• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ladies and gentleman...the worst human ever

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That is a pretty strange position to take. So if somebody goes to a bar on their 21st birthday then that is objectionable? Howabout driving 54 in a 55mph zone so you don't get a ticket even though you want to go faster? What if the government drafts someone the day after their 18th birthday?
It is an arbitrary numerical cutoff like a thousand others under the law.
Click to expand...

...what?
 
Deacon923 said:
I don't think any of your examples have anything to do with my post. Try again.
Click to expand...

Your post reads that there is something objectionable about going right up against the numerical legal limit for purposes of staying in legal compliance with societal/criminal laws. As if there is some degree of distance from the number that makes the act more palatable.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Your post reads that there is something objectionable about going right up against the numerical legal limit for purposes of staying in legal compliance with societal/criminal laws. As if there is some degree of distance from the number that makes the act more palatable.
Click to expand...

Structuring Your Deposits

If you deposit $10,000 or more, the bank must report the transaction to the Internal Revenue Service, and you’ll need to explain where you got the money. Don’t even think about dividing the cash into smaller amounts to stay below this limit, because the IRS can investigate you for structuring, which is an attempt to prevent the bank from reporting your deposit. Structuring is illegal. Even if you earned the money through legal channels and paid the necessary taxes, the IRS can charge you with criminal activity and take your money.
Click to expand...

...but you know that, I hope.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Your post reads that there is something objectionable about going right up against the numerical legal limit for purposes of staying in legal compliance with societal/criminal laws. As if there is some degree of distance from the number that makes the act more palatable.
Click to expand...

You should educate yourself on how laws work.

I suggest you start with the rules and cases applicable to aggregating nominally separate employing entities for purposes of meeting the minimum employee threshold under Title VII, since that appears to be directly applicable to your business structure and hiring practices.
 
If I'm interpreting 2&2's posts correctly, then I'm worried that he is actually and willfully engaging in employment discrimination.
 
Like, I know it's boards protocol to tolerate fucked up shit folks say, but Jesus.
 
The deposit analogy is a bad one. I guess if you slid back and forth between having 15 and under 15 employees to evade employment requirements or combining entities then it might be a better one.
 
Last edited:
Well either way if I'm 2&2 and I have two different businesses and I'm running both and I'm in charge of hiring and firing at both while they're in roughly the same business and combined there are 15 or more employees, I'm sure as hell not getting online and running my mouth about splitting the two up while admitting to violating the PDA if I did in fact have 15 employees.
 
Sage advice.

There are many times I want to bring up a point business related where I decide that I am not at liberty to discuss it in this forum even in an abstract sense.

I might have missed where he talked about splitting businesses. If he did, then the analogy is more apt.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
Well either way if I'm 2&2 and I have two different businesses and I'm running both and I'm in charge of hiring and firing at both while they're in roughly the same business and combined there are 15 or more employees, I'm sure as hell not getting online and running my mouth about splitting the two up while admitting to violating the PDA if I did in fact have 15 employees.
Click to expand...

They are nowhere close to being the same businesses. Completely different industries, different locations, different partners, etc. Zero overlap.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Sage advice.

There are many times I want to bring up a point business related where I decide that I am not at liberty to discuss it in this forum even in an abstract sense.

I might have missed where he talked about splitting businesses. If he did, then the analogy is more apt.
Click to expand...

Nah he just said he had two businesses.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That is a pretty strange position to take. So if somebody goes to a bar on their 21st birthday then that is objectionable? Howabout driving 54 in a 55mph zone so you don't get a ticket even though you want to go faster? What if the government drafts someone the day after their 18th birthday?
It is an arbitrary numerical cutoff like a thousand others under the law.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? How are any of those examples relevant to this thread?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Your post reads that there is something objectionable about going right up against the numerical legal limit for purposes of staying in legal compliance with societal/criminal laws. As if there is some degree of distance from the number that makes the act more palatable.
Click to expand...

No, he's arguing that there is something objectionable about going well over the numerical legal limit but dividing it into numerous pieces to avoid having to comply with certain laws. Your examples were not along those lines. (Which is why the deposit analogy makes sense.) You're complying with the letter of the law, but not the intent.
 
if his businesses are truly in separate industries with separate investors etc., that's fine. I was keying off a comment he made earlier in the thread about having several businesses with less than 15 employees to "stay under the radar" or something like that.
 
Yeah, I did not mean that one business is divided into multiple under-15 companies at all. They are completely separate and unrelated, and I agree there would be multiple problems on many levels if one business was artifically divided. However as each has individually organically (I know the millennials jizz on the sight of that word in a business context) grown, I do try to keep each under 15 for regulatory purposes. And, like staying 1 mph below the speed limit or drinking right on the 21st birthday, I don't see anything wrong with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top