diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/posts/stealing-equipment.md | 34 |
1 files changed, 18 insertions, 16 deletions
diff --git a/content/posts/stealing-equipment.md b/content/posts/stealing-equipment.md index 91d604a..41e7210 100644 --- a/content/posts/stealing-equipment.md +++ b/content/posts/stealing-equipment.md @@ -29,22 +29,24 @@ relatively high rate of depreciation, and the more expensive it is to replace th cost of each portion of value consumed per use. So in reality, whenever an employee "borrows" a piece of company equipment for personal use, it costs the company money, -and there is no way of getting around this fact. Although, often viewed as being akin to stealing time, it is the same -as reaching into the proverbial till and pulling cash out, so it is a form of theft, and a strict interpretation of -law would designate it as stealing the equipment. This is because what matters is not your intent to return it at a -later point in time, what matters is taking the equipment and costing the company money for your personal use. - -Even if the employee has permission from the owners, it still costs the company money, and is more of a case of poor -managerial skills on the owners part, than an excuse for unacceptable behavior. Some employers try to mitigate this by -allowing employees to "rent" company equipment, but it never really works. There are other reasons, not even discussed -here, as to why one should avoid justifying such behavior. These factors would include whether the employee has proper -training to operate the equipment in question, who is going to pay for damages incurred by employees during the personal -use, what happens if the equipment is stolen by a third party, and what if the employee injures themselves or another -individual. Such occasions can be very tricky. - -It is not uncommon for insurance underwriters to contractually stipulate for company equipment to solely be used for -company purposes, or for purposes of earning capital for the company. Violating this contractual obligation can cause -insurance policies to be canceled, and can leave the company in a very vulnerable position. +and there is no way of getting around this fact. Although, often viewed as being akin to stealing time, it is relatively +the same as reaching into the proverbial till and pulling cash out, so it is a form of theft, and a strict +interpretation of law would view it as stealing equipment. This is because what matters is not your intent to +return it at a later point in time, rather the taking of the equipment and causing the company money for personal use. + +Even if the employee has permission from the owners of the company, it still costs the company money, and still places +an unnecessary amount of risk on the company. As it is not uncommon for insurance underwriters to contractually +stipulate for company equipment to solely be used for company purposes, in other words, solely for income producing +purposes. Violating these contractual requirements can result in cancellation of insurance policies or worse, and can +leave the company in a very vulnerable position. + +Some small business owners try to mitigate this by allowing employees to "rent" company equipment, but if the above is +not enough explanation enough to demonstrate why this is a bad idea, there are other reasons. Such as factors like +ensuring employees have proper training to operate, settling how repairs are to be handled in case the equipment is +damaged, what to do in order to prevent the equipment from being stolen, and the a method for handling accidental +injuries. All of which, should indicate the best strategy is to use company equipment for company work. + +{{< image src=https://res.cloudinary.com/solardump/image/upload/v1730930473/evidence/The-high-cost-of-construction-equipment-theft-.png >}} ### Conversation |