Binro the Heretic  - 2012-09-29
It took me a while to unravel this, but if I understand everything correctly:
After they hired her and had her sign a contract, they felt she didn't have "enough" work to do to earn what they were "paying" her. So they decided to change the arrangement by saying "You have to do X number of hour of work per week. Any less and the leftover hours roll over into a bank of time that you owe us."
They "paid" her with a roof over her head, but things like food, clothing, toiletries and other sundries she had to buy herself. With no salary with which to buy those things, she did babysitting for other people to earn money.
So, when she had built up a lot of time in their little time bank, what? Did they start telling the people she baby-sat for to pay THEM instead of her because those were hours she "owed" them? And they still weren't providing food, etc?
And when she escaped their clutches, they wanted to be compensated for the hours she "owed" them?
This is just really fucking evil.
|
|
|
chumbucket - 2012-09-29
For just one episode Judge Alex needs to show up in the courtroom wearing a cap on backwards.
Oh and I hate this couple, lousy evil people.
|
teethsalad - 2012-09-29
JOB CREATORS
three stars for the video, two for the "romney voters" tag
|
dairyqueenlatifah - 2012-09-29
Fuck these people.
|
memedumpster - 2012-09-29
Who the hell do these people think they are?
What. The. Fuck?
When did cell phone charges become personal finance?
Where the hell are these people from, Dubai?
Why the hell was Judge Judy not given this case specially?
How is this not being moved up to a real court with heavy charges?
"...before the audience stones you."
*applause*
Five stars.
|
John Holmes Motherfucker - 2012-09-29
The Time bank thing seems to be designed to keep the girl in permanent bondage. They're not interested in the money. They want their slave to come back and "fulfill her responsibilities".
And the girl wants to stay. Clearly, if she didn't need to eat, she never would have left. Check out the girl's statement at the end. This must be what Stockholm syndrome looks like. This girl is beyond vulnerable. In her own way, she's just as fucked up as they are, the perfect person for this evil couple to exploit.
God knows what life was like for this girl, living under their roof. I think what we're seeing here is the tip of the iceberg. There must have been weird fucking manipulative crap all the time, every fucking day. There's a book called "People of the LIe" that I read maybe 20 years ago, and early on in the book there's a story about a couple who, at Christmas, out of pure cheapness, give their son the actual 22 rifle his brother used to commit suicide. When the psychiatrist who rote the book confronts them, they cannot see what is wrong with this. Just like these people. They're never never never gonna get it.
|
memedumpster - 2012-09-29 It seemed to me like the whole "mom's club" was in on it. There was never any fear of this system being questioned by others.
|
Miss Henson's 6th grade class - 2012-09-29 I love the fact that they admit they were told the girl was sort of vulnerable and inexperienced before they up and signed a completely manipulative contract with her. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
|
Old_Zircon - 2012-09-29 I've known a few nannies over the years, and even when they aren't live-in there tends to be a pretty strong emotional bond between them and the families they nanny for, so I can see how this would be a pretty devastating situation for her even if she wasn't messed particularly up on a more fundamental level.
|
|
John Holmes Motherfucker - 2012-09-30 I remember it as a good book with some valuable insights, but people should be warned that it's explicitly Christian, though not in the usual negative way.
Peck defines evil as "the use of political power to prevent ones own or someone else's spiritual growth." I've cited that a couple of times in POE and gotten into unnecessary arguments about the existence of the spirit.
I don't think spiritual growth involves any supernatural entity. It's always meant things like forgiveness, acceptence, empathy, humility, a willingness to question closely held beliefs... In short, the willingness to see and care beyond the self. Christians who do not suck associate these things with God, but God is not required.
|
|
THA SUGAH RAIN - 2012-09-29
For me, she took the express track to psychopath town when she blurted out 'but we tried to work out a system where she [the nanny] wouldn't have to pay us a dime!'
And yeah, this probably belongs in criminal court and on a Law and Order episode.
|
John Holmes Motherfucker - 2012-09-30 Throw in a little sexual exploitation, and you've got a job for the Special Victims Unit.
|
Rodents of Unusual Size - 2012-09-30 "We never paid her a dime.
But she owes us money! She should pay us for the privilege of working for us!"
What a bunch of fucking CUNTS.
|
Maru - 2012-09-29
You don't do this kind of shit to people who speak english.
|
|
Racketeer - 2012-09-30
Another bad part about this is that those terrible people are getting paid as much for being on this show as that poor woman.
|
Rodents of Unusual Size - 2012-09-30
That kid would do better being brought up by a whorehouse than these people. At least prostitutes have morals.
|
Nikon - 2012-09-30
Rage Level PEAK!
Five stars for evil and + 1 billion stars for the Romney Voters tag.
|
Cherry Pop Culture - 2012-09-30
Dude, I was totally thinking the male plaintiff tried to sexually assault the nanny. That guy gave me total 'creep' vibes.
|
cognitivedissonance - 2012-09-30
I want Judge Alex and Gordon Ramsey to exchange places for one episode.
|
dek863 - 2012-09-30
I may be new to the whole nanny contract thing...but is it normal to CHARGE YOUR NANNY FOR FOOD? For fuck's sake, let her eat a fucking sandwich.
|
chumbucket - 2012-09-30 Coming back to this, I'm starting to wonder how close their behavior is just simply illegal. How many nannys are suffering under the same twisted arrangements?
|
Grandmaster Funk - 2012-09-30 It's straight up sociopathic class privilege. They have an ingrained belief that someone in a subordinate position to them is basically chattel, but unlike chattel, they aren't responsible for their well-being (she should have pulled herself up by her bootstraps).
|
dead_cat - 2012-09-30 I hate that phrase so much, if for no other reason than it assumes that the person being looked down on and having it preached at them ACTUALLY HAS whatever the relevant metaphorical equivalent of bootstraps is.
|
Hooker - 2012-09-30 I don't know how any human being could have someone hungry in their house and not feed them irrelivant of any economic relationship with that person. They obviously have excess food by the looks of them.
|
Blue - 2012-10-01 I don't understand why people use that idiom that way. It's not possible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It's like suggesting that the poor pull money out of their proverbial ass.
I find it very telling that we haven't come up with a better idiom for that. It's kind of like "You catch more flies with honey". There's no historical back story to that. Flies were as useful when that idiom originated as they are today.
|
dead_cat - 2012-09-30
Shoot them, and give their children to be raised by wolves.
|
|
Quad9Damage - 2012-09-30
I'm in agreement with everyone else. What fucking scumbags. So if I'm understanding this correctly, they offered her room and board but not food, and then their draconian 'credit hour' system prevented her from earning money elsewhere so she could buy fucking food? And then they have the nerve to sue her?
|
kamlem - 2012-10-01
The most incredible part for me is that the couple thought they were so in the right that they agreed to have this case broadcast on national television. I hope they are enjoying their new house decor of rotten eggs thrown by passing vehicles.
|
Nominal - 2022-07-14
I'm just amazed Evil Homer never showed up here to defend the couple.
|
| Register or login To Post a Comment |
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
Facebook