How would you suggest that police get involved in wage theft?
A 33-year-old black man named Curtis Wilkerson was waiting for his girlfriend at a mall. He went into a department store and put a pair of socks in his shopping bag, and walked out. A $2.50 pair of ordinary tube socks. He was put in jail for 25 to life because he had 2 prior convictions - being a "lookout" in a robbery. But parole is denied 80% of the time, and governors override the parole boards decision to parole them at 50% of the time, he wouldn't get out in 25 years most likely. He also got fined $2,500 for the pair of $2.50 pair of socks. Should a wage theft of $2,000 fine the manager or company $2,000,000 which is the same ratio? Sounds good to me, it would put a stop to wage theft fast. In prison, he earns $20/month, and the state takes $11 every month to pay that $2,500 fine. They take over half his earnings - do that to a business. He won't be able to pay the $2,500 fine off until he is 90 years old.
Another guy got life for stealing a slice of pizza. A guy who went away forever for lifting a pair of baby shoes. One got 50 to life for helping himself to five children’s videotapes from Kmart. One guy got life for possessing 0.14 grams of meth?
Why not life in prison for wage theft? How is it any different than anything else? Saying they "didn't know" or "was a mistake" is like a shoplifter saying the exact same thing, but the shoplifter is prosecuted anyways if they say that.
Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc.
I'd be curious how other countries might handle this better, there's often places that have already done a good job of figuring stuff like this out. The cynic in me worries that dollars count more than votes, and that the system is not as interested in protecting employees as it is protecting employers.
That does not happen, not at the level of say shoplifting or something
At most you can make a complaint, which will go to a prosecutor which will then decide if they want to file criminal charges, at which point the police would arrest someone. Which rarely happens for a single bad check. It is almost always CIVIL unless there is some other crime involved like identity theft, even then it would have to be wide scale
You know what, that is the same process for Wage Theft. You file a complaint with the dept of labor, the dept of labor will investigate and if the problem is wide scale they will issue fines or even criminal indictment if they view it as malicious
>Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc.
The problem here is wage theft is not often as cut and dry as you make it out to be, most often is not an employer refusing to pay wages or writting a bad check for wages. It manifests as forcing an employee to work during their lunch or break, refusing to pay earned vacation time/PTO when someone quits, paying strait time instead of OT rates for Overtime, misidentifying an employee as exempt denying them OT, etc.
These are all things that are harder to prove and in some cases can be honest mistakes.
But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local prosecutors are frustrated with what is going on?
How come we allow stuff like this, pulling out the stops for shoplifters, but not wage-theives? How come people argue in favor of the one but not the other?
This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously
When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted here show often gets recovered.
The problem here and why you are seeing private security is because unlike with wage theft when someone reports shoplifting or other property crime it is often completely ignored, with out even a response at all from the government.
You have this world view that is the exact opposite of reality, where by you believe wage theft is completely ignored by everyone but entire armies are fighting shoplifting
how about instead of engaging with whataboutism, strawmans and redherrings we talk about the actual issues of criminality
Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards with not enough training or accountability to selectively enforce laws in public spaces as they see fit, sometimes abusing law abiding citizens, as mentioned [0] earlier in this thread? Is that ok? Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence?
Even though it is easier to go after shoplifters than some other criminals, does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok? Wouldn't it be better if the store owners lobbied for more police and/or reforms (to make additional police more palatable to the public), or maybe move their businesses or close? That's what other crime victims have to do. Lots of crime victims are ignored by the government. There's nothing special about the victims of shoplifting, there are many other crimes that impact more people, as the parent poster mentioned with wage theft.
Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers, armed guards for hire with 40 hours of training roaming the streets, and let everyone else fend for themselves? That might be a bad feedback loop, where those with money have their own police, and those without live more in danger. There are a number of other countries that have devolved to this.
Hopefully I did a better job describing what I was thinking, above. I don't see the justification for this one set of victims to be able to hire armed guards roaming the streets and harassing law abiding citizens, opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves. I trust abuses such as described in the original parent comment's linked article are the exception, but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things.
I game for feedback or your thoughts on the above, if you have any.
[0] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...
you have flipped the proposition from where it should be ethically. Everyone has the clear and natural right to defend themselves and their property from aggression including theft, We create governments in order to protect our rights, persons and property when government fails in its only job it reverts back to the individual to secure themselves and their property.
We do not "allow" people to defend themselves, it is inherent in their existence as humans we sometimes contract that protection out to government but never for a second believe we give up or surrender the right to do it ourselves.
>>sometimes abusing law abiding citizens?
I have no proof of this, and if they do they are no longer defending property and have become criminals themselves whom should be prosecuted as such
>>Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence?
