# Fraudulent charges on Home Trust Visa



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

I have opened an HT Visa after Amazon.Ca Visa was canceled. It did work OK. I have not used it for a while. Today I have discovered that three days ago there were several fraudulent random charges in several hundred USD ranges, up to my limit. I asked the card to be blocked and am trying to get the charges reversed. The charges are described as advertisement, work-related. This has never happened on any other card before. I do not know how my card has been compromised.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Thanks for sharing, sorry to hear that. It's very difficult to figure out how cards are compromised.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Has not happened to our Home Trust card yet, fingers crossed. It has happened to another card...twice. Pain in the *** to get new cards and sort out the automatic charges. I guess it is the price we pay for this convenience.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

It happened to me several months ago. They threatened to send me affidavits but when they contacted the vendor, they were assured that it was their mistake. So we just got a form letter confirming that the charge has been removed permanently. But yes, changing all the FX charges like PV taxes was a pain.

I suspect it will happen more often on this card because all the charges are foreign-based, although it never happened on amazon.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Parkuser said:


> I have opened an HT Visa after Amazon.Ca Visa was canceled. It did work OK. I have not used it for a while. Today I have discovered that three days ago there were several fraudulent random charges in several hundred USD ranges, up to my limit. I asked the card to be blocked and am trying to get the charges reversed. The charges are described as advertisement, work-related. This has never happened on any other card before. I do not know how my card has been compromised.


Just to follow up and give credit where it's due.

I have an habit to check balances on all my credit cards every few days. So I’ve caught the fraudulent transactions three days after they were charged (8 transactions, several hundred dollars each, in two days). I called the customer service number Friday night. They transferred it to lost and stolen cards. Here they blocked my account and my online access to the card; asked to call the fraudulent charges department during office hours to launch a dispute. This I have done Saturday morning. They registered the complaint, told me to wait for an official letter to arrive within 15 days and answer it immediately – “this is the PROCESS.” But today, Tuesday, my online access has been restored and all transactions, one by one, have been credited back. This was quite efficient.

On the other hand, I recall getting a mysterious call from BMO one late evening. “Have you called Kuwait today?” No. “OK, never mind, thank you.” There was no trace of any charges on my MC.

Now, how about my Costco MC? Capital One has been compromised. Should I block it?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

This past week we rec'd an email from Home Trust. We are traveling in Sept/Oct and have been using our card to pre pay some foreign charges.

It was a short note with a list of four foreign transactions that had been presented in the last few hours. Payees, amounts, time. They were all presented in the space of a few hours.

I was asked if these were legitimate charges and was given two choices to respond. I could hit one of the two reply buttons ( approve or not approve) or phone the 1 800 number to do the same. I do not know if they froze the card and then unfroze it when I responded because neither of us had used the card in the interim. The charges were made in the afternoon of the day before. The notification memo was in my mailbox first thing the next morning. 

This was certainly better than them leaving a message on our phone and/or cancelling the card and the refusing the transactions.

As an aside, I checked the FX rate on six of our recent purchases. All were as they should be. We will probably end up dong about $5K damage on the card this fall. That is about a $125 saving simply by using the card. It will be the same amount or more this winter. 

Not bad for a freebe. Plus...we cancelled our autoclub membership and saved $90.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Petro Canada has a promo where you fill up a certain number of times for bonus petro points (like $1!!)
However a "fill up is 25L"

So when the minivan gets really low I will do 2 fill ups of 25L.
However if I use the same card, it gets flagged as fraudulent, and the second transaction is blocked, so I have to use 2 different cards for the fillup.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ian said:


> Not bad for a freebe. Plus...we cancelled our autoclub membership and saved $90.


Curious, have you ever phoned and had to use this service? I'm also relying on HT for auto service in Canada & US. But I wonder how responsive they would actually be, say, in winter when you really need them.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I had this happen to me a few years ago but I called in and followed CIBC process and it all worked out. Now i have my credit card setup to send me a notification if any charge over $20 is put on any time to better keep track ongoing.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> This past week we rec'd an email from Home Trust. We are traveling in Sept/Oct and have been using our card to pre pay some foreign charges.
> 
> It was a short note with a list of four foreign transactions that had been presented in the last few hours. Payees, amounts, time. They were all presented in the space of a few hours.
> 
> ...





kcowan said:


> It happened to me several months ago. They threatened to send me affidavits but when they contacted the vendor, they were assured that it was their mistake. So we just got a form letter confirming that the charge has been removed permanently. But yes, changing all the FX charges like PV taxes was a pain.
> 
> I suspect it will happen more often on this card because all the charges are foreign-based, although it never happened on amazon.


What does "all the charges are foreign-based" mean? Do you only use this card when travelling?

Let me offer a 'cautionary tale' or 'food for thought' to those who use a card with no FX charges only when travelling.

Canada has been slow to the 'no FX fees' table. Primarily because the 'Big 5' banks have not found it necessary to offer this. Home Trust as a smaller institution has made the decision to offer this savings to its customers as a way to attract business obviously. Others have offered it and then withdrawn from it. Why?

The first no FX card I ever had was from a similar UK institution. In the UK they have 'Building Societies' which are something like our Trust companies or Credit Unions. One of them offered no FX on their credit or debit cards and as a result picked up new customers. However after quite a few years of doing so, some bright young thing took a look at just what they had got in return. Turned out that a very high percentage of these accounts were only using their cards when travelling abroad. The Building Society was not get any of their day to day, at home transactions. 

So in other words, these customers were USING them without giving any additional business in return. A win/lose scenario rather than win/win in other words. The building society decided to stop their no FX fees benefit as a result.

My point being that if you receive a benefit from something then it is not unreasonable for the financial institution who are giving you that benefit to expect some benefit in return. When we see an institution taking away those benefits, it might make some sense to ask ourselves WHY they are taking it away. If Home Trust look at their accounts one day and find that they are being USED, what do you think they are likely to do?

Unfortunately for those who understand win/win and give more of their business to a card provider who gives them more benefits than another card, we all lose those benefits when people who play win/lose with their card providers make it unattractive to the card provider to continue offering benefits but receive nothing in return from the customers.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Petro Canada has a promo where you fill up a certain number of times for bonus petro points (like $1!!)
> However a "fill up is 25L"
> 
> So when the minivan gets really low I will do 2 fill ups of 25L.
> However if I use the same card, it gets flagged as fraudulent, and the second transaction is blocked, so I have to use 2 different cards for the fillup.


This type of 'gaming the system' behaviour is exactly like what I am referring to in my response above to kcowan on 'no FX fee' cards. You want to play 'win/lose' with the card provider by making two separate purchases when the offer they are giving you is based on a reasonable 'per transaction' basis with a minimum 'fill up' specified of 25L. 

