I posted a couple days ago about my older brother who's worked out a deal with my dad to be compensated three days pay for cutting back his work week from five days to two days a week so he'll be available more to help dad out with his shopping, dr appts and such.
I'm dad's DPOA so I've helped dad and my brother come up with an ammount that was fair to both which included dad paying my brother the equivelent of his gross (before taxes) to help make up for any overtime my bros giving up and any taxes he'd normally get in a tax refund. That's not a problem with me.
However, after it was all worked out between us over the phone my brother said that his boss is always needing people to help so he'll probably still volunteer to work an extra couple of days a week beyond the two days a week he's going to be scheduled. He's looking at it as if dad is paying him for three days, and if he works 4 for his job, he'll be making nearly twice what he was making. That is a problem for me.
I was not happy with this and told him so. I explained that, although I appreciate that he's there and willing to help out dad, I do not believe dad is paying him so he can free up three more days in the week to be available to help dad if he needs it, only to have him pick two of those days back up so he can be making more money leaving him less time to be available to dad.
The way I see it, this money he's getting paid is coming from our inheritance (his, our younger brother's, and mine). Both my younger brother and I are all for dad paying him to go part time, increasing his ability to check in on dad and take him to dr. appts, rehab and shopping. However, are we unreasonable to expect him to be available to help dad if he should need it and not be working nearly as much as he was working before this arrangement?