One law for the rich

Written By: - Date published: 9:10 am, November 20th, 2014 - 77 comments
Categories: business, class war, human rights - Tags: ,

Politicians can wreck economies and get a knighthood and a cosy diplomatic post. Bankers can loose billions and get a government handout and nice fat bonuses. But, as always, it’s different for us ordinary folk:

Workers charged for petrol drive-offs

Low-paid workers at a petrol station convenience store have been docked hundreds of dollars after customers fled without paying.

Kerry McIvor, who left in disgust from Masterton’s Night ‘n Day store, which also operates a Gull service station, said: “It came out of my wages without me knowing. I asked him [the boss] and he says: It happened on your shift, so it’s your fault . . . I was ropeable.”

Masterton Night ‘n Day franchisee Nick Lucas defended the “drive-offs” policy as standard industry practice. “When an employee makes a mistake, there are repercussions.”

But employment lawyer Andrew Scott-Howman said passing on the costs of customers’ dishonesty to an employee could be illegal.

77 comments on “One law for the rich ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ghostwhowalksnz 1
    20 November 2014 at 9:25 am

    Dont they have pre pay on their pumps, especially on overnight shifts.

    If I was an working on this arrangement, those pumps would be locked until they had coughed up the cash.

    No money, keep walking

    • Areobubble 1.1
      20 November 2014 at 5:06 pm

      Agreed. Companies should not be allowed to stick their employees up, which is effectively what happens. Workers have no say about the process so no responsibility for it. Its just theft in my opinion, the boss is stealing alledgely imho.

      Sure where the worker has the keys to the till.

    • Craig H 1.2
      21 November 2014 at 12:51 am

      Apparently the owner doesn’t allow the use of prepay because prepay usually means customers only purchase fuel, and he loses money on fuel-only sales…

  2. tinfoilhat 2
    20 November 2014 at 9:55 am

    “But employment lawyer Andrew Scott-Howman said passing on the costs of customers’ dishonesty to an employee could be illegal.”

    Could be illegal ??

    If this isn’t illegal from an employment law perspective we’re living in the twilight zone !

  3. Marksman33 3
    20 November 2014 at 10:03 am

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I was always under the impression that business loaded somewhere around 5 percent onto costs to allow for theft. These clowns are double dipping as usual.

  4. Michael who failed Civics 4
    20 November 2014 at 10:15 am

    It is unlawful for an employer to make deductions like this from employees’ pay. However, the law is not enforced because employers have too much power. We used to have a Labour Party that stood up to abuses like this.

    • irascible 4.1
      20 November 2014 at 10:28 am

      We used to have Trade Unions that were able to stand up to such abuses on behalf of their members. Expect more of these situations occurring now that “Dear Leader” and his cronies have changed the employment law to totally emasculate the Unions and the workers.

  5. DH 5
    20 November 2014 at 10:26 am

    It’s times like this I struggle to understand how this country could have fallen so far.

    This is serious, docking workers pay is a big step on the path to bonded labour.

    The apathy shown by authorities so far is rather foreboding. This should be cleared up immediately with an emphatic statement from the relevent Govt body as to whether it’s illegal or not and what they’re going to do about it.

  6. millsy 6
    20 November 2014 at 10:31 am

    This means that anyone working in retail could have their pay docked if something gets shoplifted on their watch.

    A precedent has been set here.

    • left for deadshark 6.1
      20 November 2014 at 10:58 am

      no, the employee has to agree.Only govt fines and family support going out,you can not contract out of the law.

      edit: lawyer to talk with that plonker on radio live,after eleven.

      ps may also talk with Andrew Little

      • millsy 6.1.1
        20 November 2014 at 11:16 am

        If that employer can do it, others can. And will.

        • minarch 6.1.1.1
          21 November 2014 at 12:17 pm

          They can get away with it because the staff being victimised will be on work visas that depend on their employers support, They will be too scared to speak up about being robbed by their crooked employers in case they loose their jobs and their visas get revoked

  7. TheContrarian 7
    20 November 2014 at 10:40 am

    I’m wondering what these guys are meant to do to stop people from driving off without paying. Leap in front of the car? Pull a shotgun?

