Sherriscott wrote:My friend and I were in a restaurant and there were some guys beside us they were staring at us like mad. One of my friend stood up and went to them with a glass of wine and poured on him. I know it's not a revenge, but I felt like sharing it. It was fun looking at there shocked expressions.

What? that is such a whacked out over reaction to a man "staring" at a woman. I hope those guys realized that the vast majority of stable and sane women would never do something like that.

Anonymous wrote:No, silly- to lose multiple people was a blow to the business. If that's how you plan to prosper- unable to retain the best, constantly wasting time hunting for employees or dealing with inexperienced people you've already failed.

That part of the story I doubt to be real or at the very least connected to the 'revenge' and likely added to make it better. "Luckily it was a co-worker with a big mouth who had been with the company for 5 years and who was only making $30k/year. He along with two others quit that day. Just walked right out the building and did some paper throwing and chair flipping on the way out. About 6 more gave their 2 weeks notice, along with me, and I found out later that 4 more people left over the next few months."

But, lets say it is real that three quit immediately with a dozen more to follow. I seriously doubt it was just about that but rather a straw breaking the camels back scenario. Which is far more plausible. In the real world it is very rare that mature and capable people spontaneously quit over such even if they are offended. Most people have bills to pay and without something to walk to they don't just storm out the door creating a scene by throwing paper and tossing chairs. Which the person said they did. What kind of reference would they get? Especially the person with 5 years at the company. And how would they explain that? How would a new potential employer react?

As to the dollars being paid we have no context. 1980? 2010? Nor did they divulge how they came to know what other employees were making or how they obtained the 'damning' evidence. And let's not forget, the whole thing was over nepotism and pay for a temporary position since they were interns still in college. Had I been in that situation decades ago when I was first in the business world I might have felt perfectly justified to be righteously indignant but I sure as hell would quit a job I thought was a good enough one to take over such a situation. I had rent to pay, a car payment, not much in the way of savings and then there would have been my wife's response. But most importantly I would NOT have wanted that on my work history.

My friend and I were in a restaurant and there were some guys beside us they were staring at us like mad. One of my friend stood up and went to them with a glass of wine and poured on him. I know it's not a revenge, but I felt like sharing it. It was fun looking at there shocked expressions.

No, silly- to lose multiple people was a blow to the business. If that's how you plan to prosper- unable to retain the best, constantly wasting time hunting for employees or dealing with inexperienced people you've already failed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The son isn't providing more value than seasoned, experienced employees. I promise you that. Giving the kid $22/hour - nearly 100% more than full-time employees - is merely a tax dodge by the father. A means to transfer assets without triggering inheritance taxes. I have a few friends with "jobs" at their parents' companies. They get paid very well and work, maybe, 20 hours per week. They provide little value.

So, if you know that, and it is legal btw, WTH was your problem? It was an intern position and he was still in college. His father was the boss, and likely owned the business, and he has a right to do whatever he wants to. And inheritance taxes for a college kid? No. It was about giving the kid cash with better after tax dollars.

And yes I do own a business and if I had a child in the same circumstance, and since it would be legal, I would do the same damn thing. Why have them do work for others when I can get some value from their efforts, I get to deduct their income and their tax rate is a LOT LESS than mine so the net result is to my benefit.

Now, if that had been some woman he was bedding who didn't even know how to type, well, that would be his prerogative but I could see your complaint being more legitimate. Right now all I see is envy and perhaps resentment from the boss being able to do what he did. And if you and everyone that left got better paying jobs then great. But to quit over that alone was asinine.

So you're an ass. And your employees, if you have any, know this.

Your opinion is noted. And since I am spending MY money it's nobodies business how I spend it so long as I take nothing from others to fund it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The son isn't providing more value than seasoned, experienced employees. I promise you that. Giving the kid $22/hour - nearly 100% more than full-time employees - is merely a tax dodge by the father. A means to transfer assets without triggering inheritance taxes. I have a few friends with "jobs" at their parents' companies. They get paid very well and work, maybe, 20 hours per week. They provide little value.

