• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s a simple enough solution in this case. They are performing the work of employees, so for all intents and purposes, they are employees. They are directly interacting with US customers at a physical location within the US. Their place of work is that physical location, even if they are not physically present. They need authorization to work in the US, and the minimum wage laws applicable to that location applies to these workers.

    All that is missing is the lawsuit under existing labor laws, which they will probably lose.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Good luck finding a judge taking such a position

      Judiciary is just a rubber stamp for the corporate needs. Last 40 years of court rulings speak for themselves.

      Courts ain’t saving slaves

    • gerbler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Sounds like something the Department of Labour could legislate… Or could have.

      But the supreme court just ruled that this falls under the courts jurisdiction and there’s a snowflakes chance in hell that a case pushed high and far enough will result in those ghouls will rule in favour of labour interests.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, I don’t think SCOTUS would side with an IRS or Labour Department rule requiring businesses pay minimum wage. But you’re forgetting the “racist” angle: the courts would love nothing more than to support a State Department determination that they are “immigrant workers” and require a work visa.