Whose perception of time matters for legal requirements to pay wages? If an employee, as a part of their job, travels at relativistic speeds (perhaps for space travel or scientific purposes), causing the amount of time they perceive to meaningfully desynchronize with the amount of time the Earth perceives, would their employer be required to pay their wages (or, if the difference is particularly high, minimum wage) based on the employee's perception of time, or the employer's? We can assume the employer is on Earth for the purposes of this question, and that the employee remains within whatever country the employer is based in regardless of where they go (since taking into account international/space laws would add unnecessary complexity). Answers can apply to specific jurisdictions, or be more general.
This has obviously never become a legal issue, so the answer is not settled, but it doesn't seem like there would be any good argument for anything other than using time as the employee experiences it. If John Glenn spends 40 hours on space shuttle repair and NASA receives 40 hours' worth of work, the fact that they only noticed 20 hours going by doesn't seem to justify slashing the worker's wages.
I've litigated cases like these before. The IRS enforcement reaction is swift and severe. Penalties for the employer are heavy and rarely waived. It would be rare for a business like this to stay operational long enough to issue a W-2. A business like this would probably be shut down by the IRS and have the people responsible for the payroll function, at a minimum, promptly burdened with tax liens, within four to six months. These cases also constitute a significant share of all criminal tax prosecutions. The odds of someone doing this spending several years in federal prison is high. Generally speaking, if the wrongdoing is fully on the part of the employer without the collusion or knowledge of the employee, the IRS will not force the employee to double pay the taxes that should have been withheld by the employer in this situation. Instead, this IRS will try to recover the amounts that were withheld from the employees but not delivered to the IRS. It will seek to recover these amounts from the employer and also from other responsible persons in the organization (and from outsourced professionals) with the authority to pay the IRS who did not do so. There may be circumstances, if push comes to shove, where the IRS could collect from the employees in a case like this one (I've never had occasion to need to research that issue), but that would be the rare exception and not the rule, in practice. On the other hand, if the employer simply does not withhold taxes or prepare W-2s at all, and either 1099s people who should have been classified as employees (or files no information tax returns at all), the IRS will generally insist that the employee pay income taxes on the full amount owed and that they pay the employee part of payroll taxes. It will also pursue the employer for the employer's share of payroll taxes. The employer will also be jointly and severally liable for any taxes that should have been reported and subjected to withholding that are not paid by the employee (perhaps because the employee spent all the money). Sometimes cases like this are also criminally prosecuted, but it is less common to do so.
Can a significant change in incentives void an employment contract? Yes, because a party's unilateral, significant imposition which the counterparty did not expect strikes the premise of a contract/agreement being entered knowingly and willfully. Here, the contract or relevant portion thereof is voidable by the employee, because the employer's belated imposition is tantamount to a misrepresentation as contemplated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 164(1). The contract clause regarding an employee's off-work hours might be unenforceable as unconscionable, more so where the incentive being slashed represents a significant portion of an employee's income (since it reflects that the employee's salary is not that high so start with). See the Restatement at § 177, 178, and 208. is the employee entitled to any compensation or the right to retain the property? Yes, but the applicable alternative --compensation vs. withholding the IP-- depends on what agreement the employee reaches with the employer. I presume what prompts this part of your question is the mention --in the Workplace SE post-- that the engineer rejected the employer's bid (offer is somewhat of a misnomer) of $25,000 for the employee's off-work IP. The engineer's reluctance is rightfully cautious. Prior to accepting the employer's proposal, it is in the engineer's best interest to ensure (with enough specificity in a new contract) the terms and conditions of that proposal, lest the employer subsequently argue that the payment of $25,000 encompassed any and all subsequent IP produced by the employee during his employment there. Likewise, insufficient caution by the engineer regarding the aforementioned proposal may permit a finding that the parties' subsequent conduct reflects the engineer's acceptance of the new conditions (including the slashing of incentives).
