Check out some similar questions!

Groons · May 15, 2008, 02:27 PM

I agree with much of what you both have said from philosophical point of view but I most certainly disagree that I have become his "responsible person". I obviously cannot, as you said, be held responsible for his actions prior to employment then magically become responsible for them after I hired him. The government wants it both/all ways; I am prohibited, by law from refusing to hire him if he has, or is going to have, his wages garnished. I am prohibited, by law, from letting him go because his wages are garnished.

He is an employee, I'm not his legal guardian or his daddy. I am no more responsible for his prior actions than you are. But, the government has boxed me in and forced me to be a party in this matter. Is it a dire inconvenience or threatened my business welfare? Of course not. But is not right on any level that can be argued.

JudyKayTee · May 15, 2008, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Groons

I agree with much of what you both have said from philosophical point of view but I most certainly disagree that I have become his "responsible person". I obviously cannot, as you said, be held responsible for his actions prior to employment then magically become responsible for them after I hired him. The government wants it both/all ways; I am prohibited, by law from refusing to hire him if he has, or is going to have, his wages garnished. I am prohibited, by law, from letting him go because his wages are garnished.

He is an employee, I'm not his legal guardian or his daddy. I am no more responsible for his prior actions than you are. But, the government has boxed me in and forced me to be a party in this matter. Is it a dire inconvenience or threatened my business welfare? Of course not. But is not right on any level that can be argued.

Ahh, but you are his responsible person in the sense that you are in control of his paycheck - and you must turn a portion over to his creditor before you hand it over to him. I never said you were responsible for his prior actions.

In in my eyes he is the one inconveniencing you, not the Government.

Just out of curiosity - was there a Judgment when you hired him and did it show up on the background check?

Groons · May 16, 2008, 05:25 AM

Ahh, but you are his responsible person in the sense that you are in control of his paycheck - and you must turn a portion over to his creditor before you hand it over to him. I never said you were responsible for his prior actions.

In in my eyes he is the one inconveniencing you, not the Government.

I still cannot quite grasp the concept of why I am responsible for him because I pay him to work for me. I must turn over a portion of his paycheck merely because the government says I must and for no other reason. I don't have to pay his landlord or his truck payment out of his paycheck before I hand it over to him. And, I wasn't being inconvenienced before the government stepped in.

The garnishment obviously just took place so it was not in place when I hired him.

ScottGem · May 16, 2008, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Groons

I still cannot quite grasp the concept of why I am responsible for him because I pay him to work for me. I must turn over a portion of his paycheck merely because the government says I must and for no other reason. I don't have to pay his landlord or his truck payment out of his paycheck before I hand it over to him. And, I wasn't being inconvenienced before the government stepped in.

The garnishment obviously just took place so it was not in place when I hired him.

You aren't responsible for him, but you ARE responsible to his legal creditors if he defaults on his debts. And the responsibility for his default rests squarely on HIS shoulders. This is what Judy and I have been trying to explain. Your ire at the creditor for forcing you to incur the inconvenience of processing the garnishment is misplaced. Its your employee who is forcing the creditor's hand by reneging on his legal obligation. The creditor is only using a garnishment because other attempts to collect have failed.

If he defaulted on his truck payment, its possible the creditor would use the tool of a garnishment as well and you would then be responsible for making those payments. What you are doing is shooting the messenger, not there author of the message.

JudyKayTee · May 16, 2008, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Groons

Ahh, but you are his responsible person in the sense that you are in control of his paycheck - and you must turn a portion over to his creditor before you hand it over to him. I never said you were responsible for his prior actions.

In in my eyes he is the one inconveniencing you, not the Government.

I still cannot quite grasp the concept of why I am responsible for him because I pay him to work for me. I must turn over a portion of his paycheck merely because the government says I must and for no other reason. I don't have to pay his landlord or his truck payment out of his paycheck before I hand it over to him. And, I wasn't being inconvenienced before the government stepped in.

The garnishment obviously just took place so it was not in place when I hired him.

Was the Judgment on file when you hired him - I realize the garnishment was not. Curious to see if it showed up on his background check.