How stupid do you think they are? You understand what they are offering. FILL UP a certain number of times and we will give you bonus points. But instead of FILLING UP, you want to only half fill up and then do it again to count as 2 fill ups. You know what FILL UP means but think it is OK to 'game the system' and not actually fill up. You don't want to play win/win with them, you want to play win/lose. 

The only good thing that I think of is that karma has a way of catching up with such people and their behaviour.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Curious, have you ever phoned and had to use this service? I'm also relying on HT for auto service in Canada & US. But I wonder how responsive they would actually be, say, in winter when you really need them.


And I'll ask you the question I am curious about james4beach. Are you giving HT your business other than just when you travel or need auto service, in return? How responsive are you being to when they need you?

I am not suggesting you are not using their card regularly james4beach, I'm just asking if you are playing win/win with them or not.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We only use our Home Trust card for foreign purchases.

On average between 6 and 10K Canadian each year. Some years higher, some lower but an average would be close to 8K. We expect to have $8K or more on the card over the period through to March 2020. I believe that we are a $2K without even leaving home.

I suspect that the decision to withdraw is based on two factors. The volume of purchases and the predisposition of card holders to pay interest charges on outstanding balances.

Do we feel guilty or feel that we are taking advantage of Home Trust? NO! I have yet to feel sorry for, let along a tinge of guilt, for any bank or financial services firm!

We also deal with Oaken Financial...part of the same group.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

One should have "alerts" set up on all your credit cards. 3 days to notice the fraudulent transactions is pretty fast but not as fast as 30 seconds.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

ian said:


> Do we feel guilty or feel that we are taking advantage of Home Trust? NO! I have yet to feel sorry for, let along a tinge of guilt, for any bank or financial services firm!


+1

I have to roll my eyes at anyone who has a misplaced sense of loyalty to companies or businesses who would just as soon stick it to you over the same official policies that you are able to game.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

...and most especially since banks and financial services in Canada that have enjoyed a near monopoly. It shows based on their service charges, interest rates, and the lack of cards offering things like no FX charges or no charges for using foreign ATMS. Offerings that are more frequently offered by the more competitive US financial institutions. 

It is not as if I am going to pull out a nose hair and have a good cry for the banks' financial results. 

This, plus the fact that when it comes to consumerism Canadians seem bit numb. This all makes Canadian bank stocks a good bet as an investor but not so great as a consumer!


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Parkuser said:


> Just to follow up and give credit where it's due...


I will also add that the new card (new #) arrived within a few days, plus a new PIN which you can change by phone, and a letter listing the disputed transactions. I've used the new card already. The monthly statement just showed up, no spurious charges.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> We only use our Home Trust card for foreign purchases.
> 
> On average between 6 and 10K Canadian each year. Some years higher, some lower but an average would be close to 8K. We expect to have $8K or more on the card over the period through to March 2020. I believe that we are a $2K without even leaving home.
> 
> ...


You seem to have missed my point ian. I am not suggesting anyone feel guilty about taking advantage of an offer provided. I am suggesting they think about why it is offered and why it might be withdrawn as has happened with various financial institutions in the past. All relationships are a two way street but if people act as if they are a one way street, they can find the other party no longer willing to be USED in that way.

When the UK Building Society I referred to stopped offering their no FX loading on their credit and debit cards (both, not just one), they put out the required public notice that they were doing so. At the same time, they quietly sent letters to SOME customers telling them that it would not be applied to them and that they would continue to offer them no fx loading on foreign transactions. Those customers were deemed to be Grandfathered in, not by virtue of when they opened their account, but by virtue of what business they were doing other than just using their cards when travelling. See what I'm saying?

It has become pretty much standard procedure these days for everyone to play win/lose but it does not mean everyone has to play that way. Everyone knows for example that the 'Big 5' banks all charge FX loading on foreign transactions. Right? Wrong. Believe me, the Big 5 have accounts that are not charged FX loading, you just don't hear about it in the general course of things. 

Anyone can, if they choose to do so, negotiate anything with their bank. That doesn't mean to say that if you keep $1000 on deposit with them that you are going to be negotiating from a position of strength but if you keep a six figure or larger amount with them in various forms, then that's another story entirely. Private banking may require investable assets of $1 million or a net worth of $3 million. There are a surprising number of people who have that much net worth primarily due to real estate values today. If someone is in that position and says to their banker, 'I want no FX loading, the bank down the street will do if for me, will you?' It's likely you will get it because their incentive to do so is great enough. You win, they win.

As I wrote, I am just offering a cautionary tale or food for thought. If people keep playing win/lose with their financial institutions, they can expect the same in return and when it comes down to that, you are not going to win over the bank. You can as they say, 'take that to the bank'.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

lightcycle said:


> +1
> 
> I have to roll my eyes at anyone who has a misplaced sense of loyalty to companies or businesses who would just as soon stick it to you over the same official policies that you are able to game.


You also seem to have missed the point lightcycle. I have no more loyalty to a financial institution than anyone else. Loyalty has nothing to do with it. Good business practice does however. I don't want to 'game' them anymore than I want them to 'game' me. What I want is both of us to be playing win/win. As I have wrote to ian, if you are going to try playing win/lose with the banks, there is no doubt who will lose in the long run and it isn't the banks.

How do you treat people you have relationships with? Banks are no different than you really. If someone is always trying to take from your relationship without giving in return, how long does that relationship last and what loyalty do you feel towards them? If someone on the other hand treats you as they would want you to treat them, is that not a different story? 

I don't do business with 'companies or businesses who would just as soon stick it to you'. I play win/win and expect them to do the same. If they don't I find one who will. What you seem to be saying is you don't believe they exist or that because they are playing win/lose with a customer who is playing win/lose with them, that it means they won't play win/win with someone else. 

But there is a rule if you will to playing win/win. Someone has to start it. So if a business offers you something and you take it, you are expected then to offer them something in return. If you only take but not give in return, you are showing them you play win/lose.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Then I guess you do not do business with any of Canada's Chartered banks.

They have been 'sticking' it to customers for years when it comes to service charges, fx exhange rates, MERs on mutuals, and investment advice that purposely guides the unsuspecting to high admin fee investment choices. 

Do you really think that it is win win with Canadian banks? It is a monopoly. Even when the Canada Trusts, Royal Trusts etc got a leg up with very competitive offering. that banks swallow them up and put an end to those competitve rates and practices. 

When we had a mortgage I was very thankful for the Canada Trust branch across the street from the bank that we dealt with for years. Why? I only had to mention the name Canada Trust and suddenly the mortgage renewal fees were waived, the mortgage interest rate was reduced, that so called standard mortgage agreement was amended to allow for larger annual paydowns. On our last house buy with mortgage even the house appraisal fee was waived. Had it not been for Canada Trust and my speaking up the bank would have gladly socked it to us even though we were supposed 'valued long term customers'. I later discovered that there would not have been any appraisal because of the low ratio mortgage yet the bank still would have charged us a 'standard appraisal fee' for all home mortgages.