So, if you know that, and it is legal btw, WTH was your problem? It was an intern position and he was still in college. His father was the boss, and likely owned the business, and he has a right to do whatever he wants to. And inheritance taxes for a college kid? No. It was about giving the kid cash with better after tax dollars.

And yes I do own a business and if I had a child in the same circumstance, and since it would be legal, I would do the same damn thing. Why have them do work for others when I can get some value from their efforts, I get to deduct their income and their tax rate is a LOT LESS than mine so the net result is to my benefit.

Now, if that had been some woman he was bedding who didn't even know how to type, well, that would be his prerogative but I could see your complaint being more legitimate. Right now all I see is envy and perhaps resentment from the boss being able to do what he did. And if you and everyone that left got better paying jobs then great. But to quit over that alone was asinine.

Touched a nerve, eh?

I think the PP's revenge was epic.

Nope, no nerve even tingled.

And my point was that PP's revenge was childish and showed a lot of envy. Especially when he brings up college friends that got similar deals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks the exhusband sounds much worse than the exwife? Why wouldn't he use at least a little of that money to fix up the house? Shows that he was never really fully committed to the marriage, if you ask me.

And what is really low.. who GLOATS about the fact that a daughter won't speak to her mother? A good father will try to build understanding between his children and their mother. Not revel in the destruction of their relationship. Using the children against an ex-spouse is about as low as it gets, parenting-wise.

I have a stock portfolio that my parents created for me back in college. It was created as an emergency fund and if needed, house downpayment, etc. They actually put a lot of money into it. I never needed it. I was in my 30s when I got married. We had to have a prenuptial for several reasons and this was one of the items that got included, I put in that this was to be kept as non-marital. It has continued to grow. My wife also had some accounts and her federal retirement that are listed as separate in our pre-nuptial. We have had enough to survive on our own and have kept the pre-marital funds separate. If we get to the point where the kids have graduated college and I have not used it (unlikely), then I have spoken with my parents and it will go into the trust for our children. This way the money stays in our family. But at this point, if we divorce, our marital assets are plenty big enough for both of us as long as we aren't greedy (and neither of us is generally).

Not using pre-marital money that is supposed to be an emergency cushion for frivolous things like upgrades to your house is not a lack of commitment to the marriage.

Okay. And are you sure you're only talking kindly about your ex in front of your child? Anything else is not fair to her. (And she may well hold it against you when she's older.) I am very grateful to my divorced parents for speaking respectfully of one another in my presence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The son isn't providing more value than seasoned, experienced employees. I promise you that. Giving the kid $22/hour - nearly 100% more than full-time employees - is merely a tax dodge by the father. A means to transfer assets without triggering inheritance taxes. I have a few friends with "jobs" at their parents' companies. They get paid very well and work, maybe, 20 hours per week. They provide little value.

So, if you know that, and it is legal btw, WTH was your problem? It was an intern position and he was still in college. His father was the boss, and likely owned the business, and he has a right to do whatever he wants to. And inheritance taxes for a college kid? No. It was about giving the kid cash with better after tax dollars.

And yes I do own a business and if I had a child in the same circumstance, and since it would be legal, I would do the same damn thing. Why have them do work for others when I can get some value from their efforts, I get to deduct their income and their tax rate is a LOT LESS than mine so the net result is to my benefit.

Now, if that had been some woman he was bedding who didn't even know how to type, well, that would be his prerogative but I could see your complaint being more legitimate. Right now all I see is envy and perhaps resentment from the boss being able to do what he did. And if you and everyone that left got better paying jobs then great. But to quit over that alone was asinine.

So you're an ass. And your employees, if you have any, know this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The son isn't providing more value than seasoned, experienced employees. I promise you that. Giving the kid $22/hour - nearly 100% more than full-time employees - is merely a tax dodge by the father. A means to transfer assets without triggering inheritance taxes. I have a few friends with "jobs" at their parents' companies. They get paid very well and work, maybe, 20 hours per week. They provide little value.

