More PWA Violations
10-15-2018, 08:48 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Originally Posted by msp7er
There needs to be a harsh penalty add-on to the cost of non-compliance, not just a "make it equal" to what was lost.
A penalty for "trying". If it's just equal, there's no deterrent; in fact it would be a "there's no cost for trying, and if someone catches it, then oh so what it costs the same anyway".
A one-off might, maybe, possibly, happen. But the ongoing pattern of non-compliance is egregious. The only fix is a HARSH cost-for-trying, such that they decide it might be in THEIR best interest to in the future follow the contract.
A penalty for "trying". If it's just equal, there's no deterrent; in fact it would be a "there's no cost for trying, and if someone catches it, then oh so what it costs the same anyway".
A one-off might, maybe, possibly, happen. But the ongoing pattern of non-compliance is egregious. The only fix is a HARSH cost-for-trying, such that they decide it might be in THEIR best interest to in the future follow the contract.
We cannot allow them to operate in "deny deny deny" shady insurance company mode with our scope, with no penalty if they get caught other than having to pay what they would have paid had they not been caught. There has to be significant penalties.
10-15-2018, 09:30 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by msp7er
There needs to be a harsh penalty add-on to the cost of non-compliance, not just a "make it equal" to what was lost.
A penalty for "trying". If it's just equal, there's no deterrent; in fact it would be a "there's no cost for trying, and if someone catches it, then oh so what it costs the same anyway".
A one-off might, maybe, possibly, happen. But the ongoing pattern of non-compliance is egregious. The only fix is a HARSH cost-for-trying, such that they decide it might be in THEIR best interest to in the future follow the contract.
A penalty for "trying". If it's just equal, there's no deterrent; in fact it would be a "there's no cost for trying, and if someone catches it, then oh so what it costs the same anyway".
A one-off might, maybe, possibly, happen. But the ongoing pattern of non-compliance is egregious. The only fix is a HARSH cost-for-trying, such that they decide it might be in THEIR best interest to in the future follow the contract.
If I discover a pay error on my own, it should pay out double, if not triple. Without such penalties, this madness won't stop.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
