the till, you can be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced. Now you are A Criminal™.
If your boss shorts you $100 on your paycheck, you have to politely go ask for it back, and hope they give it to you. Failing that, you get the labor board involved, which takes a whole lot of time, and you're probably going to be fired, whether the boss gives you your money or not.
It's a double standard for the employee; it's an invented concept (for the purposes of controlling labor) for the employer.
shalafi@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Nothing you said was false, but it don’t work like that IRL.
If you stole from the till, you did so with malice aforethought. And you are in fact a criminal. End.
If you get shorted, and politely bring it up, the employer will shit themselves making it right. They want no phone calls from the labor board. The employer is guilty until proven innocent in these matters.
Problem is, most folks don’t know this, or believe things like you posted, i.e., they’ll get fired for a complaint. No, you won’t get fired for asking for your pay. LOL, the fucking your employer would receive is astounding, and NOT worth firing you over their mistake.
Guys, if your employer’s sins are so egregious, it’s a simple call to $State_Labor_Board. Know your rights, and this one is easy. No lawyers, just make a call and state your allegations. Done. Now your employer is on the hook to prove you’re wrong.
Employer doesn’t like it and fires you? LOL my god, what a mess for them. You could press the attack, but if you’re smart you’ll walk away with every dollar you claimed, at worst. I’ve seen it done.
“I worked overtime every week for 6-months and got paid regular hours!”
Did you sign off on falsely worked hours? Well, that’s on you. If you didn’t, and the employer can’t produce records, you get every penny you claimed.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The way I viewed it, if they short you a $100 on your paycheck you will have to prove them the hours, bring it to HR and try to get it fixed on the next paycheck. They borrowed $100 for 2 weeks and wasted company time. If you borrowed $100 from the till for 2 weeks without asking you would just be fired. I doubt any real legal recourse would be brought in either case. They would mark down your register was off and terminate employment.
shalafi@lemmy.world 11 months ago
you will have to prove them the hours
Mostly on-the-money, but no, they have to prove the hours if the labor board gets involved. And that’s a simple phone call, no lawyers or money involved. (Don’t sign off on your hours, literally or digitally, if they are not correct.)
And no, you can’t “borrow” $100 from the till. That’s theft, plain and simple. Many employers have a system by which they can easily loan you a small amount like that. Just ask. You might be surprised. (Often not advertised because of the potential for abuse.)
$100 isn’t worth anyones time
No lie. When I was 16, a long time ago, my ex-Marine tough-guy McDonald’s manager sat me down over a missing $10. Almost surely my fuck up, but he made it out like I stole. Got very threatening.
Inside I was like, “Are you shitting me?! I make $3.34/hr. Would it be worth 3 hours pay to lose my job you numb nut?!”
Outside, “I… uh… I mean, is $10 bucks worth getting fired? Why would anyone do that? Uh, I made a mistake making change… or something… Uh, I’m sorry. Won’t happen again. ^please don’t kill me^”
Fuck me. Humiliated and treated like a thief over a measly $10. 35-years later and I still remember that asshole beating up a teenager over chicken change.
Anyway, I went out drinking vodka with my fellow punkers, trashed an abandoned bowling alley, dodged the police helicopter and skated talking to the cops because my friend’s dad was cop, crashed at some popular punk’s apartment, crawled home in the 100° Oklahoma summer sun, and called in sick. LOL, he fired me and I was grateful. Got my leather motorcycle jacket out of frying those fries and working the register. Fuck 'em. 80’s were good times. I got stories. 😁
Thrillhouse@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Crime is absolutely an invented concept.
Drinking and driving used to be legal. Now it is a crime. Nothing changed except our society via our elected representatives opted to enact punishments if an individual’s is caught drinking and driving.
It is illegal for me to purchase or possess a firearm in Canada unless I acquire a license to do so. If I don’t meet these requirements and am found in possession of a weapon, I will be prosecuted and face jail time if convicted. However, in American states pretty much anyone can own a gun. The guns are the same; the difference is the values each society places on gun ownership and the contexts under which owning guns is a crime.