So, if you know that, and it is legal btw, WTH was your problem? It was an intern position and he was still in college. His father was the boss, and likely owned the business, and he has a right to do whatever he wants to. And inheritance taxes for a college kid? No. It was about giving the kid cash with better after tax dollars.

And yes I do own a business and if I had a child in the same circumstance, and since it would be legal, I would do the same damn thing. Why have them do work for others when I can get some value from their efforts, I get to deduct their income and their tax rate is a LOT LESS than mine so the net result is to my benefit.

Now, if that had been some woman he was bedding who didn't even know how to type, well, that would be his prerogative but I could see your complaint being more legitimate. Right now all I see is envy and perhaps resentment from the boss being able to do what he did. And if you and everyone that left got better paying jobs then great. But to quit over that alone was asinine.

Touched a nerve, eh?

I think the PP's revenge was epic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my first job after college I saw that the boss' son was hired to be an intern while in college along with his best friend they were being paid $22/hr each. That was $10-$12 more than what I along with some of my other entry level co-workers were making. Not only did the nepotism upset me, but during my 1 year review I was told that I was being given the highest raise they'd ever given an employee at their one year anniversary because I was such an awesome worker. That "biggest raise ever" was $0.75 more per hour.

I started interviewing soon after that and once I'd secured another job, I "accidentally" left a photocopy of one of their pay stubs in the printer for someone to find. Luckily it was a co-worker with a big mouth who had been with the company for 5 years and who was only making $30k/year. He along with two others quit that day. Just walked right out the building and did some paper throwing and chair flipping on the way out. About 6 more gave their 2 weeks notice, along with me, and I found out later that 4 more people left over the next few months.

This is the least impressive story. I am having a different and bad reaction. People get paid differently for various reasons in the marketplace. Usually it's gender or race or the people's varying degrees of people skills. It can be connections too. How many sons could the owner have had? They were temporary interns, the mature thing would have been to let it go. That so many quit makes me wonder how responsible of a bunch this group was. Sounds like high schoolers behavior. . What job was this?

What are ou talking about? You sound very young and inexperienced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks the exhusband sounds much worse than the exwife? Why wouldn't he use at least a little of that money to fix up the house? Shows that he was never really fully committed to the marriage, if you ask me.

And what is really low.. who GLOATS about the fact that a daughter won't speak to her mother? A good father will try to build understanding between his children and their mother. Not revel in the destruction of their relationship. Using the children against an ex-spouse is about as low as it gets, parenting-wise.

I have a stock portfolio that my parents created for me back in college. It was created as an emergency fund and if needed, house downpayment, etc. They actually put a lot of money into it. I never needed it. I was in my 30s when I got married. We had to have a prenuptial for several reasons and this was one of the items that got included, I put in that this was to be kept as non-marital. It has continued to grow. My wife also had some accounts and her federal retirement that are listed as separate in our pre-nuptial. We have had enough to survive on our own and have kept the pre-marital funds separate. If we get to the point where the kids have graduated college and I have not used it (unlikely), then I have spoken with my parents and it will go into the trust for our children. This way the money stays in our family. But at this point, if we divorce, our marital assets are plenty big enough for both of us as long as we aren't greedy (and neither of us is generally).

Not using pre-marital money that is supposed to be an emergency cushion for frivolous things like upgrades to your house is not a lack of commitment to the marriage.

You don't need a prenup to shelter an inheritance or even pre-marital 401(k) balances or traditional pension entitlement. The law shelters these for you, by making them non-marital. I have an inheritance including trust funds and, while XDH tried his hardest to get his hands on them, it never came close to being an issue. XDH did clamor though our marriage for me to use a bit of my inheritance to buy him cars (yes, cars in the plural) and to my lasting regret I finally broke down and got him a new car a few years. I'm the PP whose XDH is going to have a nasty shock when he retires early. Also, my mom who has major bucks, cut him out of her will.

