J Oliphant said:
At the very least it certainly IS a question of ethics, ethically when you pay a person to do something, you expect that person to do it.
If it’s an employee, you fire him (particularly if he does this regularly). Would you Not fire him because the person said??,
“ I didn’t do want was expected of me, because I wasn’t paid enough’. Come on, wes! You wouldn’t buy that, would you???
Enough of the soapbox.
If it’s an employee, you fire him (particularly if he does this regularly). Would you Not fire him because the person said??,
“ I didn’t do want was expected of me, because I wasn’t paid enough’. Come on, wes! You wouldn’t buy that, would you???
Enough of the soapbox.
Everyone who reads this will probably have one anecdote about something similar to the one where a guy buys a supposedly "hot" watch from a guy on the street one night, thinking he has a "Rolex," only to find out in the cold light of day he has bought a "Rolecks." The idiotic part is when he goes looking for the "fence" who sold him the watch to complain it doesn't keep time.
In my mind, I respect the right of a buyer who has laid out all his requirements in advance to complain if the product doesn't meet those requirements, regardless of the price paid. Shame on the supplier who promised to meet those requirements and didn't.
I do not respect the buyer who imposes quality criteria AFTER the product is delivered, regardless of the price paid. In the case of the Montblanc pen, the manufacturer advertises what to expect, the buyer therefore bargains to get what is advertised.
When a worker says, "I wasn't paid enough." after the fact, he is in the same position as the buyer of the Rolecks - he wanted more than he bargained for.
When an employer adds conditions AFTER the pay rate has been established, it is like saying to the worker, "I hired you for 8 hours and I will pay you for 8 hours, but you must work 12 hours or I won't pay you after all."
As a matter of fact, new employment laws address this very matter.