Of course crime is a social construct. No examples are necessary. What else could it be?
People tend to forget that social constructs are very very real things that can have major material impacts on our lives. Those who don’t understand this use “it’s just a social construct” to dismiss the importance of certain concepts or abstract ideas. But most of human’s reality is made out of social constructs.
For another very clear example, money is a social construct. But people live and die by the hands of it.
These constructs are often based on something concrete at their core as well.
Money, or currency in general, is a social construct that was built on top of the basic idea of trade or exchange. Reciprocity is a very basic behavior found in all kinds of animals, especially us primates.
Likewise, social constructs like “crime” tend to be tied to ethics, another social construct, but that too can be tied back to some basic ideas like harm, which, again, is something animals often form their social norms around.
So, yes, social “constructs”, but that doesn’t in anyway mean society constructs them out of thin air.
I don’t know if you completely understand the criticism. Social constructs aren’t decided entirely by laws of physics meaning they a malleable. No one is arguing social constructs aren’t real but only that they can be changed if society would let them. Especially if we all collectively agree they are wrong and unjust.
Holy shit that was a great explanation.
Money is made up but the suffering the lack of it causes is very real.
They’re not saying it isn’t real, just that it being made up doesn’t matter.
That suffering isn’t because of a lack of money, though. It’s because of a lack of means to secure the things you need. You would not suffer from a lack of money in a world where everything was free.
The social construct is the idea of currency: a physical (or digital) representation of value for the purpose of trading, but it has no inherent purpose or meaning if you remove it from the society that constructed it.
But what that money represents is a resource. All beings on earth need resources. Whether it’s money to pay for medicine or berries to eat in the forest or water to drink in the desert, everyone has resources they need and must manage for survival. The social construct are the layers of abstraction added between you and how you secure the resource. With no social constructs, you gotta go hunt your dinner. With them, you can buy it.
They’re not saying it isn’t real, just that it being made up doesn’t matter.
I’m on the same page as you but understand this reply because this thread is full of people who think social construct = made up, frivolous thing that isn’t important.
The made up part is true, the rest of that isn’t. Many things are made up, but their impact on people is indeed very real.
The important part, and I think what the OP seeks to illuminate, is that it matters, but it’s not some law of nature that simply must be. It’s social, and thus can be redefined.
But what that money represents is a resource.
Quite the opposite. It’s kind of a weird accident that money came to both represent wealth and currency, when money is actually meant to represent debt. It’s the mechanism of mediation for an untrusty society. An artiluge to create common ground with strangers who you don’t trust, replacing it with a concept, currency, that you know that someone you do trust will take. So create an anonymous common to bridge trade. Unfortunately most societies chose precious metals to trade with, and this conflated currency with wealth. So accumulating currency became a thing we haven’t been able to shake, but it’s not mandatory for currency to work.
Now none of that was rational or intentional, it just sort of happened that way. But in reality, money (specially fiat money) is worthless, you can come up with any number and any unit to represent resources. Valuing stuff on a monetary number is a fool’s errand, what you’re actually quantifying is collective trust on the monetary system. And we have plenty of examples in history of currencies that collapse in value even though the amount of resources in the society remains stable and sometimes even plentiful. But when trust on the institutions that uphold the currency collapses, they are barely useful as kindle to start fires.
It being made up very much matters. It being made up means it can be changed. That’s what this post is saying. Not that crime doesn’t matter and the consequences aren’t real because social construct, but that crime and the punishments therein aren’t immutable laws, they are social laws, and thus can be changed.
Yep! Like gender. It may be a social construct but obviously that social construct is very important.
The only reason I can think of to remind people that something is a social construct is to help them remember change is possible and entirely within our control as a society.
Your last sentence is 100% the point. None of the consequences or limitations or expectations created by our legal system are founded on some fundamental, unchangeable, thing. They’re all just what we’ve agreed on, and we can change that agreement
Amen!
