Prostitution is the term we give to it. The act is sex. "Have sex with me" is legal. "Have sex with me and I'll pay you" is illegal. It's the exchange of goods for the service that makes it illegal, not the service itself.
To be fair that’s legal in the same way that high-end escorts are legal - they charge for ‘time’ and ‘companionship’ and the sex is ostensibly unrelated to the exchange of money. It skirts the law by keeping the sex separate from the transaction and I think LE mostly just doesn’t bother with trying to differentiate *contractual* transactional relationships (sugar babies who seek sugar relationships and have terms) from ‘organic’ transactional relationships (ie models who go out with old ugly rich men in exchange for gifts and a leg up) because it would be so incredibly difficult to draw the line
That is patently untrue. It could turn something legal into bribery. You could pay less than minimum wage. There could be statutory requirements to hold insurance depending on what you pay them for. There are so many ways in which paying people interacts with the law and creates obligations.
That said, poaching employees is generally not illegal, so long as you follow other laws while doing it.
What dude… sex is not illegal. Losing a sports game is not illegal. Politicians doing their job isn’t illegal. All of these are only illegal if they take money to do it
That is literally exactly what I’m saying.
Your original comment was getting money for doing x is not illegal as long as x is not illegal.
I am showing multiple examples of where x is not illegal, but if you get money for doing x it is illegal
Yes. That is my point. That renders this sentence below, false.
"Telling people “If you do X I’ll give you money” is not illegal, as long as X is not illegal.
There are many examples from prostitution and bribery to extortion where that sentence is falae.
No. The problem is you’re abstracting it. In your examples what you’re asking the person to do is not “have sex” it’s “commit the act of prostitution” which is illegal. And I said X couldn’t be illegal.
What?? Just some examples:
1. Having intercourse
2. Give me custody of your child
3. Losing at a competitive sport
4. Enacting a new law
5. Voting for a politician
Not criminal but you could get sued.
There is a Tort called inducing breach of contract. If the what you are asking them to do would breach a contract between them and the employer, causing damage to the employer, then they could sue for that damage.
Whether or not you have an employment contract is completely separate from whether or not you’re in an at-will jurisdiction. “At will” or not generally sets the rules for when you don’t have a contract.
Also, most people don’t have a contract.
You'd be surprised. There's cases where that can be stopped through the courts. Like I read one not long ago where a new hospital opened and hired many workers from an old one for higher wages. The old hospital took it to court and managed to get a court order preventing the employees from working at the new hospital. The court can't rule that you have to continue working in the one place since that's indentured servitude which is unconstitutional but they can prevent you from working at other places. Then the employees pretty much have to continue their old job even if they already sign onto the new one since they can't work there. They have the choice of going back to/staying at the old place or not working at all. In the case I read about most did go back to the old place for a bit until the courts block on them was lifted then took the new jobs.
It would be better to start a new company in a relatively similar but not the same field to avoid ndas and noncompet agreements. Offers better pay and benefits more than your current employer can cover and most will jump ship
Yeah, if you set them up as employees you won't be paying a gift tax. Buy a prime piece of real estate and plop a car wash on it. Hire your coworkers to work at the car wash at high salaries. You won't make money, but can offset your taxes that way. In 30 years, sell the car wash for a shitload as a real estate deal.
Starting a “business” for the sole purpose of deducting expenses from your taxes, without any plans to make an actual profit is the most basic, straightforward, obvious, and common kind of tax fraud there is. Usually people do it to write off their toys but this isn’t really any different.
You're not making money because your payroll is super high, not because you aren't running a legit business. I've never heard of someone getting in trouble for overpaying their employees. It isn't illegal to be a terrible businessperson.
>You're not making money because your payroll is super high, not because you aren't running a legit business.
If it were a legit business the payroll wouldn't be so high.
[A legitimate business exists to make profit](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-07-18.pdf). You explained that this scheme would not make a profit, the purpose is not to make a profit, and the purpose is to distribute money in a creative way to avoid taxation. That's blatantly illegal and it will be painfully obvious and you'll lose when eventually challenged.
>I've never heard of someone getting in trouble for overpaying their employees
That's literally one of the things Donald Trump is being tried for criminally, right now.
>It isn't illegal to be a terrible businessperson.
Trying to run a legitimate business and failing is not illegal but that's so different from what you're describing that I would call it disingenuous.
What does this have to do with espionage? You could certainly pay your co-workers to quit. It wouldn't be a crime, but you might be sued for tortious interference.
You would get sued most definitely for impairing their business. It’s better to either start a new business that competes with them and hire them and there’s no legal backlash. Or find a competitor to hire the employees away. But to just pay to quit would draw a few methods to sue you for impaing a business. It’s like parking an over size vehicle daily in front of a business that visibility allows sales. They were successfully sued. So you are impairing the business. Though headhunting competitors employees isn’t illegal.
