Jump to content

Company deducting stimulus money from pay

Pokoloco

By Pokoloco
in Can You Help Me With This?

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31486

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

I'm with iceman on this.   How anyone can side with the business in stealing labor from their employees is beyond me.  How they can support this double standard is also beyond me.  

You stupid motherfucker.

I never sided with the company.  I said what NiceGuyEddie proposed was actual fraud.

Dumbfuck.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, since you're simple, let's keep it simple:  you don't meet a wrong with a wrong.  

How bou da?

No one was talking about court or anything else.  A poster proposed a fraudulent course of action.  Another poster called it fraud.  The second poster was literally correct.  The first poster had tax fraud conflated with civil fraud.

You keep bringing extraneous shit into it.

I have no idea if you're right or not but it doesn't matter. No one would ever be prosecuted for giving their boss a fake 1040. So your argument is a waste of typing. Are you a first year law student or their professor?  Arguing a unwinnable side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31486

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I have no idea if you're right or not but it doesn't matter. No one would ever be prosecuted for giving their boss a fake 1040. So your argument is a waste of typing. Are you a first year law student or their professor?  Arguing a unwinnable side.

Geezus fucking Christ.

Like playing cards with my brother's kids.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31486

Posted
Posted
On 3/27/2020 at 11:01 AM, StruggleBus said:

You recommend committing fraud to help secure $1200? Solid 

 

On 3/27/2020 at 8:16 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t see how giving someone a fake 1040 is fraud.  Handing a copy of it to your boss is not the same as filing it. It’s legal to write down whatever I want on a 1040 and paper my walls with it. 

This is what I was responding to.

It is fraud.  It's not tax fraud.

I didn't comment in particular on the merits of such a course action other than to note that it is, in fact, fraud.

Stupid fuckers.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31486

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, TeddyBearStallion said:

No, you sound like you are putting your spin on things in a way that sides with the company.  Your words don't convince otherwise.  

No your just a dumb motherfucker.  I don't neg rep, I just call you a dumbass.

I'm not spinning anything.  I am stating correctly the law of fraud.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeddyBearStallion

TeddyBearStallion 73

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

This is what I was responding to.

It is fraud.  It's not tax fraud.

I didn't comment in particular on the merits of such a course action other than to note that it is, in fact, fraud.

Stupid fuckers.

It's not fraud because it doesn't harm the company since it does not deprive the company of what does not belong to them.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

This is what I was responding to.

It is fraud.  It's not tax fraud.

I didn't comment in particular on the merits of such a course action other than to note that it is, in fact, fraud.

Stupid fuckers.

the people around you must really love when you have to win every argument and get in the final word.  "According to Texas statue 1234, you're wrong.  Let's look it up" 

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31486

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

this is amazing.  no one is siding with the company. at all.  

Actually, earlier in the thread or the other one, I said it might be justifiable in the same way that a pay cut might be justifiable.  Or laying off employees.

I don't like it much, like the employment lawyer says "don't reach into employees' pockets."

I have also come to understand that this isn't some mom and pop deal, but a major corporation.  I think it's shitty.  It undercuts the stimulus purpose of the payments.  It isn't unemployment compensation.

In any event, I have never sided with the corporation.  Certainly not by pointing out that what Eddie proposed was actual fraud, even if it wasn't presented to the IRS.

In the final analysis, the employee who did such a thing might have an fair wage complaint against the employer and the employer might have a counterclaim for fraud.  The employer's shitty actions have a remedy, most likely.  Committing fraud against the employer is probably not it.

In the event, I am bored and cranky today.  Apologies for going off.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Genco

Genco 3041

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have also come to understand that this isn't some mom and pop deal, but a major corporation.

Are you basing this on the reddit speculation that it is Conduent or has this been confirmed elsewhere? Because if it is a major corporation like Conduent, that doesn't jibe with @Pokoloco's post that this is a family owned business. Or maybe more than one company had the same terrible idea.

Regardless, I could easily believe that it is Conduent. A company with zero prospects, minimal capital, multiple restructurings, and constant executive turnover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31486

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Genco said:

Are you basing this on the reddit speculation that it is Conduent or has this been confirmed elsewhere? Because if it is a major corporation like Conduent, that doesn't jibe with @Pokoloco's post that this is a family owned business. Or maybe more than one company had the same terrible idea.

