Now I feel like a local - our first lawsuit ;)

[gsi16386]

I suppose hiring some muscle to do a little old fashioned threatening is out of the question? Some bulky merco-sur blokes to whom one might rather pay the 5k to than to the blackmailer...? Now there's a niche business opportunity...

As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with the above suggestion. I think one of the main problems down here is that people need to get their asses beat more and learn things the hard way.

You want to take your chances and sue me for nothing? How about a bat to the head instead??

You want to picket in the middle of Cabildo during rush hour because you feel as if you're not getting paid enough?? We'll send a mob of people out to physically move your asses out of the way, and onto the sidewalk so you don't bother other people. And Expect a sucker punch for being disrespectful.

Interested in standing in front of the Subte during rush hour to protest a pay raise? We will drag your ass off the tracks and beat it into you that you're only hurting the people that are actually working to support their families and are keeping them from going home to see their kids. (this also would be accompanied by a Rabbit punch or Roundhouse Kick).

The problem here is that the goverment allows it's people to run over each other without any repercussion. If the gov't doesn't create the repercussions, the people will. Can I get an Anarchy Hallelujah???

 

[PabloAriel]

Hard to believe he sued you for nothing since he also has to pay for a lawer and will lose the same money as you do on legal actions (as how you say it he sued you for nothing, therebefore you will win the trial for sure).

PS: You all may know that the right of property is not ruling the laws anymore. Now the laws are anthropocentric. Labour laws are doing what they are supposed to: when there is an inequality of facts (employee owning only his labour force - employer owning capital), there must be an inequality of rights on the opposite sense (labour laws that stand in favor of employers)

 

[CarverFan]

I'm sure it's easy for the employee to find a lawyer who'll act for them for a cut at the end...

 

[clooz]

Hard to believe he sued you for nothing since he also has to pay for a lawer and will lose the same money as you do on legal actions (as how you say it he sued you for nothing, therebefore you will win the trial for sure).

PS: You all may know that the right of property is not ruling the laws anymore. Now the laws are anthropocentric. Labour laws are doing what they are supposed to: when there is an inequality of facts (employee owning only his labour force - employer owning capital), there must be an inequality of rights on the opposite sense (labour laws that stand in favor of employers)

Thanks for an alternative and local perspective.

 

[steveinbsas]

The also happened to the sellers of the house I now live in. They were slapped with a $80,000 peso lein from a former employee while they were trying to sell their house (to me). It has been a very stressful situation. The lein should never have been levied on the property in the first place as they had the protection of the bien de familia.

I think anyone who starts a business in Argentina is out of thieir mind unless they are using someone else's money and won't live in fear for their own life if and when they get sued and/or lose the investor's money for a variety of reasons (such as openeing the wrong kind of restaurant or any business with employees).

 

[GuilleGee]

Most labor lawyers do not charge their client's up front.

I know this for sure since my wife, when she was 17, had to sue a former employer who would not pay up. She was able to go to a labor lawyer, and they got it solved with no cost to her. She only sued for the 5,000 or so pesos that were owed her, but rest assured the lawyer got an extra 2500 on top for his pay....

Now I have brother-in-laws who are bosses and have been the sued, as well as friends who are the labor lawyers doing the suing. Strong labor laws are important, it is silly of you guys to say that they are not, since surely only a small percentage of labor cases are as ridiculous as the one Citygirl is facing. Hopefully she will end up alright, as long as she was employing this person en blanco, a telegram was sent, etc.

A story my oldest brother-in-law once told us, he had hired someone, and then on the second day they just stopped coming because "they were terminally ill". After a month or so, my bro terminated the employee, and of course was promptly sued. He had sent out a private investigator and had discovered that the employee was not sick, and was actually going to work at a different job, thus getting 2 wages. What my brother-in-law did was that he worked out for the deal to include sending a doctor to former employees house, so that he would not be able to continue working at other job.

Not really a solution, but a fun way to fuck with the few crappy apples out there.

 

[GuilleGee]

And I don't agree with Pablo, it is rather easy to believe you were sued for nothing.

But just because this happens and we hear about it does not make strong labor laws valid. There must be 10X as many cases where the employer is really guilty of something.

 

[steveinbsas]

And I don't agree with Pablo, it is rather easy to believe you were sued for nothing.

But just because this happens and we hear about it does not make strong labor laws valid. There must be 10X as many cases where the employer is really guilty of something.

Well, of course they are guilty, especially if they make more money than the employees who are actually dong all the work!

That is the evil of capitalism.

Just ask Michael Moore.

Or Andy Stern.

Or Richard Trumka.

Or Valdimir Lenin.

Or Joe Stalin.

 

[GuilleGee]

Unnecessary Steve. Obviously did not read anything I just wrote.

Is an employer not guilty if he/she does not pay his/her employees? Is an employer not guilty if he/she sexually harasses his/her employees? Is an employer not guilty if he/she fires an employee for taking a sick day? for asking for legally-mandated benefits?

Is there not a middle ground with some people? Or was that sarcasm Steve? If so, sorry, internet is not very good for conveying tone.