    • DH 7.1
      20 November 2014 at 11:15 am

      I’m wondering at your line of thinking. The corollary to that argument would be if they could stop the driveoffs, and did not, then it would be ok to dock their pay.

      This should be a simple black & white issue of right and wrong. Should employers be permitted to dock workers pay? Absolutely bloody not, not under any circumstances. This is the 21st century, not the 19th.

      • McFlock 7.1.1
        20 November 2014 at 12:09 pm

        I agree, but Contrarian also raises an interesting point as to whether the employer’s sins include expecting workers to compromise their own safety in order to save him a couple of bucks, and whether the employer should be culpable if a worker used excessive force in order to protect the bosses’ petrol.

        Basically, the employer has heaped so many types of wrong into his little dictatorial escapade that one could list them forever. But yeah, I think that pretty much at the top of the list is your point about bonded labour.

        “I owe my soul to the company store” is strangely apt when the company is a store.

      • greywarshark 7.1.2
        20 November 2014 at 1:32 pm

        @ DH
        That is the $64 million question????????????????????????

        Blacklist Night n Day Masterton!! And let’s hear from anyone else who has this sort of disgraceful robbery from their wages.

      • TheContrarian 7.1.3
        20 November 2014 at 1:38 pm

        I’m not making an argument. I’m wondering what it is the employees are expected to do to stop a drive off.

        • McFlock 7.1.3.1
          20 November 2014 at 3:37 pm

          I suspect that the employer doesn’t care. After all, he’s got his money.

          Hmmm. I wonder if the employer interprets issues around PAYE for the docked wages in the same way as the IRD? After all, apparently the docked wages must cumulatively run into the thousands based on that report.

    • Tracey 7.2
      20 November 2014 at 1:36 pm

      Of course they should, money before lives… Havent you heard the Pm’s pronouncement on the peaceful takeover of NZ in return for capital?

  8. Tom Gould 8
    20 November 2014 at 11:34 am

    Hold the front page, a nasty boss gets caught being nasty. Has Key offered to change to law to protect this one yet?

  9. vto 9
    20 November 2014 at 12:38 pm

    This was tried on me many years ago when the employer expected that I should pay if the cheque from one of his customers bounced ….. yet I was required to accept the cheques …..

    arsehole

    a cheque bounced and he was stared down, but I was highly pissed that he thought it ok

    what on earth goes on in the minds of these employers?

    Also, if the employee is carrying the losses then the employee is entitled to the profits as well …
    … as McFlock says above, this case and this employer has it wrong on so very many fronts

  11. Policy Parrot 11
    20 November 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Had this happen to me when I was an employee at a service station. (Caltex – in Christchurch)
    Usually I was on sole charge, so to avoid paying for the drive-off, which I frankly found offensive but as a part-permanent employee in frequent need of extra shifts it was not in my interest to offend the employer, I would usually try manage the till in a way so that it was up by the amount that the drive-off cost, and then ring it off and pretend like nothing happened – without charging the remaining customers any extra; e.g. there are a lot of things/services they charge for that use up very little resources/inventories per individual item, i.e. coffees, LPG bottle top-ups – and just ring them up as cash-outs.

    As an additional extra – it happened once when the owner was self-manning the site, and he threw a brick at the car’s rear window – smashing it – are employees really expected to do that as a deterrent?

  12. Draco T Bastard 12
    20 November 2014 at 1:19 pm

    An interesting observation from Trotter:

    But what did that mean? According to Robertson, it meant reaching out to small businesses and entrepreneurs. Such sentiments were bound to set alarm-bells ringing in the ears of Labour’s socialists. As any trade union official will tell you, it is the small businessmen, the entrepreneurs, who most commonly find themselves on the receiving end of the Employment Court’s negative judgements. No social class hates the trade unions with as much passion as the petit bourgeoisie.

    my bold

    And this is what we potentially have here along with that petit bourgeoisie refusing to take responsibility and shifting the risk of the business on to the employee.

    • Tracey 12.1
      20 November 2014 at 1:39 pm

      It will be put down to one wayward employer. Cant tar all by this… Contrast this with treatment of beneficiaries cos a tiny number rip off the system… Or the treatment of workers cos a tiny number are lazy…

      Should be a good chance for Little to let some workers know they can be protected

      • Colonial Rawshark 12.1.1
        20 November 2014 at 4:45 pm

        Labour *has* to bring right-minded community focussed small business people, contractors and the self employed on side. Many of these people are the new precariat, shop owners and owner drivers being fucked over by landlords and one sided contracts.

