Thursday, 23 March 2017

A SIMPLE BUT PERTINENT POINT OF LOGIC (REVISED AND UPDATED)...



Okay, so here's a question for all of you, prompted by
the previous post.  First of all though, let me set the scene.
You're part of a group of six that works for a small business,
and one day someone suggests setting up a Lottery syndicate.
"We'll each pay £12 into it every month in advance, and if
ever there's a winning ticket, we'll split the amount be-
tween us in equal shares."  So that's what you do.

Remember, this syndicate is only open to employees,
not outsiders.  One month you pay in your £12, and a few
days later, you give a fortnight's notice because you're sud-
denly offered a higher paid job elsewhere.  Shortly after, your
former colleagues strike it lucky with a huge Lottery win and
you rub your hands with glee because the ticket was one
of the ones you helped pay for before leaving.

But no!  Your erstwhile colleagues protest that the
winnings are for employees only, and that, as you're no
longer an employee, you're not entitled to any share of the
prize.  "It doesn't matter that you were an employee at the
time the winning ticket was bought, fact is, you're not any
more so you're entitled to Jack Squat" they all say in a
smug manner.  "Employees only" they repeat.

Now, if you've even an ounce of sense about you,
I'm sure you can see the flaw in the argument of the lucky
but greedy winners.  If you're an employee at the time when
what later becomes the winning ticket was purchased, because
you contributed to it, you're entitled to your fair share of the
proceeds from it.  That's pretty much the same scenario I out-
lined in my previous post, so the same principle surely ap-
plies in both cases.  To suggest anything else is simply
absurd in my not-so-humble view.

Furthermore, if the ticket came up trumps before
you left your old job, but the syndicate wasn't awarded
its winnings 'til several weeks after you'd left, we wouldn't
be having this conversation.  Because it's screamingly obvious
what the fair, right, and proper thing to do is in a case like this.
Namely, give you the share to which you're morally, ethically,
and even legally entitled (unless previously established to
the contrary in the agreed and accepted terms and condi-
tions under which you worked), and cut the spurious
cr*p that you're no longer entitled to it.

The date of the prize presentation ceremony isn't at
all relevant in the matter of entitlement - only the point in
time when the prize was won is what counts at the end of
the day.  The presentation merely celebrates the already
acknowledged fact of the winner's right to the prize.

Your honour, I rest my case.

So here's the question:  do you consider the Lottery
syndicate to be correct in their reasoning, and, if so, do
you think you'd share their view if you were the former
employee?  The comments section awaits.

  (And waits...c'mon, Criv-ites, let's play.)  

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...