Company to pay fine after hiring fake priest to extract confessions of workers | Hacker News Reader

Company to pay fine after hiring fake priest to extract confessions of workers

cnn.com

123 pointsexar081564 comments

The fine is only $5,000, while they have to pay $140,000 in back wages. Imagine you stole $140,000 and all you had to do was pay a fine. If anything, we are learning here that there is a pretty low risk associated with trying to pull something like that off.

Well, that and the eternal damnation of your soul. They'd probably rehypothecated theirs already, but it's worth noting that: Absolution of an accomplice is a sin that incurs automatic excommunication.

By doctrine, you can’t be criminally punished for offences by the church if you confess to your superior.

Interesting, source?

I wonder if I can use this strategy to stop paying the church tax in Germany.

I was baptised Catholic but never practiced. But since the catholic church is internationally integrated I gotta pay the tax perpetually unless I get excommunicated.

You need to pay an enforced tax? Is it levied by the government on behalf of the church or is there official papal taxmen?

Seems like you should try to speed run excommunication. After all, there's a lot of fun ways to sin in the eyes of god.

It is paid on the salary. You have to declare yourself that you're part of a religion, though.

Excuse me, that what tax?

I know, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

Protestants and members of other religions don't really have to pay unless they're a member of a church in German, but since the Catholic Church is centralized, everyone who was baptized has to pay. Yeah it sucks.

I had never heard of this before[1] (as a sheltered obtuse American) - this seems like exactly the sort of thing that the US separation of church and state was established for. It looks like the church can opt you into their fold using deceptive dark practices - if this were the US, it would be like if registering with ancestry.com opted you into mandatory Mormon tithes[2].

[1] https://allaboutberlin.com/glossary/Kirchensteuer [2] https://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/genealogy.html

In Germany's case it's only the Catholic Church that does this shady stuff. It should have been like other churches, that only charge you if you frequent them in Germany. But the Catholic Lobby is strong, so if you have a register of baptism in Papua New Guine they will chase you and charge back taxes, even if your parents left the church, forgot to tell you about baptism, and were adopted by a family of another religion. Ooops.

Why haven't you left yet? Obvious scam is obvious

Too much bureaucracy and I have to go back to my country for it, even to the same city/parish, apparently. And they might take their time and just "deny" it! It needs the approval of a Bishop or something like that.

I'm considering other avenues. Someone mentioned I can also be excommunicated if I punch the pope, but so far I'm trying to avoid violent solutions.

That’s not true. You sign a form where you write where you were baptized, if you remember, and that’s it. You have to pay for the privilege of exiting, however, although it was your parents who signed you up. Absolutely insanity.

Not the information given to me at a parish, but you’re probably right.

That's often true for citizenship too

Whereas if someone had walked by an open bank vault and just walked off with 140k, they’d likely get several years in prison.

The difference between white and blue collar crime, along with the different way the justice system treats corporations compared to people.

There is a reason that there is a difference. The bank vault situation is a case of illegal taking. The person in that case is likely someplace that they aren't legally allowed to be or are using force (or threat thereof) to extract the money. There is no chance that this was an accident. The employment case is a failure to pay money that is owed. That is sometimes just a contractual failure and can be the result of malice or incompetence. Many states have recognized that the failure to pay lawful wages is greater than a simple contractual failure and have added double or treble damages to the awards to penalize employers in this situation. Still, it is generally recognized that we don't want to be throwing people in jail for just failing to live up to a civil contract. Imagine if we started throwing people in jail for failing to pay rent.

It's the prioritization of punishment vs restitution. If you can't have both, then which do you want first? For instance, we could have them pay $5000 in back wages, and $140,000 in fines.

Nor is it as simple as "well just toss them in prison instead of fines"... maybe not in this particular incident, but in many of those, incarcerating the offenders makes it even less likely that the employees receive restitution. (In this case, it probably would mean the restaurant closes, and they lose all employment.)

The shocking thing isn't how this case is treated, it's how other cases with similar or lesser harms are.

It's the social construction of crime thing. Stealing $140k is egregious. But because it's an employer stealing from their employees it's being treated as more of an administrative error than a great crime.

Where like, we know that people are in prison on decades long sentences for thefts orders of magnitude smaller, or simple drug possession, or spitting on a cop.

Put another way, try working at Walmart. If you pop open the safe and walk out with $140k, do you really think the outcome will only be a $5k fine?

> It's the social construction of crime thing. Stealing $140k is egregious. But because it's an employer stealing from their employees it's being treated as more of an administrative error than a great crime.

It's not as if someone subtracted $140k off of one guy's single paycheck.

This was nickeled-and-dimed, likely for years. And while I have no inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to a place that hires a fake priest to give confession about skimming the till, it's not that difficult for such a thing to be an administrative error. Rhonda in payroll keys in a wrong number somewhere, and you're getting the $8/month deduction for hemorrhoid insurance without actually getting that insurance. Or the punch on the mechanical time clock is bent, and shaving 5 minutes from the start of everyone's shift. Or a hundred other things.

