What Do You Think?
I think lesson number one here is to never go on disability leave at work. I think lesson number two is that you need to realize that you are going to be kicking yourself for the rest of time for doing so and will probably never sleep again. Oh, it would probably help to know what I am talking about and why these lessons apply.
There are a group of workers in Ohio who all contribute to a monthly pool to buy lottery numbers. That seems to happen a lot between factory workers and teachers. I wish they would do that at my work. The group has 22 members and they pay a monthly amount and then someone goes out and buys lottery tickets for the month with the proceeds. Well, on August 5th, the group hit it big and split $100M. Goodbye factory!!
I love when people say they are going to keep working. I mean at $5M before taxes it probably would not be a bad idea to keep working if you are younger, but you just know that if a boss or manager yells at you than you are going to walk out the door. Yelling and other things to try and show you who the boss is only works if there is some type of leverage over the employee or they are committed to doing a great job. I am guessing if someone just won $5M, you have zero leverage.
Anyway, one member of the group who did not share in the winnings was Edward Hairston who had been on disability for three months and did not pay his monthly dues. So, of course the other 22 members told him that he was not going to get piece of the pie. Seems fair to me. Edward says it is unfair and is suing them.
Well, what if I gave you a little more information. The monthly dues are just $5 a month. Make any difference? No. What if I told you the policy of the group was to pay the monthly dues for everyone out of the smaller amounts they made. Any difference? A little bit. What if I told you the group had previously paid the dues for someone who had been on medical leave for six months? Oh, that makes a difference. A judge has ordered the lottery to set aside a portion of the award in case the worker wins.
Here is what I say. All of that above is nice and all, but the fact is they were unwritten rules and the guy did not pay his $5 a month. How did they know he was coming back to work or when? Why should they pay for his share? I think he loses. What do you think about this? Would you have paid the guy or paid his dues?
24 comments:
They'll probably settle and keep the attorneys fees low.
if they did it for someone else than I can see being po'd
Isn't one of the main things lawyers/judges consider is precidents set by other cases, right? Although the other person on disability wasn't a "case" it does sort of set a precident. They had done it for someone previously for 6 months, so then him only being at the 3 month mark should count him in.
What we don't know...the communication that took place between the group and others on leave. Did that person who was out for 6 months ask to stay in the group and have their payment covered. Did they repay the "winnings pot" when they returned to work? If so and the plaintiff didn't maintain any communication, then I say tough tiddlywinks.
What Cecilia said. Give the guy a slice and keep the attorneys out of it.
Doesn't matter...they will likely settle out of court to shut him up and make him go away.
At least that's what I'd do right from the start to save any more of my winnings than necessary from getting into the grubby Attorneys' hands. (Sorry to all Attys! I have Atty friends myself but hey, a fact's a fact--in a long-going contentious situation the Attys get paid a lot of dough!)
Shit, even the most mundane everyday issues can net big legal fees for both sides, with the loser often being adjudged to pay the winner's legal fees.
I'd say pay him off and make it so he has to drop it forever.
pay the dude his money...
Given all the info Enty provided, I agree that they should just pay the guy. It would be less headache for them. After all, you can never have too many friends, but 1 enemy is way too many.
IMHO, it would depend on if said guy really had serious health issues (like cancer, heart surgery, etc.)or if he were one of those who uses any excuse he can find for time off. I suspect the person who was on disability for 6 months and was included had serious troubles, because they paid his share. This strikes me as more, "He's always been an ass. F*ck him. We're doing his work while he's carousing, drinking, and watching TV all day"
I'd pay him a pittance. I got PO'd thinking of a couple former coworkers-one put photos of her ski trip to Vail on Facebook while on medical leave. She got fired. Attorney fees will wipe a lot of it out.
If the unofficial policy of the group was to pitch in for someone on disability, then the guy has just as much right to his share as anyone else would have.
I once figured out I'll probably make $1 million total over my lifetime (pre taxes), so hell yes, I would never work again if I won $5 million!
