In a situation where wage theft is happening and then it stops happening, the money doesn't get thrown in a garbage bin. The stolen money goes to the worker rather than the employer.
If I got paid my average hourly rate for 10 unpaid hours per week, I'd make roughly $12,000 more per year than I do now. $12,000 which would go towards my student loans, or a down payment for a house, or just buying random shit. Instead that $12,000 goes to the corporation I work for.
You might argue that they can do that to 10 people and afford to hire another engineer, which is great, except now we have a corporation who is subsidized by unpaid labor, not by being an effective corporation.
The three outcomes are:
1) Workers get a bigger proportion of a smaller total
2) Workers get the same proportion of a smaller total
3) Workers get a smaller proportion of a smaller total
The pro-labour-laws types have to be very certain that they can force outcome 1, but there are 2 ways in 3 that the outcome is bad, on net, for workers. Especially if the job they were working in was the best option they had. Workers might even be getting less overall (through reduced job availability) when individual workers get more due to reductions in the number of jobs created.
Wage theft is most definitely not victimless. There is a very, very clear victim in that instance.
"and I tried to keep that off anyone's radar because I wouldn't have had a job otherwise and I was being paid plenty."
That's not true in the least. Any employer that is telling you that is flat out lying to you.
"Workers take the best option they have; possibly making that option uneconomic is not a good idea."
No. Just no. Why do you feel that employers are entitled to cheap labor?
> That's not true in the least.
It is perfectly true, just not a very normal case. I'd put it to you that I was a bit more involved in the negotiating than you were.
> No. Just no. Why do you feel that employers are entitled to cheap labor?
I don't think that. The argument is that employers and employees are entitled to sort out wages between each other and are entitled on whatever they agree to. I don't think the government has a role tilting the power balance in favour of employees.
I'm in favour of things work hours being explicit in any contract and being enforced. Being expected to work unpaid overtime is obscene; the contract hours should be longer an the wages lower so people know what is expected of them.
Because the alternative is homelessness.
"It is perfectly true, just not a very normal case. I'd put it to you that I was a bit more involved in the negotiating than you were."
No, it's not true. Just because they told you that, and you fell for it, doesn't make it true.
"Being expected to work unpaid overtime is obscene"
And yet, here you are defending the practice of wage theft.
So true... Every weekend I go for interviews and get job offers, and I have 6 months of rent and bill money saved up in case of an act of God. The last time I lost my employment I just called up one of the employers and accepted the job. It's very weird that people act like they don't do this as well.
Yes, wage theft is bigger numerically. But a reduction in wage theft is going to be mirrored by a drop in the amount of wealth available. By definition, the same or less work is being done for a higher cost; so by examining the net situation, someone is going to have less actual stuff (and I can say with confidence, it is not going to be the rich who do without). Increasing the cost of labour will put people out of work.
Wage theft is one of those victimless crimes where both parties have agreed that a situation is the best alternative and the government is declaring that they are wrong. It is a lot more delicate than, say, gay marriage, because all workers would prefer to have more money, and by far most workers would be happier if they didn't have to work. But, end of the day, just because the government says a worker is entitled doesn't mean the worker is truly unhappy with what they get. In an extreme case, I've worked in situations where I have been subject to wage theft (~10% lower compensation than I should have legally been getting), and I tried to keep that off anyone's radar because I wouldn't have had a job otherwise and I was being paid plenty.
Workers take the best option they have; possibly making that option uneconomic is not a good idea. This is not how, eg, China, is lifting people out of poverty.