Hell, maybe that's even an excuse, and it was always deliberate. But good luck proving it.

There are tradeoffs here, and if punitive justice is something you absolutely must have, then go for it. But don't start whining when the other stuff gets worse.

You're reading me upside down. I'm not arguing for retributive justice, I'm point out how our state and society are capable of a restorative approach when they want to be.

People are often saying that such an approach is naive or idealistic, when in fact we already have it. But only for certain relationships between criminal and victim.

Wait! Someone is in jail for a decade for just spitting on a cop? We need to protest this case. Who is it?

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2023/04/14/texas-man-sentenc...

Fair enough, although his sentence seemed to be based on being a habitual offender with armed robbery and domestic violence convictions. It's similar to how people in this thread think that repeat violators of wage theft should face higher penalties.

ok lol sure

I assume that the amount of back wages is the actual amount of back wages owed.

Not necessarily. It might only be the amount that was settled on, because the labor board wants to do this administratively, and that's the most they can definitively prove.

You know, some wiseass was keeping a diary of his start and stop times, but his three other coworkers didn't and they're left out of this. If they try to go after more, the company will balk, take it to trial and then there's the possibility of much less (or even $0) being the payout.

Or it might only be what they can reasonably be expected to pay. What if they owe three quarters of a million, but there are no recoverable funds to pay that out? What if the restaurant goes tits up, and all those workers are out of a job permanently?

Unless it's handed down by jury and judge, it's probably negotiated.

The $140,000 constitutes back-wages and damages. I agree it is still too low.

These sorts of fines carry an additional penalty people generally don't account for, which is that if they do it again, they should get hammered by the justice system. The justice system doesn't like you breaking laws; the justice system hates you flouting the justice system.

It isn't just that they have to pay a fine; it is that they are now quite vulnerable and they'd better shape up and fly right or they really will be hit with something they won't like.

(Or so the theory goes.)

With something as egregious as this, I don't think that's sufficient. Other companies could see this and also think they can do it once without serious consequences. There should be a harsher penalty for even doing this in the first place.

I think, to parent's point, that still gives companies a 'freebie' to try. If you don't get caught, you win. If you do, well, you can't try for free money again, no big deal.

This reads like the beginning of a plot of a really bad, poorly-written movie -- the kind that I'd quickly dismiss as too implausible.

"Ha-ha, there's no way any sane manager would ever hire an actor to play a priest to obtain private details about employees' personal lives," I would have thought.

And yet, it's real. Shame on everyone who was in on this malignant ploy.

Sigh.

Cast Nicolas Cage as the priest and you're onto a winner.

In his inimitable way, Cage would say "yesss!" to the script, in a heartbeat, no doubt.

I have trouble imagining how this worked. Where did the fake priest operate? At a nearby church? Or did he visit the workplace and offer his services there?

edit:

OK, looks like I just missed it. It seems the "priest" did just visit the workplace during work hours. It's super weird.

If your entire workforce is Catholic Mexicans I could see how it would be all too effective.

Don't trust hedge priests!

(Almost all dioceses will have a list of parishes/priests somewhere, here is Sacramento's: https://www.scd.org/directory - if the priest is not listed in an official diocese publication somewhere, and claims to be visiting, he must (in the USA) have a celebret and a letter of good standing; if he cannot produce those be extremely suspicious. Confession is an additional permission that must be listed in writing - https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=903;937 )

> reported that a manager falsely claimed that immigration issues would be raised

> Investigators also found [...] some employees faced “adverse immigration consequences” for cooperating with investigators.

So... The real winner here was the company. The employees involved were warned they would be booted out of the country, and then they were booted out of the country, all for reporting their employer for unfair practices.

So the employee got ~$4000 in back wages, but he and probably his family got ejected from their home country, school, job, friends, and life, with probably a lifetime ban from returning.

And the US department of Labor has no ability to get those employees back into the country.

"managers were paid bonuses from the employee tip pool"

That's pretty low

Its rare that i lust for having someone burned at the stake... but in THIS particular case...

I'm just surprised this happened in California...I would have expected another state...

Why? There are millions of Mexican and Central American origin Catholics there.

While that is true, when I hear of stories like this, the Bible Belt is the first place that I think of...not Norcal.

Those are Baptists and other low church Protestants, who don’t have the rite of confession.

I learn something new everyday.

I'd personally think the Bible Belt as the last place because presumably people from there would consider that to be an unpardonable sin since, y'know, they believe in all that stuff?

Now, amoral and atheistic managers, those people would have absolutely zero qualms about things like that. In fact, I vaguely recall stories about priest impersonation during early Soviet history but I may be just inventing things on the spot here.

With your username I'm surprised you think that atheism plays a role or is somehow a prerequisite. Its merely the believe that there's no god.

This action is just as likely to be done by anyone not caring for the Catholic church, which includes (among others) agnostics, Muslims, hindi, christians that don't believe in hell, christians that want to be evil, etc.

