this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
977 points (90.9% liked)

solarpunk memes

2588 readers
1236 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I agree that it is wrong. However, in your example you were sold a bad car either way. Wage theft is stealing/keeping wages you are legally owed, while not sharing the profits, while again still wrong, nothing was stolen from you. You just weren't given more.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

"you weren't given more" is too weak. What happens is you are not given a fair share of the value of your work

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Correct, but, a contract was made. You agreed to work a certain amount of time doing a certain job for a certain pay. Upon completion of that work you're paid what was agreed to in the contract.

I don't like it either but there's a reason it's not illegal. Immoral, maybe, but not illegal.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

You and your employer agreed on what that value of your work is prior to you completing it. So long as they do their part, it's not wage theft any more than making a low-ball offer on something you see on Craigslist is theft of product. In either case, one party is free to refuse. Both can renegotiate from there, or either one can walk away from it all.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Well "fair" is subjective, I was just objectively describing what is happening.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

it is stealing, even if it is in accordance with a contract. those contracts are signed between unequal parties, effectively under duress

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've never signed an employment contract under duress. But this is exactly why I suggest to people to always be searching for another job, which means the next contract you sign absolutely does not need to be made under duress. Every job ive left I've had something lined up.

But that being said, even if what you say is true, that doesn't mean any arbitrary thing you think should have been included actually should have been included. So trying to paint increased profits for the owner as theft because still doesn't hold water. Sure you should have gotten more, but was that it? Probably not because plenty of people take these jobs not under duress with no profit sharing.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

you've never been faced with homelessness or hunger or lack of medical care if you didn't take a job?

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You claimed they were signed under duress, I pointed out that I know this isn't always the case. But I even addressed your point assuming your claim was true.

It doesn't sound to me that you are approaching this in good faith.

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith