Pay in cash... so there is no evidence

When the state sets a price for a product or service that citizens need, and shop owners or licensed service companies then manipulate prices to reap higher profits, responding to customers with, “The state’s price is one thing, and my price is another,” know that you are dealing with violators. What is striking about this issue is that price hikes are not always demanded in a naive manner that can be easily proven; rather, deception is the hallmark of this practice, often accompanied by the requirement to pay in full “cash” or in part. In this article, I discuss recruitment agencies, some of which inflate recruitment fees, exceeding the amount set by the relevant authority or ministry. When expressing surprise or questioning the price difference, the agency owner or employee will often reply, “This is our price, and you are not obliged to deal with us.” If you reluctantly agree due to the need for household help, the condition is payment in “cash” or in kind. Why “cash” specifically? If the amount is legal, why the fear of electronic payment? If the increase is legitimate, why is it not fully included in the invoice? If the agency is confident in its right to collect it, why not write it in the contract and provide the citizen with a receipt for it? When cash payment becomes a condition for obtaining the service, the amount on paper is certainly different. Here, we are not facing a simple dispute between a citizen and a recruitment agency, but rather an open violation of the law, and it is our duty as citizens to immediately draw the attention of regulatory authorities. Those who resort to domestic labor recruitment agencies rarely do so for leisure or to purchase a commodity they can do without. There are families with children, the elderly, and the sick, and families where both parents work, and others who urgently need a worker. Such needs present a good opportunity for pressure: either pay what we ask, or look for someone else and wait. The question then turns to the relevant authorities, foremost among them the Ministry of Commerce: Where is the monitoring of the implementation of the law setting recruitment fees, now that the state has set prices and regulated payment methods? It is never enough to merely announce a decision and leave the citizen to negotiate its implementation alone, amid people’s varying degrees of need for assistance. The law quickly becomes just a number in the official gazette if citizens and residents do not truly feel its presence, and if shop owners and companies do not comply with it. Should citizens complain once, twice, or three times in the absence of real oversight? Real oversight does not wait for citizens to bring complaints and evidence with this type of violation, because such violations are inherently designed to avoid leaving any trace or evidence, such as receipts or invoices. The method of undercover shoppers can be easily employed, meaning that some employees of the relevant authority request a worker for the announced amount, plus establishing a clear and accessible channel for receiving citizen complaints, with this authority handling them seriously, especially any complaint containing the phrase: “They asked me to pay the difference in cash.” Just as restaurants, beauty salons, and some other entities are required to display a clear official price board in the reception area, every agency should be mandated to display a clear and prominent board indicating the official price, what it includes, and the approved payment method, along with a clear complaint number and an unambiguous statement at the bottom of the paper: “Do not pay any additional amount not documented in the contract and invoice.” This oversight must not be seasonal and then disappear, as is unfortunately the case with many laws. As for the citizen, they must also not inadvertently help violators conceal their infractions. I know that the urgent need for a domestic worker may lead citizens and residents to accept such practices, thereby encouraging violators to continue their violations in the absence of oversight. Is it required of citizens to become inspectors or investigators, carrying hidden phones to gather evidence of such violations? This is a question that requires an answer from the responsible authority. Iqbal Al-Ahmad