It's safe to say that the person in question was a psychopath though. Nobody with healthy empathy could do this.

This is an interesting quandary for officials of the Catholic Church.

Now, "fake priests" can often be hired to solemnize weddings. If the couple is unhappy with the way their legitimate Catholic parish is handling things (9 months prep is too long, too expensive, won't let them sing "Imagine", requires bridesmaids to cover their shoulders, won't do ceremony on the beach) then the couple can easily contact an "independent" Catholic priest who has all the bona fides (or not; such priests may have been laicized or excommunicated) and who will happily accommodate their every need, for a price. This, however, may not confer the legitimate Catholic marriage that they were hoping for. Because Catholics are required to observe "proper form" which means we must marry in the context of a Mass, or get a dispensation. So if the priest won't observe canonical form, the couple ends up with an invalid wedding, which means they aren't married at all, but cohabiting. However, if the priest does observe canonical form, it is possible that the couple does validly marry, because the priest is merely a witness to the marriage: the couple are the actual ministers of the sacrament when they freely exchange consent. So, there are possibilities when it comes to marriage.

However, a "fake priest" cannot validly absolve people of their sins in any case. The reason is that absolution (forgiveness in the confessional) requires jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by the bishop of a place and priests carry a celebret indicating that they hold faculties to do such things as celebrate Mass, preach homilies, hear confessions, perform baptisms, etc. A priest without jurisdiction is definitely faking confessions. If the priest is laicized, or excommunicated, or schismatic, or simply visiting another territory and hasn't procured faculties from the ordinary, he lacks jurisdiction.

I am betting that their "fake priest" was or is a Catholic priest of some kind, but possibly schismatic or laicized. It would've probably been someone who knew all the right words and actions that could've put on a convincing act for these workers (I assume they were probably mostly Latino Catholics here and that's why they were scammed in this manner.) I am glad that the Diocese of Sacramento has promptly released a statement disavowing knowledge; that's doing the right thing.

Oh yeah, and if you want a "fake priest" to baptize your baby, that will totally work. Because, actually, anyone and everyone can baptize. You don't need a priest or a deacon, except that they know the right words. Even an atheist or a pagan could baptize someone. That's what is unique about this sacrament.

Jesus Mouse knew all the right words and actions to prove he was the second coming of Christ, but the Catholic Church beat the shit out of him and dumped him outside onto the street.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34405486

In plenty of places the legal part of the marriage is entirely separate from the religious part and being married in a religious ceremony with 'proper form' wouldn't have any legal standing anyway. In the eyes of the law in those countries fake priests and real priests are equal.

Correct; there are places where a couple must consecutively go through both a religious ceremony and a civil ceremony in order to satisfy the requirements of both Church and State. Sometimes it matters which order they do it in.

In these United States, all Catholic priests (and other ministers who regularly solemnize weddings) are licensed by the state to act as witness in the civil sphere as well. So one of the most important things a priest will do right before a wedding is sign off on the state's marriage license and have the secretary file that with the clerk.

Where I attended ceremonies (Romania, Switzerland) the priests will only marry you "officially" if you present them a civil marriage certificate, so ceremonies are usually arranged right after the visit to the city hall. I said "officially" because you'd surely find some willing monk if you elope, but I'm not sure even the church would afterwards recognize that marriage without some hassle.

Just one nitpick: in fact, > an atheist or a pagan could baptize someone but they need to (a) know the right words, (b) do the right thing (i.e., immerse/pour/sprinkle the baptized with/in water) and (c) have the intention to do what the Church does when baptizing (I might get the wording wrong, but you get the (rough) idea).

"Ex opere operato" (but as far as I understand it should be done by a "real" priest unless one isn't available).

For Catholics, baptism must be done in a church by a priest (or deacon) with appropriate preparations and ceremony. If a baptism is not done thus, it is normally illicit (illegal). If a baptism is done in an emergency, such as danger of death, anyone can do it, but the minister is duty-bound to promptly report it to the priest responsible for the person who was baptized. That priest then has the duty to investigate its validity, and promptly record the baptism in the registers, and will usually offer the "supplied rites" which means a ceremony in church with the holy chrism, candle, and alb, because emergency baptisms are basically nothing but water and a hastily recited formula.

Just wow.

I know this is the extreme end of the scale, but the entire scale stinks.

Workers should also be owners.

Maybe that is the just penalty is such egregious cases. The ownership of the business should be forfeited to the employees.

Innocent and dependent people being brutally exploited and abused by evil and greedy people, being brought to justice by society.

What's your sentiment after hearing about a story like this?

This is an NLRB thing right? Do these employees still have a good case in civil court?

I was ready with "FloridaCorp", turns out it's California, RIP my joke

Advanced methods

What a headline lol

Churches should also pay fines (and taxes) for hiring real priests to extract confessions.

And also for deceptively mislabeling crackers and wine as human flesh and blood, and grooming children into cannibalism and vampirism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com