The property company that I did contract security work for was purchased by a different company and after six weeks they eliminated my position. I was informed by the previous owner that the new owner would pay me. During the six weeks I worked for the new company they did not pay me although they gave me federal withholding forms to fill out. Eventually they paid for the first to weeks and the last two weeks but not the middle two weeks. At first they said that the checks sent to me were missing - although as far as I know no one notified the police or postal athorities concerning missing payroll. I was later told that the checks I endorsed had the word "final" on them (this is true) and therefore by signing I had agreed to accept a final check. They informed me that invoices must have invoice numbers therefore I am not a quote "legitimate" contractor. This was weeks after the invoices were generated by their own computer. I lived on site and they cancelled my lease when I sent them invoices. They said in an e-mail that they would notify quote "the authorities" if I contacted them concerning payment.
Also, this is unusual - the money came from residents of the apartments who voted to pay the additional money when they paid their rent.

Based on your post, I assume that you are considered an independent contractor and receive a 1099 annually for tax filing purposes. If this is true, labor laws would not apply.

The new owner is not obligued to retain your services. Did you have a binding contract that states otherwise?

I am familiar with the apartment industry. The typical arrangement for these circumstances is that your lease is month-to-month. If a contract exists, I would not be surprised that vacating your apartment would be a condition of terminating the contract. I am not versed in your state's laws on this but it's not uncommon for states to require a "notice" period that a resident must receive if their lease will not be renewed. What the notice period is for Arkansas, I don't know? Another forum may be better able to answer that part of your question.

I am not making and issue of whether the new company retains my services - my question concerns the "middle" two weeks of my work for which I was not paid. Also it was the resident's money designated for a specific purpose

So, if you were an employee (were taxes deducted?) you can file a claim for unpaid wages with the state Dept. of Labor. If you were an independent contractor you will have to file a civil suit; likely, the amount would be under the maximum for small claims court.

Is there any protection provided under the Thirteenth Amendment in cases of work without pay? Wasn't this issue settled during the Civil War? Maybe they should revise the inscription on the

Is there any protection provided under the Thirteenth Amendment in cases of work without pay?

As others have pointed out:

If you were an independent contractor, you have the exact same protections as any other business that is not getting paid by a customer -- take the customer to court.


If you were an employee, you can file a wage claim with the Department of Labor.

Those are your options.

So far everyone sidesteps the question of the 13th Amendment. I was forbidden to discuss payroll issues with the resident manager - so First Amendment protections are gone if you set foot in the workplace. Obviously, Fourth Amendment rights are gone when our paychecks are kept under lock and key indefinitely without any explaination.

So far everyone sidesteps the question of the 13th Amendment. I was forbidden to discuss payroll issues with the resident manager - so First Amendment protections are gone if you set foot in the workplace. Obviously, Fourth Amendment rights are gone when our paychecks are kept under lock and key indefinitely without any explaination.

I see no one side stepping anything except you.

You want to believe the 13th Amendment protects you, find a lawyer to take your case. Good luck.

The First Amendment is a restriction on government, not private employers, HOWEVER, if you were an employee, the NLRA may give you rights to discuss your conditions of employment without fear of retribution. I just don't see where that is the case here. I have no idea why you think the Fourth Amendment applies.

If you would address the questions posted, maybe someone could offer some advice, but clinging desparately to the Constitution is not likely to help you absent some responses about whether you were an employee or an independent contractor.

No one is sidestepping the question. The answer is, NO, there are no 13th Amendment issues here. You have legal recourse if you are not paid, something slaves did not have. Your recourse is the DOL if you are an employee; civil court if you are a contractor.

I should have put in more about the chronology. The crackdown on civil liberties came weeks after I had completed the assignment. So it is not possible that I had the status of and employee or a contractworker for them at this time or any time since.

So what legal authority does someone who is not an employer or contractor have to prohibit discussion of payroll.

So what legal authority does someone who is not an employer or contractor have to prohibit discussion of payroll.

I don't understand the question nor the comment about the crackdown on "civil liberties."

You have been consistent in providing no details about your relationship between you and the company -- IC OR employee -- despite repeated request that you clarify that relationship.

Your options have been laid out more than once -- if an employee, file a wage complaint. If a contractor, file in court. If you think you have other options, feel free to cough up the cash for a consultation with an attorney.

I can't help you.

I was an independent contractor - a sole proprietor That is why I used the word contracting in the title of my thread.

One of my questions concerned the situation that began after I no longer worked for these people. It was then that they prohibited me from discussing payroll with the residential manager. Looking at our First Amendment, I do not understand how someone who I am no longer working for has the authority to tell me that I am prohibited from discussing the payroll. Is it true?

I have some additional questions concerning this situation, but I wanted to use this post to address your message first.

They can tell you not to discuss payroll issues with a current employtee because no law forbids them from doing so. They may not have recourse to prevent you discussing this, but they can certainly tell you that they forbid it. I can tell you that I forbid you to sing "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" in my home. Can I force you not to? No, but I can tell you not to and I can ask you to leave if you try.

