(edit title) JYSK rejected to pay for my work Who is charge to protect me? Options

[maric52]

Or did that stop when he found the job.I thought that there were special procedures for asylum seekers to work legally? - it is not automatic as asylum seekers do not have the ... (show full quote)

Or did that stop when he found the job.
I thought that there were special procedures for asylum seekers to work legally? - it is not automatic as asylum seekers do not have the right to a personal number ... (hide full quote)

Each asylum seeker gets daily allowances from Migrationsverket. In case of legal employment such allowances will be stopped.
I received personal number from Skatteverket, based on Migrationsverket's working license. It means I have right to work legaly in Sweden.

[mångk]

Yes. You are correct. However, here the point is that the OP was not paid. The difficulty is proving he was employed at-all, and under what terms, maybe the employer claims th ... (show full quote)

Yes. You are correct. However, here the point is that the OP was not paid. The difficulty is proving he was employed at-all, and under what terms, maybe the employer claims there was a verbal agreement of a trial without pay? ... (hide full quote)

We are talking theoretically here aren't we

It depends on a number of factors. Including whether or not the theoretical person had any obligations to attend any social programs such as full-time education, praktik and so on. Any type of trial without pay would most likely have to be done through a praktik scheme in that scenario. If the theoretical person was not attending the programs they usually have to notify and there has to be a legit reason such as paid fulltime work.

Tax is only due to be paid on wages paid ... no wages = no tax due. even employers avgift of 31.4% of 0 = 0.

Try telling that to the tax man! Whilst there is no minimum wage, there is the expectation of a reasonable wage. The tax man wants his cut. Whilst it is a civil matter in relation to the employee, it can be a criminal matter in relation to the tax man and in some circumstances it is not the tax man that has the burden of proof.

The Black Labour question is a little harder, for the OP he has to be able to show that He was employed, if He can do that, then He will also be able to recover the back-pay e ... (show full quote)

The Black Labour question is a little harder, for the OP he has to be able to show that He was employed, if He can do that, then He will also be able to recover the back-pay etc... And that would more likely be since the employer broke LAS, possibly a Collective agreement, and possibly MBL also. ... (hide full quote)

Yes the theoretical OP would have to show enough for an investigation, explaining details of duties, and the general running of the place. If he had notified persons that he was working rather than doing the above-mentioned activities and/or if he for example was filling out application forms for assistance and was required to notify of employment start date or the such, then he has some degree of evidence.

What people generally do not know about working black is that the employee can be forced to pay the tax in certain circumstances! But in this theoretical situation where the employee has not willingly worked black it is unlikely.

Of course this is all personal opinion and that is why it is best to consult a lawyer and/or talk to the appropriate authorities!