The state has the self declared monopoly on the INITIATION of violence. Meaning the state has declared that is has the authority to attack you in any circumstance with or with out needing to justify their actions under the umbrella of self defense.
>>does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok
This is a problem with wording here, are they in "public" spaces or are they on private property that is open to the public? Do you think there is a difference between the 2? Based on the story linked to it appears these companies are paid to patrol shopping centers, malls etc. not "the streets" though they to talk about community outreach they do which seems to be different from their security patrols
Security services have been a business for all of time, do you also object to private armored car services banks use? or Security Guards at event venues?
I find nothing objectionable with their harsh enforcement of property crimes but I have a feeling our worldview on this topic will greatly differ as I am very very very much for very very harsh punishment for property theft. I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force.
>>Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers
I think a mix of both is the correct model. I certainly do not want my tax dollars to go to paying some cop to stand around the local walmart waiting for someone to steal something, Walmart should pay someone to protect their property. However private enforcement should be limited to stopping an act in progress and notifying law enforcement who then come in a reasonable time and actually investigate, and prosecute the crime.
>>opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves
This is a mischaracterization of what they are doing, the government is refusing to provide police protection, if the government refuses to provide it what should they do? just be victimized? Just take it? If the politicians say they will not punish people for theft, you believe people should just accept the theft? No that will never happen.
>>but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things.
yes there was, why? Because government did not have or refused to provide the resources to protect people and property, so like with anything the market found a solution. If you want to curb the possibility for abuses like this we need to support aggressive enforcement and protection of property. Failure to do so will ensure people and companies take the protection into their own hands which may not be good for anyone.
If you have a local DA that wants to stop prosecuting "misdemeanor" property crimes out of some altruistic or other reason I strongly encourage you to vote them out.
I also thought that the comparison to other crimes had some merit, but understand that's not the most productive way to approach this.
> Everyone has the clear and natural right to defend themselves and their property from aggression including theft
I agree, for the most part, outside of edge cases I guess. Some states let you kill someone trespassing in your house (I'm thinking castle doctrine), others only if you are threatened. I'm fine living in a world that goes either way. I'd hate to see the right to defend oneself abused, like when a cop told me "shoot (the garage thief) next time, be sure to kill him, just put a knife in their hand". That could be a neighbor's 14 year old kid playing chase in the dark with their friends. Not ideal...
I wonder if a shopkeeper in Texas can legally shoot a shoplifter? I'm curious how you would feel about a victim of wage theft shooting their employer? Monetary loss is a monetary loss, right?
> This is a problem with wording here, are they in "public" spaces or are they on private property that is open to the public? Do you think there is a difference between the 2?
The article I linked to talked about the actions these guards were taking out on the streets. Portland allows tents on sidewalks, and these guards broke laws by physically removing people, amongst other things (including beatings, and a shooting). The prosecutors there were frustrated trying to hold them accountable. This is the kind of stuff I have a big problem with. I'm not saying that having homeless camped on the streets is a good thing, but the answer is to address the problem or change the laws, not extra-legal activities.
I've got a buddy who is an armed security guard. They send these guys out with 40 hours of training, and they don't know the law. Many better-trained police officers don't know the law. He makes a couple extra bucks an hour being armed, and it's not much. He really needs the money.
Ultimately these security companies are kind of taking advantage of the people doing these jobs. They have to get their own insurance. They don't have qualified immunity. They are really sticking their necks out. The security companies hiring these people don't care, the guards are easily replaceable.
> Security services have been a business for all of time, do you also object to private armored car services banks use? or Security Guards at event venues?
I do not object to these things.
> I find nothing objectionable with their harsh enforcement of property crimes but I have a feeling our worldview on this topic will greatly differ as I am very very very much for very very harsh punishment for property theft. I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force.
I grew up in a bad neighborhood and got used to being careful. I don't know that we greatly differ, but yeah I assume we do to some extant. The world needs all kinds, right? My thinking on things like this has changed over the years, as I've moved in various circles of haves and have-nots, as I've gotten more perspective travelling and reading about other cultures and how they organize their societies, what they value, etc. I've ended up wondering more about root causes, social and community dynamics, the difference between low-trust and high-trust societies, etc.
But to be honest I've paid more attention lately to how the rich/system take advantage of the poor, then the reverse. Just questioning assumptions, mostly. A lot around politics, how the rules are rigged sometimes. Health care is an example - unknowable billing, $5k+ deductible if you get sick, insurance companies get the subsidized premiums, etc. A lot of things revolving around campaign finance reform - rich people donating to politicians they aren't eligible to vote for, corporate/union/trade-association lobbying, politicians who care more about money than voters, etc. Housing as an investment, restricted supply, increasing homelessness. Also places like amazon warehouses that just chew through people, treating them like garbage, doing their stock buybacks, or walmart telling their employees to get food stamps, swaths of the country inaccessible without a car which many can't afford, etc. We could do so much better. But I don't mean to side track us!
