2 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2018
    1. Don't misunderstand, any increase in the entry level wages with an employer of Walmart's size is good. The lower the wage, the more likely people will need public assistance of some kind. Whether you want to call these subsidies to employees rather than employers, it is still subsistence money, not munificent remuneration. Having the government deliver it means employers pay less directly and still have workers live through the night to show up the next morning, which is why it's rightly called an effective employer subsidy, just as specialized and targeted massive tax breaks and loopholes are direct subsidies.

      Remuneration is the total of the financial and non-financial benefits to the employee of all the elements in the employment package. An employee who receives any remuneration from his or her base-period employer is not considered to be in unemployment. “Remuneration” is defined to include “severance, termination or dismissal pay.”

  2. Feb 2014
    1. The cases on the subject are collected in a footnote to Somerset Bank v. Edmund, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; 76 Ohio St. Rep. 396, the head-note to which reads: "Public policy and sound morals alike forbid that a public officer should demand or receive for services performed by him in the discharge of official duty any other or further remuneration or reward than that prescribed or allowed by law." This rule of public policy has been relaxed only in those instances where the legislature for sufficient public reason has seen fit by statute to extend the stimulus of a reward to the public without distinction, as in the case of United States v. Matthews, 173 U.S. 381, where the attorney-general, under an act for "the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States," made a public offer of reward sufficiently liberal and generic to comprehend the services of a federal deputy marshal. Exceptions of that character upon familiar principles serve to emphasize the correctness of the rule, as one based upon sound public policy.

      1) A public officer cannot demand or receive remuneration or a reward for carrying out the duty of his job as a matter of public policy and morality

      2) However, it is not against public policy for a police officer to receive a reward in performance of his legal duty if the legislature passes a statute giving the reward to the public at large in furtherance of some public policy - such as preventing treason against the US.