    • sabine 12.2
      20 November 2014 at 9:54 pm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie

      This guy is a thief. I understand you to use the term derogatory, but in essence most of us are petite bourgeoisie or at least like to think we are. Middle NZ is the english term. But this guy is simply a thief. He commits the crime of wage theft and should have the book thrown at him.

      He can have his pump on pre pay – problem solved
      He can prosecute those that don’t pay after al, they are on camera – problem solved
      he can write of the loss at the end of year taxes – no loss occurred

      instead he deducts wages from his staff. Wage theft.

  13. greywarshark 13
    20 November 2014 at 1:28 pm

    But employment lawyer Andrew Scott-Howman said passing on the costs of customers’ dishonesty to an employee could be illegal.
    Could be illegal? Now the employee on minimum wages has to take responsibility for the owner? This is disgusting. The business must take the knocks as well as the profits. If the owner doesn’t like the way the staff are working let him do the work himself.
    There has been a great change since the days of a business being responsible for its employees.

    I saw this in the Press in conjunction with a case where a man was electrocuted from touching a metal wall which was not earthed. It was the side of a refrigerated unit and the earth wire had been disconnected apparently so that a repair job would be cheaper.

    The police have to charge the actual person who did the ‘repair’ and the owner of the business didn’t seem to appear in the frame. WTF. Don’t businesspeople get held to account for anything? How come everything has to be sheeted home to the worker. The business owner has a responsibility to ensure that the premises are being run safely. Then he/she wouldn’t be employing someone doing dodgy things, which wasn’t picked up by an owner or manager’s inspection. Now a man is dead and who is to blame. Pontius Pilate!

    • Ross 13.1
      20 November 2014 at 1:40 pm

      My thoughts exactly. Actually, there’s the “could be illegal” thing (WTF), and the fact that it was an employment lawyer who said it! Doesn’t he know? Again, WTF.

      • greywarshark 13.1.1
        20 November 2014 at 2:18 pm

        @ Ross
        An employment lawyer could presumably advise businesses just as much a workers.
        He/she is probably waiting to see if there is some new legisation or deemed regulations coming along the pipeline before making a firm unequivocal statement.

      • McFlock 13.1.2
        20 November 2014 at 3:57 pm

        the other thing is to get a lawyer to categorically state something without equivocation can be impossible, especially if they are not directly familiar with all aspects of the case.

        “Could be illegal” is at the other end of the scale from “no apparent legal argument against it” 🙂

    • Draco T Bastard 13.2
      20 November 2014 at 3:36 pm

      Don’t businesspeople get held to account for anything?

      Nope. My nephew was telling me about a couple of workers who got fined $4500 each for working dangerously after the developer refused to get proper scaffolding put in. They didn’t have any choice as they needed the work/money. The developer didn’t even get a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket.

      All the laws over the last 20 years and especially with National in power has shifted all the expenses on to the workers and off the businesses while shifting the power onto the businesses. The businesses do well but the workers are fucked.

  14. Tracey 14
    20 November 2014 at 1:40 pm

    I expect there will be axcall for taxpayer funded cameras so this employee doesnt have to lose wages. Thats the compassionate side of the govt.

    • Murray Rawshark 14.1
      21 November 2014 at 1:21 am

      GCSB cameras in all private vehicles. That would stop innocent motorists being suspected of fuel theft. There’s really no other way to do it. If you’re not stealing fuel you have nothing to worry about.

      Cortina (Velox for me) back seats will never be what they used to.

  15. The lost sheep 15
    20 November 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Take a deep breath, and relax.
    The Wages Protection Act (1983) only allows deductions from an employees pay outside of those required by Law, if ‘it is for a lawful purpose’, and ‘the employee authorises such a payment in writing’. In such cases the employee can withdraw consent at any time.

    So as this is not a lawful purpose, (you cannot make one person liable for the theft of another!), and the employees did not authorise the deductions in writing, the current law is perfectly adequate to protect the employee.