The very real use of Force - sometimes of the deadly kind - of this specific “social construct” should make it painfully clear it has real - often life changing - consequences, to even the greatest of fools, but apparently it doesn’t.
The point of saying that something is a social construct isn’t to say that it doesn’t matter, it is to show that it isn’t some immutable requirement of nature. It’s something we decided to do, and most importantly, could decide to do differently if we all just pulled our heads out of our asses. It’s the reply to people who say “it’s always been that way” and look at you like you are crazy for suggesting we do something different.
Precisely. The point of the post is to remind us that it’s a social construct, not a law of nature, and thus can be changed.
A) they are literally imaginary, but agreed upon.
B) why are you following the imaginings and rules that were created out of thin air by sociopaths and psychopaths
C) why do we continue to ignore the societies set up by the other sapient species? They are millions of years older than us, and the basic rules of their societies took us till the 19th century to understand as basic principles.
deleted by creator
I really don’t understand this. It’s all imaginary. Well, maybe not all of it, since the other sapient species definitely exhibit the abilities to communicate with each other and form extremely long lasting societies that contain their own forms of crime and punishment, but money, and status built on the hoarding of resources would be punished by every other sapient species, and yet somehow these psychopaths have managed to trick the majority of humanity into believing their delusion that artificially created tokens are worth more than society or life.
I don’t get it. I’m 43 and I just don’t get it.
It’s cos you’re only 43, bro.
I’m 44 and it all makes sense now…
Think about them as a cultural cancer or a parasite.
If crime is a social construct struct then how come we have laws of nature and laws of physics. What do you think happens when you break a law?
The gravity police are always bringing me down.
Obviously, you change the law to match reality :P Thanks for the giggle.
Ask Chimpanzees, Orcas, Elephants, or many other advanced natural societies that have evolved over the last few million years. They absolutely have a definition of crimes that they will punish if their members engage in those behaviors. Shunning would be the least brutal of their punishments. Capital punishment is far more prevalent.
Those animal crimes are still socially constructed among those various species! Social construct means some thing or dynamic or situation that is created through interaction between numerous actors rather than something extant in the physical world.
Which is why it’s dumb to try to negate a thing like crime by saying it’s a social construct. The language we are using to talk about it being a social construct is a social construct. Literally YOU are a social construct, but here you are, worried about “wage theft” which is also a social construct. So do things being a social construct matter or not because if not, lets stop trying to negate anything we don’t like by calling it a social construct, and if so lets apply it evenly and take it to it’s logical conclusion. I would say “reject modernity, embrace monkee” but rejection, modernity, embracement, and monkee are all social constructs.
Who is trying to “negate” anything??? I am SO fucking sick of people misunderstanding social constructs. Literally EVERY TIME it’s mentioned, someone assumes that a thing being a social construct means we should erase it. That’s NOT what we’re saying. We’re saying it can be changed. It’s honestly a really trite point, duh laws can change, but whatever. It’s still a social construct and it’s frustrating seeing people argue that it’s not. People need to learn the shit you’re complaining about before you complain about it.
I’m sorry this comment is far more rude than my previous one but I just woke up and haven’t drank my patience juice yet
Literally EVERY TIME it’s mentioned, someone assumes that a thing being a social construct means we should erase it.
That’s because that’s EXACTLY how you make it sound.
The point of saying that something is a social construct is to show that it isn’t some immutable requirement of nature. It’s something we decided to do, and most importantly, could decide to do differently if we all just pulled our heads out of our asses. It’s the reply to people who say “it’s always been that way” and look at you like you are crazy for suggesting we do something different.
I think the broader point is that, if crime is a social construct, it’s not natural and unchanging, we can redefine what crime is. Change what’s punished and how.
It’s not a social construct, it’s a legal concept
Which is a social construct?
Calling things a social construct is a social construct. Leave LSD to the adults please.
I think this was an attempt at a joke?
