Comment mindset prevalent in certain circles??? yeah... (Score 1) 618
It takes a real sociopath to make that statement with a straight face.
It takes a real sociopath to make that statement with a straight face.
Once again, state labor laws have absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch to do with a bankruptcy proceeding. Repeating it over and over will not make it true, no matter how often you try.
Once again, principals' legal liability for wage theft HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BANKRUPTCY LAW. Bankruptcy for the CORPORATION deals with the disposition of the CORPORATION'S assets. It has nothing at all to do with personal assets, and how those personal assets might be attached in a suit for FRAUD.
Look, at least one other person here has pointed out that your claims are incorrect, using pretty much the same argument that I have. Apparently you are one of those unfortunates who is incapable of admitting when you are wrong. Good luck to you, sir. You're going to need it.
My understanding came directly from a corporate attorney who was asked the exact question. Yours and his came from reading and interpreting the wrong law.
That is only true if the company is a sole proprietorship or partnership structure where there is no corporate veil. Claims for wages due to insolvency do not fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act [shrm.org] unless the principle willfully filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to avoid paying wages. Employees are considered creditors during a bankruptcy and may be paid according to their priority as a creditor but generally they will have no claim on the personal assets of the shareholders unless there was a personal guarantee of some sort or malfeasance
Again, that is only FEDERAL law. Laws pertaining to "wage theft" vary from state to state.
And, by the way, how is allowing employees to come to work after you run out of money, but not telling them until payday, not malfeasance???
The #1 reason businesses incorporate is to protect the owner(s) from the liabilities of the corporate entity - that's ALL liabilities, including unpaid wages.
Only under certain circumstances. There are MANY circumstances under which the corporate veil does not protect the owners, and wage theft can be exactly such a circumstance--indeed ANY kind of fraud.
Wow. I guess you figured the hole you're in wasn't deep enough, so you decided to keep digging.
Right back at you
FYI, there is no such thing as a state bankruptcy court, and state labor laws play no part in a bankruptcy proceeding. ALL bankruptcies in the US take place in a federal court, and are governed by federal law: [wikipedia.org]
Absolutely true. And completely irrelevant. The bankruptcy proceeding is about the disposition of the corporation's assets, and has absolutely no protections for personal liabilities under state labor laws or anti-fraud statutes.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Uhm, yes, actually I do.
In no case (in the US) are owners personally liable for unpaid wages or any other unpaid creditor.
The article you link to is about FEDERAL bankruptcy law and the FEDERAL Department of Labor. It says absolutely nothing about state laws nor state departments of labor.
Companies must have the ability to meet their liabilities as they become due otherwise they are trading insolvent. Put simply if Tesla had reached pay day and been unable to make the payment then it would have been insolvent and it would have been illegal for them to continue trading.
True. Being publicly-traded brings that regulatory aspect into it. Of course, halting trading doesn't get employees paid, but it does at least let them know what's coming
Also, I think unpaid wages are a priority claim against assets, so in a bankruptcy reorganization or liquidation, employees would have priority over other creditors, and investors are further back.
How is it legal to not have enough to pay your employees?
Laws vary from state to state. But, in general, companies must pay their employees for time worked. If the company runs out, then principals can be held liable. Smaller company, wealthy principal, employees have a reasonable chance of getting paid, enforced by their state Department of Labor. But of course if what is owed is way more than the principals' assets, then there's not much to be done.
So that's how employees are different than investors, the "corporate veil" does not protect the company owner from liability for their wages.
Hands down excellent. High-level overviews, more detailed usage guides, fully-detailed references, and internals. Well-written, well-organized. And guess what else? A TABLE OF CONTENTS at the root, so as soon as you find your way to the docs, you can see what's there and how they're organized. Too many OSS projects lack that. (Oh sure, there's tables of contents, lots of them, for individual areas of documentation which are spread all over the place--not the same thing.)
Ours was the model with two distinct compartments.
I have a very similar one, but it was not recalled. I kind of wish it had been--cooks very unevenly, and corrodes out more rapidly than it should, so it's going to die an early death, but of course out of warranty.
Just curious: Perfect Flame from Lowe's?
Ugh. That function syntax might look ok for a couple short named variables, but it'll be super ugly for anything that users proper variable names and has more than a couple parameters. Where's the recommended break point? Some styles will have all parameters on one line and the returns on another. Another style will have each variable on it's own line regardless if it's a function argument or return value and it'll easy to accidentally overlook something. The styles for that are gonna be messy.
How is that different from ANY possible alternative syntax???
Ahead of its time and just a decade or so behind Smalltalk in this regard.
Later than Smalltalk, but NOT behind. Smalltalk suffered the same problem that all other single-inheritance class libraries of the time did--hugely deep inheritance hierarchies, with arbitrary, thus hard-to-remember, ordering. With NextStep, that was not the case--the judicious use of delegates to break out functionality that clients could customize, somewhat similar to AOP, massively reduced the depth and complexity of the inheritance hierarchy, but without introducing the problems that multiple inheritance brings. So Objective-C started with a core of features taken directly from Smalltalk, but the end result was actually much cleaner in the big picture.
Of course they forget that free access to addictive substances has been shown in study after study to cause problems.
Uhm, not, it has not.
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
