Does Ubc/True Understand People'S Plight?

[gregb]

A clear misunderstanding of the situation and the logistics involved by several members who are obviously blessed enough to not have been in the way of this slow moving train wreck and the misinformation and disinformation provided.

It's precisely BECAUSE the floods moved so slowly most of the time unless a levy broke that it was so hard to make a decision what to do and when to do it.. Many people have been displaced for MONTHS not days and most of you would be throwing your binky out of the pram if you didn't have your comfortable easy chair and Lao Kao next to you after only a few hours so your pompous, holier then though attitude is rubbish and as phony as you are..

It is not worth even trying to discuss anything with people who are a moral sewer. Whether karma exists or not, I truly hope some of the trolls on here who think they are better than everyone else simply because they got lucky this time get everything they deserve in the future.

[WarpSpeed]

A clear misunderstanding of the situation and the logistics involved by several members who are obviously blessed enough to not have been in the way of this slow moving train wreck and the misinformation and disinformation provided.

It's precisely BECAUSE the floods moved so slowly most of the time unless a levy broke that it was so hard to make a decision what to do and when to do it.. Many people have been displaced for MONTHS not days and most of you would be throwing your binky out of the pram if you didn't have your comfortable easy chair and Lao Kao next to you after only a few hours so your pompous, holier then though attitude is rubbish and as phony as you are..

It is not worth even trying to discuss anything with people who are a moral sewer. Whether karma exists or not, I truly hope some of the trolls on here who think they are better than everyone else simply because they got lucky this time get everything they deserve in the future.

+10

Crap! Typo on my previous post should read "holier then thou".

Edited November 22, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[dave111223]

I just came back 3 weeks in Hua Hin because Condo is finally accessible.

I expected to find a mailbox full of bills, but it's totally empty, no mail received. I'll be pretty pissed if companies start cutting my services for bills that have been delayed to flood.

Of course i do expect to pay for the services, but i'd expect most companies to at least extend the payment period until bills can actually be delivered.

I wouldn't considering expecting customers to wade through knee deep turd water in order to go pay the non-received bill in person as an acceptable policy (for example there is still water in front of the electric department, not sure if they are even open).

A "When we can get a bill to you, we'll expect you to pay it" policy would be fair i think.

Edited November 22, 2011 by dave111223

[Heng]

A clear misunderstanding of the situation and the logistics involved by several members who are obviously blessed enough to not have been in the way of this slow moving train wreck and the misinformation and disinformation provided.

It's precisely BECAUSE the floods moved so slowly most of the time unless a levy broke that it was so hard to make a decision what to do and when to do it.. Many people have been displaced for MONTHS not days and most of you would be throwing your binky out of the pram if you didn't have your comfortable easy chair and Lao Kao next to you after only a few hours so your pompous, holier then though attitude is rubbish and as phony as you are..

We spent most of the runoff buildup time shoring up our defenses (given, if we actually were hit with the bulk of the water, none of that would have been any good, but we didn't know that at the time) and making sure nothing irreplaceable was left at any of our properties, even properties with tenants. We're seriously discussing re-arranging (standard buy-sell-hold) our Bangkok heavy real estate portfolio before the waters have even receded. In these last couple of weeks, we've been placing sample orders for flood barriers and control systems to distribute (both retail and wholesale) for the floods in the coming years. If we can make the right deals, you won't be seeing 'big bags' next year. What we haven't been doing is sitting around watching the news waiting for someone to tell us what to do with our lives, nor our we sitting around complaining about the spotty postal service (hint: it's always spotty to some degree). We have dozens of employees who have been idle but it doesn't mean they don't get paid just because they have been sitting around on their rears... likely drinking Lao Kao and cold Leos.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Heng

[Heng]

A clear misunderstanding of the situation and the logistics involved by several members who are obviously blessed enough to not have been in the way of this slow moving train wreck and the misinformation and disinformation provided.

