@LisaSTL wrote:
I'm not arguing the ethics because no returns means no returns so there is no justification. However, I don't see how this could be getting paid twice or double dipping. The reimbursement is basically a wash so the shopper is trading merchandise for an actual cash payment.
On a more pleasant note, welcome back BirdyC:-)
@BirdyC wrote:
If shoppers feel they have to get paid twice for an item they must purchase in order to "make it worthwhile," then they simply shouldn't accept the shop.
Hi Lisa, and thanks!
"Paid twice" wasn't the correct terminology, of course. But if a shopper is reimbursed for a purchased item and keeps it, it's a wash. No out-of-pocket expense, no loss, no profit. Say it's a $10 item with full reimbursement. If the shopper then returns the item, said shopper now has $10 more "in pocket" than what the shop fee was that was agreed upon, since the shopper will receive the initial $10 as reimbursement, then $10 again when returning.
I guess I should have said "paid back, then paid" for the item....
I learn something new every day, but not everyday!
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.
I've learned to never trust spell-check or my phone's auto-fill feature.