    All the employee needs to do is pick up the phone and dial 0800 20 90 20, and The Labour Dept will sort the situation out.

    This is merely evidence that there are some employers out there who are ignorant of, or willing to abuse the law.
    It does not in any way suggest their is a lack of protection for workers in the law or one law for the rich and one for the poor.

    • greywarshark 15.1
      20 November 2014 at 2:23 pm

      lost sheep
      I think it is an indication that, from the observed incidents, people are giving up belief in the law being fair for all.

      The chap who left may be able to apply for constructive dismissal or whatever its called when you are made to believe that you are not wanted as an employee and can expect unfair treatment. Is there an employment lawyer in the house who might like to comment on the employee’s position on receiving an amount recompensing for his expenses and hurt for this unjust highwayman treatment, and to regain the purloined amount of wages? And for all the others so affected.

    • Tracey 15.2
      20 November 2014 at 2:27 pm

      First, your name is apt.

      I wonder why the employee didnt know they could call the Labour Dept?

      Sutton got a press conference orchestrated and attended by his boss and a rep from the pm office, a hug and gratitude… For sexually harrassing an employee. To our knowledge no pay lost.

      This guy had to go the media.

      Yup no different employment conditions for the rich and the poor.

    • RedLogix 15.3
      20 November 2014 at 2:28 pm

      and the employees did not authorise the deductions in writing, the current law is perfectly adequate to protect the employee.

      Does anyone know if the specific employment contract concerned here does in fact have this provision? In other words has the employee already signed away authority for such deductions to be made?

      All the employee needs to do is pick up the phone and dial 0800 20 90 20, and The Labour Dept will sort the situation out.

      Is this person on a 90 day trial? And even if not – how long do you think most minimum pay workers would last after taking your advice?

      And note that the employee concerned has already walked from the job – presumably in an entirely justified disgust and humiliation at being treated like this. Does that count as ‘constructive dismissal’?

      This is merely evidence that there are some employers out there who are ignorant of, or willing to abuse the law.

      True. Which is why employment regulations exist. Unfortunately when you have a government that has spent the last six years weakening them, and tipping the balance increasingly in favour of the employers – this has the effect of encouraging and enabling the incompetent and meaner category of employers at the bottom end.

    • Draco T Bastard 15.4
      20 November 2014 at 3:43 pm

      All the employee needs to do is pick up the phone and dial 0800 20 90 20, and The Labour Dept will sort the situation out.

      Yes but how many people actually know that? I think you’ll find that it’s less than 10% of the population.

      The employees doing this get away with it due to peoples ignorance and their fear of losing their job.

      • b waghorn 15.4.1
        20 November 2014 at 8:55 pm

        There are lots of training courses that people new to work or changeing roles go on/are sent on, wouldn’t it be good if employment law was a manditory part of it if they want government funding.

    • DH 15.5
      20 November 2014 at 4:01 pm

      “It does not in any way suggest their is a lack of protection for workers in the law or one law for the rich and one for the poor.”

      What planet are you living on? The universal theme of every person so far claiming to have pay deducted is they didn’t complain out of fear for their jobs. Most look to have been casuals and likely on part time contracts, their jobs would hang on a thread as it is.

      For anyone in that situation to contact the Labour department they’d need a guarantee of discretion from the dept and a promise they wouldn’t be identified as the complainant. How many people would have that level of faith in the bureaucrats (partly) responsible for Pike River?

      And if someone did call the Labour Dept what would the dept do? Prosecute the employer, fine them or slap them with wet bus ticket? Would the bureaucrats follow up to make sure no-one was subequently fired by a vengeful employer? Would they check to make sure no new ‘deductions’ were being introduced to replace the old ones? Would they hell…

      So yeah, it is about laws for the rich and laws for the poor. The poor can’t afford to call the law.

      • Draco T Bastard 15.5.1
        20 November 2014 at 7:16 pm

        The poor can’t afford to call the law.

        QFT

        • greywarshark 15.5.1.1
          21 November 2014 at 12:05 pm

          Oliver Goldsmith smithed some words that continue to be pure gold and ring true:
          Law grinds the poor, and rich men rule the law.

    • Lefty 15.6
      20 November 2014 at 4:12 pm

      The Labour Department (MBIE now) will run around and give the employer a big cuddle.