We certainly are not holding our breath waiting for the bank to institute a win/win approach to business. Their business is making a profit and the pickings are particularly good because of the near monopoly situation. 

But I do like their stock.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Longtimeago said:


> How do you treat people you have relationships with? Banks are no different than you really.


Wow, what a total misread of the nature of corporations versus individual, real people. Banks are extremely different than you and me. So are all corporations. We live in a capitalist world... the mandate of the corporation is to make money for their shareholders. _It is their legal duty_.



> I don't do business with 'companies or businesses who would just as soon stick it to you'


Do you have any idea how much regulation law is required to prevent banks & brokerages from constantly cheating and ripping you off on a daily basis?

Thankfully, we have a well developed legal system, and enough regulation that the resulting banking & business environment is relatively fair. It's still unfair (with enormous advantages of large banks and all large corporations) so yes, they continue to "stick it to you".


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Wow, what a total misread of the nature of corporations versus individual, real people. Banks are extremely different than you and me. So are all corporations. We live in a capitalist world... the mandate of the corporation is to make money for their shareholders. _It is their legal duty_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The same old, same old myth of thinking a company is a living entity capable of making decisions. Any business is simply a group of people and it is those people who make all decisions related to the business. Is that so difficult to understand? 

Do people make win/lose decisions on behalf of the shareholders? Of course they do. Does it mean they cannot make a win/win decision on behalf of the shareholders? Of course it does not. That you perceive ALL business decisions as being made on a win/lose basis is your perception, it doesn't make it a fact. What is a fact is that the executives (people) making the decisions and having to answer to shareholders, partners, etc. are not going to make any decision that they expect will result in a lose/win decision that puts them in the lose position. If they make a decision that they expect to be win/win and it turns out lose/win because it is not reciprocated with a win for them by the customer, that decision is likely to be reversed. That is what I am warning against. Those who 'game' the system are only going to hurt those who do not game the system but instead are playing win/win.

The idea that the majority of executives in businesses want to 'cheat and rip off' their customers is ridiculous. Do you realize that what you are saying is that you actually believe that MOST people are unscrupulous, liars, cheats and rip off artists. Are you one of those people? 

Any business, however large, is no different than a one man band that sells you something. If the person in charge is a crook then yes, it is likely that person will try to cheat you or rip you off. But I believe that most people are not like that and are willing to play fair with you if YOU are willing to play fair with them. The problem is that our culture has come to accept an adversarial approach to just about everything in life and so you have a 'Catch-22' where no one trusts anyone. 

Again, every individual is free to decide how they want to live their life and do their business. I choose to play win/win and am willing to indicate that to any company or individual I do business with. I find that 99% of the time it is understood and reciprocated. 

For example, I recently called my electrician for what appeared to be a problem. He left his dinner table and came right over. Found the problem was in fact not a problem at all and left within 10 minutes of his having arrived. He had every right to send me an invoice for a 'call out' which would normally be around $100-150. No bill has ever arrived. I put that down to his knowing that any time I need an electrician I will call him. I will not go out and get 3 competitive bids for the work I want done and then go with the lowest priced bid. The first time I gave him some work to do for us, I made that clear.

How common is it do you think james4beach for a homeowner to get competitive estimates/quotes and then go with the lowest price? You know and I know that that is the most common scenario there is. When I need to find a contractor for something I ask around locally for input and so far, I have always got responses that say, 'this guy is OK', 'this guy is OK but charges a bit more', 'this guy is very good but charges more than some', 'this guy is cheaper'. No surprise there is there, those are the responses you would expect to get. After all, what else is there to expect.

In every case I go with, 'this guy is very good' and ignore the 'but charges more'. I EXPECT someone who is very good to charge more, they deserve to charge more if they will do a better job than the others. Or do you think they should only charge as much as the cheap guy who does a less than great job?

Once I have chosen my contractor, I call and ask them to come by and give me an estimate/quote. When they arrive I tell them I am not going to talk to any other contractor, they already have the job, I just need a price to budget for. I then say to them, 'you understand what I am saying, I expect you to give me the best price you can.' THAT is how you play win/win James4beach. You SHOW your intent clearly and ask for the same in return. 

You may live in a world where you believe that everyone is out to cheat you and rip you off James4beach but I do not. And so far, I seem to be managing to live my way just fine. Would your electrician leave his dinner table to come to help you and then not even send you a bill James4beach?

A bank is no different. I'm not talking about asking a teller to give you their best rate on a GIC, or even asking the Branch Manager. They do not have the authority to do anything other than what the 'book' says they can do. But the 'book', the regulations, the rules, are all predicated on the 'norm', that is a customer who wants to win at the bank's expense. In other words, a win/lose player.

However, in every business there are people who can ignore the 'rules' and make a decision that in fact contradicts those rules. Those people usually did not get where they are by just playing win/lose all the way. They usually understand that win/win is a far better way to play the game. But YOU have to show them that is how you intend to play BEFORE you ask them to reciprocate. 

Most people really don't understand how win/win works. They may know the term, they may know both sides are supposed to win but they do not know HOW to initiate that relationship with a PERSON.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

ian said:


> Then I guess you do not do business with any of Canada's Chartered banks.
> 
> They have been 'sticking' it to customers for years when it comes to service charges, fx exhange rates, MERs on mutuals, and investment advice that purposely guides the unsuspecting to high admin fee investment choices.
> 
> ...


Yet another example of someone not understanding how win/win works.

You threatened your bank that you would go to Canada Trust. Was that you showing them you wanted to play win/win? No, it was you showing them you wanted to play win/lose. So they went along in that instance, you won right? Not in my books. You showed whoever the person you were dealing with at the bank, just what kind of customer you are. So how do you suppose that person will act when they have a chance to stick it to you ian? He or she will play the game the way you have shown you want to play it, win/lose but you will be on the losing end. Wouldn't you rather always be on the winning end by playing win/win? 

You say you are not holding your breath WAITING for the bank to institute a win/win approach to doing business with you. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that either. I would institute a win/win approach with the bank. I would make the first move in other words, not WAIT for them to make the first move. That is one of the things that most people do not understand about win/win, YOU must show that FIRST. Why must you show it first? Because just like you, the person you are looking at doing business with has been conditioned to believe everything has to be adversarial and win/lose.

I do bank with one of the chartered banks. I pay no fees for anything, haven't for 30 years or more. When I want to do something (other than day to day banking obviously), I call the guy who was the local Branch Manager when I lived in Toronto 40 years ago. He is now a VP in the bank. I call him directly and he takes my calls. I tell him what I want to do and he tells me when to expect a call back. An hour or a day later, I get a call from a person who is in the right department etc. to deal with what I want to do. Do I need to spell it out any more than that ian? I have a RELATIONSHIP with my bank and have had for 40 years.