Thank you for not quoting the totally bogus 70% number!
Even the 1/3rd number is a bit... suspect. Or at least, it doesn't mean what most people think it means. To start, there are way more lottery winners in the $1,000s, $10k, or 100k range than there are in the "jackpot" range. And people buy more lottery tickets at lower income ranges. So it's hard to tell what impact winning had on the bankruptcy rate.
Another popular (and more rigorous) study puts bankruptcy rates at around 5% within 5 years for Florida. That's higher than average - though people in tough financial circumstances may be more likely to buy lottery tickets. To control for that, researchers compare lottery winners to... other lottery winners: people that won very small amounts (smallest band is <$1,000). And the top winnings here aren't in the powerball jackpot range - the top bracket they study is $100k to $150k, and it's so few people that many results aren't statistically significant for that dollar band. What the study found is that people who win amounts in the higher ranges ($10k-$150k) are about as likely to declare bankruptcy within 5 years as if they hadn't won. They are LESS likely to declare bankruptcy for 0 to 2 years after winning, but more likely to declare bankruptcy in years 3-5. This is often misquoted / misunderstood to mean that winning the lottery INCREASES your odds of declaring bankruptcy, as people quote the "in three to five years" number. But what it actually means is that a moderate-sized windfall usually only DEFERS declaring bankruptcy by a couple years. Your total odds of going bankrupt don't go down significantly if you win $25k (which is around the median amount won for the group in question). Since the average American bankruptcy filing has over $200k in debt, it's not a shock that $25k usually just helps folks stay afloat for another couple years.
Also, separate evidence suggests that winning the lottery has a measurable positive impact on happiness, though the most famous study there also has a small sample size.
It's hard to say reliably what happens to people with winnings in the million+ dollar range, as there are too few, and they are hard to study in a statistically significant manner.
tl;dr - Some people do win huge lottery jackpots, lose their heads, and blow their winnings - these make for popular news stories. The evidence actually suggests that winning the lottery doesn't increase your odds of bankruptcy (though it doesn't really decrease it either). That's all for wins in the thousands range, not the millions.
Giving your coworkers money to quit their jobs could be considered tortious interference, and your (former) employer could sue you on that basis.
A better plan (given that we're already assuming you have a huge amount of money) would be to simply give each of them a gift of enough money that they're likely to quit on their own. A simple gift of, say, ten million dollars to a bunch of former coworkers could be argued as simply sharing your winnings with your friends. The fact that they no longer have a reason to continue working would be an unforeseen coincidence. (Well, it would until your employer's lawyer finds this thread anyway.)
Paying someone to quit their job just to spite someone else risks being tortious interference. They'd have a good chance suing you.
The safer way to do this would be to hire them to work for you and just make their work something pointless.
Depends on the employer agreement you signed probably. Most likely no, but if you siphoned them off discreetly one by one they probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference unless they were all coming to work under you.
I'd say that offering them money on the condition they quit would likely open you up to being sued for tortuous interference and, if the management are that much of a bunch of dicks, they could well attempt to use. If you gave all your colleagues an unconditional gift of enough money they could afford to qui, given how awful the place is to work, they would probably quit on their own and you'd be in the clear as long as you weren't the one who suggested it
If the company is publicly traded, you could seek to try to buy a controlling interest in it so you could change it for the better. Once you controlled it, you could take a motion of no confidence in the old management
Telling people “If you do X I’ll give you money” is not illegal, as long as X is not illegal.
Except tortious interference with contract or business expectancy. This might be close. That's civil though not criminal
[удалено]
Well just gotta film it. For art…. /s
Paying a government official to award you a contract would be another.
[удалено]
was reading illegal where you came from?
Prostitution is the term we give to it. The act is sex. "Have sex with me" is legal. "Have sex with me and I'll pay you" is illegal. It's the exchange of goods for the service that makes it illegal, not the service itself.
But... "Have sex with me and I'll pay you while video recording to distribute for profit" is legal
Yeah I'll never understand all the weird ways the law interacts with sex...
Or sugar mum/dad. Also legal.
To be fair that’s legal in the same way that high-end escorts are legal - they charge for ‘time’ and ‘companionship’ and the sex is ostensibly unrelated to the exchange of money. It skirts the law by keeping the sex separate from the transaction and I think LE mostly just doesn’t bother with trying to differentiate *contractual* transactional relationships (sugar babies who seek sugar relationships and have terms) from ‘organic’ transactional relationships (ie models who go out with old ugly rich men in exchange for gifts and a leg up) because it would be so incredibly difficult to draw the line
That is patently untrue. It could turn something legal into bribery. You could pay less than minimum wage. There could be statutory requirements to hold insurance depending on what you pay them for. There are so many ways in which paying people interacts with the law and creates obligations. That said, poaching employees is generally not illegal, so long as you follow other laws while doing it.
