Gull Employment Dispute.

Forums › Off topic › Gull Employment Dispute.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1180824 21-Nov-2014 15:17

Bee: The argument against prepay doesn't stack up to me. Prepay means you have to go into the store before you get petrol, and queue and grab that pie and a v while you wait = Profit...

I would love to know how it is the staffs fault when someone steals petrol otherwise, and is the store owner willing to supply a high powered rifle to their staff to prevent these thefts???

Yes "otherwise" is the consideration in contention. If the situation is "otherwise" then of course the employer has no right to dock pays.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1180830 21-Nov-2014 15:29

No, because the Privacy Act doesn't apply to information about companies. The Privacy Act protects natural persons with regard to personal information, not body corporates. An employee who is treated badly can voluntarily waive their right to privacy and take their case public, as they do when they end up in the Employment Tribunal. The individuals concerned are talking about the policy of a company who are represented by an individual. And as this is to do with a company, the Privacy Act only applies to the disclosures about the employee. There are, of course, other laws that protect the company, but they do not prevent disclosure of company policy with regard to employment.

I said you have no RIGHTS to it. If it's given to you by the person WITH the rights then that is another. The issue is you have heard only one side of the story and the "facts" have yet to be established as correct.

Surely people are innocent until proven guilty, though I suspect you don't beleive that because of the perceived David/Goliath situation which seems to be unwrapping.

I want to make clear I am not suggesting that either party IS correct, I am simply trying to make the point that not all the facts are yet known.

Fact is, anyone who docks wages because someone steals from them doesn't deserve my money. It's an informed interpretation because more than one employee has said that their wages are being docked for drive offs. But the reality is that low paid workers are the least able to afford to pay for the consequences of drive offs. They assume all the risk of company policy and none of the benefits, save to say the 'security' of a job that they could easily take home less than minimum wage for full time hours. One woman on Campbell Live last night who worked out at Greymouth said sometimes she took home less than $100 for a 15 hour week due to drive offs.

So no matter how negligent the staff member might be, the fact policies and training may exist which the staff member might have ignored etc?

It's also true that low paid workers are least likely to know their rights or understand their rights. Which means it's especially important that employers - the powerful ones in the relationship - make employees aware of their rights. This is why so many companies end up losing at tribunal: it's because they have a significant power advantage in the relationship, and they are supposed to know what their responsibilities are. Failure to follow a proper process or keep the employee fully informed are a result of the imbalance of power in that relationship, where the onus falls on the employer to do the right thing.

I am not implying (imply/infer) that well paid workers should have less rights. I am outright saying that it is morally reprehensible to take money from low paid workers for a perceived fault, playing judge and jury, to use your terms.

You are inferring that. You are suggesting that well paid workers not be treated EXACTLY the same.

But the reality is that I have every right to do what I want with my money. I have the right to act as judge and jury when it comes to my money. If a company doesn't want to lose money, you know what they could do? They could not treat employees and customers like crap. They could not see the former as the enemy and the latter as a cash cow. Probably a better way to go to keep business than punishing low paid workers for the actions of scumbags who do fill and runs.

Z clearly know that.

Yeah, OK, I get it now, I see how this works in your mind, I won't spend any longer working on the logical side, obviously when it comes to business vs low paid people, there is no due process, it's just "those rich bastards must be guilty".

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#1180858 21-Nov-2014 15:39

Prepay is just a huge pain as a customer, though. I actively avoid any prepay station. Pay at pump is fine. I understand prepay helps reduce driveoffs, but I'd prefer that the ones punished were the offenders, not the staff (or the company, even).

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1180859 21-Nov-2014 15:42

Inphinity: Prepay is just a huge pain as a customer, though. I actively avoid any prepay station. Pay at pump is fine. I understand prepay helps reduce driveoffs, but I'd prefer that the ones punished were the offenders, not the staff (or the company, even).