The law is also a social construct.
deleted by creator
Yes but which one leads to worse consequences despite taking the same value of currency?
So let’s see… Here in Denmark:
-
If I steal the equivalent of $100 from a store, they will call the police, the police will apprehend me, take back the $100, and give me a fine. If the robbery seems to be professional, then it could also result in jail time up to 1 year and 6 months.
-
If my employer shorts my paycheck by the equivalent of $100, then I contact my union. The union contacts the company and tells the company to pay me within a week or two. If the company doesn’t pay me within the deadline, the union will declare the company bankrupt, and the bankruptcy proceedings start by liquidating the company and paying me my missing wages along with the guaranteed pay that relates to being fired, which depends on how long I have been employed. (1 month pay if I have been employed less than 6 months, 3 months pay if employed 6 months to 3 years, 4 months pay if employed for 3 to 6 years, 5 months pay if employed 6 to 9 years, and 6 months pay if employed more than 9 years.)
Well fuck Denmark is civilized.
The USA version is different, and likely what is being complained about.
Even in this situation it’s uneven. If the company pays you the right amount within a couple weeks, nothing happens. It’s as if they never shorted you.
If you take the money from the company, you - at least - pay an additional fine. And/or go to prison. The company doesn’t have either consequence for attempting to steal from you.
I see where you’re coming from, but if the company repeatedly holds back your salary, then the union can still start bankruptcy proceedings.
It is assumed that being late with paying wages might have been a mistake, and you don’t want to punish people or companies for a mistake.
You can’t really assume that people stealing money from a store is a mistake.
You see your honour, I meant to grab a stick of gum next to the till but accidentally reached inside it and took $100
deleted by creator
based
What happens if an employer empties the business’s bank account and runs to avoid consequences? Does anyone compensate the employee in that case?
I’m not entirely sure… At the very least you would be able to immediately collect unemployment (~12.000 DKK if you don’t have kids, ~16.000 DKK if you have kids), and if you’re in an “a-kasse” you would be able to collect up to 90% of your old salary.
I’m pretty sure thought, that anyone who ran away with the bank account would pretty much have to leave the country, as otherwise they would be apprehended by police, personal belongings would be repossessed, and they would not be allowed to start a new business.
So what you’re telling me is that the actual person who made the decision to steal your wages faces no personal consequences for making that decision.
bald eagle screeching in the distance
-
deleted by creator
Not familiar with the laws of California but I think the spirit of the post is that the cops will be on your ass immediately and you will be put in jail if you walk with $100.
If your boss steals $100 from you it then becomes a matter for the courts before anyone in the company faces even the slightest threat of jail.
I’d add Wilhoit’s Law: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect”
But I’d adjust: “North American Democracy consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups (the rich) whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups (workers) whom the law binds but does not protect
No no no! Let me continue to be obtuse, a felony against an LLC ( like, ohhhhh, I dunno this little mom and pop startup) is a damning life ending thing that will forever alter the trajectory of the poor business owner’s life and livelihood. They could’ve had a bright future, free to do anything, go anywhere, hell even go to the stars all of that jeapordized by one measly little honest mistake of an accounting error
that was multiplied thousands of times across the workforce spanning years summing entire lifetimes of earnings. Surely you can’t mean that they would be held to no recourse while the overly empowered and emboldened working class holds it’s jack boot stranglehold on poor honest golden parachute equipped hedge fund daddies who raised money from their well to do friends and family to buy a house outright for the optics of starting out of a garage with nothing…God damned delusional liberals
Not familiar with the laws of California but I think the spirit of the post is that the cops will be on your ass immediately and you will be put in jail if you walk with $100.
If your boss steals $100 from you it then becomes a matter for the courts before anyone in the company faces even the slightest threat of jail.
Because one of these things is stealing a possession, and one of these things is failing to pay a debt. And.we generally don’t jail people for failing to pay debts, at least not immediately. And that’s a good thing to, otherwise the poor would be getting jailed all the time.
deleted by creator
It’s not perfectly fine, but they’re weighing it against Wage Theft, which outweighs all other types of theft in the US based on sheer dollar-value of how much is stolen.
