Employment Agency Scam?

[JR8]

True, although I've said the same previously, and been rebutted that contracts need to be reasonable, and serve the core intention/purpose, to be enforceable. If you recall when we debated the tenant early lease break issue, your thinking seemed quite the opposite there.... I would have pegged you as more of a consumer advocate.

'Reasonable', ah yes the lawyers favourite word, as it can be defined and argued over for so many billable $1000/hr hours... that is all perfectly reasonable of course!

I'm not quite sure how you would define reasonable. Is the interest charged by pawn-brokers reasonable, or the tax on a car, or a beer? Or how about having to show/record your ID to buy a SIM card, or prescription medication?

How can it be reasonable to require full payment of say a 24-month mobile or broadband contract, that somone HAS to break early? Does the loss to the provider directly equal the sum you're obliged to pay in compensation? No. Is that reasonable: Clearly not.

Your line seems to be much more European than local. In Europe consumer protection is reaching perverse levels, where the provider is obliged to seek to help protect the consumer from themselves. You can guess where the end-cost of all of that is - the consumer. Yes, you as an intelligent person are obliged to subsidise the folly of a fool. Don't confuse Europe with Asia.

[ecureilx]

Guess where my old agency's address was.......

Shenton Way ??













Coat, Hat, Umbrella ..

[sundaymorningstaple]

Happy New Year!

[Beeroclock]

Got it, thanks for the detailed reply ecureilx, I must admit it's an eye-opener for me this world of recruitment.

[ecureilx]

Happy New Year!

same to you too, and the rest of the Resident Tribe here.

beeroclock. not just recruiting ... a lot of innovative businesses here do such skimming when demand outstrips supply.

welcome to Singapore

cheers

[Beeroclock]

How can it be reasonable to require full payment of say a 24-month mobile or broadband contract, that somone HAS to break early? Does the loss to the provider directly equal the sum you're obliged to pay in compensation? No. Is that reasonable: Clearly not.

The way I look at this, you have a clear choice to take flexible PAYG. If you opt to fix a term contract, usually with an incentive (discount, free gift etc), you are doing that willingly and with the benefits in mind. You also need to factor the risk, what if my situation changes and I have to break early, how much downside do I have. That's the way I do the maths anyway. Eg if broadband PAYG is $80/mth, or I can get the same for $60 with a 24 month contract, I would be asking myself how likely I might have to leave before 18 months which is the break even point. So to me it seems unreasonable to take the term discount benefit but not fulfill the contractual obligation that is the basis for the discount. But I got the impression mine seems a minority view on this forum!

[sundaymorningstaple]

Your view is decidedly not myopic enough. You must learn to see it with only a mememe viewpoint and then all arguments become clearer. It would seem that a large portion of the population seem to overlook the obvious or to blindly think, in a shaky economy, that their jobs will never be axed or downsized and they might find themselves in a position of having to leave in a hurry.

[Beeroclock]

Your view is decidedly not myopic enough. You must learn to see it with only a mememe viewpoint and then all arguments become clearer. It would seem that a large portion of the population seem to overlook the obvious or to blindly think, in a shaky economy, that their jobs will never be axed or downsized and they might find themselves in a position of having to leave in a hurry.

thanks sms I will read it as a compliment... Of course I too understand the mememe and for sure if I had to break a contract I would also try to sweet talk/argue/... my way out if it possible. But at the end if no joy from the other party, then I would be prepared to pay what I signed up for, and move on.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Oh, and Happy New Year!

[JR8]

The way I look at this, you have a clear choice to take flexible PAYG. If you opt to fix a term contract, usually with an incentive (discount, free gift etc), you are doing that willingly and with the benefits in mind. You also need to factor the risk, what if my situation changes and I have to break early, how much downside do I have. That's the way I do the maths anyway. Eg if broadband PAYG is $80/mth, or I can get the same for $60 with a 24 month contract, I would be asking myself how likely I might have to leave before 18 months which is the break even point. So to me it seems unreasonable to take the term discount benefit but not fulfill the contractual obligation that is the basis for the discount. But I got the impression mine seems a minority view on this forum!

I think with a contract and say a discounted phone, your entire option to 'no longer remain a customer' is removed from you. In a way it is cross-subsidised hire-purchase. Locking you in, to enable you to buy something you otherwise couldn't afford.

[ecureilx]

I think with a contract and say a discounted phone, your entire option to 'no longer remain a customer' is removed from you. In a way it is cross-subsidised hire-purchase. Locking you in, to enable you to buy something you otherwise couldn't afford.

Somehow Beeroclock is mixing up cases where you are tied to a contract, in lieu of a phone worth X $, vs a rental agreement, for example, where .. what exactly did you get in advance from the landlord in lieu ??

As for instruments, there are those who argue like mad, that Singtel, for example, marked up a 300 $ Phone (Naranjan price) at 1,000 $ and made the 2 year contract, so .. after 9 months or so, i should be considered debt free and must be allowed to walk away

Well, here's my 2 cents: Firstly Singtel doesn't buy from Naranjan, and secondly, heck Singtel doesn't even buy from the master distributor -they sort of arrange a leasing arrangement with X, Y or Z leasing company, all that adds cost, on top of the price of product - NOT 300 $ .. more towards, maybe .. like 700 $ ..

