Gopher wrote:GFunkMoneyDog wrote:What do you think about a state office that forces it's "clients" to go to one specific business, and that business alone or they won't pay for the services. That business happens to be more expensive than others in town. The Supervisor of the state office in question uses that business for her personal use. When questioned about the new policy The Supervisor, and employees told multiple reasons/lie's as to why they are doing it.
So what's the real reason for this shift in policy? Was The Supervisor pressured to send clients to this office? (An employee slipped up and said as much, but when questioned wouldn't repeat it) Is The Supervisor getting kickbacks from this office? What's the truth? Guess a court will end up deciding that because they are refusing to pay for an old invoice. A invoice I might add that they didn't dispute while receiving the results of the services rendered. If they wasn't going to pay shouldn't they have contacted said office and said we no longer accept results from your business?
Let me add to that. Before the state court orders the "clients" they are considered what's referred to as self pay, and they always choose one office over the other because of the price, convenience, and professionalism. Once it's been court ordered and the state is paying for it they are forced to go to one office and no longer gave a choice.
Might as well em by name lol. I can sort of guess who you are talking about, and it sounds fishy to me.
Don't need to tell me which office it is. I know a couple of people this happened to and its probably the same one you're talking about. It is who you know and which side of politics you're one there.