Gf Got A New Job As Finance Admin

[TommoPhysicist]

he somehow managed to short change me by one hundred baht despite counting it three times. She had no qualms about giving me the extra hundred baht when I queried

That's because this incident was attempted theft, rather than a mistake.

[chiang mai]

he somehow managed to short change me by one hundred baht despite counting it three times. She had no qualms about giving me the extra hundred baht when I queried

That's because this incident was attempted theft, rather than a mistake.

I have had cashiers attempt to deliberately short change me in the past, this wasn't one of those times. It's helpful if a person intends to live here to understand the difference between deliberate theft and incompetence & absent mindedness. What I didn't include in my earlier post is that half way through our transaction, just as she was begining to count my change for the first time, her manager interupted her by sticking a page of paper in front of her, not so much as an excuse me or I can see you're mid transaction so I'll wait, he just charged in. What folowed is that she tried to answer the manager, put the money down on the counter, then put it back in the cash drawer and then, before she had really finished with the manager, took the money back out of the cash draw again. As I watched all of that taking place I was certain the change was going to be incorrect. So the problem in that particular instance is not entirely maths but process.

[TommoPhysicist]

I have had cashiers attempt to deliberately short change me in the past, this wasn't one of those times. It's helpful if a person intends to live here to understand the difference between deliberate theft and incompetence & absent mindedness. What I didn't include in my earlier post is that half way through our transaction, just as she was begining to count my change for the first time, her manager interupted her by sticking a page of paper in front of her, not so much as an excuse me or I can see you're mid transaction so I'll wait, he just charged in. What folowed is that she tried to answer the manager, put the money down on the counter, then put it back in the cash drawer and then, before she had really finished with the manager, took the money back out of the cash draw again. As I watched all of that taking place I was certain the change was going to be incorrect. So the problem in that particular instance is not entirely maths but process.

It's a mistake when they try to hand me more money, attempted theft appears more common.

But I'm happy you were happy, that it wasn't.

[MeHere]

Tell her to get a family member to sign (father, mother, brother, sister).

You have no commitment to her, you are only a guy sleeping with her.

dam_n mate, that's pretty rough when you don't even know what our relationship is... Actually, she is my REAL girlfriend that I've been with for some time, not just a short time I bought in a bar.

It really amazes me that so many people familiar enough with Thailand to be posting on this forum still think that every girl in this country is just a hooker.

[TommoPhysicist]

girlfriend, fiancée, wife

Two of those you would have responsibility towards, if you have been with a girl 'for some time' and have not progressed the relationship, that indicates 'no commitment', to my mind at least.

[somchaimaidai]

It is amazing how many 'non hookers' in this country that will reconsider with 10k Bht offered. It has seemed to be the magic number for some time now probably due to it being, in my opinion equal to a lot of girls monthly salaries, although I guess that could change.

Back to subject, I spoke to the Accounts manager at work and she had not heard of a guarantor required for such a position.

[Bangkokhatter]

girlfriend, fiancée, wife

Two of those you would have responsibility towards, if you have been with a girl 'for some time' and have not progressed the relationship, that indicates 'no commitment', to my mind at least.

If you read the whole thread, you would have seen he has sorted out the problem. What business is it of yours how he conducts his relationship and why post such crap when you know nothing about him or her !

[4evermaat]

interesting that for certain jobs you must prove yourself first or get someone to vouch for you. Does this happen with other ASEAN countries, where a voucher/reference or even some temporary bond is required prior to securing the job?

[CMSteve]

Happens in almost every country in the world.

When I got my first job at a bank/brokerage, I had to supply references, and submit to a criminal background check, credit check, and drug screening. However, in America, people are traceable and trackable. We have credit histories to protect, trackable social security numbers, registered addresses, phone numbers that require more than a stop at the 7-11 to change, etc.

Here in Thailand, the ability to track and trace is very minimal so they ask for a actual cash deposit. Its the same around the world, just applied differently.

interesting that for certain jobs you must prove yourself first or get someone to vouch for you. Does this happen with other ASEAN countries, where a voucher/reference or even some temporary bond is required prior to securing the job?

[fletchsmile]

For reference, this is becoming less common in Thailand than it was historically. I've come across it in companies I worked with, although modern companies and international companies etc it is much less common.