      That’s how it actually works nowadays.

    • Ross 15.7
      20 November 2014 at 4:45 pm

      So this employer STOLE money from an employee because someone stole from him? I’ll look forward to him being arrested and charged for the theft. Was he ignorant of the law? Tough. He still stole money from his employee and ignorance is no defense.

  16. The lost sheep 16
    20 November 2014 at 3:07 pm

    “I wonder why the employee didnt know they could call the Labour Dept?”

    When free information and assistance on employees rights and protections are so widely and openly available from so many different sources?
    Absolutely beats me.

    He knew how to contact the media though, so Dept. of Labour help will be on the way, and as a bonus his employer will have public humiliation to deal with in addition to the legal consequences he most certainly faces.

    But I guess if you are cynical enough you can read a conspiracy into anything…

    • Tracey 16.1
      20 November 2014 at 3:16 pm

      Oh well, if most employers are good folk, they wont mind an urgent law change to make sure this cant happen again.

      Do you think the employer ought to be able to deduct for this kind of thing, you didnt say.

    • Murray Rawshark 16.2
      21 November 2014 at 1:32 am

      What bloody conspiracy? An asshole employer and a useless Labour Department under a Tory government that despises workers is all I see. Where’s your bloody conspiracy?

      The prick of an employer should be charged with theft and never be allowed to run a business again.

    • greywarshark 16.3
      21 November 2014 at 12:13 pm

      @ the lost sheep
      He’s a poor little lamb who has lost his way bah bah bah. (Sort of song.)
      You do go on you ignorant RW whiner.

      • The lost sheep 16.3.1
        21 November 2014 at 3:10 pm

        Mate, if all you want to do is abuse me, surely you can be more creative than that!

        I spent 20 years working on farms and in freezing works and on fishing boats, so I know how to take a better shot than that limp-wristed slap with a damp hanky.

        Man up!

        • greywarshark 16.3.1.1
          21 November 2014 at 4:55 pm

          @ lost sheep
          If you want to be a real man, of the people who do the hard yeards. Don’t find things to be negative about. Workers need assistance not a sneer or snide remark. Otherwise you are coming from the business or management side and lack real interest in the worker’s situation.

          • The lost sheep 16.3.1.1.1
            21 November 2014 at 7:51 pm

            I am only commenting on this case because I HAVE assisted an employee with a very similar case…..

            By the way, I see the CTU lawyer agrees with my analysis of the illegality of this case.

            I guess he must be an ignorant RW idiot as well. Either that or I am right.

  17. The lost sheep 17
    20 November 2014 at 3:54 pm

    Did you read my posts Tracey?
    You don’t NEED an urgent law change because this kind of deduction is not ‘a legal purpose’ under current law.
    Even if the employee had agreed in writing to the deduction, (and they didn’t), it would still not become a legal purpose, as there are no legal principles that would allow you to hold the employee liable for an action such as a drive away petrol theft which is clearly outside their control!

    Of course I don’t think an employer should be able to do this. And they can’t.

    Follow the story to it’s conclusion, see that I am right, and then come back and agree that what ever you think in general – this case is not evidence of a general lack of employee protection in law.

    • McFlock 17.1
      20 November 2014 at 4:09 pm

      Of course I don’t think an employer should be able to do this. And they can’t.

      You mean that they can’t do this thing of which multiple instances have been documented in the media report that prompted this post.

      You suffer the misapprehension that just because something is illegal, everyone who is a victim of it feels they have the power to be able to seek help from the authorities, even if they know this help exists.

    • adam 17.2
      20 November 2014 at 5:10 pm

      Thelostsheep, again you talk from a position of privilege – I know it was illegal and I also know if you phone up the labour department to get advice on this – all they will do is tell you what the law says – it is very unlikely they will take a case like this on.

      The ability to defend oneself from this practice is another issue altogether. Or indeed just getting your wages back, both are a fight – one which in a highly individualised workplace like a petrol station – will in all probability, be bloody difficult.

      And yes, you can go to mediation, and then the courts. But, he courts are all but broken, and the process is long winded and can be quite disempowering. With the delays and other tactics, an employer can be quite a prick using the legal system – even when they are in the wrong.