It's precisely BECAUSE the floods moved so slowly most of the time unless a levy broke that it was so hard to make a decision what to do and when to do it.. Many people have been displaced for MONTHS not days and most of you would be throwing your binky out of the pram if you didn't have your comfortable easy chair and Lao Kao next to you after only a few hours so your pompous, holier then though attitude is rubbish and as phony as you are..

It is not worth even trying to discuss anything with people who are a moral sewer. Whether karma exists or not, I truly hope some of the trolls on here who think they are better than everyone else simply because they got lucky this time get everything they deserve in the future.

In other words you have no answer for any situation where it's not the poor (well, middle class True Vision subscribers anyway) huddled masses vs. some big corporation. It's not a moral question at all. It's a simple financial one. You cut revenue to a company providing goods or services to the masses and you hurt the little people in said company before the guys in the 32nd floor office feel a thing. Plain and simple. Again, that's my response for the OP who apparently didn't feel the need to pay for a service he didn't 'use,' and whoever subsequently thought that he was in the right for feeling that way. You're 'using' said service whether you turn it on or not. You're 'using' said service whether you have electricity or not. It's no different than renting a condo for your kids at college or holding a patent or software license. You don't have to be actively using it all the time, the fact that it's on 'standby' for you means you're making use of it.

[bkkjames]

Exactly Heng, I pay XXX baht a month for internet whether I use it or not. Maybe the op should switch to pre-paid or pay as you go. Lol

[gregb]

A clear misunderstanding of the situation and the logistics involved by several members who are obviously blessed enough to not have been in the way of this slow moving train wreck and the misinformation and disinformation provided.

It's precisely BECAUSE the floods moved so slowly most of the time unless a levy broke that it was so hard to make a decision what to do and when to do it.. Many people have been displaced for MONTHS not days and most of you would be throwing your binky out of the pram if you didn't have your comfortable easy chair and Lao Kao next to you after only a few hours so your pompous, holier then though attitude is rubbish and as phony as you are..

It is not worth even trying to discuss anything with people who are a moral sewer. Whether karma exists or not, I truly hope some of the trolls on here who think they are better than everyone else simply because they got lucky this time get everything they deserve in the future.

In other words you have no answer for any situation where it's not the poor (well, middle class True Vision subscribers anyway) huddled masses vs. some big corporation. It's not a moral question at all. It's a simple financial one. You cut revenue to a company providing goods or services to the masses and you hurt the little people in said company before the guys in the 32nd floor office feel a thing. Plain and simple. Again, that's my response for the OP who apparently didn't feel the need to pay for a service he didn't 'use,' and whoever subsequently thought that he was in the right for feeling that way. You're 'using' said service whether you turn it on or not. You're 'using' said service whether you have electricity or not. It's no different than renting a condo for your kids at college or holding a patent or software license. You don't have to be actively using it all the time, the fact that it's on 'standby' for you means you're making use of it.

I could simply repeat my same statement above again but it still would not cause you to reflect on your sadly misguided beliefs. Congratulations on your greed and malevolence. I'm sure you'll do well.

[Heng]

A clear misunderstanding of the situation and the logistics involved by several members who are obviously blessed enough to not have been in the way of this slow moving train wreck and the misinformation and disinformation provided.

It's precisely BECAUSE the floods moved so slowly most of the time unless a levy broke that it was so hard to make a decision what to do and when to do it.. Many people have been displaced for MONTHS not days and most of you would be throwing your binky out of the pram if you didn't have your comfortable easy chair and Lao Kao next to you after only a few hours so your pompous, holier then though attitude is rubbish and as phony as you are..

It is not worth even trying to discuss anything with people who are a moral sewer. Whether karma exists or not, I truly hope some of the trolls on here who think they are better than everyone else simply because they got lucky this time get everything they deserve in the future.

