On Friday 28 July 2006 19:40 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> Ten - when convicted, software vouchers (rather than monetary
> compenstation) are granted. Our Billy says it's also referred to as
> 'Trucking' (intersting story behind it; therefore appended), which is
> supposedly illegal in the UK.
Heh - glad you found it interesting. It's my recollection of what I was
told some years ago by a History and Law School graduate.
Whether that's still the law, or whether this last couple of decades things
have changed, I don't know. Certainly I would expect that even if one
*can* now pay wages by direct transfer, it will still be illegal to force
the employee to accept goods!
Note though that many companies do use "perks" - cars etc. - but that's very
different from what we have here - "buying from the company shop".
Try this:-
Some years ago, my wife lost our digital camera - left it on a train.
You can tell how long ago - Â500 for a 3Mpixel camera.
The insurance company were very understanding, and my policy covered me "new
for old".
The exact model of camera was out of production by then (18 months old)
The offer from the insurance company was the price of "nearest or better
model by same manufacturer", (actually 4Mpixels and other improvements),
BUT they paid based on "Current price in P.C. World", AND in vouchers at
P.C. World - actually about Â350, because prices had come DOWN.
On first sight, that's a bad deal - they are paying in vouchers, and getting
a discount (10%? 20%?) from P.C. World?
Hold on though!
In this instance, I had lost nothing at all.
I was able (if I wished) to use those vouchers for the better camera +case
+memory, and end up better than I started (newer model)
ALTERNATIVELY, I was able (if I wished) to buy my new camera elsewhere
cheaper, and use those vouchers for items in P.C. World that were more
competitively priced than their cameras. Further, I didn't even need to
buy a camera with them.
I didn't see that as "trucking". Neither, I imagine, would the court. The
insurance company was replacing like with like (actually better) but
specifying that I used the money in a store where they had an interest.
They gained, no way could I lose, and I actually gained as well.
If both parties are happy, it's a good deal and good business.
Going back to the Microsoft vouchers, that (imo) is a travesty, assuming
that the vouchers are in fact "returned money", and that they can be
redeemed only against MS products.
In my view, the compulsion ought to be that if MS wish to introduce their
own products into the "fine", they should:-
1. Be compelled to offer the amount as CASH (cheque, etc.)
2. Have the option to OFFER, as an ALTERNATIVE vouchers for MS products.
e.g. if the amount is $100, they might offer either $100 cash OR vouchers
for some higher amount, chosen by MS - they might for instance feel that
$200 as goods would be appropriate, or $300, or...... entirely up to them.
I doubt that MS vouchers are used as payment for fines here, or that their
daily fine by the E.U. is accumulating in the Holding Account as either
vouchers or Green-Shield Stamps:-)
Personally, I don't have much truck with MS anymore......:-)
|
|