ScottGem · May 16, 2008, 06:48 AM

There was no judgement, but the defaulted loan might have shown up.

JudyKayTee · May 16, 2008, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

There was no judgement, but the defaulted loan might have shown up.

Good catch - thanks.

Groons · May 20, 2008, 11:30 AM

You aren't responsible for him, but you ARE responsible to his legal creditors if he defaults on his debts. And the responsibility for his default rests squarely on HIS shoulders. This is what Judy and I have been trying to explain. Your ire at the creditor for forcing you to incur the inconvenience of processing the garnishment is misplaced. Its your employee who is forcing the creditor's hand by reneging on his legal obligation. The creditor is only using a garnishment because other attempts to collect have failed.

If he defaulted on his truck payment, its possible the creditor would use the tool of a garnishment as well and you would then be responsible for making those payments. What you are doing is shooting the messenger, not there author of the message.

I'm not a lawyer and have not studied the law other than in college as part of my business degree.

How can you say that I'm responsible to his legal creditors for his defaults? Where is there any law or precedent that can be sited for such a statement? Educate me here. In my 3 decades of business I cannot remember of an employee's wages being garnished for any debt other than for child support, certainly not a consumer debt.

Again, you can't have it both ways; if I am not responsible for him then I am not responsible to his creditors. And from a legal standpoint I certainly am not responsible for contracts or obligations he entered into that I had no part in.

What you are doing is trying to justify the government using its ultimate power to force me to do something merely because it can make life unpleasant for me if I don't. Not because I have any responsibility for these actions but because it is easier to make me collect and send them the money that for them to actually go and get it themselves.

You keep trying to make me a party to the beating up of the employee for his past transgressions. That isn't my job. I am only concerned and responsible for his actions as they concern our clients and the work we do for them, it would be unacceptable for me to meddle his personal life, I'm sure you would agree.

JudyKayTee · May 20, 2008, 12:12 PM

I disagree with you (surprise) on several issues - specifically:

You have used the "you are not responsible for paying for his truck or his rent" argument before. If the finance company/bank or landlord obtains a Judgment against him and garnishee his wages you are responsible for collecting from him on their behalf. No one is saying you should pay his debts - although I have suggested that if this is such an inconvenience for you and he's a good, valued employee that you pay the student loan and just have him make payments to you. Maybe his word to you is better than his word and signature on a contract where the Federal Government is involved.

You don't remember another garnishment in the past 30 years you've been in business because your other employees have paid their debts - with the exception you quoted, child support.

If you feel as strongly as you apparently do on this subject you have other options - don't send the money and see what the Government's other options are. I never recommend civil disobedience unless you feel very strongly and apparently you do - so don't forward the monies on. Hire an Attorney and fight it - people fight income taxes every year on the grounds that the Government has no authority to tax. Take up the fight and set precedent.

I personally find it an inconvenience to have to withhold taxes from my employees' salaries and then forward them to the Government - without the necessity to withhold I wouldn't need a payroll service. While you're protesting I would take a look at this, too.

I have already explained why you as his employer are responsible for collecting from him so I'm not addressing that part.

Your employee has made you a party to his past transgressions, not the Government - he did have the option of paying this debt but I am gratified that you see his failure to pay as a transgression (your word).

Other than that I guess we agree to disagree -

George_1950 · May 20, 2008, 07:53 PM

Contact your senator, Lindsey Graham: United States Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina : Contact

PJAMOK · May 21, 2008, 01:51 PM

The collections on student loans are much more liberal than on the collection of any other debt, but I'm still not sure a collection agency can garnish wages nor should they be able to call his place of employment. From my understanding, collection agencies are never allowed to speak to an employer about an employees debt. They can get a court order (but it must be court order) to garnish wages. Before I did anything, I would call the department of education's financial aid office and find out their procedure for collecting the debt. I would NEVER pay the collection agency based on their bogus letter. They are not allowed to represent themselves as legal organizations. That's illegal. I'd do further research and contact the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Organization that oversees collection agencies. This does not sound legal to me, even if the employee owes the debt. CYA

JudyKayTee · May 21, 2008, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by PJAMOK

