On The Profit with Marcus Lemonis, there is a woman who works full-time for her boyfriend’s company. Her salary is $0. This means the woman doesn’t get paid. At all.
“She doesn’t need a salary,” the boyfriend bellows. “If she needs money, I’ll just give it to her.”
The woman stands by his side with an embarrassed, idiotic smile.
The guy’s not even a fiancé, just a boyfriend, so it’s not like the idiot has any hope of any future compensation.
Is anybody wondering why this woman is not finding anything hugely helpful in the stupid twaddle about “intersectionality” that contemporary feminism is all about?
Clarissa's Blog 
I saw the episode you’re mentioning. The guy is dependent on a significant gift from his father (the $220,000 is not entered as a loan on the company’s books), doesn’t pay his girlfriend who has his child, and treats a key employee, the sign designer with disrespect. He also goes to war with a customer.
Many people buy into the idea that family is treated differently in business and that means you can fail to compensate them or compensate them poorly or pay back loans or treat them with lots of disrespect.
She may have been told that not having a salary makes the business look better on paper, (which is something I’ve seen a lot of — people not paying themselves to make the cash flow look better). I think it makes people underestimate the real cost of running the business.
There are tax benefits to hiring family members, but this doesn’t include that. As a practical matter, the girlfriend is an idiot, but I’m sure she believes this guy will never abandon her and he is committed to her.
This story, about a woman pushed out of her family business, pushed a lot of nerves with me.
LikeLike
This is the perfect example of a patriarchal subjection of a child to the parent. Utterly disgusting.
LikeLike