Sure, but they’re basically impossible to prosecute unless the local government specifically decides to assist. Hence vague. Against the law but unprosecutable is like an unfunded law. It exists but it doesn’t.
I did find it amusing how to make your point you had to cut my statement into prices and feed it out of order, but let’s ignore that. The sentence shell game is a classic tactic and generally in indicator of BS incoming but they’re a pain to untangle and in this case doing so isn’t necessary.
So I’m responsible for your lack of understanding in your eyes, it seems because you are somehow offended. OK. I can work with that. Let me be more clear:
The phone personnel from Dell displayed a primary interest in making some sort of bonus over actually delivering product. Was this the fault of the salesperson or the training or the management? It doesn’t matter. ALL of that is more or less on the same level unless direction for such came from a higher level in which case it is the fault of the manager of that level. That’s how business works. That is how it always works and for a very very long time has worked. That call cost Dell a TON of sales. They are now in many eyes one of the worst groups in their field.
How dare I assume that I make such an assumption based solely on the accent? That’s easy:
If the salesperson did an illegal thing someone is criminally liable. Criminal prosecution isn’t funny in the US, though it’s generally quite difficult to make happen if a person has decent representation. Decent representation is expensive though. Out of range of a phone operator or even maybe 80% of the US population. Does this mean rich people are basically above the law? Yep. They only have a problem IF they can be prosecuted sucessfully. There are two ways someone who does a job ,no joke, all day every day would have no worry about lack of prosecution:
1: they didn’t know what they were doing is illegal. This is unlikely in a job situation but not unheard of and usually requires collusion from management which makes them accessories in which case they also would have to not know it was illegal in this situation so you’ve got not only the I don’t know how many individual sales people, NONE of which checked, but also management types. That’s conspiracy theory level unlikely.
2: they might or might not know but didn’t care because even if it was, THEY COULDN'T BE PROSECUTED.
Now. How many ways is that possible? There is more than international boundaries. It could be, for example, that whatever organization which I’m guessing is the FTC in this case has had the section of investigation or enforcement defunded and thus couldn’t persue cases in such instance effectively making such things legal even if they aren’t. This isn’t unheard of. It’s pretty unlikely though in this case because Dell is going to lose orders of magnitude more sales, and thus income, than they would have gained by not doing that. It wouldn’t even have taken an expose like this. Stuff gets around. Dell wouldn’t do this kind of thing on purpose unless they were unforgivably stupid. They could possibly bumble into it, or it could be a contractor situation. A Contracting company is MUCH more likely. Contractors are just as prosecutable as Dell itself though. If they are in the US. Is it possible that this happened because of a fly-by-night contracting company hired a bunch of patsies, trained them to damage Dell, and then planned to use the gigantic amount of money the principals made to avoid prosecution for themselves alone? Sure. Not super likely, but it could happen. So three choices. The salesperson was:
A: a patsy for some crooked contracting company who could be prosecuted but was lied to.
B: a person who knew what was going on but for some reason didn’t care because they knew they couldn’t be prosecuted.
in both instances indication of a heavy accent implies, along with the behavior a possible problem. A crooked contractor looking for people who didn’t know the law, or someone who felt they were protected.
I think Somebody gonna get fired. Might be the operator, might be the manager of the operator, might be the contracting company. They’re all single entities though, and none of them are DELL. The person responsible for the hiring of whatever entity should imho also probably be fired as well, but that’s just me.
You seem to be attempting to put the worlds in my mouth that I said something to the effect of “anyone with an accent on the phone is suspect” I didn’t. I don’t think that. I do think that has become a somewhat common belief in the US., and it has happened because of that earlier described prosocutiorial vagueness combined with easy international calling, but it’s not automatically true. Someone with an accent that sounds like a native North American speaker has possible prosecutorial immunity as well through unfunded investigation and prosecution.