> I certainly do not want my tax dollars to go to paying some cop to stand around the local walmart waiting for someone to steal something, Walmart should pay someone to protect their property. However private enforcement should be limited to stopping an act in progress and notifying law enforcement who then come in a reasonable time and actually investigate, and prosecute the crime.
Agreed. That still leaves some grey area, like how far to go detaining people, but is a great starting point. Ideally we could make the rules of engagement for people doing these jobs easier and more effective. Ideally they wouldn't need to be armed - they are not that well screened, trained, or paid. Police in other countries like the U.K. are not armed. Catching criminals can be the priority, as opposed to preventing crimes at the moment they happen.
The private security guards in the article, the article talking about their abuses, were operating outside the stores, doing things like clearing people off the streets at night. Maybe we'd agree this isn't a good idea? I certainly don't want to have to deal with someone like that.
> if the government refuses to provide it what should they do? just be victimized? Just take it?
That's what a lot of crime victims have to do, all the time. It sucks when it happens. Some people in this thread had a "too bad" attitude about wage theft, and others others have a "too bad" attitude about shoplifters. A lot of people feel like big corporations are squeezing people for profits too much, politicians bought and paid for, and they don't care if people steal form them. No love lost. Personally I'd rather fix things as opposed to double down.
> Because government did not have or refused to provide the resources to protect people and property, so like with anything the market found a solution. If you want to curb the possibility for abuses like this we need to support aggressive enforcement and protection of property. Failure to do so will ensure people and companies take the protection into their own hands which may not be good for anyone.
(You said the above when I mentioned the Pinkerton problems)
I think it would help a lot of we reformed some things about policing in this country. A lot of people don't trust the police, and that is a problem. There was a huge outcry with the BLM movement, and nothing changed. Personally I think that reforming internal affairs needs to happen, it is a big problem that local police investigate themselves, along with local prosecutors. If those with money and influence don't care, then I agree we'll end up living in quite a different country down the road.
Aggressive enforcement and protection of property is not the only job of the government, people's constitutional rights are of paramount importance also, and the authorities fucked up, too many people don't trust them. It's not good when 20, 30 or 40 percent of people feel stepped on. The outcome from that can degrade things for everyone.
>If you have a local DA that wants to stop prosecuting "misdemeanor" property crimes out of some altruistic or other reason I strongly encourage you to vote them out.
I assume money is a big issue around this. The police are a limited resource, and can't be everywhere at once. I also assume this gets more press when it's not happening just in bad neighborhoods.
-
After all this perhaps we agree that the rules of engagement for private security need to be closely looked at when they are operating in public, both inside the public spaces of stores and in the streets? That would go most of the way towards assuaging my concerns, although I still think police reforms earning back the public's trust would be a better long term solution to the specific problems in Portland.
Ultimately I respect the right of the people in Portland to democratically figure this out, and wish them the best.
I wasn't sure what distinction you are making with word "initiation", above. I'm reading that the idea is the state has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force [0]. They have the final say, for instance on how you allowed to defend yourself, ordinarily allowing the use proportional force to protect yourself from bodily harm.
Also mentioned was idea of a natural right to defend oneself, like you talked about, which is an idea that goes back to the enlightenment, but that this is in conflict with the idea of a state monopoly on violence. Seems like in practicality if the state wants to lock you up in a cage for shooting someone, your natural rights weren't really a thing.
I brought up the state monopoly on violence because people and the government will need to decide if they want to allow private armed security guards to operate on the streets [1].
> I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force.
Texas seems to be an outlier in this regard, "Texas being the only state to allow the use of deadly force to regain possession of land or property" [2]. Other U.S. states and other Western countries do not allow the use of lethal force to defend property like Texas does. I don't think modern societies and governments are going to embrace your position above any time soon.
In the context of the article we are talking about, I assume that the people of Portland will not want to allow these armed security guards to roam the streets breaking laws and hurting people [1].
I do agree with your position that people are going to want to defend themselves if the government won't do so, or does so inconsistently. That's probably why we have gangs in the inner cities, places where the government doesn't enforce laws for one reason or another. The government looses legitimacy in the eyes of the affected when this happens. Allowing shopkeepers to put armed security guards in the streets is not going to help this bigger problem, and comes with a set of new problems.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
[1] https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose...