It’s not, though. The money your boss pays is done in exchange for services, not goods, nor does your boss actively take your possessions.
You don’t provide services to the store, so there’s no equivalent. The closest thing is simple shoplifting (you take the goods but do not pay) but there are tons of videos online that prove that many stores won’t do much to stop shoplifters. Some stores will keep track of how much you’ve stolen and only take action after passing a certain threshold, something employees can also do as wage theft is illegal but higher amounts are easier to win the lawsuit over.
The distinctions you name are completely irrelevant, because in both cases people are robbed of $100 they legally own. It doesn’t matter if physical goods or services are exchanged, or if the owner also physically possessed the money at some point.
Idk where you live, but shop owners in my country will absolutely go after every penny someone has stolen from a store, and rightfully so!
“Robbed” implies taking something. That’s not the same as breaking your promise.
Equating wage theft to robbery is about as dumb as equating digital piracy to theft. The feeling of being owed something doesn’t determine whether or not something is theft or not, you need to actually take someone’s possessions by all the legal definitions I know.
Arguably, wage theft is worse than normal theft. Not only are you breaking your promise, you’re doing so at the point where the worker can no longer do anything about it. You can take the goods off a shoplifter and put them back into the store, but you can’t give back the time with their families someone has sacrificed for you. Money can be replaced with other money, and unless there’s some kind of sentimental value, goods can be expressed in a purely monetary value for replacement (and the labour associated with that). Plus, people without money, like the ones that don’t get paid for their work, are more likely to steal out of desperation, encouraging actual theft.
Luckily the courts are pretty strict against wage theft and/or unlawful firing. A shoplifter stealing diapers and bread may get away with little more than a warning, but refusing to pay out even a small amount of money will piss off a judge enough to force the matter.
Again, no one is saying that they are the same. The argument is that their differences don’t matter in this context, because the negative outcome for the victim is the same. And that’s absolutely not the case for physical theft vs digital piracy, not even close.
It’s not, though. The money your boss pays is done in exchange for services, not goods, nor does your boss actively take your possessions.
You don’t provide services to the store, so there’s no equivalent. The closest thing is simple shoplifting (you take the goods but do not pay) but there are tons of videos online that prove that many stores won’t do much to stop shoplifters. Some stores will keep track of how much you’ve stolen and only take action after passing a certain threshold, something employees can also do as wage theft is illegal but higher amounts are easier to win the lawsuit over.
The distinctions you name are completely irrelevant, because in both cases people are robbed of $100 they legally own. It doesn’t matter if physical goods or services are exchanged, or if the owner also physically possessed the money at some point.
Idk where you live, but shop owners in my country will absolutely go after every penny someone has stolen from a store, and rightfully so!
“Robbed” implies taking something. That’s not the same as breaking your promise.
Equating wage theft to robbery is about as dumb as equating digital piracy to theft. The feeling of being owed something doesn’t determine whether or not something is theft or not, you need to actually take someone’s possessions by all the legal definitions I know.
Arguably, wage theft is worse than normal theft. Not only are you breaking your promise, you’re doing so at the point where the worker can no longer do anything about it. You can take the goods off a shoplifter and put them back into the store, but you can’t give back the time with their families someone has sacrificed for you. Money can be replaced with other money, and unless there’s some kind of sentimental value, goods can be expressed in a purely monetary value for replacement (and the labour associated with that). Plus, people without money, like the ones that don’t get paid for their work, are more likely to steal out of desperation, encouraging actual theft.
Luckily the courts are pretty strict against wage theft and/or unlawful firing. A shoplifter stealing diapers and bread may get away with little more than a warning, but refusing to pay out even a small amount of money will piss off a judge enough to force the matter.
Again, no one is saying that they are the same. The argument is that their differences don’t matter in this context, because the negative outcome for the victim is the same. And that’s absolutely not the case for physical theft vs digital piracy, not even close.