I’m asking if I can sue for lost wages because it’s taking time out of my day No, that would be a frivolous claim. You did not specify how much time and effort the walk takes you on a daily basis, but it is extremely doubtful that you could viably claim lost wages. Suing the landlord for this would put you at high risk of being ordered to pay his attorney fees, which surely will exceed that fictitious loss. The allegation &quot;I'm losing work because I’m an independent contractor&quot; is untenable and makes no sense. By that token, a full-time employee typically is more constrained (for instance, in terms of schedule) than an independent contractor. It is also questionable that the time you spend walking back and forth when leaving your apartment is comparable to the time it takes you to do your job or get more clients. Depending on your location, the landlord would defeat your claim also on grounds that you could --and unjustifiably decline to-- take the bus or seek other arrangements if the issue truly were causing you provable losses. It is also very unlikely that the continued failure to recognize your motorcycle would support a claim of breach of contract, since the terms of a lease hardly ever address that kind of minor details. The only circumstance whereby you would have a viable claim is if you were handicapped, but your description nowhere reflects that that is the case. Even in that scenario, the nature of your claim would be other than &quot;lost wages&quot; and mostly would warrant injunctive relief.
In germany, this is called Friedenspflicht. Both employers and employees (and their unions) are required to refrain from strikes and lockouts in disputes on issues which are covered by a currently valid collective bargaining agreement. The agreement may also stipulate that there will be no labor actions on issues which are not covered, as long as the agreement is in force, but that is not necessary. Example: There is a collective bargaining agreement on wages, which is still running. Strikes for higher wages are prohibited. Strikes to get better staffing for the night shift would be allowed, if the agreement doesn't say how many employees should be on duty even during slack hours.
If no such challenge has occurred to this day, who could potentially have a standing to bring it to court? Beside ohwilleke's points, such a challenge would only seem viable if the imposed timeframe for finding new job (60 days) was practically not sufficient to secure one for a person eligible for a H1B visa. These visas are not granted to random people most of which would struggle to find a job in the US. They are granted to qualified specialty occupation holders — taking into account the market demand for particular occupations/skills. The expectation is that H1B visa holders should not have trouble finding jobs and, if fired, should be able to secure a new job in a matter of few weeks. If they cannot do so it means they are not in demand, which means they no longer fit the visa grant criteria and therefore should leave. With the above in mind, "the power to coerce workers" is legally just bargaining power, not threat or force. The workers are welcome to accept offered conditions, or take chance to find better ones in 60 days if they think they are skilled and demanded enough. And if they do not think that, they should not be in the country on H1B visa in the first place.
The equitable defense of laches is not applied the same way in every jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions apply it only to equitable claims. Others also apply it to claims arising in law or by statute. A claim for breach of an oral contract arises in law, so in some jurisdictions only the statutes of limitations and not laches applies, while in others, laches as well as the statute of limitations might apply. If laches does apply in this jurisdiction, one must typically show (1) a delay in asserting a right or a claim; (2) the delay was not reasonable or excusable; and (3) either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains OR prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. The second and third elements are typically the issues in dispute in a laches claim. A prejudice argument might be that the person using the parking space wouldn't have continued to use it if he had believed that the person leasing it was going to impose a charge beyond the one actually imposed. Ultimately, this would be a fairly close call if the defense of laches is available for this kind of claim in this jurisdiction. There is also an argument that the right to collect the charges has been waived, although not a very strong one. With respect to the statute of limitations, there are different ways to characterize the violation. If each month of parking without paying is viewed a separate breach of contract and the statute of limitations is three years, only 3/8th of the amount claimed would be timely. But, if it is viewed as a single continuing violation, the entire claim might be timely. To the extent that the parking agreement is viewed as a lease for a time in excess of one year, the statute of frauds might require it to be in writing for it to be enforceable, in which case it is not a breach of contract case, but is instead a trespass case. Viewed as a trespass case the statute of limitations would typically be different and shorter, and the tort might only arise (and compensation might only start to be due) once a demand is made upon the person using the parking space to pay a higher amount (resulting in a much, much lower amount owed).
Probably not An employee is someone that the employer "suffers or permits to work" - moderators would appear to be caught by this. There are specific exemptions carved out in the public and not-for-profit sectors where they "a) work toward public service, religious or humanitarian objectives; b) not expect or receive compensation for services; and c) not displace any genuine employees." However, they very specifically say “Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.” So on the face of it, a moderator is an employee and is entitled to minimum wages and conditions for the hours they work. AOL settled a lawsuit in 2009 with their moderators who were suing for wages for an undisclosed sum and so the case did not set a precedent. This article suggests that "for-profit companies don’t have volunteers; they have lawsuits waiting to happen" and uses examines the situation at Reddit (which could equally apply here). Facebook employs moderators so the precedent exists that this is work that employees do. When the lawsuit happens, we'll find out. It will turn on the particular facts - some types of mods for some companies may be employees while others may not.