typical reddit/r/legaladvice post: "person X put their car / house / student loans / business in person Y's name, just as - you know - a <gestures> paperwork thing - but now creditors / the federal government / the DMV / the police / the IRS are acting as if this is Y's thing"
-
Show this thread
-
2/ This is on my mind because of the zoning dispute. Where my neighbor / the building inspector / the head of the local zoning board said "well, OK, the zoning code says Z but that's just as - you know - a <gestures> paperwork thing"
2 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
3/ Now obviously, in the limit - if your last name is Clinton, Buffet, or Bush - the law means exactly that your friends on the court / congress / etc say it means. ...but for normal people? The law means something much closer to what's written down.
1 reply 2 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
4/ And I'm honestly quite curious what sort of mental model these people who think thoughts like "I sold him the car but kept it in my name and that's fine" are using.
5 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
5/ Now, there's the obvious and funny answer: "they're NOT thinking!" But I think that shortchanges them. These people aren't geniuses, but they still _think_, somewhat.
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
6/ Now, I get that we all evolved in a tribal environment where "we all know that this is my tent" is the full extent of the law. So when people say "the car's in my dad's name, but it's really mine", I get PART of what's going on. I know it's my car, dad knows it myse car...
3 replies 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
7/ And that makes perfect sense in 5,000 BC. But I'm curious what happens when someone with that mindset interacts with the law. So, when both you and dad agree that it's your car ... but the TITLE has dad's name ... what does this person think that means?
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
8/ I fired an employee once for throwing a stapler across the room in anger. He then tried to get unemployment benefits. I fought. I showed his signature on the employee handbook, including the "workplace violence" clause.
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
9/ His rebuttal was "well Travis said that that was just boilerplate". I responded to the mediator "that's absolutely correct; it's a large document that I reuse. That's what 'boilerplate' means." But what did Andy THINK it meant? "Sign this ... you know, for lulz" ?
10 replies 0 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
I've run a farm for 5 years, and I ran a business for 15 years before that. I think I have fairly few problems given 20 years and dozens and dozens and dozens of low wage employees. Also, I never tell stories about good employees. ("he did his job for three years, then quit")
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.