4 ms·

Interesting law. That means that if you want to take a holiday from work you can just pay your employer the equivalent cash value of your labour instead of show

Interesting law. That means that if you want to take a holiday from work you can just pay your employer the equivalent cash value of your labour instead of showing up and there is nothing your employer can say about it since they are always required to accept money as payment. In fact, you can evade all contractual obligation by offering money in place of what was expected to be paid. I can see why it isn't generally honoured.

sschueller 3y ago
I don't have a problem with certain exceptions for online only retail or other specific cases. For example if you are a very small business. The law needs an update for sure.
- randomdata 3y ago
  Wouldn't it be much be easier to list the small handful of cases where you want it to apply? Think I am going to pay you in my house when you pay me money for said house? Ha! By this law, I can simply give you your money back. You are obligated to accept it since you must always accept money as payment, and now the house you lived in prior is gone. Seems incredibly problematic for the vast majority of transactions. Which is no doubt why nobody actually follows it.
  - sschueller 3y ago
    A million Swiss francs in bill form isn't that much. We have CHF 1,000 denominated bills and the law states the maximum in coins is CHF 100 that you have to accept.
    - jon_adler 3y ago
      1000 CHF notes must be a money launderers dream.
      - sschueller 3y ago
        Why would this be an issue today when a CHF 1000 has never been worth less than today? Any big money laundry is done digitally today.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    > Think I am going to pay you in my house when you pay me money for said house? Ha! By this law, I can simply give you your money back. No. That would be a violation of your sales agreement. That is a contract to transfer ownership of a property. Likewise after six months on a waiting list a surgeon cannot then say to their patient "Haha! No actually here's a cash payment instead. It's cash and you are obligated to accept according to Swiss law!". There would be legal consequences. It's not a contract to exchange a monetary value. It's a contractual obligation to provide a service and it is regulated.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    You are really hung up on misinterpreting this. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but this is like the 4th place you've confused "must accept cash for payments" with "must accept a cash replacement for goods or services purchased". Clearly, if I buy a good from you, you have to deliver me that good. And I have to pay you in some form. Because I am giving you a credit card or other cash equivalent, you have to accept cash (up to a certain level).
- Symbiote 3y ago
  As an example, Denmark requires businesses to accept cash payments between 6:00 and 22:00. At night a kiosk or petrol station or similar might only accept cars.
denverllc 3y ago
The law doesn’t say that at all. It only applies to instances in which payment is made, and says you can’t accept credit card and not cash: > Everyone is obliged to accept up to 100 Swiss regular issue coins in payment. Regular issue coins, commemorative coins and bullion coins are accepted at nominal value without restriction by the Swiss National Bank and the public cash offices of the Confederation. Nowhere does this imply that you can trade working for paying an equivalent cash amount of your labour.
- randomdata 3y ago
  > which payment is made Yes, that's right, labour offered in a trade is a form of payment. All trades sees both sides of the transaction make a payment. In the most common case as it pertains to employment, I pay you labour, you pay me money, at which point the trade is settled. But since the law states that money must always been accepted as a form of payment I can also pay you money in place of my labour. Per the law, the employer has to accept it. Thus, any time you don't want to go to work you simply have to offer money instead of labour, which you will get back since the employer is still obligated to fulfil their side of the trade. It's an interesting approach. But doesn't seem tenable in the real world, so it is not surprising that it is oft ignored. > and says you can’t accept credit card and not cash Exactly. Credit cards don't offer money, but instead offer tokens that you can later trade for money. Practicalities aside, no different than accepting chickens and then trading those chickens for money. Or no different than accepting labour and then trading that labour for money. It's all the same. A trade is a trade is trade. The law here requires that the cash must be accepted as a substitute in a trade.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    No, that is considered unpaid leave and it is a common practice where the cash amount is deducted from your salary. The terms of unpaid leave are determined by employment law and your employment contract.
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    You're mixing creative usages of language with legal terminology. Colloquially, in English, one could think of "labor" as a form of "payment" in the way you describe. In the legal context, things like "labor" and "payment" and "trade" have specific meanings. These meanings cannot be interchanged with any other "technically not grammatically incorrect" definition of the same word as it might be used in spoken English. Misunderstandings like this are also leveraged by, for example, the Sovereign Citizen movement, with similar levels of validity.
PhasmaFelis 3y ago
It doesn't mean any of that. "Obliged to accept as payment" does not mean "obliged to sell things that are not otherwise for sale." You've made three different comments now smugly pontificating on the implications of a law that you made up in your head and acting like it's equivalent to an actual law that we have the text of. What's going on?
- randomdata 3y ago
  That is what the law, as provided, states. Naturally one understands that law isn't just the words on the page, but also a tangled web of precedent. No doubt there is already plenty of precedent to invalidate usage of the law in many contexts, but that's where someone who understands the legal state in full detail would come in and add more colour, not just retort with "It doesn't mean that. I can't say why, but trust me, I know!" Ouch. And, well, if nobody here knows, at least I get to enjoy the button presses. Imagine people taking time out of their day to press a button just for me. I feel the love, for sure. That's worth something.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    That is unpaid leave. Any unauthorized leave, whether paid or unpaid, would be a violation of your employment contract. The terms are set by employment law and your employment contract.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    Actually, precedent only applies in common law systems. Switzerland has a civil law system. For somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, you sure do press a lot of buttons.