I agree with this. I am fortunate that my stations will allow me to pump then pay.

enfield

203 posts

Master Geek

#1180864 21-Nov-2014 15:51

from what ive heard this is common practice with privately owned or managed(like shell is in clusters) gas stations

tigercorp

668 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1180884 21-Nov-2014 16:11

People should be rightfully outraged about this.

It doesn't matter what the situation is, if there's negligence or criminal action on behalf of the employee then the employer should either begin dismissal procedures or take legal action action against the employee. NOT just arbitrarily take wages.

That's just bollocks and the fact that it seems to be commonplace is simply because the people putting up with these policies are the ones least able to fight them.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1180932 21-Nov-2014 16:45

I suspect it will soon be determined that the practice is illegal.

For starters, just what can a staff member do if a customer jumps in a car and drives off? Precisely nothing, as far as I can see.

If the owner cannot be bothered installing decent CCTV to get the numberplate and face of the perps and/or employing security staff if he has a real problem (and he is in Masterton, where I wouldn't go after dark without a stab vest and Mace) then the losses are his chosen cost of doing business.

If someone busts into Partridges and makes off with a haul of $50,000 watches, I'm pretty sure Grant won't be deducting that from staff wages. Neither I am sure do Countdown deduct shoplifting losses etc etc.

It's just another example of Wild West employment practices I am afraid.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1180936 21-Nov-2014 16:50

I dont go to gull because the fuel is crap in general, but when I have been with people that have insisted on it, the instore process was painfully slow and annoying and understaffed. I can see why people would drive off rather than wait in the queue inside for as long as it took ;)

Richard rich.ms

graemeh

2078 posts

Uber Geek

#1180948 21-Nov-2014 17:12

Geektastic: I suspect it will soon be determined that the practice is illegal.

Yes. The other thing that the station owners may get spanked over is paying below minimum wage when the deductions take the hourly earnings below the legal minimums.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1180961 21-Nov-2014 17:46

graemeh:
Geektastic: I suspect it will soon be determined that the practice is illegal.

Yes. The other thing that the station owners may get spanked over is paying below minimum wage when the deductions take the hourly earnings below the legal minimums.

I'd be pretty surprised if this was the case actually, I am pretty sure minimum wage excludes deductions.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1180994 21-Nov-2014 18:47

I'm pretty sure that this is illegal, and that the companies who have made deductions will be hurriedly repaying them to try and avoid a giant can of legal whoop-ass being opened on them.

Sideface

9350 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1180997 21-Nov-2014 18:53

I have never pre-payed for petrol, and I never will.
I am very old and stubborn.

Sideface

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1181018 21-Nov-2014 20:34

Deductions are usually for things like agreed accommodation costs of agricultural workers and things like that. Ie; A good or service rendered by the employing party. These goods and/or services must be agreed in writing, and in a procedurally correct way.

However, it is VERY well established that an employing party CANNOT just create deductions out of thin air for this and that and remove money from the wage packet. Random example: An employee authorised to drive dented the company car this week or whatever and the employing party wants to deduct/recover that from the employee because the business insurance no claims bonus is lost or whatever.

That kind of thing is not supported by law and therefore it will be refunded with one word from an employment advocate or lawyer if the employing party has any sense, and will never be supported by an employment court should it go that far.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1181020 21-Nov-2014 20:42

richms: I dont go to gull because the fuel is crap in general, but when I have been with people that have insisted on it, the instore process was painfully slow and annoying and understaffed. I can see why people would drive off rather than wait in the queue inside for as long as it took ;)

i heard that 91 fuel is all the same (a bit like fontera generic milk which is packaged as anchor/meadow fresh/pams/budget) and that premium fuel has proprietary additives ...

not sure how true that is

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1181026 21-Nov-2014 20:58

nahh gull have bio crap in it watering it down. They also were investigated for a tax dodge with butane and not disclosing it to the buyers.

Track record like that means I dont trust them. Really this crap with screwing their staff out of driveoffs is totally in character for gull.

Richard rich.ms

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 11