If you don't like to pay, or you think the Telco is screwing you, I have a simple solution: go buy your own instrument and stop accusing the telcos/businesses .. easy as that

You can't have the cake and eat it too ..

cheers

[Beeroclock]

I think with a contract and say a discounted phone, your entire option to 'no longer remain a customer' is removed from you. In a way it is cross-subsidised hire-purchase. Locking you in, to enable you to buy something you otherwise couldn't afford.

Somehow Beeroclock is mixing up cases where you are tied to a contract, in lieu of a phone worth X $, vs a rental agreement, for example, where .. what exactly did you get in advance from the landlord in lieu ??

As for instruments, there are those who argue like mad, that Singtel, for example, marked up a 300 $ Phone (Naranjan price) at 1,000 $ and made the 2 year contract, so .. after 9 months or so, i should be considered debt free and must be allowed to walk away

Well, here's my 2 cents: Firstly Singtel doesn't buy from Naranjan, and secondly, heck Singtel doesn't even buy from the master distributor -they sort of arrange a leasing arrangement with X, Y or Z leasing company, all that adds cost, on top of the price of product - NOT 300 $ .. more towards, maybe .. like 700 $ ..

If you don't like to pay, or you think the Telco is screwing you, I have a simple solution: go buy your own instrument and stop accusing the telcos/businesses .. easy as that

You can't have the cake and eat it too ..

cheers

I just thought it ironic that we seemed to do 180deg role reversal. In that previous debate on tenant v landlord (early lease break), I was the one saying "a deals a deal", "willing buyer/willing seller", etc. Whereas here it's the opposite, you telling me. Somehow I had more sympathy for OP here being a job-seeker, which I was considering a category that is vulnerable to unscrupulous (even "half unscrupulous" as you mentioned) types, and warranting some additional protection. But I appreciate the detailed explanations from you and SMS how this industry works in practice, which is a new awareness for me.

To go back (reluctantly) to that original case of tenant "needing" to break lease early due to baby on the way and studio apartment now too small. IMO the tenant did benefit from the contract, as of course the landlord did too, that's why they both signed it willingly.

Some benefits for the tenant -

1) The right to stay and enjoy the apartment for the 24 month contract period. If they only took if for 12 months they will have the additional stress at 9 month mark... can I renew or need to Mover again, etc.
2) If rentals happen to skyrocket the next day, the tenant is safe having locked in a fixed rent for 24 months.
3) Anyone deciding to lease a studio apartment should obviously think through the risk it might be too small if their circumstances change. I know people (self included) who've taken an apartment with one bedroom extra and pay considerably more (perhaps $500 to 800/month) because they expect they might need it in the coming year or two. They didn't save the rental with a smaller apartment to meet their immediate need and then just "oops" break lease / move to bigger place once baby arrives, because they also considered it a contractual obligation once signed.

So..... I really don't see any mix up, you are tied in on all legally binding contracts except as per the termination/exit clauses. Clearly where we differ is on attitude and risk appetite when it comes to breaching a contract, how one might approach that and the willingness to go legal. There is no right/wrong in this, I guess we will once again agree to disagree and keep doing what works for each of us in different ways.

[ecureilx]

...

let me put it this way:

1 give you a 1000 $, and I want you to pay me back, and you must pay me back, over 10 month or 12 months.

Now, whether you like it or not, you got to pay me back to 1,000, either in instalment or half way through ..

Now, if i let you use my hair dryer, and tell you to pay me 100$ a month, you can always decide one day - enough, I don't want your hair dryer, so i will return your hair dryer and bye bye ..

For the second case : what's my loss ? NONE, other than my attempt to earn some money on a hair dryer that was not going anywhere anyway.

now, if I had brought the hair dryer for myself, but on loan, and then decided i may be better of giving it to somebody and hope the guy covers the loan amount - that is business / risk.

and I must be aware of the fact that nobody may want to take my hair dryer and pay me monthly useage fee - I still have to pay back the loan amount ..

For hair dryer - if you are so risk averse or want to force the user to pay what I owe the bank - it's your headache

Now for the case of cash I loaned you - you took from me, so pay me back ..

Makes sense ?

if it does, good for you

It it doesn't too bad .. you maybe one of those landlords who sees every tenant as a possible way out of your over commitment on loans .. and when things go south bully the tenant ..

Cheers, happy new year

[ecureilx]

...

you aren't a lawyer by any chance right ??

[Beeroclock]

...

Makes sense , I understand the way you thinking and agree it will work a lot of the time too. I still see it a bit differently but that's okay I think - too bad for me, haha.

Nope I'm not a lawyer, but deal quite a bit with commercial contracts (both making them and operating/executing). Also not a landlord in Singapore either. I've made a mental note never to loan you a hair dryer, but you're welcome to loan me the 1000 bucks if you feel so inclined.... Happy new year to you too!