In other words you have no answer for any situation where it's not the poor (well, middle class True Vision subscribers anyway) huddled masses vs. some big corporation. It's not a moral question at all. It's a simple financial one. You cut revenue to a company providing goods or services to the masses and you hurt the little people in said company before the guys in the 32nd floor office feel a thing. Plain and simple. Again, that's my response for the OP who apparently didn't feel the need to pay for a service he didn't 'use,' and whoever subsequently thought that he was in the right for feeling that way. You're 'using' said service whether you turn it on or not. You're 'using' said service whether you have electricity or not. It's no different than renting a condo for your kids at college or holding a patent or software license. You don't have to be actively using it all the time, the fact that it's on 'standby' for you means you're making use of it.

I could simply repeat my same statement above again but it still would not cause you to reflect on your sadly misguided beliefs. Congratulations on your greed and malevolence. I'm sure you'll do well.

Ah yes, the ol' silent treatment argument.

[Soutpeel]

Exactly Heng, I pay XXX baht a month for internet whether I use it or not. Maybe the op should switch to pre-paid or pay as you go. Lol

nows there an interesting business model UBC could try...

[Ulysses G.]

Ah yes, the ol' silent treatment argument.

[CanInBKK]

What we haven't been doing is sitting around watching the news waiting for someone to tell us what to do with our lives, nor our we sitting around complaining about the spotty postal service (hint: it's always spotty to some degree).

Dang! That's twice I've agreed with you in this same thread.

We prepared the best we could using ALL info available at the time, when the water came we left.

I don't think it's a matter of being "holier than anybody", but its just a matter of not relying on others (be it post office, the PM, FROC or anybody) and not blaming others when you're sitting on the roof of your house waiting for a boat.

[robblok]

Seems nobody got back to me on my claim that the seller is responsible for getting you an invoice. If the client is still at his home and has not changed locations the seller is obliged to give him the invoice there. If his method of delivery (post) does not work he is free to try other things (email / fax ect) But its not the clients responsibility to get the invoice.

This however does not mean the client does not have to pay. He will have to pay when he receives the invoice. I on the other hand will try to pay at one of the shops without an invoice if possible. But you cant blame clients for not having invoices and not paying.

As for the television service they are right that they want money for the service. Its not a fair world but they are entitled to it. If i buy a pizza and i don't eat it i still have to pay for it.

[Wavefloater]

If your TOT bill is past due you can't pay it at 7-11 or on the internet. If it's past due neither will accept it and you have to take a water taxi to the TOT office and pay it in person.

Of course people should pay its a contract. However people like me have a problem paying (before) because you cant leave your home. They should be a bit lenient for that. Anyway now that the 711 is open again we can pay our bills.

Wow I never knew that. I'm certainly never going to be late paying my TOT bill. There are no water taxis where I live, and I hate the idea of having to travel several hundred kilometers (probably to Bangkok) because of this requirement to get to the TOT office in a water taxi. Seems strange to me, but TIT.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

[WarpSpeed]

Exactly Heng, I pay XXX baht a month for internet whether I use it or not. Maybe the op should switch to pre-paid or pay as you go. Lol

Read the OP it's not Internet it's TV service, True Internet has made accommodations for us by charging hourly use instead of a months full service, which for us will amount to naught since we haven't used it but now we are not inconvenienced and have to get on queue for days or even weeks to have our service reconnected when the time comes to reinstate the account unlike what will happen if we disconnected our signal along with thousands of other customers and causing a flood if you'll pardon the unintended pun of reconnects....

[Heng]

Seems nobody got back to me on my claim that the seller is responsible for getting you an invoice. If the client is still at his home and has not changed locations the seller is obliged to give him the invoice there. If his method of delivery (post) does not work he is free to try other things (email / fax ect) But its not the clients responsibility to get the invoice.

This however does not mean the client does not have to pay. He will have to pay when he receives the invoice. I on the other hand will try to pay at one of the shops without an invoice if possible. But you cant blame clients for not having invoices and not paying.

As for the television service they are right that they want money for the service. Its not a fair world but they are entitled to it. If i buy a pizza and i don't eat it i still have to pay for it.