Without knowing the details others above mentioned, I think they should find a compromise settlement - I don't think he deserves a full share, but a smaller amount seems fair.
He's suing b/c they won but him. Since he didn't contribute, i would not pay him. Maybe his lawyer fees but that's it.
I have a feeling that they better settle with him because they have set a precedence in the other cases.
When I belonged to a lottery pool we had rules and we all had to sign them. If your $1 was not in the hands of the person who was collecting by __ time on ___ day you were out of the pool for that week. That's why most of us gave a lump sum amount of money and would replenish it when it got low so we didn't miss out because of sickness or something.
This reminds me of a case in Florida, where a group of Waffle House waitresses were given lottery tickets by a regular customer. They had an oral agreement that if one person won, they would all share in the winnings. Well, when one of them *did* win, she wasn't sharing at all. They got other customers involved who overheard them talking about sharing, the customer who bought the winning ticket (who drives a beater car and has no real money)-she didn't even give him one red cent out of gratitude! And she couldn've settled but she didn't. She fought and appealed. It was all very WT, and entertaining to watch. But I am so glad I wasn't involved.
BTW, in the end, the judge ruled in her favor - she didn't have to share at all. But she must've spent a TON in legal fees, because at the end of the story, it showed that she had moved to a neighboring town, bought a modest house, and still waits tables at a different Waffle House a few days a week.
I'm curious about two things - a) how long have these people been playing the lottery, as a group? and b) how long has the sick member been a part of the group?
If they all have playing for years, then yes, they should have put the $5 in for him AND shared the winnings. If the guy has only been there for let's say a month, then I'm not so sure.
There was a similar situation here in Toronto last year, where a regular contributor missed a week, and of course, that was the week they won. The person sued, and the judge had the lottery commission hold the money till it was settled. Which it eventually was, but (sorry!) I can't remember if the woman got her share.
Sue Ellen - do you remember this?
This happened here in Vancouver too. A group of workers at an A&W in Coquitlam. There was one who didn't put in her money and sued for a share in the winnings. I have no idea if she won or not.
When I was off on disability leave a few years ago, I made sure I kept up to date with the fund. All it takes is a phone call to the office to ask if someone could put the money in for me and I would pay them back.
That being said though, I figure if the guy had been involved in the lottery fund for years, and only missed those three months he should be a part of the split. $100 million split between 23 instead of 22 people isn't going to make that much of a difference to anybody. To be honest, I am actually kind of surprised the group is being so hardnosed about it. It's not like the money is coming directly out of their pockets.
That's why it is really important to write out rules for lottery pools- the chances of winning are extraordinarily low, but inevitably when a group wins there is some employee who feels "cheated" and sues.
I've seen a few of these cases- the easiest way to record keep is just to earmark an envelope per drawing/week/month. Put the date at the top and have everyone who contributes money sign the envelope. There was a case not too long ago where a casual contributor to an office pool claimed that he was a regular player and had been intentionally excluded from the winning pool. The group was able to show the signed envelopes from the past few years that proved that the guy was a very casual player and they won.
Based on their "rules" it sounds like they gotta give the guy his cut.
I've never played in lottery pools before but I have participated in football pools and if you missed out on payment/picks for the week, you weren't eligible for the $$.
I look at it more black and white: If he didn't pay towards the ticket, he isn't entitled to the winnings, regardless of whether he was on disability or not. If he did or they flat out told him, "Don't worry, we got you covered" then he is. If he didn't pay anything towards it and it was never spoken to him that they'd contribute for him, then he shouldn't get a dime of it.
@Surfer
The group from Scarborough? I think they were Bell employees? If that's the one you're thinking of I don't know what happened with the lotto winnings. Honestly, I would say tough luck to me if I didn't put my money in and the group won.
@Sue Ellen - that's the group.
I've got to start buying tickets!
I don't care if they call it the poor man txes. If you win who cares.
If you don't, you're no worse off.
If they paid for someone else that was on leave it seems they established a pattern.
Post a Comment