I'd be curious to know the state to double-check, but yes, that's my understanding too.
In California, at least, enforcement is vigorous. Once a client tried to stiff me on a couple months' wages on the grounds that they didn't have the money. I paid a lawyer to write them a short note, in which he explained the 7 kinds of hell that would rain down upon from the state government, and that by law wages come before pretty much any other claims on whatever assets they had. A check for the full amount was promptly overnighted to me and that was the end of it.
I'm sure a key to this is that unpaid W-2 income also means unpaid income taxes.
It's vigorous in Virginia as well: the state has a unit with totally humorless employees who've heard it all and are highly motivated and competent at helping you squeeze your back wages out of your deadbeat ex-employer. Or so was my experience in 1997 which I and 12 or so other employees of a startup resigned one day due to devil investors.
Just throwing it out there, it's remotely possible that state governments make this a priority because it is actually one of the moral underpinnings of a market economy and needs to be enforced. Litigating is very expensive, I doubt that the increased tax revenue on W2s from those cases pays off -- it's the overall effect on societal norms that matters, everyone on this thread immediately said "You should have gotten that money".
One possible exception to that is if you're a contractor (1099) instead of a "real" W-2 employee. In some states that means you're basically in a contract negotiation.
I found out the hard way that Colorado law doesn't protect you at all. Even better, if you sue to get your back pay you can't recover the legal costs even if you win.
Good point. I should have mentioned I was on a W2 there. Yes, contractors are treated like any other independent business, and enjoy much less in the way of legal protection.
I didn't find California's enforcement to be particularly vigorous at all, unfortunately (see my reply above). Probably because I didn't think of engaging a lawyer, though that wouldn't really have been cost-worthy.
I'm glad you did though! That's how it should be. :)
> I didn't find California's enforcement to be particularly vigorous at all, unfortunately (see my reply above). Probably because I didn't think of engaging a lawyer
State enforcement doesn't seem to be involved in your case -- you went self-service with a direct lawsuit in court.
If you want State enforcement, you file a wage claim with the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement.
It's law in Australia. If you do not serve a notice period you owe the company wages for that period. 1 month wages minus 1 month notice = 0. Most people have no notice periods, serve their notice period, or get approval not to serve it at all.
In this case though (when I followed up with accounting) they confirmed they wanted to step on my neck.
Even now the entire situation seems utterly surreal. I've been through a few companies since then and never had any problem, I'm the likeable hard working quiet person. I guess they just really didn't like me!
Anyway I remember walking out of that office in tears and feeling that no matter what happened I could cling onto whatever self worth I still had. I didn't know how bad it was about to become. But I came out okay in the end :-)
> It's law in Australia. If you do not serve a notice period you owe the company wages for that period. 1 month wages minus 1 month notice = 0
You have misstated the law. If you sign an employment contract that requires two weeks notice from either party to terminate, then you work a week and quit without working the two week notice period your employer is not required to pay you for the notice period, they absolutely must pay you for the week you did work. Similarly if an employer tells you not to work the notice period they are still obliged to pay you for it.
I understand your confusion as the wording the clauses about withholding pay on notices is somewhat unclear and takes a pretty close reading to understand
It is and you can sue. I sued a company in small claims in SF for a week's pay because they refused to pay me because I took another offer after a week of being there. Mind you, this was at-will employment, though not the nicest thing to do, I know. I fought it in court and the judge awarded me the pay. On appeal, the appeal judge cut it to about half for no reason. I never actually collected as that would have required going to court yet again (for the third and possibly a fourth time) to discover their assets (since I didn't have a check from them I didn't know their bank) and then have the state put in an order for withdrawing money.
Anyway, I found out later by searching public records that this company had been sued in small claims a number of times and lost just that year. The moral of the story is to look up future potential employers' court records like you'd do a background check on a potential girl/boyfriend. Wait people don't do that to potential girl/boyfriends?
Wait, you didn't get paid for the time you had been their? I'm pretty sure that is a violation of labor law, at least in any state in the US.