I'm sure there's somewhere halfway that both parties should be meeting. I don't agree that it's wholly on the customer's side of the bridge though for a lot of goods and services. If it were reversed to me it's like saying I don't need to give your paycheck unless you formally give me form 52 each month... and yes, mailing it to me must be your primary method of doing so. I know I've been paying you the exact same amount on the exact same day for the past 5 years, but I really need that paycheck request slip.

[bkkjames]

I read the op, same poor arguement_internet or tv.

[bkkjames]

I read the op, same poor arguement_internet or tv.

Good thing he didn't pay the annual package or he would be on here looking for a refund cause its true's fault or something.

[dave111223]

I'm sure there's somewhere halfway that both parties should be meeting. I don't agree that it's wholly on the customer's side of the bridge though for a lot of goods and services. If it were reversed to me it's like saying I don't need to give your paycheck unless you formally give me form 52 each month... and yes, mailing it to me must be your primary method of doing so. I know I've been paying you the exact same amount on the exact same day for the past 5 years, but I really need that paycheck request slip.

You would at least expect employees to come to pickup their paycheck though wouldn't you?

If employee said "I don't want to pick up my check, I don't want to give you any forms; I want you walk to my inaccessible house and hand deliver my payment", would that not be a more accurate analogy?

[robblok]

Seems nobody got back to me on my claim that the seller is responsible for getting you an invoice. If the client is still at his home and has not changed locations the seller is obliged to give him the invoice there. If his method of delivery (post) does not work he is free to try other things (email / fax ect) But its not the clients responsibility to get the invoice.

This however does not mean the client does not have to pay. He will have to pay when he receives the invoice. I on the other hand will try to pay at one of the shops without an invoice if possible. But you cant blame clients for not having invoices and not paying.

As for the television service they are right that they want money for the service. Its not a fair world but they are entitled to it. If i buy a pizza and i don't eat it i still have to pay for it.

I'm sure there's somewhere halfway that both parties should be meeting. I don't agree that it's wholly on the customer's side of the bridge though for a lot of goods and services. If it were reversed to me it's like saying I don't need to give your paycheck unless you formally give me form 52 each month... and yes, mailing it to me must be your primary method of doing so. I know I've been paying you the exact same amount on the exact same day for the past 5 years, but I really need that paycheck request slip.

Different story, here you often need to use invoice nr and bar codes to pay. Else there is no problem in paying the bill. If someone tells me this is the invoice nr and this is the amount. I have no problem paying without a bill. But without any details it gets a bit hard.

Sometimes (as i did with my phone's) you can to a shop and just give your phone nr no bills needed. That is what i did on one of the trips out.

In situations like this there should be some middle ground. I am doing my best to keep things in order, and i expect no free service.

Anyway still have to find a way to pay my AIS bill (that i did not receive) will require some traveling with military trucks to get to a place where i can pay. I doubt there will be many companies that cut off service right away.

I know i am supposed to get an internet bill too but that one you really need your bar code even with a bar code and invoice they seem to mess up at times.

[Heng]

I'm sure there's somewhere halfway that both parties should be meeting. I don't agree that it's wholly on the customer's side of the bridge though for a lot of goods and services. If it were reversed to me it's like saying I don't need to give your paycheck unless you formally give me form 52 each month... and yes, mailing it to me must be your primary method of doing so. I know I've been paying you the exact same amount on the exact same day for the past 5 years, but I really need that paycheck request slip.

You would at least expect employees to come to pickup their paycheck though wouldn't you?

If employee said "I don't want to pick up my check, I don't want to give you any forms; I want you walk to my inaccessible house and hand deliver my payment", would that not be a more accurate analogy?

Well, if I'd expect that employees would come and pick up their paychecks anyway, even without 'form 52' then yes, that would be the same as companies expecting payment from their customers even without a bill in hand.

As for the latter example, I'm not imagining a situation where folks are in inaccessible houses... I'm simply talking about the principle of people being responsible for timely payments without a physical paper bill in hand. I'm not saying people should be risking life and limb to pay their utility or whatever bills. Continued use of goods or services without making an attempt to pay for said items whilst using a lack of invoice as an excuse IMO isn't right. We've come across squatters on our property before who didn't feel they were responsible for past rent just because we didn't 'catch' them and sign them up to rental contracts until that present time.

