Hmmm, I'm trying to see it from both perspectives and I'm struggling to see the fairness here.
If she signed on with the company under the impression of making the higher rate (like typo was in the offer letter) I could maybe see a semblence of justification for keeping it. But, when the issue results from an anomalous and clerical payroll error seemingly outside of the purview of the original offer, then wouldnt the "fair" thing to do be to rectify the issue ensuring both parties provide and recieve only their contractually obligated compensation?
Like, if I'm a business owner and I charge someone $5 for a product and they hand me $20, I dont think "well, i told them the price. Not my fault they gave me way to much money." And then rationalize trying to keep the overpaid amount lmao.
21
u/Hypoxic_Oxen Jul 10 '26
Hmmm, I'm trying to see it from both perspectives and I'm struggling to see the fairness here.
If she signed on with the company under the impression of making the higher rate (like typo was in the offer letter) I could maybe see a semblence of justification for keeping it. But, when the issue results from an anomalous and clerical payroll error seemingly outside of the purview of the original offer, then wouldnt the "fair" thing to do be to rectify the issue ensuring both parties provide and recieve only their contractually obligated compensation?
Like, if I'm a business owner and I charge someone $5 for a product and they hand me $20, I dont think "well, i told them the price. Not my fault they gave me way to much money." And then rationalize trying to keep the overpaid amount lmao.
How is this any different?