GARNISHEEING WAGES

QUESTION:

If the court orders the wages due to an employee to be garnisheed, and the employer is Jewish, has the employer the moral and religious duty to resist the court order, since the Bible prohibits withholding the wages of an employee? (Asked by Rabbi Joshua O. Haberman, Washington, D.C.)

ANSWER:

THE BIBLE is specific in prohibiting the withholding of wages due to an employee (see Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:16). If, for example, the employee is a day-by-day laborer, he must be paid on the very day that his work is finished. This law is developed in full detail in the Talmud in Baba Metzia from 110b to 1 12b; and based upon the Talmud, the law is discussed fully by Maimonides in his Yad, in the laws of “hiring” (S’chiros) , Chapter 11. Then it is dealt with in the Tur, Choshen Mishpot #339 and the same reference in the Shulchan Aruch.

There are certain circumstances under which even the strict Jewish law does not deem it a sin to withhold wages. According to some opinions it is no sin to do so in the case of agricultural labor (evidently because the farmer himself gets his money only after the harvest. See the Tur.) Also, if the workingman knows beforehand that his employer has no money except on market-days, then in that case, the employer is not liable for his delay till the market-day. Finally, the employer is never liable if the employee does not demand his wages. This is clearly stated in Baba Metzia 112a and in the Tur and in the Shulchan Aruch 339:10.

So it may well happen that the employee, whose wages are garnisheed by the law, may well appreciate the fact that his employer cannot violate the court order; and knowing that fact, he does not make the futile gesture of demanding his wages. Thus if he does not demand it (for whatever reason) the employer has committed no sin under Jewish law if he withholds the wages.

As to the moral principle involved, that may depend upon what sort of debt it is, for the payment of which the wages are now being garnisheed. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for example, we have no garnisheeing of wages, except for the support of children and a wife (also for income tax). If it is to support children and wife, how could it be considered unethical for the employer to help in their support in this regard?

There is another ethical consideration involved. The sin denounced in Scripture actually involves two sins: a) the workman is deprived of what he has justly earned and b) the employer dishonestly keeps (permanently or for a time) money belonging to the worker. But in the case of the garnisheeing of the wages to pay a debt (to a third party) while it is true that the workman is deprived of his just due, the employer at least does not have the use of the money withheld. It goes to satisfy the debt designated in the writ.

But actually the whole question is theoretical. The garnisheeing of the wages comes to the employer as a court order which he cannot fail to obey without legal penalty. The fact that he is compelled to obey the court order has special relevance in Jewish law. In all matters of civil law (such as these) the principle of Dina D’malchusa Dina applies, “The law of the land is the law.” In such cases it is the duty (the Jewish duty) of the employer to obey the law. This principle of Dina D’malchusa Dina does not apply in ritual or spiritual matters. A decree to violate Jewish law in such matters should be resisted even to martyrdom. But the decrees of a secular court in civil matters are laws which (by Jewish law) we are bound to obey. Therefore the employer has no moral or religious right to pay the man his wages.