The 1998 Labour Act changed things. Previously money guarantees were not prohibited. After the 1998 Labour Act money guarantees are now prohibited, with as usual exceptions. So in general money guarantees are now prohibited (hence one reason less common) unless the employee is assigned to work with handling money, in which case it's permissible. Given your girlfriend works with money it's legal if somewhat antiquated in my view. BTW This is for money bonds taken.

[chiang mai]

For reference, this is becoming less common in Thailand than it was historically. I've come across it in companies I worked with, although modern companies and international companies etc it is much less common.

The 1998 Labour Act changed things. Previously money guarantees were not prohibited. After the 1998 Labour Act money guarantees are now prohibited, with as usual exceptions. So in general money guarantees are now prohibited (hence one reason less common) unless the employee is assigned to work with handling money, in which case it's permissible. Given your girlfriend works with money it's legal if somewhat antiquated in my view. BTW This is for money bonds taken.

Nonesence, why would you even require a bond if the position did not involve handling money in some form! Nothing has changed, despite 1998!

[fletchsmile]

For reference, this is becoming less common in Thailand than it was historically. I've come across it in companies I worked with, although modern companies and international companies etc it is much less common.

The 1998 Labour Act changed things. Previously money guarantees were not prohibited. After the 1998 Labour Act money guarantees are now prohibited, with as usual exceptions. So in general money guarantees are now prohibited (hence one reason less common) unless the employee is assigned to work with handling money, in which case it's permissible. Given your girlfriend works with money it's legal if somewhat antiquated in my view. BTW This is for money bonds taken.

Nonesence, why would you even require a bond if the position did not involve handling money in some form! Nothing has changed, despite 1998!

Sorry but I'll take the opinion of Sathitya Lengthaisong J. LL.B (Thammasat University) Barrister-at-Law with Distinction Former Law Professor of Chulalongkorn University Law School and Former Justice of the Supreme Court over yours given that's who I summarised above. Source: p93 section 4 in his book "Thai Law for foreigners" which I've read a few times and often use as a simple first point of reference for Thai legal issues. I've also been on the side of senior level management in a Thai company setting a policy on this particular issue of taking money as a bond from employees, so was familiar where to look it up to give you an exact reference.

Now perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to your source and your experience

Seems like you've just made a statement based on your own version of what you think is logical in Thailand, without any first hand experience, historical context or actual legal references, but I'll keep an open mind and afford you the courtesy that you obviously didn't afford me before spouting off

Edited April 24, 2012 by fletchsmile

[chiang mai]

For reference, this is becoming less common in Thailand than it was historically. I've come across it in companies I worked with, although modern companies and international companies etc it is much less common.

The 1998 Labour Act changed things. Previously money guarantees were not prohibited. After the 1998 Labour Act money guarantees are now prohibited, with as usual exceptions. So in general money guarantees are now prohibited (hence one reason less common) unless the employee is assigned to work with handling money, in which case it's permissible. Given your girlfriend works with money it's legal if somewhat antiquated in my view. BTW This is for money bonds taken.

Nonesence, why would you even require a bond if the position did not involve handling money in some form! Nothing has changed, despite 1998!

Sorry but I'll take the opinion of Sathitya Lengthaisong J. LL.B (Thammasat University) Barrister-at-Law with Distinction Former Law Professor of Chulalongkorn University Law School and Former Justice of the Supreme Court over yours given that's who I summarised above. Source: p93 section 4 in his book "Thai Law for foreigners" which I've read a few times and often use as a simple first point of reference for Thai legal issues. I've also been on the side of senior level management in a Thai company setting a policy on this particular issue of taking money as a bond from employees, so was familiar where to look it up to give you an exact reference.

Now perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to your source and your experience

Seems like you've just made a statement based on your own version of what you think is logical in Thailand, without any first hand experience, historical context or actual legal references, but I'll keep an open mind and afford you the courtesy that you obviously didn't afford me before spouting off

There are sheds loads of laws on the books in Thaiiand, the reality of what's applied and normal working practice is not untypically the opposite in most cases. Try telling a driver that he's supposed to stop at a red light because that's the law, or the building owner that he can't construct another story on his low rise or the resort owner that he can't build in a national forest, just because that's what the law says!

