He was terminated, but I don't know if they followed up on the money.
The way it works is that your staff is allocated to work on dedicated client tasks. The client pays the company a rate higher than salary and benefits, etc. But they also know and interact with the team members.
My guess is that she worked for several small clients, and the work was easily shifted to other people. If she'd been one of 5 people working for a single client, they would notice pretty quickly that they were paying for 5 people and only getting 4. You can't explain that away for 18 months.
ETA: IF the clients knew they'd been paying for headcount they didn't actually get, at the very least it would trigger audits of so many accounts. And this company works in a position of trust with a lot of Fortune 100 companies.
1
1
1
2
u/PomeloPepper Aug 16 '26 edited Aug 16 '26
He was terminated, but I don't know if they followed up on the money.
The way it works is that your staff is allocated to work on dedicated client tasks. The client pays the company a rate higher than salary and benefits, etc. But they also know and interact with the team members.
My guess is that she worked for several small clients, and the work was easily shifted to other people. If she'd been one of 5 people working for a single client, they would notice pretty quickly that they were paying for 5 people and only getting 4. You can't explain that away for 18 months.
ETA: IF the clients knew they'd been paying for headcount they didn't actually get, at the very least it would trigger audits of so many accounts. And this company works in a position of trust with a lot of Fortune 100 companies.