Right, but I do think that the fact that he gave his son a job in high school makes his testimony even more unreliable than a typical parental relationship. Maybe the kid really is that good, but it's more likely that the dad was willing to sacrifice a bit of his company's time to support his son. That's not a decision that every father would make—not even every supportive father—so I think it's relevant here.
> Maybe the kid really is that good, but it's more likely that the dad was willing to sacrifice a bit of his company's time to support his son.
I haven't looked to see what position the son has at his father's business or the nature of the business itself so I can't comment on specifics. I will say, however, that it isn't uncommon for parents to employ their kids under the table for below market wage commensurate with their lack of experience. If a job gets half done for a quarter of the cost (no taxes, benefits, etc) then for many people it's a win, not to mention that the employer/parent has a captive employee and the employee/kid has early job history and walking around money.
It's also not uncommon for many parents to employ their kids over the table at exactly or above market rate and let the kid develop experience and get paid at the expense of the parent's other employees. This is legal in most cases, but that doesn't mean that every parent would do it—I personally would steer well clear of this kind of arrangement to avoid even the appearance of nepotism.
With either type of arrangement, I think it does tell you something about the parent-child relationship, which in turn does influence how you should take the parent's testimony.
rather at the expense of the business owners, which may well be the parent themselves? (ok fine the other employees could have equity in the business, but other than that)
