Marvo

Thanks Briggsy. My Non-Imm B gets renewed every year based on marriage, along with the normal mountain of paperwork. My main concern is can I wait until the DTV visa is approved before cancelling my Non-Imm B and surrendering my work permit? I am also concerned re what eyebrows would be raised when I apply for the DTV - stating that I will - going forward - not be working for a Thai company, but will from then on work (remotely) for an overseas company. Should I be expecting an unannounced knock at the door to see what I am up to?

Could any of you legendry learn-ed folk please help with comments on the extremely complicated scenario outlined below, if able: I've lived and worked (with work permit) in Thailand for many years, staying on extensions based on marriage, but now may end my employment with my wife's Thai Co. as am only going to be here in LOS for 5 months each year, with the intention of working remotely. I would like to explore surrendering my WP and changing over from a Non-im B visa to a DTV, as during the time I spend in Thailand, I will now be working remotely for my small UK company. Benefits seem to be, I could keep 500,000 THB equivalent in a UK account (Gov't Premium Bond savings account?) and still (legally) work remotely for my UK Co. while in Thailand. OK so far? I'm guessing I'd be pioneering, suspecting there are no reports yet of someone attempting to go from a Non-Im B to a DTV. I do wonder what mental contortions that would put Thai DTV officials through though? Any helpful thoughts, anyone?

As another example of UK Gov't practice, my (Thai) wife is currently on the five-year route to getting Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK. For the entire 5 yr period we have to supply evidence supporting the case that she is living and "habitually resident" in the UK. They have long since removed any "183 days" or "more than 6 months in a calendar year" criteria and replaced it with the "habitually resident" requirement. They are asking for 6-12 joint/individually addressed utility/bank/gov't correspondences evenly spread over the 5 years. So, we can assume the DWP will be equally fastidious when ascertaining "habitual residency" for re-linking state pension entitlements.

Anybody got the last year's "Excess Deaths" figures for Thailand? Wondered how we were doing, compared to back home.

O.P. here.... Apologies for my own thoughts and post being "wrong" ????. Thanks for the education and corrections - send me the bill ????. The story is about my son who works in a 7-11. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed as his brain was damaged, being starved of oxygen for over 2 minutes during birth. He's a lovely lad and although a bit "slow", works hard to the best of his ability and tries to please everyone. He was given a job managing the stock deliveries and re-stocking the shelves etc, which he has been doing very well at. BUT, the other day I found out that he has been put on the tills, handling banking transactions that 7-11 now does. One day his till was down 4,000 baht due to crediting a depositing customer's account for 17,000 baht instead of 13,000 baht. The customer never queried the 4,000 Baht extra credit. Subsequent review of the till CCTV showed up his difficulty counting all the cash and his counting error. 4,000 Baht was removed from my son's pay packet at the end of the month. It's a life lesson that will stand him in good stead, if he is able to learn from it, but I can't for the life of me understand how an employee employed as a "box-mover", with zero qualifications or never having passed internal financial competency tests beyond scanning a barcode, can find themselves working as a bank teller with full personal financial responsibility for sizable banking transactions. Thanks for everyone's contributions to this thread.

Not so strange. A few posters have highlighted the truth that staff get penalised for shortfalls beyond their control. Tills are shared, (unlike with the bank teller example). One member of staff pockets the cash and the rest of the staff have to pay. Couldn't agree more that a deterrent to pilfering has to be in place, but with shared tills, I really can't think of a fair solution to the "everybody pays" issue.

I’m just curious.... Is it legal for 7-eleven (or any company) to require or demand that their staff pay for shortfalls in till receipts, after takings reconciliation each day?