Re: NLRB says grad students are employees | Big McDonald's Happy Meal recall | Illinois' underwhelming economy
Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.
Click to teach Gmail this conversation is not important.
Click to teach Gmail this conversation is not important.
|
4:27 PM (13 hours ago)
 | | ||
| ||||
This Chicago Tribune report of an NLRB case is either a joke or it indicates just how mad the regulators have become.
A few years ago my client Peter C purchased a boat cargo of human hair. He set up a company to make the hair into wigs, and a marketing company. A little market research discovered that the biggest market was amongst African American females. Peter realized that a good product sold at fair prices could liquidate the cargo quickly and make him a fair profit.
As part of his marketing operation he opened a store on 63rd Street in Chicago. The area was a hell-hole. No one was safe from the gangs and other hoodlums that terrorized any decent person who wandered into the area; he learned that there was an abundance of women who frequented the area during the daylight hours and women he could employ who really wanted to work.
As he remodeled the rental store, a young man approached him and asked for a job WATCHING WINDOWS. As plate glass windows were $2000 a panel the $50 a week that the Window watcher desired sounded inexpensive. He then hired him on the spot. There was never a broken window during the tenure of the store.
In 'slum' neighborhoods building maintenance is not a priority, and thus the first rain storm produced a torrent of water in the store. The landlord was not interested in fixing the roof, so Peter contacted an old fashioned roofing company who hoisted a tar machine onto the roof and covered the roof with tar. Our window watcher was curious and climbed on the roof and discovered the hot tar was indeed hot. He got burned. Shortly after the store was closed Peter was informed of a Workman's compensation claim had been filed against him.
An extortionist watching windows claimed to be an employee of the victim corporation. The arbitrator first denied our motion to dismiss, but later on granted it. This precipitated a claim to the State Wage Board. The extortionist was not being paid minimum wage. That claim was also dismissed. BUT in each situation a lawyer licensed by the Illinois Supreme Court filed the claim! It was accepted by a State panel.
In today's regulator climate I have no doubt that in each case the extortionist would have prevailed. (A Hallmark Card Store in the STate of Illinois building was ruled by the Workman's compensation board to be an ultra hazardous facility.)
Ken Ditkowsky
underwhelming economy
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.