A
Anonymous06/20/25, 12:13No.16703275Employee pay ethics paradox
An employee works at a shop selling goods. He earns a commission off each product sold, but only if he sells $300 total in items that month.
At the end of the month, he’s up to $190 total, if he sells $110 more in goods, he earns his commission worth $120.
So he buys a speaker from the store for $110 with his own money. Now, he gets both the commission and the speaker and is still up by $10.
Was the employer cheated? On 1 hand, it’s gamifying the system. The $300 minimum is meant to motivate the employee to do their job on a daily basis. On the other hand, the employer didn’t really lose anything and actually made money from selling the goods at normal retail price. Did the employee commit an unethical act? Selling an item to yourself is typically explicitly forbidden in these circumstances, but this could be easily circumvented by having a friend make the purchase.
10
Replies
A
Anon06/20/25, 12:37No.16703294
From the employees perspective, his job is ultimately to sell the items. Just because he knows with 100% certainty that a friend/family/colleague will buy, that is supposed to make it unethical?From the employers perspective, the salesperson is gamifying the system because, the condition of wether or not he should get any commission at all is meant to depend on how good of a salesperson they are, and would see this as cheating.
A
Anon06/20/25, 13:18No.16703331
>Was the employer cheated?
Yes, the employee gamed the system at the employer’s expense. By buying their own inventory to hit the $300 sales threshold, they generated $110 in revenue but triggered a $120 commission. Losing the company a $10 loss. If the loophole gets any more abused it would crater profit margins and eventually sink the business.
A
Anon06/20/25, 22:13No.16703801
No. If the current amount is at a dollar value such that the employee can buy something to get profit, then the company has already made >$120 profit between the past sales (Otherwise they wouldn't have this policy).
A
Anon06/20/25, 22:45No.16703820
>means testing commission bonuses
Funny. Also, I'm pretty sure that the employer set a certain cutoff like $300 precisely to account for such eventual gaps. In addition, What if:
1. The employee would rather have $120 rather than a $110 speaker and $10? This means he had to lose marginal value.
2. The store's speakers are overpriced and he could buy them more cheaply in other stores? This means he overpaid AND will struggle to regain the $110 even if he tries to resell the speakers still sealed in mint condition.
A
Anon06/21/25, 04:23No.16704008
only if the employee, after receiving the bonus, returned the speaker to the store and got his 110 dollars back but kept the 120 dollar commission would it be unethical
A
Anon06/21/25, 20:43No.16704603
>he earns a commission off each product sold, but only if he sells $300 total in items that month
yeah hes being cheated
A
Anon06/21/25, 21:56No.16704642
>science &math
A
Anon06/23/25, 19:10No.16705899
Of course because money transactions are inherently unethical. The tokens are used to turn people from ends into means.
A
Anon06/23/25, 22:44No.16706075
Bitch worked a full month for $10 and a Temu bluetooth speaker. Fucking kek.