Our personal experiences on this subject are derived from two sources, the first being Mrs CM's work in Phuket and CM over the past nine years. Three jobs in three five star hotels (including the Chedi) where she worked at front desk or similar and inevitably handled cash, all positions required a cash bond up front as a condition of her employment. The second example comes from a family member who works for one of the second teir airlines in Thailand as a ticketing agent at an airport and because she handles cash, had to stump up a cash bond and provide two character referees.

Finally, I've read "Thai Law for Foriegners" and it's a great book, but it doesn't mirror the day to day operational procedures of life here in Thailand. It's great if you want to know details of the legislation that law makers have enacted but as the UN stated recently, and this is not a precise quote but you'll get the drift, Thailand excels at enacting laws but falls down badly on their enforcement.

End of spouting.

[fletchsmile]

For reference, this is becoming less common in Thailand than it was historically. I've come across it in companies I worked with, although modern companies and international companies etc it is much less common.

The 1998 Labour Act changed things. Previously money guarantees were not prohibited. After the 1998 Labour Act money guarantees are now prohibited, with as usual exceptions. So in general money guarantees are now prohibited (hence one reason less common) unless the employee is assigned to work with handling money, in which case it's permissible. Given your girlfriend works with money it's legal if somewhat antiquated in my view. BTW This is for money bonds taken.

Nonesence, why would you even require a bond if the position did not involve handling money in some form! Nothing has changed, despite 1998!

Sorry but I'll take the opinion of Sathitya Lengthaisong J. LL.B (Thammasat University) Barrister-at-Law with Distinction Former Law Professor of Chulalongkorn University Law School and Former Justice of the Supreme Court over yours given that's who I summarised above. Source: p93 section 4 in his book "Thai Law for foreigners" which I've read a few times and often use as a simple first point of reference for Thai legal issues. I've also been on the side of senior level management in a Thai company setting a policy on this particular issue of taking money as a bond from employees, so was familiar where to look it up to give you an exact reference.

Now perhaps you'd like to enlighten me as to your source and your experience

Seems like you've just made a statement based on your own version of what you think is logical in Thailand, without any first hand experience, historical context or actual legal references, but I'll keep an open mind and afford you the courtesy that you obviously didn't afford me before spouting off

There are sheds loads of laws on the books in Thaiiand, the reality of what's applied and normal working practice is not untypically the opposite in most cases. Try telling a driver that he's supposed to stop at a red light because that's the law, or the building owner that he can't construct another story on his low rise or the resort owner that he can't build in a national forest, just because that's what the law says!

Our personal experiences on this subject are derived from two sources, the first being Mrs CM's work in Phuket and CM over the past nine years. Three jobs in three five star hotels (including the Chedi) where she worked at front desk or similar and inevitably handled cash, all positions required a cash bond up front as a condition of her employment. The second example comes from a family member who works for one of the second teir airlines in Thailand as a ticketing agent at an airport and because she handles cash, had to stump up a cash bond and provide two character referees.

Finally, I've read "Thai Law for Foriegners" and it's a great book, but it doesn't mirror the day to day operational procedures of life here in Thailand. It's great if you want to know details of the legislation that law makers have enacted but as the UN stated recently, and this is not a precise quote but you'll get the drift, Thailand excels at enacting laws but falls down badly on their enforcement.

End of spouting.

So what you're saying is your experience is extremely limited and not relevant either. Its from 2 employees: - your wife and another family member both in low level positions handling money in the last 9 years

1) The change I mentioned affected people NOT handling money if you read again carefully what I wrote. All you've done is demonstrate zero experience of the effective change that you labelled as "nonesense". Pre 1998 someone could be asked for a guarantee if not handling money and post 1998 prohibited if not handling money. Someone handling money pre 1998 could have been asked for a guarantee and post 1998 could still be an exception to the new rule so no change. Your wife and family member are the latter.

