I have jumped into the Subway War
Why?
Because after reading all I can find on this case, I have come to the conclusion that the management that blew up this storm in a teacup need a good kicking.
They need a good kicking for wasting our tax money for involving the police!
The whole thing SHOULD have been settles with a quiet 'don't do it again' verbal waring- IF it was such a big deal.
David Farrar's analogy of the pocketed office pen is about right.
Anyone who would involve the police over such an incident is so anal they are 90% arsehole!
9 comments:
The Subway Dunedin franchise was covering its butt with the NZ Principal. This kind of staff control was probably in its contract.
The management of that Subway, are a bunch of complete tossers. So too is Subway Head Office, who are trying to say it is an individual franchisee dispute, and not their concern. Well excuse me, but that franchise opwner has the Subway name, they produce the Subway product, therefore they are part of the Subway brand, and therefore they are head office's concern! So are they so naive that they think people will not consider the whole Subway network to have the same policies and treatment of staff? Dont Subway Head Office not realize that this one franchisee's actions, will reflect badly on the WHOLE Subway network?
The cops who arrested that poor girl, should be taken aside for a little chat by their own supervisors, and told of a little thing called discretion and common sense, and to not waste the taxpayers money chasing trivial matters!
And the owners of that Dunedin Subway, are so far up their own arses, they are inside-out!
Barry the subway management did not make a complaint to the police until AFTER a PG had been filed.
Please explain why you claim that you claim it was in her contract that the police would be called when they were not. The Subway management have used the police out of malice and as an overt threat to intimidate other staff.
If hammering ALL subway franchises puts pressure on the one outlet and serves as a warning to others not to play silly buggers with their staff then I'm all for it.
Oswald, surely you know how these things work.
I'll bet they didn't fire her for sharing a drink. They fired her for being a lazy, incompetent shit who was costing them a lot of money, but none of those reasons are acceptable under current law.
When she committed a technical breach of the law, they jumped on it because they might never have the chance to legally sack her again. Then they called the police because, otherwise her lawyer would no doubt grill them on why they failed to do so. I'll bet they were as shocked as her when the police threw her in a cell.
This is purely speculation but is a theory that fits the facts much better than assuming the employer sacked her just for sharing the drink.
Unfortunately this blows the "police will use their discretion and not prosecute trivial offences" arguments of Sue Bradford and Helen Clarke completely out of the water. Whereto S59 now?
Nigel do you have ANY evidence to support your assertion because she has no prior history of employment difficulties and has secured a new job within two weeks.
The actual evidence seems to fly in the face of what is your personal prejudice.
Regardless of which they ignored employment law when they had a disciplinary meeting without advising her that its was a disciplinary meeting. A simple outright violation of her rights as an employee.
I don't give a crap what she may or may not have done, NO employer get to make up the rules as they go along and if they get away with it once they'll do it again.
nigel said:
"I'll bet they didn't fire her for sharing a drink. They fired her for being a lazy, incompetent shit who was costing them a lot of money, but none of those reasons are acceptable under current law."
Rubbish.
Firstly, 3 warnings and lazy workers are gone no problem if you warn them adequatly. Not exactly rocket science. Anyone that can't manage that is probably as crap as the worker they are trying to fire. :)
Secondly, I know Jackie and she's a hard and dilligent worker. Certainly better than many others there. However, afaik she's the only unionised worker there - and at vauage guess I'd say that has alot more to do with it...
Now no matter what you think of unions, that's just wrong.
Besides, busting her for giving away a few sips from a cup of drink she'd consume anyway - WTF?
Exactly- if you want to get rid of a useless staff member it's NOT impossible- you just have to dot the 'i's and cross the 'T's.
I have managed a few out over the years.
My position was on this was gained by looking at all the evidence availabe- not a knee-jerk 'all employers are aresholes' reaction.
I'm glad to hear from somebody who actually knows the person concerned!
I invite you to apologise Nigel.
Post a Comment