No, it’s not okay to just steal from the till, but the point is the business owner can call the cops on us if we do that, which results in our immediate arrest, yet conversely if they steal from our paychecks we have to take them to small claims court and we better have the receipts to prove it, and usually (except maybe places like California) all the business has to do is… pay back what they owe you. Nothing for damages or lost opportunities due to having less money. Nope, just pay back what they already owed you to begin with. What a joke of a slap on the wrist.
Theft is theft, should be the same penalties for either side and business owners shouldn’t get such free range to fuck over people with no consequences. Some of us would just like to see an equal playing field where wage theft meant I could call the fucking cops and have the asshat who stole my fucking legally owed money arrested.
Today I learned that wage theft actually refers to a crime, and is not just a word for paying people less than the value they create.
Crime is ABSOLUTELY a social construct. Why was it legal several months ago to have an abortion across the US but now several states are criminalizing the same? Have abortions changed? No - politics did, I would argue spurred on by the desire for capitalists to keep a steady supply of low wage uneducated exploitable desperate workers.
Why is it suddenly criminal in the state of Georgia to give food and water to people lining up at polling stations? Because one class wants to make it uncomfortable and inconvenient for another class, and I would argue race, of people to vote.
For more, from Harper’s Magazine “Legalize It All” (How to Win the War on Drugs):
At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Same as it ever was - criminalizing social classes to disempower them is the name of the game. If you aren’t wise to this you haven’t been paying attention.
Adding - it’s illegal in Japan for me to possess and consume cannabis but perfectly legal in Canada for me to do the same.
It would be illegal for me to walk around in certain countries without a headscarf, how is that not a social law?
It’s illegal in Russia to speak against the war, and people have been imprisoned for the softest infractions of this. In North America I have free speech in this regard.
Considering this is aboringdistopia are we saying that stealing cash from a register should be perfectly fine?
How did you manage to come to the dumbest possible interpretation of what was being said?
Does anyone really go to jail for wage theft though? Especially at the same severity that walking out with $100 till bucks would?
From my perspective, it seems like the boss gets a slap on the wrist the first time, while the worker gets fired and carted off to jail the first time.
I think that’s the point of this meme, but there are some nuances involved (aka why does the law treat these people differently? I think there may be a reason having to do with intent here, but that is discussion outside of the scope of what this meme is getting at.)
It might be a felony, but is it enforced?
If something is illegal but isn’t enforced, it’s not illegal.
This is an argument for punishing wage theft not that crime is a made up concept.
To paraphrase my favorite author:
THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF [LAW], ONE MOLECULE OF [CRIME]…
deleted by creator
To call something a social construct doesn’t diminish the impact of that thing. Race is a social construct as well, and that too has very real impacts on people. Much of what humans interact with on a daily basis are social constructs. That doesn’t make those things meaningless or trivial.
Marriage is a social construct, but that doesn’t mean I can go around acting like I’m single without consequence.
One crime has far less harsh sentences, far less enforcement, and a much more significant impact. Yet harm is the same by the money amounts.
The harm from wage theft is generally worse, as the employee is much more likely to be negatively impacted from missing that $100 than the employer is.
Of course it’s a social construct, just like everything else that matters is. If you don’t want your live to be determined by social constructs, you would have to live alone in the woods.
I think the broader point is that, if crime is a social construct, it’s not natural and unchanging, we can redefine what crime is.
Did anyone think we couldn’t? We regularly elect people to do that job.
Yeah, actually. A lot of people have a “well, what can you do” attitude about our lots in life.
Yes, and it’s silly to act like you don’t know of people who care a lot about following the law, thank cops for protecting us, look down on migrants for not doing it the right way, condemn people who steal to make ends meet because theft is a crime, yet don’t care much about the policies that leave our fellow humans on the street to fend for themselves that are immoral, but not criminal.
