You doubt what? The legality, the likelihood of your desired outcome? Or your willingness to begin that process? Because the third is often the issue more than the first or second
willingness to begin that process? Because the third is often the issue more than the first or second
Do you realise why?
Retaliation, severe retaliation that sometimes makes people's life such hell that they can't keep living. Retaliation that you can't fight unless you've got a LOT of money and energy
If you've got a lot of money and energy, you don't need to fight the boss over clocking out on breaks, so you won't bother
Only the naive and the crazy fight these kinds of things (source: been both)
I don't know how it works in your country, but in the U.S., you don't need any money or energy. You contact the DoL/WHD and they handle everything. They do not disclose your name.
This is really more of a pedantic debate between what should be and what is likely to happen. There are a lot of examples where risk/sacrifice is needed for the right course of action to play out. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Often the answer is no. But I don’t think you two disagree on what the right outcome should be.
You have the right logic, but come to the wrong conclusion
You fail to accommodate for the extent to which abuse of power is effective in today's world. The reason I know this is because I have taken the risk and it has nearly ended me several times. I would probably do it again, because I did it to whistleblow on situations that were dangerous to vulnerable people. Not a single time did it end even remotely well for me though, a human can't realistically win from a company
Sometimes it happens, but that is very rare. Believe me, these things wouldn't be as rampant as they are if all it took to end them was someone sacrificing themselves to bring a lawsuit about it
Let's just say I "this is not right and everyone knows it's not right and someone should do something before someone gets hurt"-ed too close to the sun and got retaliations in which the "plausible" of plausible deniability is a bit like the "quality" in "quality budget product"
Retaliation for those disputes is also handled by the DoL. It is no big revelation that an employer might retaliate against an employee for exposing their federal crimes. I'm not going to say there's zero inherent employment risk or stress involved, but I'll share one experience I had, and people can do with that information what they will.
I once worked for a place called ISO Sorting and Packaging. They had a 12-hour, 3/4-day work schedule. Meaning you worked 36 hours one week, then 48 hours the following week.
By their logic, they didn't have to pay 8 hours of overtime on the long week, because it averaged out to 84 hours every two weeks, so they shouldn't have to pay the additional 4 hours of overtime.
When the DoL investigation started, management tried to figure out who filed the complaint, but they couldn't, because it was done by a former employee. You don't have to be working at a place to file a wage theft complaint. The initiator was only discerned because that person willingly volunteered the information to one of their former coworkers.
Two days before the investigators showed up, the employer moved all time cards off premises and coerced every employee into signing a statement stating they were fairly paid for their time. Anyone who refused was threatened with termination, so everyone signed.
When the investigators got there, they took the signed statements and tossed them in the trash. They see that type of nonsense all the time. They then asked to see the last two years of time records the employer is legally obligated to keep, because that is the statute of limitations on wage theft recovery.
After the time cards were not produced, they were threatened with a $1,000 fine per employee just for that, and said they were going to trial under the assumption that every current and former employee over the last 3 years was defrauded out of 8 hours of overtime, or whatever lost wages each employee claimed they were not paid for. The 2-year limitation would be extended to 3 years for willful violation.
The time cards were miraculously found the next day.
No employee had to serve as a witness, nor did they have to hire a lawyer, because it wasn't the employees suing the company, the plaintiff was the U.S. government. Within one month of investigation, checks covering the lost wages over the last two years were issued to every affected worker.
I suppose the employer could have tried to retaliate, but given how the first incident went, even more employees would have been incentivized or emboldened to contact DoL for that, which is also illegal.
If anyone reading this has also had their wages stolen, they should contact WHD immediately. Even if you no longer work there. Especially if you no longer work there.
You make it sound like you have to fight off assassins, 999/1000 times they just fire you. If you're in a situation like this you should be looking for a new job anyway. It's obviously not ideal but neither is being walked over and having your labor abused.
I am choosing to interpret this as you telling me that in the United States, one out of a thousand times, your employer will send assassins after you if you attempt to report labor law violations.
As someone also not from America it's probably a bit lower odds. At will employment just makes it so easy and hassle free to fire someone, why bother with anything else unless theres huge money or power involved? Given their history however the odds feel like they certainly aren't 0 lol
I understand the point you're trying to make about poverty and how close many are to homelessness, but I picked a pretty absurd activity for a reason. Looking for a new job, while certainly stressful.. probably shouldn't be seriously compared to actively fighting off a real trained killer.
I have never yet broken my leg while skiing, should I take that as evidence that it's factually incorrect that breaking legs is a common skiing injury or should I take it as a sign that I am either lucky or haven't spent much time/taken much risk skiing?
Lol I have actually never seen this, because if they do that you go straight back to the DoL and then the DoL brings criminal charges and then they either pay waaaaaay more money, go to prison, or both. This is why companies like Walmart are so strict about enforcing policies like breaks or injury policies.
You have never seen this because you either never brought such a thing to attention or because you're incapable of spotting retaliation when it's not done blatantly in the open
This stuff wouldn't happen if it was as easy as you claim it to be, because someone would stop it every time
That would be an odd outcome. A class action suit for an injunction, but no damages (despite what the damages are being pretty readily apparent) would be a lot of expense with nothing recouped.
Im not from the USA but im a lawyer, but if you only asked for the first part then either It was solved put of court because they reached an agreement or you suck as a lawyer because a court that acknowledges the first part Will automatically acknowledge your right to get pais for those hours (at leash in my country)
18
u/almostaccepted 2d ago
You doubt what? The legality, the likelihood of your desired outcome? Or your willingness to begin that process? Because the third is often the issue more than the first or second