In the absence of consequences, they are obligated but not accountable to the daycare.
> and the payment enabled them more flexibility and actually reduce the accountability.
No, it replaced ethical obligation (which, insofar as it is accountability, is accountability to self) to defined-consequence accountability to the daycare, which in practice negates ethical obligation in favor of transactional accountability.
How that works out in price depends on the weight of the ethical rule involved for the individual vs the weight of the assigned consequence; it is counterproductive where you replace a strong ethical obligation with a weak consequence.
People often overlook that other people have ethics; that's actually useful self-protection in many situations, but it backfires when you undermine common ethics in an effort to create incentives and manage to replace it with weaker incentives than the target audience had from ethics in the status quo ante.
i don't believe in an absence of consequences. there are always consequences, even if they are not spelled out. sometimes we just don't know what the consequences might be. so at least i need to assume there are consequences unless it is explicitly said that there are none, at which point the obligation disappears.
however this is getting philosophical now, and strays from the topic.
I think it's beautifully HN-libertarian of you to consider "no financial consequences" equal to "no consequences".
Our daycare solves this with peer pressure and stern looks and it's super effective.
bossasaservice is about voluntary accountability where there previously was none. and it's fully in my control on how i use it.
part of the point of being a freelancer (or entrepreneur) is that i get to decide what i am accountable for and what not.