An employee works at a shop selling goods. He earns a commission off each product sold, but only if he sells $300 total in items that month.
At the end of the month, he’s up to $190 total, if he sells $110 more in goods, he earns his commission worth $120.
So he buys a speaker from the store for $110 with his own money. Now, he gets both the commission and the speaker and is still up by $10.
Was the employer cheated? On 1 hand, it’s gamifying the system. The $300 minimum is meant to motivate the employee to do their job on a daily basis. On the other hand, the employer didn’t really lose anything and actually made money from selling the goods at normal retail price. Did the employee commit an unethical act? Selling an item to yourself is typically explicitly forbidden in these circumstances, but this could be easily circumvented by having a friend make the purchase.

From the employees perspective, his job is ultimately to sell the items. Just because he knows with 100% certainty that a friend/family/colleague will buy, that is supposed to make it unethical?

From the employers perspective, the salesperson is gamifying the system because, the condition of wether or not he should get any commission at all is meant to depend on how good of a salesperson they are, and would see this as cheating.

>Was the employer cheated?
Yes, the employee gamed the system at the employer’s expense. By buying their own inventory to hit the $300 sales threshold, they generated $110 in revenue but triggered a $120 commission. Losing the company a $10 loss. If the loophole gets any more abused it would crater profit margins and eventually sink the business.

>>16703331
If the owner is paying a $120 bonus for $300 of sales, then, assuming the business model isn't completely fucking retarded, we can say that the owner is making a profit. So, $300 of sales must provide a profit greater than the sum of the commission ($120) and whatever the employee's wage is. The dollar value of the employee's purchase is irrelevant because the value of the commission is based on overall sales, not any individual one. Imagine if the employee was only $2 away from $300 in sales and instead of speakers buys a pack of gum. Is it fair to say the owner has lost $118?

No. If the current amount is at a dollar value such that the employee can buy something to get profit, then the company has already made >$120 profit between the past sales (Otherwise they wouldn't have this policy).

>>16703275 (OP)
>means testing commission bonuses
Funny. Also, I'm pretty sure that the employer set a certain cutoff like $300 precisely to account for such eventual gaps. In addition, What if:
1. The employee would rather have $120 rather than a $110 speaker and $10? This means he had to lose marginal value.
2. The store's speakers are overpriced and he could buy them more cheaply in other stores? This means he overpaid AND will struggle to regain the $110 even if he tries to resell the speakers still sealed in mint condition.

only if the employee, after receiving the bonus, returned the speaker to the store and got his 110 dollars back but kept the 120 dollar commission would it be unethical

>>16703275 (OP)
>he earns a commission off each product sold, but only if he sells $300 total in items that month
yeah hes being cheated

>>16703275 (OP)
>science &math

>>16703275 (OP)
Of course because money transactions are inherently unethical. The tokens are used to turn people from ends into means.

>>16703275 (OP)
Bitch worked a full month for $10 and a Temu bluetooth speaker. Fucking kek.

>>16703275 (OP)
The employee only earned $10 even though he could have earned $120 if his work actually increased sales to hit the $300 mark. No one was cheated. The employee received a bonus that corresponds to his sales in the end.

>>16706075
>and its the store owner getting scammed

>>16703275 (OP)
White people will argue endlessly about this sort of thing while the jew will simply do what he can to get the most out of the situation as the employee and the employer. The one who wins leaves with the most gained.
>Ethics
This is why we lose

>>16707378
> sheit, why he cut my hours every time i hits $295?!?

>>16703275 (OP)
The employer was willing to give up 12/30 of his share and did so. The only thing stupid here is that the employer did not create linear proportional incentives but a step.
Also if the speaker is worth 100$ to the employee the employee is lucky but would have bought a speaker anyways.
If the speaker is of no value to the employee they are up only 10$ until they find a person to whom the speaker is worth something.
Doesn't change the fact that the employer was willing to give up 12/30 and the conditions were met.

The employer committed an unethical act by not having an employee discount.

>>16703331
>they generated $110 in revenue but triggered a $120 commission
That would happen even if a real customer bought the speaker

>>16707589
In both scenarios this is the store's point of view.
But in one the cashier got himself a $110 speaker he needs to return.

Returns should raise the threshold for next month

Here’s a condensed, plaintext version under 2000 characters:

The employee’s scheme is absurd because the math doesn’t work. Spending $110 to trigger a $120 commission nets just $10—meaning they’re essentially loaning the company money for negligible gain. Retail markups are typically 50-100%, so a $110 speaker costs the store $55-$73. If the commission is $120, the employer loses money ($120 paid vs. $37-$55 profit), making the system unsustainable.

The $300 quota exists to ensure real sales, not self-sabotaging tricks. If employees buy their way to commissions, the employer might as well pay hourly since they’re subsidizing fake transactions. Many commission jobs have low base pay (e.g., $7.25/hr), so spending $110 to earn $120 is desperate and pointless.

While the employer profits from the speaker sale, widespread self-purchases distort performance metrics. Real revenue comes from external customers, not employees recycling wages. Self-buys are usually banned, and using a friend is still fraud. Employers audit and fire for this.

Verdict: The trick only works if the commission structure is incompetently designed. It turns the job into a Ponzi scheme, risks termination, and the $10 “profit” is worthless—they’d earn more by working an extra hour. The real flaw is the employer’s exploitable system, but the employee’s move is a self-own.

>>16703275 (OP)
The employee can also resell the speaker to recoup more of the value, so it's actually a better play than just $10. And in doing so he's still doing the job he was asked to.
Also, the employer makes at least 10x as much off the whole thing so the employee is not only morally clear finding hacks like this, but literally obligated to do so.