Wage Theft as Crime: An Institutional View

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
César F. Rosado Marzán
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.


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

2020 ◽  
pp. 019145372096217
Author(s):  
Mariano Croce

In the existing literature on depoliticization, the increasing use of law as a medium to tackle social and political issues is deemed to be detrimental to the legitimacy of political processes. Against this view, I argue that this trend – which some scholars call ‘juridification’ – can be key to giving life to new forms of politics. First, I show why juridification is a political more than a legal process. Second, I illustrate recent critiques of the dangers inherent in the particular type of juridification that involves the growing use of rights. Third, while concurring with these critiques, I make the case that other facets of juridification are often underrated that can ignite a novel kind of politics. On this account, I go on by elaborating on the idea of self-organization of social groups vis-à-vis the state that is entailed in this notion of politics. Finally, I discuss the recognition of non-conventional family networks to exemplify how a politics of juridification could work. The conclusion is that, while juridification calls for a thorough revision of the tasks of politics, it does not thwart it. Rather, traditional representative politics could and should take stock of how it involves social actors in the creation of new bodies of regulation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document