[denied] Hold providers accountable.

I'm legit not doing a TL;DR bc cbfed.

If a worker scams a client dont allow the "employer / povider" to report the worker.

The provider shouldn't be able to "report" the worker since most workers have no ties to sythe other than joining to find work.

If a worker scams a client the client should report the provider not the worker since in most situations the provider manipulates the client into thinking its a "workers" issue other than the provider.

When a provider hires a worker the worker should be vetted and the worker and provider are responsible after the point of hiring its the provider when placing that worker on a service.

Suggestion in short : Providers take responsibility for employees , providers can't open disputes on behalf of clients on said employees, if a provider has multiple issues with employees the provider should be flagged with a DNT/TWC since their judgment with workers is bad.

Simple, short thanks for joining.

Yellow Hat

 

If a client doesn't want to open a dispute then the provider in the situation opening the dispute should be held accountable for the dispute itself since the worker was "employed" under the providers name.

The worker would of never had the job without using the providers name so the providers name should be at fault not only the "employee"

Yellow Hat

 

EDIT: Suggestion from @Zora

1 worker going rogue is w/e, can happen
[2:59 AM]
2nd time it happens should be a TWC
[2:59 AM]
3rd time = ban

Pretty simple.

Yellow Hat

 

Aren't providers already held accountable?

Businesses/Partnerships: Anyone running a business or partnered service implicitly agrees to share responsibility for the actions of their co-owners, as well as any workers they employ WHILE THE WORKER IS ON SHIFT AND ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS. Thus, if a partner or worker scams, all owners of the business will be banned until the debt is repaid. Workers, however, are not liable for anyone's actions but their own (although it is up to the staff to determine who falls into that category).

Also, has there ever been scam reports opened by providers against their own workers as a way to swerve accountability? Genuinely asking because I've never encountered anything like that.

 

Aren't providers already held accountable?

They are.

 

[Lorenzo]

No support it's already a thing.

 

Employers should always be held accountable as they collect a deposit for specifically that reason.

 

Employers should always be held accountable as they collect a deposit for specifically that reason.

There have been many scam reports in which the worker was entrusted with something significantly more valuable (whether it be a task, the account itself, bank items, etc.) than the deposit itself.

Even if this is already a rule, I get where Hat is coming from. I've seen a bunch of RaS threads in which the service provider victimizes themselves and/or makes out like it's all their worker's fault. This is another great instance where @Superfluous suggestion on a negative feedback section could be benefical.

 

[Superfluous]

Also, has there ever been scam reports opened by providers against their own workers as a way to swerve accountability? Genuinely asking because I've never encountered anything like that.

There haven't been any successful ones made in an effort to flat-out swerve accountability (afaik), but we have seen them made in an effort to not have to pay out of their (the employer's) own pocket for a worker's theft.

Anyway, I'm going to close this as it isn't really a new suggestion. This is the current state of the world, and we will continue to handle these situations on a case-by-case basis. A blanket statement like "employers can't be scammed by their workers" is broad enough that applying it is probably unwise.