|
|
|
|
|
|
by kelnos
1779 days ago
|
|
|
Well, define "unreasonably low wages", in isolation, in the legal sense. You can't, really, at least not beyond talking about minimum wage for hourly workers (which is obviously not what we're talking about here). In this case the wages were "unreasonable" because they were lower than they would have been without the collusion. If there hadn't been collusion, but the companies independently came to the same numbers on wages, they would not have been unreasonable, by definition. The purpose of these laws is to protect workers from people who have a lot more economic and employment power than the workers. That's why it's "collusion to lower wages" and not just "lowering wages". The latter is (generally) legal as long as it's not accompanied by the former. |
|
|
You go inspect the life of an delivery driver. If they are struggling to pay rent, eat healthy, or get a reasonable amount of legally-mandated family time and sleep because they are having to work excess hours, their wages are too low. Have a judge mandate an increase in their wages by some value. PID feedback loop on that legally-mandated bonus until their lifestyle becomes acceptable.
Do this for a random sample of people and establish a per-county minimum wage.
If the judge doesn't understand how to deal with a simple feedback loop, fire them and replace them with an engineer. A backend engineer who has to regularly deal with actually solving problems around allocating resources and making sure processes don't die is probably a perfect fit.