Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
richms
23681 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1181978 24-Nov-2014 10:45
Send private message

Z have made pay at pump. Probably a good thing since when you go in to pay they are too busy making coffees to take your money.




Richard rich.ms

Batman
Mad Scientist
23068 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1182075 24-Nov-2014 12:21
Send private message

I can believe thay statement




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


 
 
 
 


ckc

ckc
321 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user


  #1182079 24-Nov-2014 12:33
Send private message

I don't care about that, because they use good beans and my coffee is more important than everyone else's time.

tigercorp
644 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1182090 24-Nov-2014 12:42
Send private message

networkn: 
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.


What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?  The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".  

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.

networkn

23477 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1182096 24-Nov-2014 12:53
Send private message

tigercorp:
networkn: 
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.


What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?  The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".  

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.


That makes no sense.

dickytim
2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1182098 24-Nov-2014 12:56
Send private message

Wow, I had an employee try to dock me the excess from an accident I had in a company vehicle (after I had told them I didn't feel capable of driving that day)

I told them they would not be doing any such thing as it was their negligence that contributed to the accident. also the clause clearly stated in my contract that if there was an accident in a company vehicle they had to cover the excess.

Anyway, if this is a fact and the employee's have been docked for something partially caused by the employers negligence (not enforcing prepay) I really feel for these guys.

Comments about minimum wage vs. above minimum wages are irrelevant aside from the fact that the less you earn the more it would hurt.

I wonder if there is a bonus for not having any drive off's?

gzt

gzt
11677 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1182101 24-Nov-2014 13:03
Send private message

Either way it was an atrocious business practice and it is clear that everyone here is glad to see the end of it.

 
 
 
 


tigercorp
644 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1182107 24-Nov-2014 13:15
Send private message

networkn:
tigercorp:
networkn: 
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.


What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?  The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".  

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.


That makes no sense.


You said "It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour"

I said "What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?"

I then said "The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".  
I found the article I remembered where it says "A Masterton Night 'n Day employment contract contains a "deductions" clause in which the employee agrees to pay for costs including "debts owed to the employer" and "costs associated with dishonesty".

I then said "If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is".  
Which means if the employer is interpreting those clauses as the right to take money from the employee due to theft by others then their intent is clearly to take advantage of those in a vulnerable position.  They're not interested in due process or ethical behaviour - just worried about not losing money.

I've no issue with a business trying to minimise loss.  But not by passing the cost on to those not responsible, just because they can.

networkn

23477 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1182108 24-Nov-2014 13:23
Send private message

tigercorp:
networkn:
tigercorp:
networkn: 
I think people in general need to peg off a little here. It's about intent. It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour. I believe matters should be put into the perspective
of intent, and I don't think intent from the owners has not been made completely clear. People make mistakes, employers included, and wishing someone out of business without all the facts, seems harsh to me.


What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?  The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".  

If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is.


That makes no sense.


You said "It's been made clear that the documentation provided by Gull to the Franchises was ambiguous and some of the franchises have mis-interpreted which resulted in this behaviour"

I said "What was the ambiguous documentation that was misinterpreted?"

I then said "The only thing I've read was about some clause about recovering "costs due to dishonesty".  
I found the article I remembered where it says "A Masterton Night 'n Day employment contract contains a "deductions" clause in which the employee agrees to pay for costs including "debts owed to the employer" and "costs associated with dishonesty".

I then said "If you need to be told that the dishonesty is meant to be on the part of the employee and not some random thief, then its very clear what your intent is".  
Which means if the employer is interpreting those clauses as the right to take money from the employee due to theft by others then their intent is clearly to take advantage of those in a vulnerable position.  They're not interested in due process or ethical behaviour - just worried about not losing money.

I've no issue with a business trying to minimise loss.  But not by passing the cost on to those not responsible, just because they can.


I was referring to the lack of relationship between someone misunderstanding a clause in a contract, and intent. 

I was trying to help you understand that you can't assert intent based on what COULD have been (Regardless of likelyhood) a genuine misunderstanding isn't fair to draw conclusions on, without all the facts which you will likely never have.