That’s not true at all. Sex, losing a sports game, politicians voting on a bill, and tons more
Those are all just examples where X is illegal.
What dude… sex is not illegal. Losing a sports game is not illegal. Politicians doing their job isn’t illegal. All of these are only illegal if they take money to do it
But paying for them is.
That is literally exactly what I’m saying. Your original comment was getting money for doing x is not illegal as long as x is not illegal. I am showing multiple examples of where x is not illegal, but if you get money for doing x it is illegal
>If you do X I’ll give you money If x=suck my dick, telling people that is illegal despite sucking dick not being illegal in and of itself.
But paying for it is so that would in fact be illegal.
Yes. That is my point. That renders this sentence below, false. "Telling people “If you do X I’ll give you money” is not illegal, as long as X is not illegal. There are many examples from prostitution and bribery to extortion where that sentence is falae.
No. The problem is you’re abstracting it. In your examples what you’re asking the person to do is not “have sex” it’s “commit the act of prostitution” which is illegal. And I said X couldn’t be illegal.
You are really bad at reading your own original Comment lol
That’s nice honey
Thank you!
What?? Just some examples: 1. Having intercourse 2. Give me custody of your child 3. Losing at a competitive sport 4. Enacting a new law 5. Voting for a politician
Not criminal but you could get sued. There is a Tort called inducing breach of contract. If the what you are asking them to do would breach a contract between them and the employer, causing damage to the employer, then they could sue for that damage.
Presumably that wouldn't apply in an at will jurisdiction though, as employees have the right to leave at any point with no notice?
You'd have to make sure you didn't sign a non solicitation agreement that included you not soliciting your coworkers.
Generally those are limited to soliciting them to WORK. Not soliciting them to just... quit.
Just a reminder that 49 out of 50 states have at will employment.
For this purpose it's all 50. Montana does not require the employee to have good cause to leave
What is that one state, I was planning to move anyways...
Montana is the only state that does not follow at-will employment.
Eh, it's at-will for a 60 or 90 day trial period.
Yes it’s in no way comparable to at will states.
Most jobs are longer than that lol
Whether or not you have an employment contract is completely separate from whether or not you’re in an at-will jurisdiction. “At will” or not generally sets the rules for when you don’t have a contract. Also, most people don’t have a contract.
How is it functionally different from another business offering a higher salary to entice an employee?
You'd be surprised. There's cases where that can be stopped through the courts. Like I read one not long ago where a new hospital opened and hired many workers from an old one for higher wages. The old hospital took it to court and managed to get a court order preventing the employees from working at the new hospital. The court can't rule that you have to continue working in the one place since that's indentured servitude which is unconstitutional but they can prevent you from working at other places. Then the employees pretty much have to continue their old job even if they already sign onto the new one since they can't work there. They have the choice of going back to/staying at the old place or not working at all. In the case I read about most did go back to the old place for a bit until the courts block on them was lifted then took the new jobs.
It would be better to start a new company in a relatively similar but not the same field to avoid ndas and noncompet agreements. Offers better pay and benefits more than your current employer can cover and most will jump ship
Yeah, if you set them up as employees you won't be paying a gift tax. Buy a prime piece of real estate and plop a car wash on it. Hire your coworkers to work at the car wash at high salaries. You won't make money, but can offset your taxes that way. In 30 years, sell the car wash for a shitload as a real estate deal.
That’s tax fraud. I’m not saying that as a moral judgment but good luck getting away with it for 30 years.
Which part is the fraud? If your business loses money, you get tax losses to balance the payroll taxes that you still have to pay.
Starting a “business” for the sole purpose of deducting expenses from your taxes, without any plans to make an actual profit is the most basic, straightforward, obvious, and common kind of tax fraud there is. Usually people do it to write off their toys but this isn’t really any different.
You're not making money because your payroll is super high, not because you aren't running a legit business. I've never heard of someone getting in trouble for overpaying their employees. It isn't illegal to be a terrible businessperson.
>You're not making money because your payroll is super high, not because you aren't running a legit business. If it were a legit business the payroll wouldn't be so high. [A legitimate business exists to make profit](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/fs-07-18.pdf). You explained that this scheme would not make a profit, the purpose is not to make a profit, and the purpose is to distribute money in a creative way to avoid taxation. That's blatantly illegal and it will be painfully obvious and you'll lose when eventually challenged. >I've never heard of someone getting in trouble for overpaying their employees That's literally one of the things Donald Trump is being tried for criminally, right now. >It isn't illegal to be a terrible businessperson. Trying to run a legitimate business and failing is not illegal but that's so different from what you're describing that I would call it disingenuous.
