A POINT OF LOGIC...

Okay, so here's a question for all of you prompted by

the previous post.  First of all 'though, let me set the scene.

You're part of a group of six that works for a small business,

and one day, someone suggests setting up a Lottery syndicate.

"We'll each pay £12 into it every month in advance, and if

ever there's a winning ticket, we'll split the amount be-

tween us in equal shares."  So that's what you do.

Remember, this syndicate is only open to employees,

not outsiders.  One month you pay in your £12, and a few

days later, you give a fortnight's notice because you're sud-

denly offered a higher paid job elsewhere.  Shortly after, your

former colleagues strike it lucky with a huge Lottery win and

you rub your hands with glee because the ticket was one

of the ones you helped pay for before leaving.

But no!  Your erstwhile colleagues protest that the

winnings are for employees only, and that, as you're no

longer an employee, you're not entitled to any share of the

prize.  "It doesn't matter that you were an employee at the

time the winning ticket was bought, fact is, you're not any

more so you're entitled to Jack Squat" they all say in a

smug manner.  "Employees only" they repeat.

Now, if you have even an ounce of sense about you,

I'm sure you can see the flaw in the argument of the lucky

and greedy winners.  If you're an employee at the time when

what later becomes the winning ticket was purchased, because

you contributed to it, you're entitled to your share fair of the

proceeds from it.  That is essentially the exact same scenario

I outlined in the previous post, so the exact same principle

should be applied in both cases.  To suggest anything

else is simply absurd in my view.

Your honour, I rest my case.

So here's the question:  do you think the Lottery

syndicate is correct in their reasoning, and, if so, do you

think you'd be of the same view if you were the former

employee?  The comments section awaits.

Posted in: Cartoons