That’s still not a point at all, just like saying “maybe political change would be good”. Like, of course there are incidents where common sense morality and legal practice don’t match, that’s where lawmakers should step in and change something.
Yes, and the point of this is to remind people that’s an option. A lot of people get stuck in “life is how it is” and change seems impossible. It’s important to be reminded sometimes that it’s not.
Things that are social constructs can be modified with the social contract and should be modified to suit the will of the governed.
Social constructs that operate without the approval of the membership seem to be bad constructs that should probably not be built that way.
It’s really the exception for any aspect of reality to be operating with the approval of everyone affected. Things being socially constructed doesn’t mean they are less real, or that they are somehow easier to change. After all, “convincing people that they should think differently about some social construct” is just a clumsy definition of politics.
Counterpoint:
Failure to pay someone money they are owed resulting in jail time only sounds good when you imagine employers being carted off for not paying employees what they’re owed.
It’s not so fun when you consider a mother of 2 carted off for missing a car payment.
Good point, let’s not bring jail into the equation and just do it how it’s done today:
If a mother of 2 misses her car payment, they take her car
So if your boss misses their payment for your labour, you should take back your labour, destroy whatever you’ve made but not been paid for
That wouldn’t be practical for most things, especially disposables or perishables like food. It’d be best simply to fine the owner or garnish their bank account. The IRS should enforce wage theft cases since they’re the ones with the power to do that.
Yes, also what will happen if you walk out the store with 100€ of groceries depend mostly on how you react. The thing, is, its not because they’re poor that they are going to steal. Homeless people steal a pack of pasta and a water bottle, not a month worth of food. It does happen, though if someone walk out with 100€ there is more chance he is walking out with a tv than pasta, be an asshole and be belligerant.
In the end the difference goes back to surveillance, it is very easy to prove you are walking out of the store with 100€ of things, there much less surveillance that would even be legal today to see they are paying you correctly. Don’t be fooled by the politicians who say “let’s just bails every robbers and shoplifter cause bosses withold pays” because this is a zero investment solution. For the politician its just writing, no need to rework the system that is causing the issue or deploy law enforcement. This is literally politics without action, which is indeed nonsensical
my last boss still owes me >6000€ in wages. I have been struggling for half a year now to get him to pay.
meanwhile: When I order something from amazon, and the bank-transfer bounces, I am in for new kind of hell of late-fees and incasso-mail.
TALK TO A LAWYER and sue him
There is a difference for missing a payment and completely refusing to pay what is owed.
Crime is a social construct = wage theft is a social construct, and according to the law of internet arguments something being a social construct means it doesn’t matter and/or it’s dumb to complain about it, so don’t worry, it’s all fine.
I think the broader point is that, if crime is a social construct, it’s not natural and unchanging, we can redefine what crime is.
Wage fucking theft, everyone.
The largest theft by the numbers in the United States. Also the least prosecuted crime by the numbers.
The place burns down misteriously in both cenarios?
The quote is still in the wrong mindset with bad use of language.
It’s not withholding. It’s stealing. It’s thievery.
Setting aside morals and ethics for a moment, intent (and malice) is a key component of crimes. Unfortunately it’s easier to show in some cases than others. It’s also worth noting that the at-will contract goes both ways in this case. Unfortunately there is an insurmountable power imbalance in this situation.
I was about to say I’m glad I was never in this situation, but I just remembered a time where I switched from an employee to a contractor and stopped getting paid.
Unpopular opinion: I find this comparison a bit off. Compare your theft from the till to your boss taking $100 from your pocket and it seems more even.
If he shaft you for a 100$ on your paycheck or he takes it from from your pocket, it’s still the same thing. You are a 100$ short by malicious intent.
Right but, as far as the law is concerned, shorting you $100 is not the same as stealing it from you, because you did not possess it until it was given to you. But that does not mean it isn’t a crime, it’s just considered a different type of crime.
