Compensation Contract Failure and Wage Theft

Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 002218562110082
Author(s):  
Eugene Schofield-Georgeson

In 2020, the Federal Morrison Liberal Government scrambled to respond to the effects of the international coronavirus pandemic on the Australian labour market in two key ways. First, through largescale social welfare and economic stimulus (the ‘JobKeeper’ scheme) and second, through significant proposed reform to employment laws as part of a pandemic recovery package (the ‘Omnibus Bill’). Where the first measure was administered by employers, the second was largely designed to suspend and/or redefine labour protections in the interests of employers. In this respect, the message from the Federal Government was clear: that the costs of pandemic recovery should be borne by workers at the discretion of employers. State Labor Governments, by contrast, enacted a range of industrial protections. These included the first Australia ‘wage theft’ or underpayment frameworks on behalf of both employees and contractors in the construction industry. On-trend with state industrial legislation over the past 4 years, these state governments continued to introduce industrial manslaughter offences, increased access to workers’ compensation, labour hire licensing schemes and portable long service leave.


2020 ◽  
pp. 134-150
Author(s):  
Sarah Green

This chapter analyses the fraud offence from the perspective of ‘wage theft’. The social concept of a ‘wage theft’ encompasses a wide range of dishonest or ‘sharp’ practices: false labelling of individuals as ‘self-employed’ and hence outside the scope of the National Minimum Wage framework, failure to pay holiday pay, unlawful deductions, and an absence of transparency in relation to wage entitlements. It is linked to wider public concerns about the effective enforcement of the statutory minimum wage regime. The chapter then examines whether the social concept of ‘wage theft’ maps onto the legal definition of ‘theft’ in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. It argues the legal label of theft is ill-suited to the constellation of practices associated with the social label of ‘wage theft’. This is because of the disjunction between the proprietary status of ‘wages’ and the offence elements of theft in English law. In short, unpaid wages will often not count as ‘property belonging to another’ at the time of the dishonest appropriation by the employer, hence there is a difficulty with identifying a complete and coincident mens rea and actus reus.


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 279
Author(s):  
Alireza Hasani

<p>Civil liability, contractual liability, and unconventional have two branches. If there is a contract between two or more persons and one of them committed a breach of contract (failure to perform, delay in performing the obligation) to and to harm the other party is incomplete and should the contract have contractual liability for damages cope. Where does harm to another person without a contract exists between them or if there is a contract, Inflict losses not related to the contract, the talk of non-contractual liability.</p><p>About whether contractual and non-contractual obligations is two different legal system or single legal system form, there is disagreement among the lawyers: Some distinguish these two systems from each other. But others believe that because the purpose of civil liability is to compensate for losses, these two are the single legal system.</p>By examining the different opinions, we see that both contractual and non-contractual liability system distinct from each other. And despite the contract, the victim can rely on the rules of non-contractual liability.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 661-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiran Mirchandani ◽  
Sheldon Matthew Bromfield
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 019791832110013
Author(s):  
Rebecca Galemba ◽  
Randall Kuhn

Day laborers are a highly vulnerable population, due to their contingent work arrangements, low socioeconomic position, and precarious immigration status. Earlier studies posited day labor as a temporary bridge for recent immigrants to achieve more stable employment, but recent studies have observed increasing duration of residence in the United States among foreign-born day laborers. This article draws on 170 qualitative interviews and a multi-venue, year-long street corner survey of 411 day laborers in the Denver metropolitan area to analyze how duration in the United States affects day laborers’ wages, work, and wage theft experiences. Compared to recent immigrants, foreign-born day laborers with longer duration in the United States, we found, worked fewer hours and had lower total earnings but also had higher hourly wages and lower exposure to wage theft. We draw on qualitative interviews to address whether this pattern represented weathering, negative selection, or greater discernment. Rather than upward or downward mobility, long duration immigrant day labors had more jagged incorporations experiences. Interviews suggest that day laborers draw on experience to mitigate the risk of wage theft but that the value of experience is undercut by the fierce competition of daily recruitment, ultimately highlighting the compounding vulnerabilities facing longer duration and older immigrant day laborers. The article highlights duration as an understudied precarity factor which can adversely impact the economic assimilation of long duration immigrants who persist in contingent markets like day labor.


2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miruna Petrescu-Prahova ◽  
Michael W. Spiller
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document