I don't even know where to begin on this one, just read the link lol
[URL]http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_0a7673d0-55a9-11e0-8db2-001cc4c002e0.html[/URL]
Printable View
I don't even know where to begin on this one, just read the link lol
[URL]http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_0a7673d0-55a9-11e0-8db2-001cc4c002e0.html[/URL]
"Mind-bogglingly stupid" is right! Dude is lucky to be alive. I guess stoners don't taste good!
[QUOTE=RoadToad;447819]"Mind-bogglingly stupid" is right! Dude is lucky to be alive. I guess stoners don't taste good![/QUOTE]
Too much Resin.........
I keep getting this image in my head of the "time to make the doughnuts" guy. Only this time it is a big stoner, stumbling inside a cage "time to feed the bears dude. Like whoa, those are some seriously sharp looking canines you have dude!"
From the article "Red, described as the largest bear in the cage, knocked Hopkins to the ground, sat on him and bit his leg and buttocks"
Sounds about like what happened to a buddy of mine when he made his red headed plus size wife mad once. :)
[QUOTE=RoadToad;447819]"Mind-bogglingly stupid" is right! Dude is lucky to be alive. I guess stoners don't taste good![/QUOTE]
But what about the claim??
I think he was NOT employed.....I'd like to see the owners employment records for other employees....if he provided adequate documentation for other workers, meaning they were ABOVE BOARD and on the clock, then I think the owner was in fact feeling sorry for the dude and paying him on a "per job basis", probably under the table, which I don't think is true employment.
On the other hand, if the owner regularly pays folks under the table, and that can be established, then the workmans comp claim is probably valid.
On a completely different note........if he is guilty of paying folks under the table, then he should probably be SEVERELY fined.
HM......
One must wonder.
Later,
Geo
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;447871]But what about the claim??
I think he was NOT employed.....I'd like to see the owners employment records for other employees....if he provided adequate documentation for other workers, meaning they were ABOVE BOARD and on the clock, then I think the owner was in fact feeling sorry for the dude and paying him on a "per job basis", probably under the table, which I don't think is true employment.
On the other hand, if the owner regularly pays folks under the table, and that can be established, then the workmans comp claim is probably valid.
On a completely different note........if he is guilty of paying folks under the table, then he should probably be SEVERELY fined.
HM......
One must wonder.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
it's just like a kid watching, everything his dad does and grows up to do the same things his dad does. the employer and employee have been watching the leaders in washington get paid under the table for so long, they probably didn't think they were doing anthing wrong.