Stealing from a tin is theft of money in someone else’s possession to which you have no right to.
You are owed your wages. It would be a crime not to pay what you are owed, to fullfil their binding legal obligation. We call it theft (because it is) but the distinction is that it’s a failure to deliver something in their possession to you.
And the reason the punishment isn’t the same is because if we start jailing people for failure to pay money they owe someone else, it is going to hurt the poor faaaar worse than the wealthy or the business owners.
It’s just not a good analogy. The point it’s trying to make is fine but the example is poor.
Oh in that case I’ll just pocket the $100 a customer gives me for groceries, instead of putting it in the drawer to which it is owed.
Since we want a consistent rule, the store should be repossessed just like a car, or at least missed wages should have massive late fees.
The fact that the comparison feels off to many despite being perfectly valid is exactly the point.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
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!
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
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.
Why’s that?
Intent?
Taking $100 is theft. Period. You can’t accidentally pocket $100 out of a register.
Boss shorting your check $100 could be an accident. Often not even their accident these days with payroll software. Until it happens consistently it’s not guaranteed intentional.
And yet the accidental theft of walking out of a store with unpurchased goods is still punishable by the same laws that would affect those with destructive intent.
Sure, intent “should” be a major factor in crime, but it is definitely skewed in how it is regularly applied.
deleted by creator
Because the most reasonable explanation for being shorted on a paycheck is an accounting error, meaning no malice intended. Unless the employer tried to keep the money after realizing the mistake, they should at most be given a fine.
Assuming the original post meant robbing the store, that’s quite different. There is malicious intent to deprive strangers of their money, and probably at threat of violence. Or even if it was just unattended, the theft is still done with malicious intent. The last situation is much like pickpocketing, so the analogy fits.
If the Law was fair the same amount of harm would be punished by the same sized penalty, quite independently of the method by which such harm was inflicted, and taking $100 from your pocket inflicts exactly the same amount of harm as shorting your paycheck by $100.
There is a reason murder and manslaughter are punished differently. Intent matters when judging people. If you accidentally break an item in a store, that should be treated differently than someone running in there and purposefully smashing the same item.
My reading from the original post is that it’s about the intentional not paying of the correct salary, not something accidental, in which case my point stands that it’s the same harm caused, with intent, hence should be the same penalty.
Hopefully you only mean economic crime.
Removed by mod
Take twenty seconds to Google wage theft vs other theft, then come back and respond again.
The boss counts the till at the end of the day for the same reason you should keep a diary with your hours worked including times and spend the 5 minutes to add it all up and check that you’re being paid correctly.
They dont trust you, so you dont trust them.
As an hourly employee, if you’re not signing off on worked hours, in some fashion, both you and the employer are fucking up big time.
One call to the state labor board and the employer must prove hours worked, that you signed off on.
They can’t do that? Then the employee gets everything claimed.
SOURCE: Worked for a payroll firm for 5-years. Very eye opening.
Absolutely, but theres a difference between wage theft and honest mistakes. You have to check for both. Its easy to write a 5 that looks like a 6 or someone forgetting to tick a box, etc.
Just because you signed off on it doesnt mean it was input and processed correctly.
Removed by mod
Who comes up with this shit?
All I have to do is make 1 or 2 phone calls to get my $100 pay, ASAP.
c&p
Removed by mod
I’ve found Americans are woefully ignorant of employment law. But the employers are not.
Employers are scared shitless of a call from the state labor board. 2 jobs ago I had a really weaselly, small time, company owner. My god, the things that man would say and do to fuck you around. But he stayed within the law and did not fuck around on paychecks.
One time I was shorted $200. Honest mistake. He called me personally and said he would give me $200 out of his wallet, that afternoon, if it was not in my bank account by EOB.
My last job was for a payroll firm. I don’t think it’s common knowledge, but most places farm out the payroll. Let the experts handle it because the laws and taxes get complex in a hurry. Even our shitty clients wouldn’t play around with pay.