sschueller 3y ago

I don't have a problem with certain exceptions for online only retail or other specific cases. For example if you are a very small business. The law needs an update for sure.

randomdata 3y ago
Wouldn't it be much be easier to list the small handful of cases where you want it to apply? Think I am going to pay you in my house when you pay me money for said house? Ha! By this law, I can simply give you your money back. You are obligated to accept it since you must always accept money as payment, and now the house you lived in prior is gone. Seems incredibly problematic for the vast majority of transactions. Which is no doubt why nobody actually follows it.
- sschueller 3y ago
  A million Swiss francs in bill form isn't that much. We have CHF 1,000 denominated bills and the law states the maximum in coins is CHF 100 that you have to accept.
  - jon_adler 3y ago
    1000 CHF notes must be a money launderers dream.
    - sschueller 3y ago
      Why would this be an issue today when a CHF 1000 has never been worth less than today? Any big money laundry is done digitally today.
- xcv123 3y ago
  > Think I am going to pay you in my house when you pay me money for said house? Ha! By this law, I can simply give you your money back. No. That would be a violation of your sales agreement. That is a contract to transfer ownership of a property. Likewise after six months on a waiting list a surgeon cannot then say to their patient "Haha! No actually here's a cash payment instead. It's cash and you are obligated to accept according to Swiss law!". There would be legal consequences. It's not a contract to exchange a monetary value. It's a contractual obligation to provide a service and it is regulated.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  You are really hung up on misinterpreting this. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but this is like the 4th place you've confused "must accept cash for payments" with "must accept a cash replacement for goods or services purchased". Clearly, if I buy a good from you, you have to deliver me that good. And I have to pay you in some form. Because I am giving you a credit card or other cash equivalent, you have to accept cash (up to a certain level).
Symbiote 3y ago
As an example, Denmark requires businesses to accept cash payments between 6:00 and 22:00. At night a kiosk or petrol station or similar might only accept cars.

denverllc 3y ago

The law doesn’t say that at all. It only applies to instances in which payment is made, and says you can’t accept credit card and not cash: > Everyone is obliged to accept up to 100 Swiss regular issue coins in payment. Regular issue coins, commemorative coins and bullion coins are accepted at nominal value without restriction by the Swiss National Bank and the public cash offices of the Confederation. Nowhere does this imply that you can trade working for paying an equivalent cash amount of your labour.

randomdata 3y ago
> which payment is made Yes, that's right, labour offered in a trade is a form of payment. All trades sees both sides of the transaction make a payment. In the most common case as it pertains to employment, I pay you labour, you pay me money, at which point the trade is settled. But since the law states that money must always been accepted as a form of payment I can also pay you money in place of my labour. Per the law, the employer has to accept it. Thus, any time you don't want to go to work you simply have to offer money instead of labour, which you will get back since the employer is still obligated to fulfil their side of the trade. It's an interesting approach. But doesn't seem tenable in the real world, so it is not surprising that it is oft ignored. > and says you can’t accept credit card and not cash Exactly. Credit cards don't offer money, but instead offer tokens that you can later trade for money. Practicalities aside, no different than accepting chickens and then trading those chickens for money. Or no different than accepting labour and then trading that labour for money. It's all the same. A trade is a trade is trade. The law here requires that the cash must be accepted as a substitute in a trade.
- xcv123 3y ago
  No, that is considered unpaid leave and it is a common practice where the cash amount is deducted from your salary. The terms of unpaid leave are determined by employment law and your employment contract.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  You're mixing creative usages of language with legal terminology. Colloquially, in English, one could think of "labor" as a form of "payment" in the way you describe. In the legal context, things like "labor" and "payment" and "trade" have specific meanings. These meanings cannot be interchanged with any other "technically not grammatically incorrect" definition of the same word as it might be used in spoken English. Misunderstandings like this are also leveraged by, for example, the Sovereign Citizen movement, with similar levels of validity.

PhasmaFelis 3y ago

It doesn't mean any of that. "Obliged to accept as payment" does not mean "obliged to sell things that are not otherwise for sale." You've made three different comments now smugly pontificating on the implications of a law that you made up in your head and acting like it's equivalent to an actual law that we have the text of. What's going on?

randomdata 3y ago
That is what the law, as provided, states. Naturally one understands that law isn't just the words on the page, but also a tangled web of precedent. No doubt there is already plenty of precedent to invalidate usage of the law in many contexts, but that's where someone who understands the legal state in full detail would come in and add more colour, not just retort with "It doesn't mean that. I can't say why, but trust me, I know!" Ouch. And, well, if nobody here knows, at least I get to enjoy the button presses. Imagine people taking time out of their day to press a button just for me. I feel the love, for sure. That's worth something.
- xcv123 3y ago
  That is unpaid leave. Any unauthorized leave, whether paid or unpaid, would be a violation of your employment contract. The terms are set by employment law and your employment contract.
- lozenge 3y ago
  Actually, precedent only applies in common law systems. Switzerland has a civil law system. For somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, you sure do press a lot of buttons.