I can see why it isn't generally honoured.
> Everyone is obliged to accept up to 100 Swiss regular issue coins in payment. Regular issue coins, commemorative coins and bullion coins are accepted at nominal value without restriction by the Swiss National Bank and the public cash offices of the Confederation.
Nowhere does this imply that you can trade working for paying an equivalent cash amount of your labour.
Yes, that's right, labour offered in a trade is a form of payment. All trades sees both sides of the transaction make a payment. In the most common case as it pertains to employment, I pay you labour, you pay me money, at which point the trade is settled.
But since the law states that money must always been accepted as a form of payment I can also pay you money in place of my labour. Per the law, the employer has to accept it. Thus, any time you don't want to go to work you simply have to offer money instead of labour, which you will get back since the employer is still obligated to fulfil their side of the trade.
It's an interesting approach. But doesn't seem tenable in the real world, so it is not surprising that it is oft ignored.
> and says you can’t accept credit card and not cash
Exactly. Credit cards don't offer money, but instead offer tokens that you can later trade for money. Practicalities aside, no different than accepting chickens and then trading those chickens for money. Or no different than accepting labour and then trading that labour for money. It's all the same. A trade is a trade is trade.
The law here requires that the cash must be accepted as a substitute in a trade.
Colloquially, in English, one could think of "labor" as a form of "payment" in the way you describe.
In the legal context, things like "labor" and "payment" and "trade" have specific meanings. These meanings cannot be interchanged with any other "technically not grammatically incorrect" definition of the same word as it might be used in spoken English.
Misunderstandings like this are also leveraged by, for example, the Sovereign Citizen movement, with similar levels of validity.
You've made three different comments now smugly pontificating on the implications of a law that you made up in your head and acting like it's equivalent to an actual law that we have the text of. What's going on?
And, well, if nobody here knows, at least I get to enjoy the button presses. Imagine people taking time out of their day to press a button just for me. I feel the love, for sure. That's worth something.
Any unauthorized leave, whether paid or unpaid, would be a violation of your employment contract. The terms are set by employment law and your employment contract.
For somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, you sure do press a lot of buttons.
The law needs an update for sure.
Think I am going to pay you in my house when you pay me money for said house? Ha! By this law, I can simply give you your money back. You are obligated to accept it since you must always accept money as payment, and now the house you lived in prior is gone. Seems incredibly problematic for the vast majority of transactions.
Which is no doubt why nobody actually follows it.
Any big money laundry is done digitally today.
No. That would be a violation of your sales agreement. That is a contract to transfer ownership of a property.
Likewise after six months on a waiting list a surgeon cannot then say to their patient "Haha! No actually here's a cash payment instead. It's cash and you are obligated to accept according to Swiss law!". There would be legal consequences. It's not a contract to exchange a monetary value. It's a contractual obligation to provide a service and it is regulated.
At night a kiosk or petrol station or similar might only accept cars.