Example; You work overtime and aren’t paid, or paid correctly. You call the labor board and the employer is on the hook to prove your hours. One call, guilty until proven innocent, and it’s on them. If they cannot, the labor board defaults to the employee.
“I worked 80-hours a week for these assholes and got paid for 40!”
Aight. One call and the employer shows your signature agreeing to the hours worked, or they pay. All of it. Every time.
Yeah this is pretty absurd.
YOU HAVE TO PROVE INTENT!
If my boss goes into my locker and lifts $100 from my wallet the same thing happens to him as if I take it from the till. If he fucks up my pay he can shrug and say it was an honest mistake. Same as how I have a garage full of the sorting tubs we use at work for organising things because I “accidentally” brought them home with work in them and “forgot” to bring them back.
Just because the rich are protected from their white collar crime doesn’t mean the concept of crime as a whole is a social construct.
Crime exists, crime is crime. Your boss short changing you money wouldn’t get the same reaction as lifting money from the till but you’d still have legal recourse to either get the money from them or take legal action to sue them.
Double standards under the law doesn’t equal “crime is an invented concept.”
From my understanding a social construct is something that is that is formed through an agreement between people in a society as opposed to something that is an objective observation of physical reality. Like for example money is a social construct, because we all agree that it has value and treat it as such, even though objectively a hundred dollar bill is just a piece of cloth and otherwise would only have as much value as any other piece of cloth. Democracy is a social construct, marriage, the calandar, gender norms, fashion, and crime are all social constructs. It doesn’t mean they aren’t “real” things, just that they’re only real because we all collectively agree they’re real.
If you don’t agree with that definition, I’m curious what you think a social construct is and what things you would believe to be social constructs?
oh cool, another person who doesn’t understand what “social construct” means, but tries to dismiss it…
If you lift money from the till, you can be arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced. Now you are A Criminal™.
If your boss shorts you $100 on your paycheck, you have to politely go ask for it back, and hope they give it to you. Failing that, you get the labor board involved, which takes a whole lot of time, and you’re probably going to be fired, whether the boss gives you your money or not.
It’s a double standard for the employee; it’s an invented concept (for the purposes of controlling labor) for the employer.
Nothing you said was false, but it don’t work like that IRL.
If you stole from the till, you did so with malice aforethought. And you are in fact a criminal. End.
If you get shorted, and politely bring it up, the employer will shit themselves making it right. They want no phone calls from the labor board. The employer is guilty until proven innocent in these matters.
Problem is, most folks don’t know this, or believe things like you posted, i.e., they’ll get fired for a complaint. No, you won’t get fired for asking for your pay. LOL, the fucking your employer would receive is astounding, and NOT worth firing you over their mistake.
Guys, if your employer’s sins are so egregious, it’s a simple call to $State_Labor_Board. Know your rights, and this one is easy. No lawyers, just make a call and state your allegations. Done. Now your employer is on the hook to prove you’re wrong.
Employer doesn’t like it and fires you? LOL my god, what a mess for them. You could press the attack, but if you’re smart you’ll walk away with every dollar you claimed, at worst. I’ve seen it done.
“I worked overtime every week for 6-months and got paid regular hours!”
Did you sign off on falsely worked hours? Well, that’s on you. If you didn’t, and the employer can’t produce records, you get every penny you claimed.
Constructive dismissal.
The way I viewed it, if they short you a $100 on your paycheck you will have to prove them the hours, bring it to HR and try to get it fixed on the next paycheck. They borrowed $100 for 2 weeks and wasted company time. If you borrowed $100 from the till for 2 weeks without asking you would just be fired. I doubt any real legal recourse would be brought in either case. They would mark down your register was off and terminate employment.
