So does this mean employees could be owed something in terms of debt (i.e. if they haven't had their benefits paid out fully) or are they what I assume:
Realistically this encourages immediate furloughs, layoffs, firing or bankruptcy proceedings. There isn't a world where the companies actually get to the stage of "unpaid wages", there are many steps they can take to avoid getting into that legal boondogle.
Probably not; that would make the employees work for the government and fall under their payment rules, e.g. fixed hourly pay, instead of what they earn right now + tips + etc.
In addition, some states may penalize the employer for not paying state payroll taxes including state unemployment insurance for the employee. Realistically, this may be difficult for a state to determine but if there is a lease or mortgage involved it could make it more likely.
In any case, as an employee I may not care that much about paying back taxes later or whatever, but I think you're right there could be unintended consequences with this.
This happens any time a company’s pays its employees. The only difference here is that the payment is in equity instead of cash. It’s really not notable.
Normally, yes. But in this case isn't it the upcoming payroll that's the problem? That work has already been done by employees, so the wage is already on the books. If they can't come up with the money, they'll have unpaid wages no matter how many people they fire. Right?
> I'd expect it's common for them to be left unpaid or underpaid at the close.
Unpaid, no. It's extremely rare for an employer to not pay anything ever. Underpaid, definitely—between extra "fees" and deductions, many workers end up with less than they expected (but still more than they'd make back home).
So what you do is you have a system where employees can claim unpaid wages from a government agency who pays them and then goes after the company that didn’t pay to recover the money.
reply