I'm sure you've heard the saying, 'it's not what you know, it's who you know.' That saying applies to win/win. Win/win works when two people know that they are both playing win/win. They have a relationship based on trust.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I can assure you that I need no explanation of win/win. I was engaged in a very successful career in high dollar value executive IT sales, consulting, and senior management from many years. My contacts were typically C level decision makers. I had the good fortune to have wonderful customers. Many multi million dollar deals done on a handshake with paperwork and legal to follow. SO, hardly need an lesson on win/win from LTA.

Did I ever say that I threatened the bank? No. I simply asked them to be competitive. And they responded in the knowledge that we were prepared to walk because of the deltas. Would you consider a bank that wants to charge for a real estate appraisal when one was not needed and not done reasonable or win/win?

When we stopped dealing with our long term bank's fee for service investment advisory services we gave them 3 chances, six months apart, to improve. Eighteen months later we left. They seem surprised. We told them three times that we would however I guess they did not take us seriously. They only took us seriously when the paperwork arrived from our new advisory firm. This was a basic case of not listening to your customer and ignoring your customer. Arrogance. The issue was not about fees. It was about the quality of the service, the representation, and the advice. We did not realize what poor value we were getting for the fees we paid until we switched to another firm.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

In my case HT gets 100% of my business for 6 months and so did Chase before that. It did not make Chasevstay in Canada. When HT leaves I will look for another one. I never pay interest charges. I suppose LTA does because that is what the bank expects in their quid pro quo! I call it win/lose!

The other 6 months is split between TD & RBC.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> ... Would you consider a bank that wants to charge for a real estate appraisal when one was not needed and not done reasonable or win/win?


I wouldn't ... but that's me. :biggrin:




ian said:


> ... When we stopped dealing with our long term bank's fee for service investment advisory services we gave them 3 chances, six months apart, to improve. Eighteen months later we left. They seem surprised. We told them three times that we would however I guess they did not take us seriously. They only took us seriously when the paperwork arrived from our new advisory firm. This was a basic case of not listening to your customer and ignoring your customer. Arrogance ...


Not so sure it was arrogance as not recognising that you would put your money where your mouth was. Lots of people talk and complain but if it involves effort to follow through - it doesn't happen. Same as why negative marketing or automatic enrollment in matching pension programs work.

It was the same for employee requests for raises. Lots of "wish I could but the company/HR won't approve it" that suddenly was no problem when the employee gave notice. Somehow TPTB didn't seem to be connect the dots that replacing the employee that left was costing them far more than what the employee was asking for.

Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Yes...Canadians are very complacent and very polite. THIS is exactly why the banks and financial institutions thrive. They count on this complacency. Plus, many people were brought up with the notion that banks are their 'friends'.
Nothing could be further from the truth


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

kcowan said:


> In my case HT gets 100% of my business for 6 months and so did Chase before that. It did not make Chasevstay in Canada. When HT leaves I will look for another one. I never pay interest charges. I suppose LTA does because that is what the bank expects in their quid pro quo! I call it win/lose!
> 
> The other 6 months is split between TD & RBC.


Pay interest charges? What interest charges are you talking about? I don't pay interest on anything. I earn interest on my money by using a credit card and paying the full amount owing on that card, on the due date. Between the date of a purchase and the date I pay for that purchase by paying my credit card bill in full on the due date, interest is earned. A credit card is a way to earn interest on my money. I have seen it that way since I was in my 20s.

Are you saying you use your HT credit card for everything for 6 months and another card for the other 6 months? It isn't really clear what you mean by, '100% of my business", does that refer only to your credit card usage?

A 'quid pro quo' between two parties can take many forms obviously. If you always pay your credit card balance in full every month, then the only income the bank will earn from your use of their card is the Interchange Income they charge vendors. That averages roughly 1.75%. Obviously, the greater the amount you charge on your credit card, the greater the dollar amount that adds up to. 

If ian charges $8k(as he mentions) a year on his HT card, that means he is offering them a chance to make around $140 per year. If I charge $50k using my card year round, then I am offering them a chance to make $875 per year. If you are doing roughly the same amount per month as I do, for 6 months, then you are offering them $437.50 per year.

Now do the math on the FX side since it is that 'quid pro quo' that we are talking about existing or not existing. If ian is only using his card as he says for foreign transactions, then HT is offering him savings over other card providers of 2.5% (usual FX cost) of his $8k. That is $200 that ian will save using their card. The $140 they make does not equal the $200 ian saves, so it is not a 'quid pro quo' or win/win, it is a win/lose with HT losing.

If you or I spend the same $8k on foreign transactions we would save the same $200 per year but have given HT an opportunity to earn more than that in return. They win say $237 from you using their card and $675 from my using their card. Doing business with you or I is a win for them and a win for us at the same time. Doing business with ian is a LOSE for them and only a win for ian. 

Again, I am simply trying to make it clear to people why a card provider would decide to withdraw a 'no FX charges' offer on their cards and why they would choose to continue it. For those who do travel and do want to avoid paying FX loading costs, it should matter to them that they understand that and they should support their card provider in order to try and make sure it continues.

Ian is using HT to save money but is not supporting them in return. It's as simple as that. Unfortunately, as can be seen by card providers who have offered this in the past and then withdrawn it at a later date, too many travellers have not played win/win and as a result those who do play win/win, lose the opportunity to save on FX. You say if HT stops offering it, you will 'look for another one'. But that assumes you will be able to find one. 

Here in Canada we have a very limited number of choices, we don't have 1000s of choices like they do in the USA, we have a much more limited number of card providers. Competitive pressure in the USA basically forces them to offer 'no FX' even if they don't make money doing it but in Canada, that same degree of competition does not exist. Why else do you think Canadian travellers have had to pay FX charges and have had such limited choices of cards that don't charge them?

There are only 2 ways a card provider will offer it. One is competition and the other is because it will make them money. Using a card only when travelling as ian is doing will never make them money and there is not enough competition to force them to offer it. So if Canadian travellers want to avoid paying for FX, then they need to realize that they must make it worthwhile for the card issuer to offer it.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Actually, HT does make money from me. It is called visa processing fees on the 8-12K that we put through each year. They also make money on our cash advances when using foreign ATMs. They charge a 1.5 percent fee. Alas, not penny in interest charges though. Something must be right for them because they continue to give us 1 percent back on all of our purchases. Have you ever though of the reason why so few financial institutions offer this benefit? It is called monopoly. Not enough competition. The banks and financial services industry tend to work in concert and keep service charges high. You may call that a win for them, I have another description for it. 

Really LTA, you will have me in tears thinking about these poor banks and financial institutions. They have a tough go of it for sure , some only charge 18 percent interest on unpaid card balances. That could be the reason why their respective senior executives are so underpaid and under bonused.

I may not be able to sleep tonight because of the thought of the selfish ways in which I choose to deal with them. Not. 