$100 isn’t worth anyones time (In regards to creating a legal case), but it might land you unemployed for a long time and ruin your life.
you will have to prove them the hours
Mostly on-the-money, but no, they have to prove the hours if the labor board gets involved. And that’s a simple phone call, no lawyers or money involved. (Don’t sign off on your hours, literally or digitally, if they are not correct.)
And no, you can’t “borrow” $100 from the till. That’s theft, plain and simple. Many employers have a system by which they can easily loan you a small amount like that. Just ask. You might be surprised. (Often not advertised because of the potential for abuse.)
$100 isn’t worth anyones time
No lie. When I was 16, a long time ago, my ex-Marine tough-guy McDonald’s manager sat me down over a missing $10. Almost surely my fuck up, but he made it out like I stole. Got very threatening.
Inside I was like, “Are you shitting me?! I make $3.34/hr. Would it be worth 3 hours pay to lose my job you numb nut?!”
Outside, “I… uh… I mean, is $10 bucks worth getting fired? Why would anyone do that? Uh, I made a mistake making change… or something… Uh, I’m sorry. Won’t happen again. ^please don’t kill me^”
Fuck me. Humiliated and treated like a thief over a measly $10. 35-years later and I still remember that asshole beating up a teenager over chicken change.
Anyway, I went out drinking vodka with my fellow punkers, trashed an abandoned bowling alley, dodged the police helicopter and skated talking to the cops because my friend’s dad was cop, crashed at some popular punk’s apartment, crawled home in the 100° Oklahoma summer sun, and called in sick. LOL, he fired me and I was grateful. Got my leather motorcycle jacket out of frying those fries and working the register. Fuck 'em. 80’s were good times. I got stories. 😁
Haha agreed, the borrowed for both sides was more joking terminolgy than realism. As for signing hours, I haven’t had that since 2011/2012. Since then it has always been submit hours for approval and direct deposit. If the amount was off is where you’d have to bring it to HR for the companies I’ve been with.
My experiences with employment don’t reach the 80s though. Been working full time hours since 16, but I’m in my mid 30s.
Crime is absolutely an invented concept.
Drinking and driving used to be legal. Now it is a crime. Nothing changed except our society via our elected representatives opted to enact punishments if an individual is caught drinking and driving.
It is illegal for me to purchase or possess a firearm in Canada unless I acquire a license to do so. If I don’t meet these requirements and am found in possession of a weapon, I will be prosecuted and face jail time if convicted. However, in American states pretty much anyone can own a gun. The guns are the same; the difference is the values each society places on gun ownership and the contexts under which owning guns is a crime.
Canada has no stand your ground laws / castle doctrine. It is almost impossible to mount a defense here if you severely injure or kill someone trespassing in your home unless your life is at risk and even then it is difficult to prove that. Many US states allow people to use lethal force to protect property and there isn’t even a trial. The act in question here is the same; the difference is how our societies have invented and constructed our laws.
I am technically not allowed to cross the border into Quebec, 15 minutes away from my home, purchase a case of beer where it is cheaper, and then bring that beer back across the border to Ontario. The beer itself is not illegal. Consuming the beer is not illegal. The act of transporting the beer across provincial borders is technically a crime.
My friend has a house in Quebec. I have a house in Ontario. Cannabis is legal in Canada at a federal level. It is a crime for my friend in Quebec to grow their own cannabis for personal consumption on their own property. In Ontario, 15 minutes away, I am permitted to grow 4 plants per adult who lives in my household for personal consumption. The pot plants are the same; the social constructs surrounding the plants are not.
There are so many current examples throughout history and throughout the world of things that used to be legal or illegal in different countries, cultures, and societies that are now the opposite. Slavery, segregation, discrimination, gay marriage? Nothing has changed with these acts - society has changed their definition of what is a crime and what is not. That makes crime something that is invented by humans, the nature of which constantly changes.
If you were one of the last 2 people on earth and the other person killed all of your livestock, has a crime been committed? How can a crime be committed if there is no social contract which dictates what the consequences should be for that act?
