Current Events > Bartender forced to pay back $4,000 after bar gets robbed at gunpoint.

(+) Yeah! (+)

TheOtherMike posted...

Dude, if you didnt read the article I can't help you.

...no. My saying it's illegal is contingent on laws that exist that forbid employers from requiring employees to repay robbery losses. So you didnt read the article or my posts?

Where did it say he was "required" to do it (i.e., for him to keep his job). you keep repeating that it is illegal for them to do X, without providing your evidence for the fact that they did X. show where it says that they required him to pay the money back in order for him to keep his job. or in other words, show where they indicated to him that he was required to repay it at the risk of being fired.

Fam_Fam posted...

Where did it say he was "required" to do it (i.e., for him to keep his job). you keep repeating that it is illegal for them to do X, without providing your evidence for the fact that they did X. show where it says that they required him to pay the money back in order for him to keep his job. or in other words, show where they indicated to him that he was required to repay it at the risk of being fired.

They offered him a repayment contract and forced him to work in unfavourable conditions, the lawsuit said. It added that Mr Parker was worried about losing his job and therefore signed it.

Literally in the OP. Learn to read. Either way, having him sign the contract is illegal because the contract itself requires that he repay the lost funds.

TheOtherMike posted...

Literally in the OP. Learn to read. Either way, having him sign the contract is illegal because the contract itself requires that he repay the lost funds.

"worried about" does not imply they stated they he would lose the job as a result of not repaying it, which would mean that he was not required to repay it as a requirement of maintaining his employment there. if they stated/implied it, then it would be illegal. if he assumed that for whatever reason, that's not the same thing. if the contract states that it is required for him to repay it to keep his job, then yes, it would be illegal (I admit that I don't have the time to read some stranger's contract, so perhaps you can tell me, as you have appeared to have read it)

also, having a discussion without attacking the other person is usually considered to be good form :)

Fam_Fam posted...

"worried about" does not imply they stated they he would lose the job as a result of not repaying it

It absolutely does. What do you think the employer would do if he refused?

Regardless, the contract is illegal on its face as has been demonstrated multiple times.

Fam_Fam posted...

also, having a discussion without attacking the other person is usually considered to be good form :)

I mean, telling you to read the article before you go arguing about what the article makes blatantly clear is perfectly reasonable. Cry more.

Also:

A Las Vegas bartender has filed a lawsuit against his employers for allegedly being forced to pay back money that was robbed from the business at gunpoint.

Literally the first paragraph in the op. Stop wasting my time.

TheOtherMike posted...

It absolutely does. What do you think the employer would do if he refused?

Regardless, the contract is illegal on its face as has been demonstrated multiple times.

I mean, telling you to read the article before you go arguing about what the article makes blatantly clear is perfectly reasonable. Cry more.

Also:

Literally the first paragraph in the op. Stop wasting my time.

again, where IN THE CONTRACT does it say he is required to pay the money back to continue working there? that is what the lawsuit is about, and what would make the agreement illegal. not what a headline says (which are often incorrect/misleading), not what he "worried about". did THE CONTRACT say he had to as a condition of continuing his employment? THAT is what makes it illegal or not, and that is the substance needed for a lawsuit to hold weight. if you don't have the answer to that question, just say it. stop using immature lines like "cry more" or "learn to read" as as substitution for evidence to your claim.

Fam_Fam posted...

again, where IN THE CONTRACT does it say he is required to pay the money back to continue working there?

Dude, shut the fuck up. You're clearly trolling because no one is this fucking stupid.

TheOtherMike posted...

Dude, shut the fuck up. You're clearly trolling because no one is this fucking stupid.

you file a lawsuit, you provide evidence. the contract is the only evidence that matters. you don't seem to have it. have a nice day.

The reimbursement form doesnt have to specifically state "you are required else be terminated" in order for it to be illegal.

bladegash posted...

The reimbursement form doesnt have to specifically state "you are required else be terminated" in order for it to be illegal.

ok what does it state that is illegal?

Fam_Fam posted...

you file a lawsuit, you provide evidence. the contract is the only evidence that matters. you don't seem to have it. have a nice day.

What point do you think youre making here? The contract is illegal, period. Whether his job was in jeapordy or not is irrelevant because the employer had no valid reason to require repayment, as has been pointed out multiple fucking times itt.

Fam_Fam posted...

ok what does it state that is illegal?

What makes you think it has to be stated a certain way for the action of illegally garnishing wages to be illegal?

I'm no lawyer, but I'd wager and say the "or risk of termination" clause isn't needed for the contract to still be illegal.

bladegash posted...

What makes you think it has to be stated a certain way for the action of illegally garnishing wages to be illegal?

that you need to have evidence that they did what he is claiming. so I'm asking what the contract actually says. then one can judge the merits of the lawsuit. I'd like to know what the wording is, which is what he would need to use to prove illegal action on the part of the bar

Fam_Fam posted...

that you need to have evidence that they did what he is claiming.

There is evidence they took the money. Thats all the evidence they need. What makes you think they need a written confession?

Kegran posted...

I think the Republican wet dream would have been shooting the robber if I'm not mistaken.

Making employees subservient to employers is most definitely a republican wet dream

Fam_Fam posted...

that you need to have evidence that they did what he is claiming. so I'm asking what the contract actually says. then one can judge the merits of the lawsuit. I'd like to know what the wording is, which is what he would need to use to prove illegal action on the part of the bar

im pretty sure its federally illegal to garnish wages only the government can do that

Fam_Fam posted...

which is what he would need to use to prove illegal action on the part of the bar

The illegal action was them garnishing his wages when they had no legal right to do so. How the fuck are you not getting this?

Stop getting trolled by Fam_Fam

I remember when I posted about this way back in November and a bunch of people were telling me it was bullshit

LeoRavus posted...

Fuck that. Taking $300 out of your paycheck every week you might as well be unemployed. He should have stood up to them from the start. I can't imagine being so pussified to begin to accept the employers terms even for a second.

lol wow

Kegran posted...

He was never compelled to perform an illegal activity though.

"Sign this illegal contract or we'll fire you"

Yeah that employer totally coerced their employee with threat of being fired. Deserves everything coming at them.

Some places will flat out fire you for just being robbed. So many employers think robberies must be staged.

Sue the business into oblivion and fine it so hard it goes bankrupt and the owner/management sent to prison