Steal From Work Day – April 15th from Steal From Work Day on Vimeo.
The Steal Something From Work Day website helpfully suggests
Is STEALING SOMETHING FROM WORK immoral?
Stealing is immoral, yes. That’s why your employers should pay you the full value they obtain from your labor, rather than a fraction of it. If you take something from the workplace, you’re not stealing, but simply taking part of your fair earnings.
If I only had a job…
Bob, my love, you’re surely *not* advocating stealing from one’s employer, are you?
ACFE statistics show that approximately 4 out of 10 employees steal from their employers, and 2 out of 10 will steal if they see the 4 out of 10 getting away with it. (That leaves 4 employees who won’t steal.)
“Many will continue to steal from a small business until it literally runs out of money and goes broke.”
http://www.acfe.com/resources/view.asp?ArticleID=27
Any suggestion that revenge against the employer is adequate reason for stealing time from the employee, not paying enough, not providing benefits, or just being a shithead boss — is overly simplistic. Aren’t there better ways of dealing with workplace discontent?
First, you seem to be encouraging crime, which if small will cause termination of employment and if large, a criminal indictment.
Second, you seem to be promoting what is increasingly becoming the American way of of life: cheating.
I’ve never worked on a employee fraud case where I thought the theft was justified.
Next up: Supporting financial statement fraud (such as suspension of mark to market) because it allows companies to pretend their assets are worth more, allows the government to pretend the economy is recovering, and might improve the “trickle down” from the upper classes?
You mean rationalizing theft from your employer because he’s making a profit of you (and thus stealing) might be a specious argument at best? Hmmm….
Yikes– kind of suggests that you didn’t agree to work there for a certain rate.
Let’s consider the merit of the argument. Suppose I hire a bookkeeper and pay her half what I bill her at. She may feel that I’m exploiting her because she’s only getting paid half what the client pays. I would argue that half IS the full value I obtain. The difference covers many actual costs, about 12% of which are payroll taxes that go toward her retirement and unemployment insurance. If I offer health insurance and an additional retirement contribution, which I used to when I lived in LA, that’s also part of compensation, although it’s not treated that way by the IRS. I have to provide a building for her to work in, and furniture, equipment, and office supplies. I have to spend some of my time doing payroll, filing reports, getting and maintaining clients so my employee has something to do, coordinating her work, etc., all of which reduces the amount of time I can do actual paying work. And it’s logical to expect at least some minimal benefit to myself for doing all that extra work, else why bother? If there’s no benefit to hiring someone, why would I hire someone? She’d either be unemployed, or go into business for herself.
There are surely unscrupulous employers who live in mansions and drive a Ferrari while paying their employees minimum wage without benefits. I live in a 1600 square foot home and drive a 10-year-old Saturn. The issue is not whether an employee ought to get the full billing rate or perceived “value”– that impractical proposition would put most people out of work– but at what point is an employer being abusive by failing to share the profits with his/her employees?
BTW, that bookkeeper I hired in LA now owns and runs the business I built.
Good points.
(I was looking for a late-night humorous post, which is the main reason I posted it.)