      Why is it that employers can not be honest? Why is it that petty managers and owners feel they can wilfully break the law? I think thelostsheep, you need to ask what is the driver for this type of behaviour by small business.

      • Tracey 17.2.1
        20 November 2014 at 5:15 pm

        He knows, and he will soon agree that if this govt were consistent we must now bring in instant fines to make sure malingering employers like this get the message.

    • Tracey 17.3
      20 November 2014 at 5:12 pm

      The employer has just done this. The law MUST be failing. We need huge instant fines on such an employer, or did i miss that part in your treatise?

    • Melody 17.4
      20 November 2014 at 11:19 pm

      From what I heard on Campbell Live, the union rep was saying that some employers try to drop in a ‘general deduction’ clause to cover themselves for all eventualities.

      Vulnerable workers in need of $$$ have little choice but to sign these sorts of contracts.

    • Murray Rawshark 17.5
      21 November 2014 at 1:37 am

      The Constitution of the US and A protects citizens from all sorts of things. THey still happen.
      The Constitution of the Soviet Union was widely accepted to be one of the best in the world. On paper.
      If the employee takes money from the till, what happens? The employer has far better protection under the law than the employee.

  18. Dissuasion 18
    20 November 2014 at 4:43 pm

    It’s common practice among the likes of fast food and supermarkets to force staff to pay in the difference if their tills are short. Of course said employee’s don’t get the reverse treatment if their tills are over.

  19. Areobubble 19
    20 November 2014 at 5:11 pm

    If employees were force to pay for driveoff thefts, then surely if the petrol were all too disappear over night then the manager would be committing an offense if they inform Police there was a theft. This would open the manager up to breaching their own duty of care for assets in deinsuring themselves, stopping the company from claiming insurance.

  20. Paul 20
    20 November 2014 at 5:49 pm

    From the article.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/63361758/Workers-charged-for-petrol-drive-offs

    Scared workers.
    Personal attacks on workers who complain.
    Pay at $13.75 an hour.
    10 hours shift without a break.

    What does this say about industrial relations in this?

    “Three other former workers backed the complaints but asked not to be named. One, docked about $300 for two to three drive-offs, received a written warning after complaining.
    “It felt more like a personal attack . . . it made me feel really horrible.” She said that for a young female working alone at 4am, stopping a drive-off was near impossible. “It’s not like we’re going to run out on to the forecourt and stop the cars.”
    Another, paid $13.75 an hour and docked $50 for one drive-off, said: “I was doing a 10-hour shift without a break . . . I turned around and the customer had left the pump hanging and he’d scarpered.”
    McIvor said surveillance footage identified some drive-off culprits but Lucas showed little interest in pursuing them.

  21. karol 21
    20 November 2014 at 5:56 pm

    This was what happened when I worked as a cashier for a Texaco petrol station in London in the late 70s.

    I think ti was casual work. I did this cashier work when I first arrived in London and was waiting for a teaching job. It didn’t occur to me that I could complain, but I needed the money at that time, and was fairly young.

    All the cashiers had the same conditions. We had to count and record all the merchandise on display when we signed on and off – so they could check losses/sales against out ill records. I actually did pretty OK.

    There was one guy who worked the night shift who regularly had loads of money deducted from his pay. And he also was held up by gun while serving at the night window – not safe or desirable work.

    The manager was a sleaze. i guess these days his behaviour could be the result of a sexual harassment complaint – he did things like grab the belt/top of my trousers/jeans to pull me towards him when he was talking to me.

    But also, when he was around he used to listen to us/or watch us through a sound system or two-way mirror. We were supposed to promote oil when people bought petrol – and basically tell them they needed oil and charge it to them before they could complain. All pretty nasty. Ii just couldn’t bring myself to do it, so he kept telling me off.

    Fortunately got teaching work before too long.

  22. Dont worry. Be happy 22
    20 November 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Gull got back to me within an hour. Say they are in contact with both the franchisee and the worker. More to come

    • Tracey 22.1
      20 November 2014 at 6:16 pm

      Gull and the managers company said it is not policy. Chap dodged questions by saying he is bound by confidentiality to gull and company. Gull spojesman said it is unacceptable.