I guess you have not seen the recent CIBC quarterly numbers. I can assure you that no one at that bank is in tears.

We save about $400-500 a year on the card. $250 or thereabouts on FX charges, another $100 from no longer paying for auto club, and another $75-100 or so on the delta between what our CIBC charges would be on foreign ATM withdrawals and what HT charges for cash advances. There is an opportunity cost to this. If we were to put those charges on our regular card we would get an extra $75. or so back over and above the HT 1 percent rebate.

They must be OK with it because they keep increasing our credit limit on a regular basis.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eclectic12 said:


> I wouldn't ... but that's me. :biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know Eclectic12, there are always two sides to everything. An employee is doing a good job let's say. The employer has no reason to be unhappy with him or her. So one day the employee says, 'hey, I would like a raise'. OK, a raise for what? For doing what they agreed to do and agreed to do for X amount of money and are being paid $X amount now?

Umm, that sounds like someone wants to be paid more, for the same work. Is this employee saying to the employer, 'hey, we agreed you would pay me $X to produce Y number of widgets but I am now producing Y+100 widgets. I would like a raise in line with my increased productivity. If Y widgets got me $X and the extra 100 I am now producing equals say 10% more productivity, I think it is not unreasonable for me to ask for 10% more pay.'

But that isn't what happens is it Eclectic12, they ask for a raise without offering the employer any real reason to want to give them a raise. I have asked for a raise several times in the past, in various ways for various reasons and never been refused. Why was that do you think?

If someone wants a raise, then it is up to them to show why a raise is justified and 'my rent went up' or the 'cost of living' has gone up are actually not justifications.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> You know Eclectic12, there are always two sides to everything ...


As you are demonstrating by talking about a different situation than I am. 




Longtimeago said:


> ... Umm, that sounds like someone wants to be paid more, for the same work. Is this employee saying to the employer, 'hey, we agreed you would pay me $X to produce Y number of widgets but I am now producing Y+100 widgets. I would like a raise in line with my increased productivity. If Y widgets got me $X and the extra 100 I am now producing equals say 10% more productivity, I think it is not unreasonable for me to ask for 10% more pay.'


They were doing the work of two other employees plus acting as the supervisor for the same pay.





Longtimeago said:


> ... But that isn't what happens is it Eclectic12, they ask for a raise without offering the employer any real reason to want to give them a raise.


In this other situation you are describimg ... sure. I have seen other co-workers try this no info approach and fail.

For the ones I am talking about - they presented all the same type of info where the answer was no. If there was any doubt they were making up their numbers, two new employees had to be hired to handle the regular work and a third to cover the supervisor work.




Longtimeago said:


> ... I have asked for a raise several times in the past, in various ways for various reasons and never been refused. Why was that do you think?


Your management likely valued the info you provided, agree with your info and may have felt the additional costs of your raise were cheap compared to replacing you. Without direct knowledge like I have for these co-workers, best I can do is guess.

As I say, it was clear that these particular employees were worth the raise that was asked for but the company ended up spending far more to replace them. 


In one case, when it was clear the employee was willing to move on, the manager tried to make a last minute counter offer to keep them. It was rejected quickly as the employee had already accepted a similar job elsewhere for more than the manager was making.


Cheers


*PS*
Or the Coles' Notes Version is that I have seen both sides plus a lot in the middle during my career. :biggrin:


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> If someone wants a raise, then it is up to them to show why a raise is justified and 'my rent went up' or the 'cost of living' has gone up are actually not justifications.


Really?

Let's say Joe gets hired to make widgets. The target is for producing 10 widgets in an 8-hour day, for which Joe gets paid a salary of $100 a day. The employer sells the widgets for $100 each.

Ten years pass. 

Joe is still on the job. Still meeting expectations. 10 widgets in an 8-hour day. Through inflation, the employer is now selling widgets at $140 each. Joe is still getting $100/day. Is the rise in cost of living not a justification? Or must Joe continually increase his productivity to justify a raise? That seems to be what you suggest. If, after 10 years, he wants a raise to $140/day, then he'd better be producing 14 widgets a day. Seems reasonable.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yea.......upper management in large companies love to have tens of thousands employees and retirees lined up outside their offices to lobby for a raise.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> Really?
> 
> Let's say Joe gets hired to make widgets. The target is for producing 10 widgets in an 8-hour day, for which Joe gets paid a salary of $100 a day. The employer sells the widgets for $100 each.
> 
> ...


The assumption it seems you are making is that the price the manufacturer sells a widget for should be connected to the amount the worker is paid. But that is in fact just an assumption on your part. Ask yourself the question another way, why should the manufacturer pay the worker more? The answer to that has to answer the question from the manufactuer's point of view of 'what's in it for me'. That is the question that must always be answered if you want someone to change something.

The basic formula of business is very simple. Selling price minus cost equals profit. Since the objective of any company is to make as much profit as possible, manipulating selling price and cost are what always goes on. You either increase selling price, decrease cost or some combination of the two. If a widget manufacturer can hold his cost for 10 years while increasing his selling price, why wouldn't he do so?

The real question to me in your scenario is why is the worker still agreeing to work for $100 after 10 years. He is as involved in this as the manufacturer is, no one is forcing him to keep working for the same pay, he is CHOOSING to do so.

Whether there is some kind of formal contract that is reviewed each year (common) or not, there is an implied contract at least between a company and a worker. You take a job and agree to what you will be paid for doing it. Either party is free to try to change that contract at a specified time or at any time if there is no specific contract time span. No one is 'entitled' or 'bound' to anything else. 

The only thing both parties have the 'right' to do is to end the agreement. The widget manufacturer could in fact suggest a reduction in pay after 10 years if they wanted to and the worker would be free to accept or reject that offer. It's called, 'I quit'.

I think of it as simple. Each day I work, I expect to be paid what I agreed to being paid. At the end of each day, if I am paid as agreed, the employer and I are even. Neither party is obligated beyond that in any way. Tomorrow, if I am offered work again, I can agree to do so for X amount which may be the same or more or less than yesterday, or I can say, 'no thank you'. 

Your guy Joe needs to ask himself 'why are they still only paying me $100 and why am I still accepting that?' The widget manufacturer is on to a good thing, why would they want to change it?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Yea.......upper management in large companies love to have tens of thousands employees and retirees lined up outside their offices to lobby for a raise.


Hundreds of thousands of employees, not tens of thousands, haven't got the gumption to line up to ask for a raise sags. That's one of the reasons they join a union.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> The assumption it seems you are making is that the price the manufacturer sells a widget for should be connected to the amount the worker is paid. But that is in fact just an assumption on your part.


