this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
915 points (98.7% liked)

Antiwork

8275 readers
1 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Serdan@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[โ€“] Vlyn@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah.. except for that tiny detail:

There are three conditions that must be satisfied for the defence to be applicable:

  • You employer has made a statement of fact which made you believe that the money was your own;
  • You acted in good faith and without knowledge of any claim for recovery from your employer and as a result, changed your position in terms of the money; and
  • You were not involved in the cause of the overpayment.

So if you signed a contract for a sum of x and the employer never said they are going to pay you more, you're already acting in bad faith based on the first point. The second point is tough to argue, literally the only way to win this is if you have a verbal "contract" only and claim you never watched your bank account and just didn't notice the extra money (but then if your employer tells you about the wrong payments you have an issue again..).

In the real world you'll probably pay the money back 99% of the time, except if you want to burn bridges and leave (going after you for smaller amounts is not worth the time in court). Your professional relationship will be ruined though, which you may or may not care about.