      Will they yank the franchise to show their disapproval

  23. s y d 23
    20 November 2014 at 6:06 pm

    facebook has some interesting butt covering, buck passing corporate denial on this happening in real time.

    Gull deflecting the **** onto Night’n’Day, who are blaming the franchise holder.

    but a quick check of what the franchise holder gets is set out pretty clearly

    http://www.nightnday.co.nz/franchisees/what-you-get

    and includes “all employment requirements”.

    campbell live should be good.

  24. RedBaronCV 24
    20 November 2014 at 9:33 pm

    This service station has a camera and most do so they can identify and pursue the drive offs which is what he should be doing. I hope his employees now complain about wages theft. he also took money for a broken printer according to the story.

    Frankly I hope the whole world descended on this joker this morning. The IRD to check his PAYE and wages records, The Health & safety lot to check WTF he is doing leaving a female (or any employee ) unsupported at 4.00a.m, the labour dept to see why he isn’t paying wages correctly and allowing breaks. Immigration to check employee status, the cops because he is thieving from his employees, his franchise holder, the petrol supplier and his insurance company because any business style insurance is going to be under threat from the disgruntled employees. And I hope his customers stay away in droves. Of course any employee who left would be benefit sanctioned and does Winz make up the shortfall when they don’t have enoiugh to live on that week?

  25. venezia 25
    20 November 2014 at 11:39 pm

    Well Campbelllive is onto it. They asked onscreen for anyone who has had this experience of employers deducting money to cover driveoffs to contact them. Apparently heaps of people have. So wait and see what happens next – hopefully this sort of exposure will flush out how widespread the practice actually is.

  26. NZJester 26
    21 November 2014 at 11:19 am

    As long as the National Government keeps giving the bosses all the power, they will think they can do what they want by adding in all sorts of illegal clauses to contracts.
    After the last big scandal of all those bosses who got caught out not giving employees breaks they had been legally entitled to, what did National do about it, they decided to change the law to allow that formally illegal practice of making employees work through there breaks legal if it is in their contract.
    They took the employers side instead of punishing those employers and enforcing the right of workers to have a break.
    They ignored the potential problems of possible increases in work accidents happening in the future due to tired overworked employees because employers did not want to give employees breaks.
    The Government basically endorsing that formally illegal practice by proposing a law change has employers thinking that they just need to make something wide spread in contracts and the National Government will try and change the law to make a common practice legal.
    Will they make the deduction for inventory loss from employee wages legal in the future? Knowing this Government I think they would try if the thought they could get away with it.
    You can bet if a thief does get caught and the money is actually paid through the courts for the goods the employer would just keep it and not return it to the employee either.
    As those losses can also be written off in taxes are the employers actually getting extra profit for these type of thefts meaning it is in there interest to set up the situation to make theses kinds of things more likely to happen?

  27. Maui 27
    21 November 2014 at 8:04 pm

    This system is f…..
    Wanting a revolution pronto.

  28. RedBaronCV 28
    21 November 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Well the Night & day franchisor and Gull should make it a condition that the staff join unions. Lets see if they believe what they are saying today – if not why not.

    Oh and caltex will do deductions too apparently

  29. Lorraine 29
    22 November 2014 at 1:07 am

    This is not only illegal but totally immoral. What employer wouldn’t know that they can’t dock the wages of an employee for theft by a person that is not the employee. How completely stupid are they. These companies need to be prosecuted. How dear they do this. I hope they legally hang draw and quarter these businesses. Also expecting employees to run after drive-offs and put their own lives in danger. Also completely stupid. They must have the rego numbers of the cars and pics of the criminals. It like in the 19th century but I suppose that is what it is becoming like for low wage earners in NZ today thanks to #Team Key.

    • Draco T Bastard 29.1
      22 November 2014 at 2:32 am

      Oh, I figure that they knew it was illegal but also knew that the employees a) wouldn’t kick up a stink because they were desperate for a job and b) couldn’t afford a lawyer to take them to court. This is one of the reasons why the government changed from a full employment policy to a 6% unemployment policy back in 1984. It shifts power from the workers to the employers and they get to do shit like this and not be held accountable for it as well as keeping wages down so that all the gains of increased productivity go to the shareholders and managers instead of the people creating the wealth.

      It’s not just this government that’s been ripping us off but Labour as well.