Wrong-O LTA, I made no such assumption. But apparently you did. No reason for sale price to be connected to wages. I would not say, for example, if in the first year of the employment contract, the employer finds there is an increased demand for widgets and he can quickly increase the price to $140, that Joe should then get a like increase in pay. No reason for that at all. But if, as in my scenario, overall living costs, costs of doing business, etc. move up about 40%, and the employer is now selling widgets for 40% more and he is able to maintain a similar income (adjusted for inflation) and lifestyle, is Joe "unjustified" in asking for a raise?

Whether you can say, as you do, that Joe is free to leave at any time, well sure. But that only supports my view that in the face of overall inflation, Joe is quite justified, after 10 years, to seek an increase based on an increase in cost of living which, according to you, can never be a justification.



Longtimeago said:


> If a widget manufacturer can hold his cost for 10 years while increasing his selling price, why wouldn't he do so?


So does that scenario "justify" the denial of a pay increase for Joe? Can the employer, in all good conscience, look Joe in the eye and say "Well, if I have held the cost of making widgets for lo these past 10 years, thanks in large measure to freezing your wages, then laddie, you should follow my lead. All you have to do Joe, is refuse to pay more for food, gasoline, utilities, rent, etc., and you will be fine. Now get out of my office, you make the place look dirty."

LTA, in another thread, you preached about the virtue of keeping things "win-win" and not "win-lose" (I'll import some quotes should you require an _aide-mémoire_). Yet in the employment setting, in an astonishing about face, you appear to suggest that it is fair and honourable for an employer to play win-lose with employees.



Longtimeago said:


> Your guy Joe needs to ask himself 'why are they still only paying me $100 and why am I still accepting that?' The widget manufacturer is on to a good thing, why would they want to change it?


I'll tell you why, because changing it is the right thing to do. Being "on to a good thing" (treating employees shabbily and getting away with it) is not how I see a good way to run a business. Again, while you see it that someone like Joe should be scrupulous in his dealing with a big bank and not take unfair advantage of a credit card perk, or whatever, you seem to suggest that, as an employer, it's quite acceptable to be greedy and overreaching in dealing with employees. After all, they can vote with their feet.

On that latter note, I find your talk about the employee always being free to say "I quit" a bit silly. Apart from operating a small office with a handful of support staff (who received regular pay increases on account of inflation sans having to ask me for it), I have never owned and operated a business. So no, I probably lack your prodigious experience in owning and operating a going concern of size. But it strikes me that just about any business is likely to have a more contented workforce, enhanced productivity and just be a better place to be a part of if employees are treated fairly, without having to play brinkmanship and wait until an employee threatens to quit or actually does so. It would seem to me that high staff turnover that is likely to result from that management style will have its own costs.

Finally, let me observe that an underpinning of your words appears to be that employees and employers are on an equal playing field. Both are free to contract and do their best to protect their own interests. I'll accept that such be the case, sometimes. A well-educated, experienced, sophisticated employee can probably do okay at the bargaining table. But those further down the line are often completely out of their depth in protecting their own interests in any meaningful way. This I have observed first hand, deny it how much you might. In your world, if an employee is incapable of sticking up for himself, the doctrine of _tuffius tittius_ applies. That worker might have a family to feed and bills to pay, increasing in cost each year. That worker might fear approaching your corner office and standing on his head to show how a raise is "justified". That worker might fear being told to get lost and being suddenly left with no income. He might lack the standard savings of 6 months' expenses maintained by cmf types. Who has more to fear in that scenario? The supplicant worker, or the employer who is not really quaking in his boots at the prospect of losing one of an army of disgruntled employees?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Employee to boss........I need a raise.

Boss to employee........so do I.

Employee to boss........thanks for your consideration.

Boss to employee.......my door is always open.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ +1 with the above scenario description in the private sector. LOL ... I'm surprised sags is pretty up to date.

Btw, you would need to add JAG's method of instilling fear so add this part to the picture:

Boss to HR...prepare this person's termination papers.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Mukhang pera said:


> Longtimeago said:
> 
> 
> > ... Your guy Joe needs to ask himself 'why are they still only paying me $100 and why am I still accepting that?' The widget manufacturer is on to a good thing, why would they want to change it?
> ...


Assuming Joe increased his productivity, took on more responsibility and as part of their raise request, documented these details - there's how much cheaper is it is to keep someone who already knows the company/procedures/personalities/equipment versus starting someone off from scratch. 

The raise would not keep the employee around forever but from what I observed, would have been dramatically cheaper.




Mukhang pera said:


> ... It would seem to me that high staff turnover that is likely to result from that management style will have its own costs.


Worst case I have observed killed the company.

Years of complaints and documentation fell on deaf ears about the executive in charge of IT. A couple of years of employees quitting to go elsewhere with exit interviews making it clear the impact of the executives behaviour was having were ignored.

I suppose it is the ultimate example of LTA's "free to quit" but a half day farewell lunch for three departures ended up that on Monday morning the remaining IT department quit en masse. The executive was replaced but it was too late as by the time this change was announced, everyone had jobs elsewhere.

The company paid astronomical fees to have an outsourcing company run the shop while they tried to rehire the needed skills. Word of mouth steering people away and the amount of people needed seemed to end up being too big a problem as they shutdown in something under six months.


The more middle of the road case was where ignoring issues with a newly promoted supervisor resulted in a staff of twenty turning over in about twenty one days. I doubt everyone being new to the department was all that good for productivity and costs.



Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

One issue with poor employers it their ability to attract talent- top talent. Depending on the city and the industry, the world can be a small place. Word gets around about poor employers, terrible management practices, morale issue, and compensation issues. 

Good candidates are not wiling to interview. Not a good situation when certain skills are in high demand.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> Wrong-O LTA, I made no such assumption. But apparently you did. No reason for sale price to be connected to wages. I would not say, for example, if in the first year of the employment contract, the employer finds there is an increased demand for widgets and he can quickly increase the price to $140, that Joe should then get a like increase in pay. No reason for that at all. But if, as in my scenario, overall living costs, costs of doing business, etc. move up about 40%, and the employer is now selling widgets for 40% more and he is able to maintain a similar income (adjusted for inflation) and lifestyle, is Joe "unjustified" in asking for a raise?
> 
> Whether you can say, as you do, that Joe is free to leave at any time, well sure. But that only supports my view that in the face of overall inflation, Joe is quite justified, after 10 years, to seek an increase based on an increase in cost of living which, according to you, can never be a justification.
> 
> ...


There is no contradiction in what I am saying here or have said about win/win Mukhang pera. I believe the employer should be giving Joe a raise every year in line with inflation. But you presented a hypothetical case where none had been given for 10 years. All I am saying is that there is no contract between the employer and Joe obviously that says Joe is 'entitled' to a raise every year. That leaves Joe with limited alternatives, ask for a raise or not and leave or not, it's that simple.