Regardless, I could easily believe that it is Conduent. A company with zero prospects, minimal capital, multiple restructurings, and constant executive turnover.

Partially.  I initially seized on the "family owned" part.  He also said six states.  That's pretty big.  Wal-Mart is/was "family owned."  I don't even know anything about Conduent, but I'm gathering that it's big enough to have an HR department, which is big enough not to pull this kind of bs.

As stated, I'm not going to demand that a small business (if it's really small) that's a bit marginal go into debt to keep its payroll going.  Furloughs and pay cuts would be somewhat understandable.

I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

Still, as a lawyer, I'm not going to advocate that people engage in deceit that meets the elements of common law fraud in order to avoid the effects of it.  No matter how "justified" it may be.  There's a right way to do things, and a wrong way.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Genco

Genco 3041

Posted
Posted

By tomorrow morning every single customer logo on Imagenet's website will be flooded with social media posts. By noon I expect HQ to start getting calls from those customers telling Imagenet to take their logo off the website while this is "being dealt with." Taking down their twitter account is a good idea as it will be harder for this to travel virally without a handle to retweet. But it really doesn't matter as it's too late to not have previous posts combed over and this is a story with a cartoon villain that the media will pounce on without mercy.

Networks will be all over this tomorrow afternoon. Soundbites will be over the top. Customers will be reviewing the termination provisions in their contracts looking for a way out because being Imagenet's partner will now be a PR disaster and the only way to deal with it is to explain that you took immediate action to separate yourself from a vendor who does not share your values. Heads will roll and an employee centric Hail Mary will be thrown by the company to attempt to show that they really do care about their people. But it probably won't matter.

@Pokoloco was right to keep the name of the company private. But now that it's out a lot more people will probably lose their jobs. And that fucking sucks. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted

You can’t expect to enact a bad compensation policy and not have to leaked out. Especially during a crisis.  You can lower salaries, you can lower hours worked/paid, you lay people off, but you can’t take money out of their pocket.

100% it sucks if they go under or lay people off but perhaps it will show others to not follow their lead.

as far as their name getting out publicly, has that occurred yet? I don’t mean on reddit or other sites but rather legit news sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8362

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Genco said:

... Pokoloco was right to keep the name of the company private. ...

In what sense was it right?  morally?  ethically? for great justice?  I'm not so sure.

It seems since the great bailouts of 2008, society has become indoctrinated with the idea that bad management should never fail.  If we remove consequences for bad decisions/behavior, we are rewarding incompetence/evil. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, bernorange said:

In what sense was it right?  morally?  ethically? for great justice?  I'm not so sure.

It seems since the great bailouts of 2008, society has become indoctrinated with the idea that bad management should never fail.  If we remove consequences for bad decisions/behavior, we are rewarding incompetence/evil. 

If they just say fuck it, and shut down then their employees lose even more.  The time for something like outing them is after this shit passes, then burn those mother fuckers down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brew

Brew 3049

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You can’t expect to enact a bad compensation policy and not have to leaked out. Especially during a crisis.  You can lower salaries, you can lower hours worked/paid, you lay people off, but you can’t take money out of their pocket.

100% it sucks if they go under or lay people off but perhaps it will show others to not follow their lead.

as far as their name getting out publicly, has that occurred yet? I don’t mean on reddit or other sites but rather legit news sites.

All of your other scenarios result in what exactly? It seems to me they all end with the employees having less in the end. They could have gone about this in much more PC ways, but the end result is the same no matter which way you spin it. Before someone throws out SBA again, based on their revenue stream they are clearly over 500 employees which limits their options.

As someone on this board that employees 300 or so total, I can tell you we are having to make decisions that are unprecedented for us. We have never laid anyone off, cut pay, etc even through 2008-2009. We may have to lay some off this time if it keeps going. It’s not like revenue backslid, it was a straight cliff that we just went over and it will not be made up when the economy restarts. Even if we had the work, I still have a large population of my people off with kids for the foreseeable future. We’re going the route of SBA loans, but it will not be enough if we’re not up and running soon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted

Ends don't justify the means. Do we allow employers to mistreat employees because hey, it's better than laying them off. This company and execs should burn today for this decision. I never wish for anyone to get fired but hopefully some decision-makers are being given their walking papers today.