The collections on student loans are much more liberal than on the collection of any other debt, but I'm still not sure a collection agency can garnish wages nor should they be able to call his place of employment. From my understanding, collection agencies are never allowed to speak to an employer about an employees debt. They can get a court order (but it must be court order) to garnish wages. Before I did anything, I would call the department of education's financial aid office and find out their procedure for collecting the debt. I would NEVER pay the collection agency based on their bogus letter. They are not allowed to represent themselves as legal organizations. That's illegal. I'd do further research and contact the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Organization that oversees collection agencies. This does not sound legal to me, even if the employee owes the debt. CYA

Did you read the entire thread? The OP contacted the State Attorney General's Office - it's legal and everything is in place.

Read the responses again about collection agencies and this specific loan.

PJAMOK · May 21, 2008, 03:09 PM

No, she contacted the State Department of Labor. I would not take the word of someone who answered the phone there as you can get a different answer every time. If she can end up liable if she makes a mistake on this, I'd do further research before I just caved and did what they asked. AND I'd make sure whatever they say is put in writing. They'll say they never said it if they're wrong in the end. Cross your Ts and dot your Is.

JudyKayTee · May 21, 2008, 03:33 PM

You are correct - the OP contacted the State Department of Labor and sent them a copy of the Order - they said it was legal.

FrChuck quoted the law - what further research would you personally recommend (keeping in mind that the employer may or may not be under an order to comply and time is running out)?

ScottGem · May 21, 2008, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by PJAMOK

Cross your Ts and dot your Is.

Yes please do. If you had, you would have seen that the issue of the legality of the order was long ago settled.

PJAMOK · May 21, 2008, 04:49 PM

Okay, so what does this phrase from the states fair debt collection page mean?

South Carolina Wage Garnishment

Wage attachment is prohibited in South Carolina. SCCLA 37 -5-104.

JudyKayTee · May 21, 2008, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by PJAMOK

Okay, so what does this phrase from the states fair debt collection page mean?

South Carolina Wage Garnishment

Wage attachment is prohibited in South Carolina. SCCLA 37 -5-104.

Okay - here's what the Statute you posted says: "

BANKRUPTCY PROPERTY EXEMPTIONS (Code of Laws of South Carolina):

Can use either the federal exemptions or state exemptions below

The State of South Carolina has exempted the property and income below from seizure by the bankruptcy court to pay creditors:"

We aren't discussing bankruptcy here.

PJAMOK · May 21, 2008, 05:12 PM

That's not the whole of it. Creditors CANNOT garnish employee wages in the state of South Carolina for debts owed. It just not just pertain to bankruptcy. I just called a lawyer friend who lives there and he is adamant that the law is very specific that you cannot garnish wages in the state of South Carolina, PERIOD.

JudyKayTee · May 21, 2008, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by PJAMOK

That's not the whole of it. Creditors CANNOT garnish employee wages in the state of South Carolina for debts owed. It just not just pertain to bankruptcy. I just called a lawyer friend who lives there and he is adamant that the law is very specific that you cannot garnish wages in the state of South Carolina, PERIOD.

Well, it's happened here and this is more of your not being able to quote the law but "having an Attorney friend."

Amazing that you were able to reach your Attorney friend in the 3 minutes since I questioned you.

Here's the SC law (according to my Attorney friend): "S.C. does not have a code that directly forbids garnishment of wages -" It goes on to say that the "average" creditor would have great difficult but there are exceptions - student loans, for example, child support.

Maybe our friends should talk -

PJAMOK · May 21, 2008, 05:37 PM

Maybe they should. I'm not saying the Federal government doesn't have a law that would override the state's, but there is a no wage garnishment statute in the state of South Carolina.

Wage Garnishment and Bankruptcy Exemptions -- South Carolina
WAGE GARNISHMENT EXEMPTION: 100 percent of wages exempt

And I was looking it up well before you answered--amazingly enough, the world doesn't revolve around your answers.

If I were her, I would not proceed with garnishing an employee's wages without written notification from either the federal government or the state of South Carolina. I certainly would not do it because someone told me to over the phone based on a collection agency's say so. She needs legal advice so she does not end up on the wrong end of this.