This study describes three types of digital wage theft, as depicted in 330 cases litigated in federal and state court. The first, known as “rounding,” occurs when employers set their timekeeping software to alter employee punch time in a preset increment (typically moving punches to the nearest quarter hour). The second, “automatic break deductions,” involves subtracting a preset increment of time (usually thirty minutes) from employee hours to reflect their scheduled meal break, regardless of whether the break is taken. Both such practices occupy a legal gray zone under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The third, known as “time shaving,” occurs when supervisors alter employee time records to reduce recorded hours. Although more clearly prohibited under existing rules, time shaving cases can be difficult to certify as collective actions beyond a single worksite. Plaintiffs seeking to recover lost wages in these cases face highly uncertain prospects in litigation. Outcomes depend on complex questions of fact and unpredictable judicial rulings that turn on implied notions of fairness. Even in successful cases, employers keep most of the lost wages because damages are only awarded to the small fraction of employees who opted in to the litigation. In sum, this article illustrates how federal rules fail to deter employers from adopting these practices. It concludes by recommending several changes to federal law.

中文翻译：

---

雇主如何从FLSA下的数字工资盗窃中获利

这项研究描述了三种类型的数字工资盗窃案，联邦法院和州法院共审理了330起案件。第一种，被称为“四舍五入”，发生在雇主设置其计时软件以预设增量更改员工打卡时间（通常将打卡时间移动到最近的四分之一小时）时。第二种是“自动休息时间扣除”，包括从员工的工作时间中减去预设的时间增量（通常为30分钟），以反映他们计划的进餐时间，无论是否休息。根据《公平劳工标准法》（FLSA），这两种做法都占据法律上的灰色地带。第三种，称为“剃须时间”，发生在主管更改员工时间记录以减少记录的时间时。尽管根据现有规则明确禁止，剃光时间的案例可能很难证明是单个工作场所以外的集体行动。在这些情况下，试图弥补损失的工资的原告面临着高度不确定的诉讼前景。结果取决于复杂的事实问题和不可预测的司法裁决，这些裁决基于隐含的公平观念。即使是在成功的案例中，雇主也保留了大部分的工资损失，因为仅向参与诉讼的一小部分员工提供赔偿。总而言之，本文说明了联邦法规如何无法阻止雇主采用这些做法。最后，建议对联邦法律进行几处修改。结果取决于复杂的事实问题和不可预测的司法裁决，这些裁决基于隐含的公平观念。即使是在成功的案例中，雇主也保留了大部分的工资损失，因为仅向参与诉讼的一小部分员工提供赔偿。总之，本文说明了联邦法规如何无法阻止雇主采用这些做法。最后，建议对联邦法律进行几处修改。结果取决于复杂的事实问题和不可预测的司法裁决，这些裁决基于隐含的公平观念。即使是在成功的案例中，雇主也保留了大部分的工资损失，因为仅向参与诉讼的一小部分员工提供赔偿。总而言之，本文说明了联邦法规如何无法阻止雇主采用这些做法。最后，建议对联邦法律进行几处修改。