2) Do the maths. Your wife wasn't even working in 1998. We're living in 2012 if you go back 9 years that's 2003, by your own admission. No experience there then of 1998

Now on the other hand I've been working here on and off for longer than your wife has been working, and a period that pre-dates 1998. I've also been working in companies and been responsible for oversight of these policies - and no not a front desk clerk or ticket sales person either, but C level role - ensuring policy over hundreds of employees. On one occasion I asked for specific legal opinion on this issue from lawyers.

That you think only someone handling money could cause a financial loss to a company, and write "why would you even require a bond if the position did not involve handling money in some form?" also seems to have been a key reason you posted your inaccurate statement.

Now if you're really going to say that because Somchai the taxi driver cuts a red light that the Labour Law is irrelevant, then I think you've somewhat proved that you don't know what your'e talking about on the particular point I made:)

Edited April 25, 2012 by fletchsmile

[chiang mai]

So what you're saying is your experience is extremely limited and not relevant either. Its from 2 employees: - your wife and another family member both in low level positions handling money in the last 9 years

1) The change I mentioned affected people NOT handling money if you read again carefully what I wrote. All you've done is demonstrate zero experience of the effective change that you labelled as "nonesense". Pre 1998 someone could be asked for a guarantee if not handling money and post 1998 prohibited if not handling money. Someone handling money pre 1998 could have been asked for a guarantee and post 1998 could still be an exception to the new rule so no change. Your wife and family member are the latter.

2) Do the maths. Your wife wasn't even working in 1998. We're living in 2012 if you go back 9 years that's 2003, by your own admission. No experience there then of 1998

Now on the other hand I've been working here on and off for longer than your wife has been working, and a period that pre-dates 1998. I've also been working in companies and been responsible for oversight of these policies - and no not a front desk clerk or ticket sales person either, but C level role - ensuring policy over hundreds of employees. On one occasion I asked for specific legal opinion on this issue from lawyers.

That you think only someone handling money could cause a financial loss to a company, and write "why would you even require a bond if the position did not involve handling money in some form?" also seems to have been a key reason you posted your inaccurate statement.

Now if you're really going to say that because Somchai the taxi driver cuts a red light that the Labour Law is irrelevant, then I think you've somewhat proved that you don't know what your'e talking about on the particular point I made:)

A grovelling apology is duly offered, I completely misread your initial post which sent me down a road and I never looked back.

[fletchsmile]

So what you're saying is your experience is extremely limited and not relevant either. Its from 2 employees: - your wife and another family member both in low level positions handling money in the last 9 years

1) The change I mentioned affected people NOT handling money if you read again carefully what I wrote. All you've done is demonstrate zero experience of the effective change that you labelled as "nonesense". Pre 1998 someone could be asked for a guarantee if not handling money and post 1998 prohibited if not handling money. Someone handling money pre 1998 could have been asked for a guarantee and post 1998 could still be an exception to the new rule so no change. Your wife and family member are the latter.

2) Do the maths. Your wife wasn't even working in 1998. We're living in 2012 if you go back 9 years that's 2003, by your own admission. No experience there then of 1998

Now on the other hand I've been working here on and off for longer than your wife has been working, and a period that pre-dates 1998. I've also been working in companies and been responsible for oversight of these policies - and no not a front desk clerk or ticket sales person either, but C level role - ensuring policy over hundreds of employees. On one occasion I asked for specific legal opinion on this issue from lawyers.

That you think only someone handling money could cause a financial loss to a company, and write "why would you even require a bond if the position did not involve handling money in some form?" also seems to have been a key reason you posted your inaccurate statement.

Now if you're really going to say that because Somchai the taxi driver cuts a red light that the Labour Law is irrelevant, then I think you've somewhat proved that you don't know what your'e talking about on the particular point I made:)

A grovelling apology is duly offered, I completely misread your initial post which sent me down a road and I never looked back.

Cheers Chiang Mai. You're a gent

[Naam]

a cash bond up front as a condition of employment

only in Thailand!

[chops]

Your gf has to work? Not something to brag about..

[MeHere]

Your gf has to work? Not something to brag about..

Actually, she doesn't 'have'to work, she wants to work, but... you do win the douchebag of the thread award!

[chiang mai]

Your gf has to work? Not something to brag about..

Actually, she doesn't 'have'to work, she wants to work, but... you do win the douchebag of the thread award!

+ 1, actually more like thousands I suspect!