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 between us all 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 suddenly 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 outlined in my previous post, so the same principle surely applies 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 until several weeks or so 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 conditions 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.)