Canada has no stand your ground laws / castle doctrine. It is almost impossible to mount a defense here if you severely injure or kill someone trespassing in your home unless your life is at risk and even then it is difficult to prove that. Many US states allow people to use lethal force to protect property and there isn’t even a trial. The act in question here is the same; the difference is how our societies have invented and constructed our laws.
I am technically not allowed to cross the border into Quebec, 15 minutes away from my home, purchase a case of beer where it is cheaper, and then bring that beer back across the border to Ontario. The beer itself is not illegal. Consuming the beer is not illegal. The act of transporting the beer across provincial borders is technically a crime.
My friend has a house in Quebec. I have a house in Ontario. Cannabis is legal in Canada at a federal level. It is a crime for my friend in Quebec to grow their own cannabis for personal consumption on their own property. In Ontario, 15 minutes away, I am permitted to grow 4 plants per adult who lives in my household for personal consumption. The pot plants are the same; the social constructs surrounding the plants are not.
There are so many current examples throughout history and throughout the world of things that used to be legal or illegal in different countries, cultures, and societies that are now the opposite. Slavery, segregation, discrimination, gay marriage? Nothing has changed with these acts - society has changed their definition of what is a crime and what is not. That makes crime something that is invented by humans, the nature of which constantly changes.
If you were one of the last 2 people on earth and the other person killed all of your livestock, has a crime been committed? How can a crime be committed if there is no social contract which dictates what the consequences should be for that act?
confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Of course crime is a social construct. No examples are necessary. What else could it be?
dustyData@lemmy.world 11 months ago
People tend to forget that social constructs are very very real things that can have major material impacts on our lives. Those who don’t understand this use “it’s just a social construct” to dismiss the importance of certain concepts or abstract ideas. But most of human’s reality is made out of social constructs.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
For another very clear example, money is a social construct. But people live and die by the hands of it.
confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yep! Like gender. It may be a social construct but obviously that social construct is very important.
The only reason I can think of to remind people that something is a social construct is to help them remember change is possible and entirely within our control as a society.
Aceticon@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The very real use of Force - sometimes of the deadly kind - of this specific “social construct” should make it painfully clear it has real - often life changing - consequences, to even the greatest of fools, but apparently it doesn’t.
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The point of saying that something is a social construct isn’t to say that it doesn’t matter, it is to show that it isn’t some immutable requirement of nature. It’s something we decided to do, and most importantly, could decide to do differently if we all just pulled our heads out of our asses. It’s the reply to people who say “it’s always been that way” and look at you like you are crazy for suggesting we do something different.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A) they are literally imaginary, but agreed upon.
B) why are you following the imaginings and rules that were created out of thin air by sociopaths and psychopaths
C) why do we continue to ignore the societies set up by the other sapient species? They are millions of years older than us, and the basic rules of their societies took us till the 19th century to understand as basic principles.
WoodlandAlliance@lemm.ee 11 months ago
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I really don’t understand this. It’s all imaginary. Well, maybe not all of it, since the other sapient species definitely exhibit the abilities to communicate with each other and form extremely long lasting societies that contain their own forms of crime and punishment, but money, and status built on the hoarding of resources would be punished by every other sapient species, and yet somehow these psychopaths have managed to trick the majority of humanity into believing their delusion that artificially created tokens are worth more than society or life.
I don’t get it. I’m 43 and I just don’t get it.
gmtom@lemmy.world 11 months ago
If crime is a social construct struct then how come we have laws of nature and laws of physics. What do you think happens when you break a law?
Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 11 months ago
The gravity police are always bringing me down.
confusedbytheBasics@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Obviously, you change the law to match reality :P Thanks for the giggle.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Ask Chimpanzees, Orcas, Elephants, or many other advanced natural societies that have evolved over the last few million years. They absolutely have a definition of crimes that they will punish if their members engage in those behaviors. Shunning would be the least brutal of their punishments. Capital punishment is far more prevalent.
TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Those are still socially constructed among those species!
Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I think the broader point is that, if crime is a social construct, it’s not natural and unchanging, we can redefine what crime is. Change what’s punished and how.
Ambiorickx@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not a social construct, it’s a legal concept
kurwa@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Which is a social construct?
geissi@feddit.de 11 months ago
The law is also a social construct.