Freedom of Speech does not give you carte blanche to say anything you want, anytme you want, to whomever you want. Private citizens may tell other private citizens that they may not discuss certain topics and it doesn't even come close to violating the law. Now if you want to write a letter to the editor or your local newspaper complaining about the lack of freedoms in the private sector you certainly may, and you can not be arrested for doing so.

I had a thread going about my contracting work but this is another angle that needs to be clarified. As mentioned earlier I worked for six weeks and was paid for four. I was told that my endorsement of a check marked final exempted the company for paying me any more. The issued two checks to me for contracting - both marked "Final payment."

So does a persons signature endorsing a check that is marked "Final payment" exempt a company from having to pay for any other contract work?
Also, this would mean that I entered a legal agreement without knowing what I was doing. I beleived I was merely depositing a check in the bank. Do bankers know that this is going on?

As an independent contractor, you were a vendor and this has nothing to do with wage and hour or wage payment laws. If someone doesn't know the answer here, try posting this in the consumer law or business law forum.

The issued two checks to me for contracting - both marked "Final payment."

Yes, bad news for you.

If you cash the check, you have effectively agreed to their terms, even though you were not paid for the amount you expected.

We have refused to accept checks so marked by clients, preferring to go for the full amount we were owed. (a rare instance, thankfully)

I suggest you take this up with an attorney that specializes in contract law. This is not an employment law issue.

So someone can sign an agreement without knowing that the agreement exists - because they think they are just endorsing a check - and the agreement is legally binding?

Why does the bank not advise me about this? I know they look out for unusual transactions. They would end up with larger deposits if I recieved an honest pay check. Why would the bank let money go into unknown hands?

Why is the money going into unknown hands? :confused:

DID the check say "endorsement indicates acceptance of payment in full" or anything remotely like that?

DID the check say "endorsement indicates acceptance of payment in full" or anything remotely like that?

Kind of looked like that to me.

The residents of the apartment went on record voting that their money be pooled and used for security. It was the voters money. I don't know what this money is being used for. You do not know. The election was more or less overturned.

So therefore I described the money as falling into unknown hands. Maybe it is in the company account I can only guess.

If there is no accounting information available, I think that it is fair enough to say it fell into unknown hands. Would you "prefer scattered to the four winds" perhaps?
As far as I can remember the checks said "Final payment." This is what the memo line on the check stub stated. I just assumed it was a check and took it to the bank. I really don't think that it was clear that they considered my endorsent on the check as an agreement that this was the final check.

I am concerned about one of moderators. This person said there were no 13th Amendment issues in my situation and pointed out that this was because slaves did not have access to the legal system (has anyone here heard of Dred Scott?) Anyway since the post there have been some reports of U.S. slavery cases - one on Anderson Cooper and a wire service story in the daily paper here. There are accounts of people getting a token payment or having to live on the work site.
Are these supposed to be different than what goes on here? At what point does someone get 13th Amendment protections?

As was said to you six months ago, if you are that convinced that you have a 13th Amendment issue, then by all means try and get a lawyer to take the case.

Further, Dred Scott held that slaves (and those of African descent) did not have legal rights. This was later overturned by Constitutional ammendment, but the case itself did not prove anything.

Any cases of such treatment today do have a legal remedy. Not so in Dred Scott's time.

Still that means that apparently your best advice to someone who is working and not getting paid is to hire a lawyer. This might not survive the reality test.

What other advice did you expect?

Look at it this way. A number of years ago people would say that the Soviets were enslaving people. This was using a moral framework that was generally understood. We seem to have lost this larger perspective.

Many of the things that occur regularly in the workplace now were unthinkable in those days. I witnessed the misstreatment of one of our veterans by the company described on this thread and this is hardly an isolated case.

Obviously, this could not happen separate from a larger decline in morality and values.

So either you will do something about the decline in our values or you will not.

You lost me. Discrimination based on veteran status is already illegal. If someone you worked with was treated adversely because of it, there is a remedy for that.

If there is a class of individuals that you feel strongly are in need of protection from discrimination in the workplace, you are free to petition your legislative representative to change the laws.

How one example of someone being mistreated now shows a decline in the morals and values of the nation as a whole, I have no idea. One could argue that before there were such protections in place as Title VII, ADA, FMLA, and other civil rights legislation, much less value was placed on treating others the way they ought to be treated. Not that any of this has anything to do with specific questions on what the law currently happens to be. We could debate the "good old days" versus "what the laws should be" all day, but that isn't the purpose of this site.

And your last post tells me what advice you were expecting (that was not, talk to a lawyer) where?

ElleMD typed: "How one example of someone being mistreated now shows a decline in the morals and values of the nation as a whole, I have no idea." In my post I stated clearly that "this is hardly an isolalated case." I was careful to avoid stating that one case represented a decline in values. Your position appears to be that there is not a decline in values. If our values have always been on this level you are making an assessment that might be about as grim as saying they are in decline.

Since this thread is no longer accomplishing any purpose except to argue what the laws ought to be, which is not the purpose of these boards, I'm declaring this topic closed.