In NZ I believe the premise is innocent until proven guilty, and I have no axe to grind despite for most of the discussion trying to show there is the potential for both sides to have skin in the game. 

The employee in this situation has chosen the public court of opinion, rather than the employment resolution methods normally employed. 

I have said all along that if there was intent to defraud an employee then that employer should be punished, but that there is some wiggle room as to why/how this situation occurred that means there was no specific malicious intent, regardless of how likely or not it is. 




richms
23681 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1182115 24-Nov-2014 13:34
Send private message

IMO the only time the person working for the servo should have pay docked is if they come to an agreement to avoid criminal charges when they are part of the crime, like if it was their friends doing the driveoff and they had prior knowledge and unlocked the pumps anyway etc.

Other than that it should go thru the courts. People on wages are paid stuff all because they dont have the risks assocuated with being a business owner or a contractor, as they do not have the reward, they shouldnt take the risk.




Richard rich.ms

gzt

gzt
11677 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1182124 24-Nov-2014 13:39
Send private message

networkn: The employee in this situation has chosen the public court of opinion, rather than the employment resolution methods normally employed.

Either way this was a *very* good thing in this particular case.

meesham
972 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1182129 24-Nov-2014 13:42
Send private message

gzt:
networkn: The employee in this situation has chosen the public court of opinion, rather than the employment resolution methods normally employed.

Either way this was a *very* good thing in this particular case. This and similar practices will end.


Exactly. I don't see how taking it to the media was a bad thing for anyone except the employers abusing their power, it's brought to the attention of everyone these dodgy practices which will now hopefully stop and anyone who continues it is going to get beat up in the press.

gzt

gzt
11677 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1182137 24-Nov-2014 13:53
Send private message

richms: IMO the only time the person working for the servo should have pay docked is if they come to an agreement to avoid criminal charges when they are part of the crime, like if it was their friends doing the driveoff and they had prior knowledge and unlocked the pumps anyway etc.

The contract dishonesty clause providing for deduction is intended for use when an employee is correctly dismissed for theft. Irrespective of criminal charges pending as a result of that offense.

richms
23681 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1182151 24-Nov-2014 14:08
Send private message

gzt:
The contract dishonesty clause providing for deduction is intended for use when an employee is correctly dismissed for theft. Irrespective of criminal charges pending as a result of that offense.


Exactly, and it should not happen at any other time.




Richard rich.ms

sir1963
1191 posts

Uber Geek


  #1182279 24-Nov-2014 17:30
Send private message

gzt: Either way it was an atrocious business practice and it is clear that everyone here is glad to see the end of it.


Well if it happened equally across the board..... you know when senior management get held financially liable for drops in profit, share price, etc etc etc..... now THAT would be fun.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





News »

Huawei launches IdeaHub Pro in New Zealand
Posted 27-Oct-2020 16:41


Southland-based IT specialist providing virtual services worldwide
Posted 27-Oct-2020 15:55


NASA discovers water on sunlit surface of Moon
Posted 27-Oct-2020 08:30


Huawei introduces new features to Petal Search, Maps and Docs
Posted 26-Oct-2020 18:05


Nokia selected by NASA to build first ever cellular network on the Moon
Posted 21-Oct-2020 08:34


Nanoleaf enhances lighting line with launch of Triangles and Mini Triangles
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:18


Synology unveils DS16211+
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:12


Ingram Micro introduces FootfallCam to New Zealand channel
Posted 17-Oct-2020 20:06


Dropbox adopts Virtual First working policy
Posted 17-Oct-2020 19:47


OPPO announces Reno4 Series 5G line-up in NZ
Posted 16-Oct-2020 08:52


Microsoft Highway to a Hundred expands to Asia Pacific
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:34


Spark turns on 5G in Auckland
Posted 14-Oct-2020 09:29


AMD Launches AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors
Posted 9-Oct-2020 10:13


Teletrac Navman launches integrated multi-camera solution for transport and logistics industry
Posted 8-Oct-2020 10:57


Farmside hits 10,000 RBI customers
Posted 7-Oct-2020 15:32









Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.