Tax protestor loses his job due to antics, now wants it back

[Gregg]

How would you like to have Pete Hendrickson on the payroll?

?
?
?

Any more questions?

[LightinDarkness]

Quick update to note that I sustained the dismissal - no job back for him.

I forgot to mention that before the hearing I heard him talking to his union rep about using accepted for value stamps to pay yours bills. Also, at the hearing the union rep admitted that they used procedural tactics to delay the case getting escalated until the guy was out of jail. Otherwise the dismissal would have been sustained because we cant expect the employer to employ someone who is in prison...

I tried really hard to not let that negatively influence me. But I think hes already going down the rabbit hole again. Its a sad case, this was a long term employee, and you lose institutional knowledge when you fire long term employees, which is why the barrier is so high. In the end what persuaded me was the idea that its not the crime in and of itself, its the type of character traits you have to have to engage in this type of crime (intent to commit fraud & overt dishonesty).

[notorial dissent]

I'm glad to hear that this is finally, and reasonably in my opinion, resolved.

When you first brought this up, my one thought, was this behavior just stupid on his part, or intentional, and it would appear that intentional was the answer. Had it been just stupid, and this guy was of some actual value to the company I might have been inclined to retain him, but otherwise, and as circumstances have proved, that wouldn't have been worth the effort. I think the real stupid runs deep in this one, and if he doesn't get nailed for taxes, he will get nailed for some other variety of fraud eventually, and the "former" employer is well rid of him.

In answer to Gregg's question, I can't personally imagine hiring Pete in the first place, all I can figure is that they must have been awfully desperate to fill that apt manager's job, or the other applicants were worse than he was. Either way. Unh Uh!!!

[.]

Bravo.

Sure, the employer loses a little institutional memory, but then again, in view of his lack of perspicacity, that may be inconsequential.

Not to mention that the next time someone who has committed even more egregious offenses and is even less redeemable is up for reinstatement, this guy would have been cited as precedent. Not conducive to good outcomes.

[Kestrel]

Quick update to note that I sustained the dismissal - no job back for him.

I forgot to mention that before the hearing I heard him talking to his union rep about using accepted for value stamps to pay yours bills. Also, at the hearing the union rep admitted that they used procedural tactics to delay the case getting escalated until the guy was out of jail. Otherwise the dismissal would have been sustained because we cant expect the employer to employ someone who is in prison...

Thanks for the update and the reasoning.

This is one of the great things about Quatloos. Before I started lurking here I had no idea what "accepted for value" meant, nor a great many of the other conspiracy-theory schemes. Before Quatloos, if I'd heard the term "accepted for value" I would have only been mildly curious and probably ignored it. Now I know that term means the guy advocating it is mired in some seriously deep doo-doo.

If your petitioner was foolish enough to be advocating "accepted for value" openly in the presence of a hearing officer, he not only hasn't changed his stripes, but he's now publicly announcing that he's finding new and more elaborate ways to commit fraud.