It's a Myth, Piggy

Are you suggesting that the problem in that scenario is the woman rather than the employer?

https://qz.com/work/1190616/the-bbc-cut-mens-pay-to-close-the-gender-gap/

Both actually.

You genuinely think the woman is a problem for not wanting to be paid less?

In this case yes. She was a new hire complaining about veterans with great popularity being paid more in a job where seniority and popularity count for much. Also she didn't ask for her salary to be increased, but for the salary of others to be cut.

Also, that sounds unlikely, but ok.

That's not a police thing. That's a lawsuit thing which is very hard to do when the person you're suing has more money than you (some of that money being what they were supposed to pay you).

It's *against the law*, which means it IS a police thing, or or other appropriate authorities.

Lawsuits aren't about pressing charges for the crimes themselves, they're about obtaining punitive awards for damage done because of the crime, and/or for shining a light on the perpetrator.

And if you wanna win a lawsuit, you've got a much better chance of doing so after obtaining a conviction through the proper authorities.

I have personally dealt with wage theft many times in my adult life; not once did the police ever consider it something that involves them. Their job is to deescalate emergencies and catch criminals who don't want to be caught and presented to a court; when the same thing can be achieved by a court bailiff serving notice to your former employer, they tell you that what you need is a lawyer, not a cop.

A cop would drive to your boss' office and say "well, found him. Now what?"

That's why I said "or other appropriate authorities", for which "police" was just used as a catchall.

And the law is an odd beast. Sometimes police can't (or won't, not sure) charge someone with a crime, even with the smoking gun readily available, with 100% unassailable evidence. You have to press charges for them to do anything.

Looking back over the conversation, it's pretty clear to me that you're retroactively changing your intended meaning in light of the mistakes you made rather than describing what you actually meant to say. Your original comment makes very little sense even with your clarification. Very few people would ever use "police" as an umbrella term for the justice system when "the courts" is what you meant, which is very clearly what I was talking about to begin with.

Except when trying to pare the wording down for a meme, maybe? I haven't changed anything, just clarified for someone being pedantic.