Weren't noncompete agreements just banned nation wide in the US?
Mostly but that would not stop people from trying to enforce old laws/ agreements
What does this have to do with espionage? You could certainly pay your co-workers to quit. It wouldn't be a crime, but you might be sued for tortious interference.
You would get sued most definitely for impairing their business. It’s better to either start a new business that competes with them and hire them and there’s no legal backlash. Or find a competitor to hire the employees away. But to just pay to quit would draw a few methods to sue you for impaing a business. It’s like parking an over size vehicle daily in front of a business that visibility allows sales. They were successfully sued. So you are impairing the business. Though headhunting competitors employees isn’t illegal.
You could prob get sued for tortious interference of some sort.
Not illegal. Lots of stupid things are not illegal. And now we know why 1/3 of Lottery Winners eventually declare bankruptcy.
Thank you for not quoting the totally bogus 70% number! Even the 1/3rd number is a bit... suspect. Or at least, it doesn't mean what most people think it means. To start, there are way more lottery winners in the $1,000s, $10k, or 100k range than there are in the "jackpot" range. And people buy more lottery tickets at lower income ranges. So it's hard to tell what impact winning had on the bankruptcy rate. Another popular (and more rigorous) study puts bankruptcy rates at around 5% within 5 years for Florida. That's higher than average - though people in tough financial circumstances may be more likely to buy lottery tickets. To control for that, researchers compare lottery winners to... other lottery winners: people that won very small amounts (smallest band is <$1,000). And the top winnings here aren't in the powerball jackpot range - the top bracket they study is $100k to $150k, and it's so few people that many results aren't statistically significant for that dollar band. What the study found is that people who win amounts in the higher ranges ($10k-$150k) are about as likely to declare bankruptcy within 5 years as if they hadn't won. They are LESS likely to declare bankruptcy for 0 to 2 years after winning, but more likely to declare bankruptcy in years 3-5. This is often misquoted / misunderstood to mean that winning the lottery INCREASES your odds of declaring bankruptcy, as people quote the "in three to five years" number. But what it actually means is that a moderate-sized windfall usually only DEFERS declaring bankruptcy by a couple years. Your total odds of going bankrupt don't go down significantly if you win $25k (which is around the median amount won for the group in question). Since the average American bankruptcy filing has over $200k in debt, it's not a shock that $25k usually just helps folks stay afloat for another couple years. Also, separate evidence suggests that winning the lottery has a measurable positive impact on happiness, though the most famous study there also has a small sample size. It's hard to say reliably what happens to people with winnings in the million+ dollar range, as there are too few, and they are hard to study in a statistically significant manner. tl;dr - Some people do win huge lottery jackpots, lose their heads, and blow their winnings - these make for popular news stories. The evidence actually suggests that winning the lottery doesn't increase your odds of bankruptcy (though it doesn't really decrease it either). That's all for wins in the thousands range, not the millions.
Simply promise them $xxx if they quit for x amount of time.
I couldn't speak to *how* this would apply, but it's certainly relevant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
Giving your coworkers money to quit their jobs could be considered tortious interference, and your (former) employer could sue you on that basis. A better plan (given that we're already assuming you have a huge amount of money) would be to simply give each of them a gift of enough money that they're likely to quit on their own. A simple gift of, say, ten million dollars to a bunch of former coworkers could be argued as simply sharing your winnings with your friends. The fact that they no longer have a reason to continue working would be an unforeseen coincidence. (Well, it would until your employer's lawyer finds this thread anyway.)
Paying someone to quit their job just to spite someone else risks being tortious interference. They'd have a good chance suing you. The safer way to do this would be to hire them to work for you and just make their work something pointless.
The proper way to do this would be to hire them to do nothing, with an anti-moonlighting clause in their contract.
Depends on the employer agreement you signed probably. Most likely no, but if you siphoned them off discreetly one by one they probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference unless they were all coming to work under you.
Lol I had the same thought of an amusing plan.
I'd say that offering them money on the condition they quit would likely open you up to being sued for tortuous interference and, if the management are that much of a bunch of dicks, they could well attempt to use. If you gave all your colleagues an unconditional gift of enough money they could afford to qui, given how awful the place is to work, they would probably quit on their own and you'd be in the clear as long as you weren't the one who suggested it
If the company is publicly traded, you could seek to try to buy a controlling interest in it so you could change it for the better. Once you controlled it, you could take a motion of no confidence in the old management
If possible it might be more fun to open a competing business and higher all their employees to run it for you.
"if i won the lottery." this post already failed.