Wow, I have three posts in one day - so may not have another for a couple of weeks or more.
This isn't my usual subject, I'm not an economist or anything, but some things just seem wrong. So I'll be quick, honest...
I had the misfortune of becoming involved with some pesky financial matters - purchasing goods and services, and the like, in some form or other for some faceless corporate identity that shall remain unnamed.
This tongue-in-cheek post is a little insight into my thoughts surrounding that domain which were focused by a recent training session I attended.
Occasionally I must use the purchasing system to procure from a hitherto unused source, and this involves creating a new supplier on the system. According to the blurb from system administrators, "Supplier creation should not be an easy task". I let that sink in, and then thought, "Wait...what?!"
It's already more work than normal to buy from a non-existent supplier, so everyone has a motivation to use established suppliers whenever possible. That said, on the rare occasion that we really do need to create a new one, shouldn't the process be as smooth as possible? Do we really need to give ourselves more of a headache by making our jobs even more difficult than they already are?
Then came the give away line. It really is a bit of a shocker.
"Contractually engaging a new supplier exposes Company X (us) to legal, reputation and business risks".
Seriously? Does it expose you any more than, say, not paying your existing suppliers for 4 months after you take from them, and then getting put on hold because you're clearly taking advantage of the fact that it's a buyer's market and you have all the capital? You have the capital, but, apparently, aren't interested in using it in any sensible way.
Here I was thinking that the standard arrangement was that you actually pay for things you buy within a month of getting them. But no, we have our own standard, one that's somewhere between fair and not-paying-at-all-for-what-you-got, which I've heard is frowned on in some parts.
But, and this may be news to some people who thought they understood how fair trade worked, the bean counters always get their way. Because accounting chicanery is more important than exchange in good faith.
"Hey, we can make it look like we've got more money than we have, by not paying what we owe for an extra financial quarter!".
"But, we're not actually saving any money by doing this are we, I mean we still have to pay what we owe at the end of the day, right?"
"I guess, but when the accounting cycle comes around we can delay on asset expenditure and look really economically frugal to our bosses (who entirely got where they are without the financial acumen to see right through this clever ruse),"
"So, what you're saying is, basically, we can try and make ourselves look good for a while, by holding back on paying our loyal suppliers who are less financially advantaged than us? But in the end, we still have to pay them anyway"
"Yes".
"Riiiiiight. You don't sound like the B-movie bad guy then, at all".
No comments:
Post a Comment