While I believe in and will advocate having a win/win relationship, that does not mean I don't know that many relationships are indeed win/lose. You have to look at it from each side of a relationship. If an employer is indeed playing win/lose with their employees, then they will indeed see it as being 'onto a good thing' when someone like Joe puts up with it for 10 years. Again, why wouldn't they from THEIR viewpoint and approach to employee relations? I agree a business is likely to do better by treating employees fairly but obviously in your hypothetical example, the employer is not interested in that. The employer is 'winning' in their view and Joe is losing.

I agree that some are better able to advocate for themselves than others and have real fears to contend with. For those people, a union type job where they pay someone else to advocate for them is probably better suited. But I have been in the company cafeteria with people eating their brown bag lunches or getting a coffee from the urn, and heard them do their moaning and complaining, many times. My question to them has always been, 'then why are you here?' and I have heard the responses of, 'I have bills to pay, mouths to feed, etc.' To which my question has always been, 'then why are you not looking for a job elsewhere that will give you what you are moaning about not getting?' They are not TIED to one company and are free to look elsewhere, people do it every day do they not. They moan and DO nothing. 

I believe that each of us is in control of our own life UNLESS we abdicate that control to others. If they abdicate that control then I have no sympathy for them, they've made their choice. It's like someone who doesn't vote in an election and then complains about the government's decisions afterwards. The point to me is we each have a CHOICE to make and even apparently making no choice at all is in fact a choice. The playing field ALWAYS STARTS out equal between employer and employee Mukhang pera, it is up to the individual what happens after that.

For what it is worth, I once quit a job with 4 hours notice over a disagreement with a company who THOUGHT I was their 'employee'. I did not have more than perhaps 2 weeks of savings in my pocket or bank account at the time, to pay for 'expenses'. I also had a wife who did not work and 2 children to support. Nevertheless, I quit on the spot knowing that I would have to find work within a week, without hesitation. I am in control of my life and always have been. Fear of the unknown is what you are saying people can't deal with and I understand that but it is their fear to deal with and in giving in to it, they make their CHOICE. In your hypothetical case of Joe, he has been perhaps letting that fear control him for 10 years and so has never asked for a raise from an employer he really should have left after year 1 probably. Is it not Joe then who has wasted 9 years of his life as a result? Is that not on Joe? 

As an aside, I have to say that when I quit that job, the uproar it caused in that office with various 'higher level' people trying to tell me 'you can't do that' and 'you will get no reference from this company', etc. was really very amusing. I did indeed leave them 'in the lurch' so to speak. I had a new 'employer' prepared to pay me more, within a week. I have always known since I was very young, who I worked for, ME and not anyone else. I have never thought of myself as an 'employee' with all the baggage that thinking brings. In the companies I have worked WITH, there were no doubt people who thought I was an employee but that was their viewpoint, never mine.

A company does not 'own' an employee unless the 'employee' thinks of themselves that way. Everyone is free to quit at any time regardless of their fears Mukhang pera. That's what makes it a level playing field. I make you happy, you make me happy or we dissolve our relationship. End of story.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> Employee to boss........I need a raise.
> 
> Boss to employee........so do I.
> 
> ...


Sounds reasonable if that was the approach you used sags. It isn't what I would have suggested though.

Joe to boss.....I produced 10 widgets/hour for the last year. Would it help the business if I produced 11 this next year?

Boss to Joe.......Why yes Joe that would be great.

Joe to Boss......OK, I can do that, what will you pay me to do it?

Boss to Joe......Umm, the same as last year?

Joe to Boss.........Well, if you change your mind about that, my door is always open.

You see sags, you never seem to realize who has the power. Now if Joe is in fact not capable or willing to produce 11/hour then of course Joe has no power but if he can produced 11 the power is his, his boss only has the power to accept or reject Joe's offer. In a union setting of course Joe may be hampered because if he offers to produce 11 for more pay, his co-workers Fred, Frank, Dave, etc. and the union rep Jack will all come down on him saying, 'hey, you can't produce more than us, you're making us look bad. And you can't ask for more pay than we are getting that's not how we do things around here.'


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ +1 with the above scenario description in the private sector. LOL ... I'm surprised sags is pretty up to date.
> 
> Btw, you would need to add JAG's method of instilling fear so add this part to the picture:
> 
> Boss to HR...prepare this person's termination papers.


Actually such a scenario is only 'up to date' for some people. Such a scenario to me is simply not possible in the first place. 

Employee to boss.....I need a raise.

Boss to employee.....so do I.

Employee to boss.....I'm not here to speak about you getting raise, I'm here to speak about my getting a raise.

Boss to employee........Ummmmmmm, we have a wage freeze on (or whatever other answer you care to suggest Beaver101.

Employee to boss.......That's too bad, I have been quite happy here up until now. I am sorry to have to tell you I will be leaving at the end of the day. Do you want a written resignation?

Anyone can write a hypothetical conversation any way they want to Beaver101. The question is how does someone actually ACT in such a situation.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> Actually such a scenario is only 'up to date' for some people. *Such a scenario to me is simply not possible in the first place. *


 ... then I'm afraid you're behind which shouldn't be a surprise to me considering that you have retired (aka out of the workforce) some time ago.



> Employee to boss.....I need a raise.
> 
> Boss to employee.....so do I.
> 
> ...


 ... your example is no different from sag's version ... both are professional and polite responses. But hidden behind there is nothing but BS excuses ... perhaps it is true business is slow, there's an oncoming recession and a wage freeze is imposed ... for the bottom-rungs. But meanwhile, you hear that your boss can't decide on the new oak or maghogany furniture/desk to get for his/her office. It was part of the budget!



> Employee to boss.......That's too bad, I have been quite happy here up until now. I am sorry to have to tell you I will be leaving at the end of the day. Do you want a written resignation?


 ... so you would think a threat to quit will get the employee the wage increase when the boss already gave him/her the excuse of a freeze. 



> Anyone can write a hypothetical conversation any way they want to Beaver101. The question is how does someone actually ACT in such a situation.


 ... I did not interpret sag's posting as merely a "hypothetical" and a "conversation". In fact, those "conversations" are reflective of real scenarios I have encountered in the working world. I'll save you from listening to the ugly versions since you''ll think they're made up. 

What I have added to sag's script is in fact what the boss will be planning as a next step to ensure no one else has the courage to go up and ask for a raise ... or as JAG's strategy: instill fear so employees can work harder, faster, smarter, cheaper, etc.. Ie. more productive. And this works exceptionally well particularly with an oncoming recession ... so the boss ask who else wants to quit?

A simple afterthough: Why do you think the FIRE concept is trending so popular now? Better yet, I'm interested to know why you decided to retire so early, if you didn't win the lottery.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> ...
> 
> ... so would think a threat to quit will get the employee the wage increase? When the boss already gave him/her the excuse of a freeze.
> 
> ... I did not interpret sag's posting as merely a "hypothetical" and "conversation". In fact, those "conversations" are reflective of real scenarios I have encountered in the working world.


