La legge biblica impone ai datori di lavoro di pagare quotidianamente i loro dipendenti?

⮜ Domande con risposta

The law in question states:

13 “‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. “‘The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning. Leviticus 19:13WEB

Gary North suggests that this law is, "one of the rare cases in Scripture where God does prohibit a voluntary economic contract."

Wrong. Biblical law supports voluntary, non-fraudulent contracts.

L'intento della legge è di proibire l'"oppressione" del lavoratore da parte del datore di lavoro. L'oppressione specifica è il furto da parte di un datore di lavoro del "valore di scelta" (alcuni lo definiscono il "valore del tempo") del salario del lavoratore. In un'economia a livello di sussistenza, anche piccole perturbazioni dell'opportunità di un lavoratore di esercitare la sua scelta con il suo denaro possono avere effetti oppressivi. Il principio biblico è: a meno che il lavoratore non accetti il ritardo nel pagamento, si tratta di furto. Ma la legge biblica non consente l'interferenza del governo civile nelle transazioni volontarie e non fraudolente. Questo è uno dei tratti distintivi della legge di Dio che la separa dalla legge dell'uomo. Essa rimprovera tutti i sistemi giuridici moderni.

In modern times, workers might be paid weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly. They often don't see the need to insist upon being paid at the end of each day of work. There are advantages to both the employer and employee to consolidating wages for a particular time period. (However, if you are working for an employer with such a tight "cash flow" that they couldn't make payroll if they had to pay their workers each day, then you might consider looking for an employer that manages their money better.)

As a Biblical principle of stewardship, in caring for your family, you should not (if you have the choice) be living even "paycheck-to-paycheck," much less "daily wage-to-daily wage". If you are truly "poor" (the way many in the Third world are), then you are probably not reading this web article. And we won't even talk about voluntarily going into debt.

Someone might suggest: "the employer is profiting off the employee by not paying him interest for those [two or four] weeks; that is theft!" It would be theft, if that was not voluntarily (contractually) agreed to by the employee. When the employee negotiates his wage, he is also negotiating the "choice value" of being paid every two weeks (or every month). The interest (which is the rental price of the wage's "choice value") becomes included in the wage, by definition. The employer cannot be accused of stealing what he is already paying for.