[Heng]

Seems nobody got back to me on my claim that the seller is responsible for getting you an invoice. If the client is still at his home and has not changed locations the seller is obliged to give him the invoice there. If his method of delivery (post) does not work he is free to try other things (email / fax ect) But its not the clients responsibility to get the invoice.

This however does not mean the client does not have to pay. He will have to pay when he receives the invoice. I on the other hand will try to pay at one of the shops without an invoice if possible. But you cant blame clients for not having invoices and not paying.

As for the television service they are right that they want money for the service. Its not a fair world but they are entitled to it. If i buy a pizza and i don't eat it i still have to pay for it.

I'm sure there's somewhere halfway that both parties should be meeting. I don't agree that it's wholly on the customer's side of the bridge though for a lot of goods and services. If it were reversed to me it's like saying I don't need to give your paycheck unless you formally give me form 52 each month... and yes, mailing it to me must be your primary method of doing so. I know I've been paying you the exact same amount on the exact same day for the past 5 years, but I really need that paycheck request slip.

Different story, here you often need to use invoice nr and bar codes to pay. Else there is no problem in paying the bill. If someone tells me this is the invoice nr and this is the amount. I have no problem paying without a bill. But without any details it gets a bit hard.

Sometimes (as i did with my phone's) you can to a shop and just give your phone nr no bills needed. That is what i did on one of the trips out.

In situations like this there should be some middle ground. I am doing my best to keep things in order, and i expect no free service.

Anyway still have to find a way to pay my AIS bill (that i did not receive) will require some traveling with military trucks to get to a place where i can pay. I doubt there will be many companies that cut off service right away.

I know i am supposed to get an internet bill too but that one you really need your bar code even with a bar code and invoice they seem to mess up at times.

Yeah, of course that makes sense for bills that have a unique bar code with each billing cycle. The AIS (and DTAC, etc.) system is a nice 'common ground' payment system that folks have adopted pretty well. If I had my way, it'd be a simple fingerprint or eyeball scan to pay for all of one's bills and to do your banking without any need for silly things like comparing signatures, etc.

[dave111223]

Well, if I'd expect that employees would come and pick up their paychecks anyway, even without 'form 52' then yes, that would be the same as companies expecting payment from their customers even without a bill in hand.

Surely you can see the flaw in your logic here.

You said that paying employees and paying service provider is a comparable situation, however then go on to say:

The employee is the one receiving money: You would expect them to pickup money

The service provider is the one receiving money: You would not expect them to pick up money, but in fact have money delivered to them.

Therefore employee and service provider are not comparable; at least not in the way of your original analogy.

Edited November 23, 2011 by dave111223

[Heng]

Well, if I'd expect that employees would come and pick up their paychecks anyway, even without 'form 52' then yes, that would be the same as companies expecting payment from their customers even without a bill in hand.

Surely you can see the flaw in your logic here.

You said that paying employees and paying service provider is a comparable situation, however then go on to say:

The employee is the one receiving money: You would expect them to pickup money

The service provider is the one receiving money: You would not expect them to pick up money, but in fact have money delivered to them.

Therefore employee and service provider are not comparable; at least not in the way of your original analogy.

The logic is: I would expect that the employees would make an attempt at picking up their paychecks IN PERSON in the same way that customers "should" make an attempt at paying their bills on time IN PERSON (sans a paper bill). Naturally many folks don't make that attempt, simply because when it's 'money in' you try.... when it's 'money out' it's easier to make an excuse. Not too complicated, the original statement was a simple role reversal... another way of saying it is 'there's a flood, you're an employee, you still expect that you'll get paid'..... well, that's not so different than 'there's a flood, I'm the CEO, we still expect our bills to be paid on time.'

