Alternative to the Courts

[41mag]

I've been fighting with my previous employeer about my last paycheck.  I've made calls, mailed them, and finally went through small claims court.  They refused mediation when it was offered through the court, so I don't think this would be possible.


I'm wondering if there is anything else I can do other than go back through the court?  That took several months, and I'm still waiting.  I want this resolved, but they don't seem to want to do anything.

[error]

It depends, I suppose, on how much government force you want to call out.

[41mag]

Well, Dave, Russell and the Browns have all made the point that the courts can't really force them to do as they say if they really don't want to. 

I'd like some option that would avoid the government, since I was not really impressed with the court system already.  One problem I may have is that it seems the company does not seem to care about the reputation they have about how they treat employees.  After I started working there I found out that the local knew that they had a bad reputation.  They became the local employeer of everyone who couldn't get jobs elsewhere (lots of bad employees).

[SpeedPhreak]

i'll loan you my .40 s&w.

[Raineyrocks]

I don't know if this will help but here's a link with hopefully some helpful info.

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/wages-other-last-paycheck.htm

[lordmetroid]

40mag, I can imagine that partly why a company not caring about it's reputation of how it treats employer can be because of the limited liability privileges that incentences reckless behaviours as the effects of a bankrupcy isn't as severe as it if it would be a normal person doing business and going into bankrupcy.

[David]

Sorry about your luck, or lack therof.   
This is definitely a theory meets the road situation.  It is clear that reputation is not important to them.  It is clear that nothing short of brute force or threats of it is going to make them pay.  That's true if you use gov't, or a s an w , of course if you use the s an w, You will be viewed as the criminal, so I would suggest not using it.  Gov't doesn't like the 'vigil ante' competition.  Being limited liability is probably a factor as well.  Unfortunately that will always be a factor, at least in my lifetime. 

The reality is you may never recover what you believe is owed to you.  Since you don't work for them, there is no longer any exchange, or reason for them to give you anything.  In my opinion, the possibility of continued exchange, or business, is why most businessess don't screw customers over.  The types of products and services most likely to be used for fraud, are for one time things, roofing, repairs, or when there is a delay in the exchange, such as prepaying for something over the internet.  If you are in good standing with your employer, there is a much lower chance of them defrauding you, as they need you as much as you need them.  Unfortunately that changes once you quit the job.  I would suggest you structure as many of your activities as a continuous exchange as possible. 
It does not matter whether or not you have lots of gov't, or no gov't, losses will always happen.  No amount of insurance, even private insurance, will cover all losses. 
Reputation is important, but not for the reason most think.  It isn't a tool to get back at someone, or to put them out of business, although that can certainly happen.  It is tool rather to protect ones own self.  Having been burned once, I'm guessing to the extent possible, you may try to find out more about your next employer.  But also I'm hoping that you will structure your finances so that when fraud happens, you are less hurt by it. 
I might also suggest you tell former coworkers that their employer is dishonest with the final paycheck. 

There are two actual examples that i can think of to prove that some of these things might work because they are being done today.  Every fast food place and convenience

store has procedures in place to reduce losses or even deter theft by robbery.  They know robbers usually like to get in, get the money, and get out as quick as possible.  So they have regular cash drops of money in the store safe, and cashiers are required to keep their cash drawers under a certain cash amount.  If they are robbed, cashiers are instructed to cooperate, and if they did their job right, the thief will not get much.  since the risk of robbery is high, if everytime a thief robs someplace, he only gets a couple hundred, he will sometimes figure it not worth it.  So by structuring the stores cash procedure, to eliminate losses, they also deter future robberies. 
The second is in Japan.  Japan has a weak court system that does not enforce private contracts very well.  this has led to business people to place a heavy emphasis on trust and friendship, largely to ease concern when the inevitable dispute comes up in the course of doing business.  American businesspeople, with their heavy reliance on contracts and court enforcement, did not understand the Japanese way, and initially blames Japan for not wanting to buy any American products.  the reality was the distributors in Japan just didn't trust American suppliers. 
It is my opinion that the Japanese are better businessmen than the USA, not because they are better manufacturers, but that they have long ago adjusted to a world that has very weak contract enforcement.  The US is unusual in the world in that our courts are relitively powerful compared to the rest of the world. 

Long answer to a short question, 

[41mag]

I think I might have posted this a little too soon.  They finally did pay me.  Of course this was about a week before the last day the court gave them to pay.   

Sorry about your luck, or lack therof.   
This is definitely a theory meets the road situation.  It is clear that reputation is not important to them.  It is clear that nothing short of brute force or threats of it is going to make them pay.  That's true if you use gov't, or a s an w , of course if you use the s an w, You will be viewed as the criminal, so I would suggest not using it.  Gov't doesn't like the 'vigil ante' competition.  Being limited liability is probably a factor as well.  Unfortunately that will always be a factor, at least in my lifetime. 

Thanks, but I already have a few of those s&w.  Of course 30-06 or 308 would be more effective.     This would have been a VERY bad idea with this place since they had guns around themselves and were giving the local PD gifts.

Listening to FTL often Ian seems to think reputation and arbitration can handle justice in a free market system.  After this experience, I'd agree that the current system is slow and not always effective.  So would a free market system really work?  ???

[SpeedPhreak]

um... in case people here don't understand sarcasm... I was joking about the .40.  A good ass kicking would be a different story

I think a reasonable solution would be to use an escrow company.  The company (any/all companies) would deposit your last paycheck w/the escrow company, plus severence or any other type of funds that may come into question, at the time of your hire.  If you work on commission they would have to maybe have an account that is over filled to compensate.  When/if the time comes... you use a 3rd party mediation group & they decide... not a lot to decide really - if you worked the hours you worked them if not you didn't.  One could have a case settled in a day or 2 in most cases.

[Raineyrocks]

um... in case people here don't understand sarcasm... I was joking about the .40.  A good ass kicking would be a different story

I knew you were joking, you owned a Chevy, that means your way too cool to lend your piece to anyone!

[David]

I am convinced free market justice can work, if the, particularly if the gov't didn't persecute vigil antes.  Some people, will need to be brought in at the point of Speedphreak's s an w,   particularly the violent folks.  It is harder to do when the gov't goes after those who 'take the law into their own hands. 

[Humorrhoid]

Alternative to the Courts:

You hang my ass , I hang yours upside down.