Hiring senior family members to get them free medicare I've heard of family friends putting their senior parents (who are too old to work in any meaningful way) on the payroll of a business owned by a family member. The parent stays on the payroll getting paid minimum wage for 1 year so they qualify for free medicare. I expect the money is not actually going to the senior parent but instead back to the hiring family member. While this is certainly unethical, is there anything illegal about this?
Since Medicare and Medicaid are US federal government programs, I assume you are referring to US Medicare. What you describe is theoretically possible: a person has worked in the US but is 4 quarters short of the required 40 for Medicare eligibility (also, they do not gain spousal eligibility) because they have been previously employed. If they have earned income up to a certain level within a tax year, they would pay SS taxes thus qualifying for Social Security and Medicare. For 2020 that amount was $5,640 to get the maximum of 4 credits – it does not have to be stretched out over a year. You can earn those credits doing anything (certain government-sector jobs excluded). Then you pay income taxes and social security taxes on that amount. If the person earns the money as an independent contractor they pay the entire tax, if they are an employee the employer pays part of the tax (then the employer has to figure out what their obligation is, which the IRS is happy to tell you about). The employer also withholds the employee's contribution and pays it to the IRS, and the amount is reported on their form W2. These are mandatory obligations on the employer: you must pay the employer portion and you must withhold. It would be illegal to not make the required contributions. There is no law that prohibits employment of a person who has not already qualified for Medicare or SS (that should be obvious). There is no law that sets &quot;usefulness&quot; standards that an employee must meet in order to be lawfully employed. No untruthful statements are required in order to hire a person that just stands at the door and says &quot;Hello&quot;. If it actually is the case that the employee does not even receive their wage, as you conjecture, then that would be a violation of state or federal labor laws. In connection with that, continued employment is not required to continue receiving SS and Medicare, and this might be a scheme to exploit a senior citizen into working for low wages when they don't have to.
Discrimination is legal, so long as there is not based on a protected category or class(e.g. race, sex, religion). Age is generally not a protected category. Some states do treat age as a protected category, but: 1) It is generally only in employment, so, for example charging someone differing amounts based on their age is legal (e.g. senior discounts, kids under X are free, etc.). 2) It is generally only protecting higher ages (i.e. discriminating against someone in employment because their age is higher than what you'd like would be illegal, but discriminating against someone because their age is lower than you'd like is not; and in some cases the later is mandatory).
Of course she is living with you. Clothes, toothbrush, cooking and eating, sleeping, I suppose breakfast as well, that's living with you. And it's not illegal, but it is apparently in breach of your leasing contract. I'd study your contract carefully to see what the consequences are if she is living for you for more than 14 days.
It is quite normal for a person to name themselves the beneficiary of an investment- even a life insurance policy. If such a person were to die, the funds would be payable to the estate, which means the executor for distribution to the beneficiaries of the will. It is normal for organisations to hold such investments to await probate which is when the executor legally becomes the executor. The executor’s costs, including legal fees (as well as payment for their time - good wills provide a capped fee for this), are payable by the estate. The fee you have been quoted does seem high for an uncontested probate - shop around.
If the employee has the choice - bonus and membership, or no bonus - then I expect the offer to be legal. Since it is a real bonus and part of your salary you will have to pay income tax on it. What might be illegal, but not your concern, is if your company tells investors how well the company is doing, and how well the membership scheme is doing, when in reality 80% of members are employees paying effectively nothing.
north-carolina A parent is responsible for supporting their minor child, therefore they cannot &quot;kick out&quot; their child (they can arrange for someone else to take care of the child but they are financially responsible for this arrangement). This is true even if the parent is a minor. In that case, the grandparents and the parent (who is herself a minor child) are both responsible for the grandchild. We can turn to NCGS § 50-13.4(b) which states the hierarchy of responsibilities: In the absence of pleading and proof that the circumstances otherwise warrant, parents of a minor, unemancipated child who is the custodial or noncustodial parent of a child shall share this primary liability for their grandchild's support with the minor parent, the court determining the proper share, until the minor parent reaches the age of 18 or becomes emancipated. If both the parents of the child requiring support were unemancipated minors at the time of the child's conception, the parents of both minor parents share primary liability for their grandchild's support until both minor parents reach the age of 18 or become emancipated. The details could be different in another jurisdiction.
Tim Lymington got it right in the comment. If they don't get a wage, but expect a share of profit and/or loss, they are your partners and would be "members" of the LLC. Then you don't need workers comp or even to pay any salary at all. Of course, they will also be entitled to a share of the business, but from the description it sounds like they should be.
The Company is performing wage theft I have never heard of a wage method that pays a salary according to hours but doens't pay for hours over 40. Monthly Salary, by definition, is paid regardless of hours. Your contract doesn't give hours, it just gives a monthly total. That's a contract, and you should be paid according to the contract. In terms of fairness, it certainly isn't right to dock pay for weeks you worked less than 40 but not give you credit for weeks you wored more than 40. Now, it's not clear if you moved to direct employment for the second month. If you did, the first month would be a contract violation, and the second would be a violation of wage &amp; labor law. A company can't pay you salary as an exempt (exempt from hourly wage laws, like management) employee and also dock you pay according to hours worked. So what can you do? If you are still a contractor and actually want the job, not much more than arguing with payroll. Since you (why?) decided to be a contractor instead of a direct hire, you have exactly zero protections to getting let go. If you are a direct employee, you have protections from bringing action about being paid fairly, though your long-term prospects there would be problematic if you have to take the company to task using the government. Any HR rep should know all of the above. But never just go to HR without talking to your manager first. Remember that HR works for management, and working against your manager is generally a bad career move.