[robblok]

Well, if I'd expect that employees would come and pick up their paychecks anyway, even without 'form 52' then yes, that would be the same as companies expecting payment from their customers even without a bill in hand.

Surely you can see the flaw in your logic here.

You said that paying employees and paying service provider is a comparable situation, however then go on to say:

The employee is the one receiving money: You would expect them to pickup money

The service provider is the one receiving money: You would not expect them to pick up money, but in fact have money delivered to them.

Therefore employee and service provider are not comparable; at least not in the way of your original analogy.

The logic is: I would expect that the employees would make an attempt at picking up their paychecks IN PERSON in the same way that customers "should" make an attempt at paying their bills on time IN PERSON (sans a paper bill). Naturally many folks don't make that attempt, simply because when it's 'money in' you try.... when it's 'money out' it's easier to make an excuse. Not too complicated, the original statement was a simple role reversal... another way of saying it is 'there's a flood, you're an employee, you still expect that you'll get paid'..... well, that's not so different than 'there's a flood, I'm the CEO, we still expect our bills to be paid on time.'

I don't agree (do agree that people tend to make up excuses not to pay easier then getting out of receiving money).

But as a company you select the way you make and distribute your invoices. The client selects the way he pays. So getting the invoice to the client is your responsibility. The responsibility of the client is to pay and you cant pay without an invoice for many things.

However in a situation like this both parties should give consideration to the other.

[Heng]

Well, if I'd expect that employees would come and pick up their paychecks anyway, even without 'form 52' then yes, that would be the same as companies expecting payment from their customers even without a bill in hand.

Surely you can see the flaw in your logic here.

You said that paying employees and paying service provider is a comparable situation, however then go on to say:

The employee is the one receiving money: You would expect them to pickup money

The service provider is the one receiving money: You would not expect them to pick up money, but in fact have money delivered to them.

Therefore employee and service provider are not comparable; at least not in the way of your original analogy.

The logic is: I would expect that the employees would make an attempt at picking up their paychecks IN PERSON in the same way that customers "should" make an attempt at paying their bills on time IN PERSON (sans a paper bill). Naturally many folks don't make that attempt, simply because when it's 'money in' you try.... when it's 'money out' it's easier to make an excuse. Not too complicated, the original statement was a simple role reversal... another way of saying it is 'there's a flood, you're an employee, you still expect that you'll get paid'..... well, that's not so different than 'there's a flood, I'm the CEO, we still expect our bills to be paid on time.'

I don't agree (do agree that people tend to make up excuses not to pay easier then getting out of receiving money).

But as a company you select the way you make and distribute your invoices. The client selects the way he pays. So getting the invoice to the client is your responsibility. The responsibility of the client is to pay and you cant pay without an invoice for many things.

Rob, do you think you are liable for late fees and interest (that are stipulated in the contract) if you don't get a paper bill in the mail for whatever reason (flood, postal performance, crocodiles, etc.)?

[robblok]

Surely you can see the flaw in your logic here.

You said that paying employees and paying service provider is a comparable situation, however then go on to say:

The employee is the one receiving money: You would expect them to pickup money

The service provider is the one receiving money: You would not expect them to pick up money, but in fact have money delivered to them.

Therefore employee and service provider are not comparable; at least not in the way of your original analogy.

The logic is: I would expect that the employees would make an attempt at picking up their paychecks IN PERSON in the same way that customers "should" make an attempt at paying their bills on time IN PERSON (sans a paper bill). Naturally many folks don't make that attempt, simply because when it's 'money in' you try.... when it's 'money out' it's easier to make an excuse. Not too complicated, the original statement was a simple role reversal... another way of saying it is 'there's a flood, you're an employee, you still expect that you'll get paid'..... well, that's not so different than 'there's a flood, I'm the CEO, we still expect our bills to be paid on time.'

I don't agree (do agree that people tend to make up excuses not to pay easier then getting out of receiving money).

But as a company you select the way you make and distribute your invoices. The client selects the way he pays. So getting the invoice to the client is your responsibility. The responsibility of the client is to pay and you cant pay without an invoice for many things.

