Why I won't be buying from PB Tech

Forums › Off topic › Why I won't be buying from PB Tech

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

3898 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162825 17-Jan-2019 22:35

MikeB4:

I purchased a phone from PB Tech last year it is the last time I will buy from them, no because of this advertisement which is in bad taste but due to their dreadful customer service and the terrible attitude of their staff.

Yep, if they are happy to belittle and take the mickey out of the public in the advertisement, why should you think they would treat a customer any differently? If this advert represents their corporate culture, I'll pass as a customer.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

gzt

16815 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2162837 17-Jan-2019 22:44

First Union says they have some silly practices:

Stuff: Union organiser Emir Hodzic said the company regularly penalised its workers 15 minutes pay "even if they are only two minutes late" which the union believed was a breach of the Minimum Wage Act and the Wage Protection Act.

Hard to know if that's just one store being silly.

raytaylor

3997 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162840 17-Jan-2019 22:57

gzt: First Union says they have some silly practices:

Stuff: Union organiser Emir Hodzic said the company regularly penalised its workers 15 minutes pay "even if they are only two minutes late" which the union believed was a breach of the Minimum Wage Act and the Wage Protection Act.

Hard to know if that's just one store being silly.

Unlikely

Many payroll systems work in 15 minute blocks or .25 of an hour.

I think they would have just considered it to be easier to work with the design of the payroll software rather than trying to cheat staff out of pay and probably never considered the legal implications.

If someone comes in late, rounding to overpay them would be worse than rounding to underpay them from a floor supervisors point of view when trying to enforce punctuality among staff.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

gzt

16815 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2162846 17-Jan-2019 23:18

Well it sounds a bit silly to me.

Do they pay an extra 15 minutes when staff are working with customers after closing? Probably not. It is common for retail staff to serve customers after the doors close.

Imo there are better ways to handle it.

raytaylor

3997 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162848 17-Jan-2019 23:22

I love advertising with a sense of humor.

I also miss the bond&bond adverts from before that american woman had to go and ruin them.

The fun part

Advertising rules are not very much controlled by law. Other than the serious stuff like alcohol times, obscenity, gambling etc.

Everything else is managed by a code of ethics created by the advertising standards authority.
Which is actually not an authority.

Its a club created by some ad agencies that runs its own disputes tribunal with no legal power or actual authority.

The punishment power of their so called 'complaints board'- to uphold a complaint against an advertiser and simply say the club publicly agrees with the complaint.

Saying someone or a company who isn't a member of the club is in breach of the rules of that club is a bit of an overreach.

To be honest the whole ASA is just the marketing industry trying to avoid a government ombudsman and more regulation being imposed.

They do a good job of that though.

Ray Taylor

There is no place like localhost

Spreadsheet for Comparing Electricity Plans Here

elpenguino

3343 posts

Uber Geek

#2162853 17-Jan-2019 23:54

Talkiet:

PBtech have done nothing wrong here, however I'm surprised no-one has mentioned how quickly the dashcam owner stopped. I'm pretty sure the screeching of tyres was from the driver with the cam... He has a front cam too - be interesting to see what he was avoiding. If he was stopping for an orange light then he shouldn't have been - there's no need to stop so violently for a set of lights that you lock your brakes.

There's no way you can blame the driver in front for being hit.

If you hit a car from behind , you are going too fast and /or following too close. It's that simple.

In this case the following car appears to take no evasive action and barely slows at all.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Talkiet

4786 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162854 18-Jan-2019 00:03

elpenguino:

Talkiet:

PBtech have done nothing wrong here, however I'm surprised no-one has mentioned how quickly the dashcam owner stopped. I'm pretty sure the screeching of tyres was from the driver with the cam... He has a front cam too - be interesting to see what he was avoiding. If he was stopping for an orange light then he shouldn't have been - there's no need to stop so violently for a set of lights that you lock your brakes.

There's no way you can blame the driver in front for being hit.

