Thanks to the #MeToo movement, the discussion about abuse and its manifestations has increased in all media, as well as between individuals. The various types of abuse that can occur and their manifestations are:
- Physical abuse
- Sexual abuse
- Mental abuse
- Emotional abuse
- Financial abuse
The discussion from #MeToo has been based on abuse in relationships, but abuse exists in more settings.
In Icelandic laws, article 3 regulation 1009/2015 on actions against bullying, sexual harassment, gender-based harassment and abuse in the workplace, abuse is defined as "any behavior that leads, or could lead, to physical or psychological harm or suffering to the victim, including threat of such, coercion or deprivation of liberty."
According to this definition, the regulation covers most types of abuse; physical, sexual, mental, and emotional. But not financial abuse.
When looking over the reasons for why individuals get stuck in abusive relationships, and their difficulties in getting out of said relationships, it is often said that the key to a quick escape for the victim is financial independence from their abuser.
Then why is there not more talk about financial abuse in the labor market?
Discussion on financial abuse in the labor market is often characterized by describing the violations as financial loss for the victim, theft, or as a breach of contract. The financial abuse is thus classified with other offenses related to property, but not to harm to the individual themselves. The abuse is thus reduced from being behavior that leads to harm to an individual, the threat of such, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of freedom, to being a loss of funds that is easy to pay back.
It should be noted that a distinction is made here between what is called "wage theft" and "financial abuse":
- Wage theft: An employer who seeks to reduce expenses on wages and salary-related expenses by avoiding paying employee entitlements, or omitting the payment of salary-related charges.
- Financial abuse: One or more individuals in a position of influence within an employer uses their position to inflict financial damage or suffering on another individual, threatens to do so, uses coercion or arbitrary deprivation of freedom during the act.
The difference of the two is the intent of the perpetrator. Intent for financial abuse can often be seen in the fact that the perpetrator's behavior is specifically directed at one or more victims, whereas other staff members are not affected.
Signs of both wage theft, as well as financial abuse can be found with the same employer.
The manifestations of financial abuse in the labor market are diverse, for example:
- The perpetrator refuses payment of overtime worked to the victim.
- The perpetrator registers time worked on the victim, rather than mandatory minimum callout pay.
- The perpetrator denies the victim extra shifts, thus preventing the victim from earning a higher salary.
- The perpetrator threatens to withhold the victim's wages.
- The perpetrator registers the wrong wage rate for the victim.
- The perpetrator refuses, or stalls, to adjust wages when errors in payroll are pointed out.
- The perpetrator registers too high a personal tax discount on the victim, thus building up debt to the state for the victim.
- The perpetrator pays out too high a salary and demands a refund from the victim without giving the victim a view of the calculation of the refund.
- The perpetrator forces the victim to sign an agreement or statement in which the victim waives their collective bargaining rights. This is often accompanied by threats, or deprivation of liberty until the victim signs.
Countless examples can be given of how financial abuse manifests itself in the labor market, but it doesn't take many examples to see why the crimes as such are always reduced to economic crimes:
- Perpetrators of financial abuse cannot be frontline workers, or simple staff with no responsibility.
- The perpetrators of financial abuse are managers and supervisors of employers, and/or the person/s in charge of the payroll.
- The perpetrators of financial abuse are always those who have the money power at employers.
Although financial abuse always involves money in some form, it is not an economic crime. Victims of financial abuse express great distress at dealing with a manager who progressively misrepresents their wages, denies them opportunities to earn additional income, and/or simply refuses to correct wage misstatements.
Unfortunately, unions have not come far when it comes to tackling financial abuse. Victims' stories of deprivation of liberty, or coercion to sign contracts and declarations are often reduced to the signed paper and its contents. Sufferers then need to hear their ordeals discussed from a financial point of view, and not the mental and emotional distress that the sequence of events has caused.
The purpose of minimizing abuse against workers is only to reduce their demands on their perpetrators, if the issue is raised in general. This acts as a disincentive for victims, who see little point in pursuing their rights as only the financial loss will be considered, while the victim has to go through emotional and mental distress again during the process.
Just as #MeToo has opened the discussion about abuse in relationships, it is time to open the discussion about abuse in the workplace further, and especially financial abuse.
The discussion has to start somewhere.
What is your story?
This article first appeared as a review on visir.is 31.01.2023 [link] discussed on DV.is 31.01.2023 [link]. Interview with Dagmál 07.03.2023 [link, link, link].