> "The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the employee. The employee is hurting someone/something.
Huh, interesting. How does this make sense in context though? The text says "all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work" must be compensated, so you're saying the law says that an employee must get paid for all the time he spends doing either of {hurting someone/something, being permitted to work}? Why would there be a law to mandate paying employees that hurt people...?
So "is suffered" would actually just be a synonym for "is permitted" in this case. So essentially "is suffered" could be removed with no change in meaning, since "is permitted" is already in the law. As for why lawmakers decided to insert what appears to be a useless and confusing synonym, I'm not sure.
Atleast where I love, when you're not permitted to work you can sue the employer, since you have a right and obligation to fullfill your side of the contract just as the employer has a right and obligation to fullfill theirs. Not being able to work would be a contractual violation suffered by the employee.
This makes sense, but I don't understand how this relates to my comment unfortunately. If anything it would suggest my prior interpretation of "is suffered" was correct? At least I don't see how this translates into an employee hurting someone else.
"He suffers a loss" means a man is suffering a loss. The loss is hurting him.
"A loss is suffered" means someone/something is suffering a loss. The loss his hurting someone/something.
"The employee is suffered" means someone/something is suffering the employee. The employee is hurting someone/something.
Your definition would match "the employee suffers", but that's the opposite of "the employee is suffered".