Shraga worked on weekends as the head waiter for a caterer, doing bar mitzvahs, sheva berachos, and family simchas. For a weekend affair, each waiter earned $300.
“I’m short a waiter this Shabbos,” the caterer said to Shraga. “See if you can find someone else. Three hundred dollars for the weekend, like the other waiters.”
Shraga approached one of his neighbors, Dan. “We need another waiter this weekend,” he said. “Are you interested?”
“How much for the weekend?” Dan asked.
Shraga decided to try his luck and save the caterer some money. “Two hundred fifty for the weekend,” Shraga said. “Is that OK with you?”
“That’s great,” replied Dan. “I’m available.”
On Motzaei Shabbos the waiters, after cleaning up, came to collect their wages from the caterer. Dan noticed that the other waiters each received $300. When he inquired, they all said: “That’s what the caterer always pays!”
When it was Dan’s turn, Shraga said to the caterer: “We agreed on two hundred fifty for the weekend.”
“I noticed that the other waiters got three hundred,” Dan protested. “What did the caterer offer?”
“He offered three hundred but you agreed to two hundred fifty,” said Shraga. “You even said that it was great.”
“I thought that’s what everyone got,” replied Dan. “I didn’t realize the caterer offered three hundred. I should get whatever amount he offered.”
“What difference does that make?” replied Shraga. “What counts is the agreement that we made. I said two hundred fifty and you accepted.”
“It was wrong of you to say two hundred fifty,” said Dan. “Regardless, what should count is not what you said, but what the caterer offered. I should get three hundred.”
The caterer suggested approaching Rabbi Dayan.
“Shraga hired me to work for his caterer for two hundred and fifty dollars,” Dan told Rabbi Dayan. “I found out after the job that the caterer offered three hundred. How much am I entitled to?”
“The Mishnah [B.M. 75b] teaches that if someone hired workers and they misled one another, they have only a rightful complaint – tar’omes – against each other,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “One interpretation is our case. One of the workers, who was an agent of the employer, misled the other employees and arranged with them a lower salary than the employer offered. In this case, the workers receive only the salary they agreed to, but they have a rightful complaint against the coworker who misled them.” (C.M. 332:2)
“What about the fact that the work is worth more?” asked Dan. “I did a good job!”
“Even so, since the employees agreed to the salary the coworker stated, they are not legally entitled to more,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “This is no different from any worker who willingly agreed to work at a discounted salary.” (Pischei Choshen, Sechirus 8:15[36])
“But if the employees agreed to this salary, why do they have a rightful complaint?” asked Shraga.
“Since the employer willingly offered to give more,” replied Rabbi Dayan, “the employees have a rightful complaint against the coworker who denied them potential benefit, as it says in Mishlei [3:27] ‘Do not refrain good from its owner.’ They have a right to be upset with him. He owes them an apology and should try to appease them, but has no financial responsibility to them.” (Tiferes Yisrael, B.M. 6:[3]; Pischei Choshen, Sechirus 10:[7])
“However, if the coworker had said: ‘Two hundred fifty, like the other workers,’ and the employees responded, ‘We accept, like the other workers,’ the Rama maintains that the employer is required to pay three hundred,” Rabbi Dayan concluded. “In this case, they agreed not to the specific salary quoted, but to the going rate of the other workers.” (C.M. 332:4; SM”A 332:10; See, however, Shach 332:10.)