Rob, do you think you are liable for late fees and interest (that are stipulated in the contract) if you don't get a paper bill in the mail for whatever reason (flood, postal performance, crocodiles, etc.)?

I have no idea, i actually don't really care can't be much and if i get them im not going to moan about it because at most its a few hundred baht.

I do get your point those are probably waived so that is probably their way of meeting you on common ground.

[Heng]

I have no idea, i actually don't really care can't be much and if i get them im not going to moan about it because at most its a few hundred baht.

I do get your point those are probably waived so that is probably their way of meeting you on common ground.

I just meant the principle of it, not whether you knew that part of the contract or not.

[dave111223]

The logic is: I would expect that the employees would make an attempt at picking up their paychecks IN PERSON in the same way that customers "should" make an attempt at paying their bills on time IN PERSON (sans a paper bill)

In the first case you are saying the payee should be the one making the effort; but then in the second case that the payer should be the one making the effort.

And then go on to say that the two cases are the same?

Whichever way you look at your example Joe Average (employee and bill payer) is the one who gets the short end of the stick because of flooding?

My point is that due to flooding every transaction requires more effort (invoices go missing, travel difficulties etc..)

So why should customers/employees have to put in more effort to collecting their pay and paying their bills; while companies put zero extra effort into getting paid or making payments?

Edited November 24, 2011 by dave111223

[Heng]

The logic is: I would expect that the employees would make an attempt at picking up their paychecks IN PERSON in the same way that customers "should" make an attempt at paying their bills on time IN PERSON (sans a paper bill)

In the first case you are saying the payee should be the one making the effort; but then in the second case that the payer should be the one making the effort.

And then go on to say that the two cases are the same?

Whichever way you look at your example Joe Average (employee and bill payer) is the one who gets the short end of the stick because of flooding?

My point is that due to flooding every transaction requires more effort (invoices go missing, travel difficulties etc..)

So why should customers/employees have to put in more effort to collecting their pay and paying their bills; while companies put zero extra effort into getting paid or making payments?

My point is that Joe Average IMO maintains a double standard in that they would make an extra attempt in obtaining a paycheck but likely NOT to pay a bill. In one case he/she might say that they can't make a payment without a bill... but they would probably expect payment with or without any kind of paperwork if they were the ones expecting payment. Say if you announced that the 'big bags' protecting the city were filled with cash. You'd see kids, grandmas, and everyone else sitting around complaining about not getting bills in the mail swimming to get their pay day. I'm not saying 'big business' is any better of course, but they aren't the ones trying to get special treatment here.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Heng

[gregb]

Say if you announced that the 'big bags' protecting the city were filled with cash. You'd see kids, grandmas, and everyone else sitting around complaining about not getting bills in the mail swimming to get their pay day.

Completely ridiculous analogy. It doesn't even make sense in context. If the bags were filled with cash, it would be a free for all with everyone grabbing as much as they could. Of course people would wade through rivers of fecal matter for free cash.

Let's try and be even slightly reasonable. The 5000 baht payment for example. Nobody is "swimming" through putrid, stinking water trying to collect that. It will still be there when we can get back to the house to get a picture. So your entire premise is incorrect.

There is no hypocrisy by those who are suffering. And nobody is asking for special treatment. The subject of this thread is the morality of big businesses and whether they actually feel any moral responsibility to their customers, or if they are greedy, scum sucking maggots who exist solely to exploit the victims of this flood. You have not said a single thing which convinces me you even understand why the actions of large corporations are completely void of any type of social responsibility.

I don't doubt that under the current system the response by True is completely legal. But that misses the point entirely. That just says that the system of social norms that we have created and in which we are forced to operate is very suboptimal. And it appears the only way we are ever going to break out of this pit we have dug for ourselves is via violent revolution against those who benefit from it. Because people such as yourself are so indoctrinated into it that you can not even see its obvious flaws and the alternatives that could avoid them.