I realize such conversations occur Beaver101, they did even back in the days when I worked for a living. But what you call a 'threat' is in fact not a threat, it is a statement of fact Beaver101. It is past the stage of there being a possibility of an agreement to continue the relationship. Once stated, it is a done deal. Even if the 'boss' were to turn around and say, 'oh, no, wait a minute, I don't want you to leave, I will double your pay', that can't happen. Once stated, the action must be taken.

Only a fool would accept a raise after having been refused one and stating that they were leaving. The relationship that would then exist would be as toxic as it could be. I don't know why you would even interpret it as a 'threat' to begin with. 

The only other acceptable response in my view would be to say nothing and go home to update your resume and start getting it out there to find another job. That in most cases would probably be the wiser choice than just up and quitting that same day with no new job to go to. But in the heat of the moment, I tend to act first and worry about how to resolve the ensuing situation later. That's just me.

I often wonder what some people think the word 'unacceptable' really means. They say it and then do the opposite. They accept what they are given and DO nothing about it. That's their problem. Acceptance.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Longtimeago said:
> 
> 
> > ... Employee to boss.......That's too bad, I have been quite happy here up until now. I am sorry to have to tell you I will be leaving at the end of the day. Do you want a written resignation?
> ...


What I have observed is that most often the boss sticks to the script. 

A fair amount of time, the employee grumbles but stays on the job. If the employee leaves then depending on the job market at the time/skills to be replaced pays far more, the same or less to the new employee.

In a few rare cases where the manager was banking on employee inertia or buying into the expressed reason - the manager then makes a counter offer. Usually the employee figures if the money can somehow be found after quitting - they are better off elsewhere. Once in a while, the counter off keeps the employee.


One of the scenarios that I found fascinating when:
Employee to boss ... Here is how I am exceeding the job expectations, am more productive and worth more. I'd like to how to get a raise/promotion with a raise.
Boss to Employee ... Times are tough, expenses are up, employees to hire are plentiful and the company has a wage freese to stay competitive.
Employee to boss ... Here's my resignation. In this tough job market, I've got a job.
Boss to Employee ... Sad to see you go.

Nine months later
Ex - Employee to boss ... I've learned a lot at the new company that I think will help - how about hiring me back with these extras including a much larger raise?
Boss to Employee ... I can do that - the extras etc. can be worked out with HR because of all that new info the company will benefit from.




Longtimeago said:


> ... But what you call a 'threat' is in fact not a threat, it is a statement of fact Beaver101. It is past the stage of there being a possibility of an agreement to continue the relationship. Once stated, it is a done deal. Even if the 'boss' were to turn around and say, 'oh, no, wait a minute, I don't want you to leave, I will double your pay', that can't happen. Once stated, the action must be taken.
> 
> Only a fool would accept a raise after having been refused one and stating that they were leaving. The relationship that would then exist would be as toxic as it could be ...


Using a paraphrase - "There are more things in the business world LTA than are dreamt of in your philosophy". While rare, the substantial counter offer after a resignation has been made and accepted on more than one occasion that I am aware of. 

The most convoluted I can recall was:

*Tuesday*
Employee to Boss ... I've been head hunted for a while, I like working here but the offer is too good. Can we work something out so I can stay?
Boss to Employee ... Let me talk to HR and I'll get back to you tomorrow.

*Wednesday*
Boss to Employee ... Here's the counter offer.
Employee to Boss ... Let me think about it and I'll let you know tomorrow.

*Thursday* 
Employee to Boss ... It's too good an offer, I am resigning.
Boss to Employee ... Are you sure? Here's some additional items that might change your mind.
Employee to Boss ... After reviewing them, I am still resigning.

*Monday *
Ex-Employee to Boss ... Sorry to be a pain but is that sweetened offer still available? I've been getting feedback that the new place is a sweatshop.
Employee to Boss ... Sure, sign on the dotted line and we'll set you up again as an employee.

*Tuesday*
Boss to Management Team ... Studies and statistics say that counter offers are only good for about twelve to fifteen months so we need to have plans in place to be ready for when Employee leaves for good.




Longtimeago said:


> ... The only other acceptable response in my view would be to say nothing and go home to update your resume and start getting it out there to find another job. That in most cases would probably be the wiser choice than just up and quitting that same day with no new job to go to. But in the heat of the moment, I tend to act first and worry about how to resolve the ensuing situation later. That's just me.


Having seen employees ask the boss for a raise, go down to HR to "negotiate" but instead be fired - I prefer to have a job offer first. But that's just me.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Longtimeago said:


> I realize such conversations occur Beaver101, they did even back in the days when I worked for a living. But what you call a 'threat' is in fact not a threat, it is a statement of fact Beaver101. It is past the stage of there being a possibility of an agreement to continue the relationship. Once stated, it is a done deal. Even if the 'boss' were to turn around and say, 'oh, no, wait a minute, I don't want you to leave, I will double your pay', that can't happen. Once stated, the action must be taken.
> 
> Only a fool would accept a raise after having been refused one and stating that they were leaving. The relationship that would then exist would be as toxic as it could be. I don't know why you would even interpret it as a 'threat' to begin with.


 ... because you said:


> Employee to boss.......That's too bad, I have been quite happy here up until now. I am sorry to have to tell you I will be leaving at the end of the day. *Do you want a written resignation?*


... why would you need to ask your boss if he wants a written resignation when you said you'll be leaving at the end of the day. In fact, why even leave at the end of the day or resigning at the the day. It would have been simpler to say "I quit!" and leave then if it wasn't considered a "threat". 



> Definition (one) of "threat":
> n.
> 1. a declaration of an intention to inflict punishment, injury, etc., as in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course.


 ... by asking if your boss needs a written resignation or suggest leaving at the end of the day, is that not hoping your boss would have some time to change his mind or reconsider your request for that wage increase ... ie. I'm not getting that wage increase because I'm so good at what I do or that I'm your star employee who you'll be losing (soon), you better re-think of the consequences of your denial to increase my wage. Maybe the word "threat" is too strong here - what about a "bluff"?



> The only other acceptable response in my view would be to say nothing and go home to update your resume and start getting it out there to find another job. *That in most cases would probably be the wiser choice than just up and quitting that same day with no new job to go to.*


 ... well, there you go. Most employees would just keep their mouth-shut and not risk of being fired or made an example of. So there's leverage for the boss. In fact, it's invitation for future abuse ... the workplace just becomes more toxic. I guess that's the new future of the workplace.



> But in the heat of the moment, I tend to act first and worry about how to resolve the ensuing situation later. That's just me.


 ... which is not ununderstandable. 



> I often wonder what some people think the word 'unacceptable' really means. They say it and then do the opposite. They accept what they are given and DO nothing about it. That's their problem. Acceptance.


 ... yes, I have seen plenty of these folks too. But you can't force people to take action when they have a fear of the adversarial consequences to "themselves".


----------