* my mom cut XDH out of her will after he and his lawyer tried to argue that my mom should support our kids instead of him providing child support (child still at home chose to live with me) on his decent government salary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks the exhusband sounds much worse than the exwife? Why wouldn't he use at least a little of that money to fix up the house? Shows that he was never really fully committed to the marriage, if you ask me.

And what is really low.. who GLOATS about the fact that a daughter won't speak to her mother? A good father will try to build understanding between his children and their mother. Not revel in the destruction of their relationship. Using the children against an ex-spouse is about as low as it gets, parenting-wise.

I have a stock portfolio that my parents created for me back in college. It was created as an emergency fund and if needed, house downpayment, etc. They actually put a lot of money into it. I never needed it. I was in my 30s when I got married. We had to have a prenuptial for several reasons and this was one of the items that got included, I put in that this was to be kept as non-marital. It has continued to grow. My wife also had some accounts and her federal retirement that are listed as separate in our pre-nuptial. We have had enough to survive on our own and have kept the pre-marital funds separate. If we get to the point where the kids have graduated college and I have not used it (unlikely), then I have spoken with my parents and it will go into the trust for our children. This way the money stays in our family. But at this point, if we divorce, our marital assets are plenty big enough for both of us as long as we aren't greedy (and neither of us is generally).

Not using pre-marital money that is supposed to be an emergency cushion for frivolous things like upgrades to your house is not a lack of commitment to the marriage.

You don't need a prenup to shelter an inheritance or even pre-marital 401(k) balances or traditional pension entitlement. The law shelters these for you, by making them non-marital. I have an inheritance including trust funds and, while XDH tried his hardest to get his hands on them, it never came close to being an issue. XDH did clamor though our marriage for me to use a bit of my inheritance to buy him cars (yes, cars in the plural) and to my lasting regret I finally broke down and got him a new car a few years. I'm the PP whose XDH is going to have a nasty shock when he retires early. Also, my mom who has major bucks, cut him out of her will.

When I was in the military our department got extra duty for something (I can't remember). One guys was so mad that he rubbed his junk around the rim of the coffee cup that our Chief left behind. So nasty and repulsive.

I was at a party in high school and a girl that I privately and quietly despised was there, doing things I hated. I don't remember details 25 years later, but she was pretty and popular and sadly, I was not.
It was a cold, snowy night and a pile of shoes were next to the front door. I grabbed her boots and threw them out the front door into some thick bushes, then watched quietly as she threw a huge fit (screaming, yelling at everyone) when she tried to leave and had no shoes.
Best part was people got sick of trying to help her quickly and she had to walk home without shoes.
I have never told anyone it was me, and it got brought up for years.

Anonymous wrote:The son isn't providing more value than seasoned, experienced employees. I promise you that. Giving the kid $22/hour - nearly 100% more than full-time employees - is merely a tax dodge by the father. A means to transfer assets without triggering inheritance taxes. I have a few friends with "jobs" at their parents' companies. They get paid very well and work, maybe, 20 hours per week. They provide little value.

So, if you know that, and it is legal btw, WTH was your problem? It was an intern position and he was still in college. His father was the boss, and likely owned the business, and he has a right to do whatever he wants to. And inheritance taxes for a college kid? No. It was about giving the kid cash with better after tax dollars.

And yes I do own a business and if I had a child in the same circumstance, and since it would be legal, I would do the same damn thing. Why have them do work for others when I can get some value from their efforts, I get to deduct their income and their tax rate is a LOT LESS than mine so the net result is to my benefit.

Now, if that had been some woman he was bedding who didn't even know how to type, well, that would be his prerogative but I could see your complaint being more legitimate. Right now all I see is envy and perhaps resentment from the boss being able to do what he did. And if you and everyone that left got better paying jobs then great. But to quit over that alone was asinine.