@Brew I don't understand why you seem so sympathetic with mgmt of this company. You should be more pissed off than anyone because this company may end up adding to the oversight and regulations that you'll have to face now. They were chomping at the bit to get that employee stimulus money to a point that paperwork was being handed out before the ink was dry on the law.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brew

Brew 3049

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Ends don't justify the means. Do we allow employers to mistreat employees because hey, it's better than laying them off. This company and execs should burn today for this decision. I never wish for anyone to get fired but hopefully some decision-makers are being given their walking papers today.

@Brew I don't understand why you seem so sympathetic with mgmt of this company. You should be more pissed off than anyone because this company may end up adding to the oversight and regulations that you'll have to face now. They were chomping at the bit to get that employee stimulus money to a point that paperwork was being handed out before the ink was dry on the law.

 

 

I’m not sympathetic, I just have a different perspective than most apparently. In today’s world you live and die by every decision you make and every employer has to be ultra careful how they deal with employees. I also deal in numbers all day every day. From a dollar to the employee standpoint it works out the same as cutting their pay. They could have easily said, we’re cutting pay another 5% and got the same value corporately. Would it be less offensive if they would have just said we’re cutting everyone $1200? Again, it’s completely tone deaf to take the approach they did, but it may be better financially than just laying everyone off for at least those employees over $55k or so. I’ve been dealing with nonstop calls from clients for 2 weeks now and most are desperate.

We have a subsidiary company that deals in the same business that company does. I can tell you that business has dropped to just recurring billings only in the last 2 weeks. No new sales, no project work, all onsite work deferred. etc. has really cut into the numbers. Companies are scrambling because there wasn’t a reduction in business like normal, it was just an end of business in some cases.

Edited by Brew
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brew said:

I’m not sympathetic, I just have a different perspective than most apparently. In today’s world you live and die by every decision you make and every employer has to be ultra careful how they deal with employees. I also deal in numbers all day every day. From a dollar to the employee standpoint it works out the same as cutting their pay. They could have easily said, we’re cutting pay another 5% and got the same value corporately. Would it be less offensive if they would have just said we’re cutting everyone $1200? Again, it’s completely tone deaf to take the approach they did, but it may be better financially than just laying everyone off for at least those employees over $55k or so. I’ve been dealing with nonstop calls from clients for 2 weeks now and most are desperate.

We have a subsidiary company that deals in the same business that company does. I can tell you that business has dropped to just recurring billings only in the last 2 weeks. No new sales, no project work, all onsite work deferred. etc. has really cut into the numbers. Companies are scrambling because there wasn’t a reduction in business like normal, it was just an end of business in some cases.

Yes, it would be less offensive if they said they were cutting salaries/wages by 5% (or whatever) across the board. They seemingly were asking lower compensated employees to shoulder the financial hit.  Now perhaps they communicated a similar cutback to higher compensated employees but we don't have that info. Instead they said, "you lower paid people are getting govt hand-outs, so we want that exact amount of money PLUS half of your kid's money." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Herpa Derpa

Herpa Derpa 6126

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Brew said:

In today’s world you live and die by every decision you make and every employer has to be ultra careful how they deal with employees.

Not a new thing.

Quote

Again, it’s completely tone deaf to take the approach they did, but it may be better financially than just laying everyone off for at least those employees over $55k or so. I’ve been dealing with nonstop calls from clients for 2 weeks now and most are desperate.

Is it better financially?  The blowback appears to indicate it was an incredibly bad business decision made with near total disregard for anything but the short term financial pain of upper management.  And now they pay the price.  Do the workers, too?  Yes, but that is the lot of the workingman.   This company does not think much of their employees as their recent actions make crystal clear.  Perhaps this is a blessing to those like Pokoloco who can now find work for a decent, ethical company.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26322

Posted
Posted
On 3/28/2020 at 8:47 PM, TeddyBearStallion said:

How about you shut the fuck up?  Until you do, we're taking what you say with a huge pinch of salt.  

Hot take from a new guy with barely any rep. I'd tread lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...