If you hit a car from behind , you are going too fast and /or following too close. It's that simple.

In this case the following car appears to take no evasive action and barely slows at all.

In principle you're correct, in practice however there are many situations where the car in front is at fault.

If I am driving a high performance sports car with amazing brakes and great tyres and I SLAM on the brakes at a light the instant it goes amber when I am nearly into the intersection already and the 1980s commodore following a legal distance behind me can't stop (or change lanes due to other traffic), then who is at fault in that single, specific, one off instance?

If you agree the driver behind shouldn't be at fault then now all we're arguing about is in WHICH cases the driver behind could be at fault.

As I say, I heard the car with the dashcam lock it's wheels, the car behind had a car in the lane directly outside it, and if it mounted the kerb there was a traffic light there.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say in this case I think the incident was NOT the fault of the driver behind... The front camera from before the accident would probably tell us why the driver performed an emergency stop in the flow of traffic - without that view we don't know whether it was that person's fault or if they were avoiding something else.

Of course the car behind should not have fled.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Talkiet

4786 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162855 18-Jan-2019 00:05

The more I think about this, the more I think the front camera video has been deliberately withheld to make this look worse than it is.

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

sailedpeep

83 posts

Master Geek

#2162857 18-Jan-2019 00:48

The video was originally published on Wednesday, unlisted and just sat on the Daily Steals discount section of PB Tech's website with just a couple hundred views -- someone then presumably found it and posted it on /r/newzealand yesterday at 5pm, with none of the replies being particularly negative towards PB Tech.

By 9am this morning, a story without a byline went up on the Herald with the video ripped and embedded and a lede which said "PB Tech is under fire after controversially using footage of a real-life crash". https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12191728

Under fire by who? The Herald couldn't even do it's normal circus act of finding an online Facebook troll to quote in their story. As of now, it's been picked up the Newshub and the Daily Mail.

This entire "controversy" just feels so invented to generate 30-second hot takes in everyone's mind. It would be far more helpful to if equal airtime was given on the 6pm news to some of the legitimate claims of wage theft and shady warranty practices.

Jase2985

13406 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2162861 18-Jan-2019 05:38

Talkiet:

In principle you're correct, in practice however there are many situations where the car in front is at fault.

If I am driving a high performance sports car with amazing brakes and great tyres and I SLAM on the brakes at a light the instant it goes amber when I am nearly into the intersection already and the 1980s commodore following a legal distance behind me can't stop (or change lanes due to other traffic), then who is at fault in that single, specific, one off instance?

the driver in front cant be at fault, period. it doesnt matter what they do, the rear driver must be able to stop in half the traveling distance. its called failing to stop short.

in your example they are not following at a legal distance if they hit the car in front, they are to close. the legal distance is being able to stop with out hitting the car in front.

Bung

6322 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2162870 18-Jan-2019 06:52

Stopping in half the distance ahead is for roads not marked in lanes.

The applicable clause in the Rule would be

"A driver must not drive on a road a vehicle following behind another vehicle so that the driver cannot stop the driver’s vehicle short of the vehicle ahead if the vehicle ahead stops suddenly."

The is another clause listing minimum distances.

I suspect that the following driver got suckered into thinking that he would also get through the yellow and used up his margin. I'm not convinced that the heavy braking noises were coming from the car that got rear ended.

elpenguino

3343 posts

Uber Geek

#2162890 18-Jan-2019 08:38

Talkiet:

elpenguino:

Talkiet:

PBtech have done nothing wrong here, however I'm surprised no-one has mentioned how quickly the dashcam owner stopped. I'm pretty sure the screeching of tyres was from the driver with the cam... He has a front cam too - be interesting to see what he was avoiding. If he was stopping for an orange light then he shouldn't have been - there's no need to stop so violently for a set of lights that you lock your brakes.

There's no way you can blame the driver in front for being hit.

If you hit a car from behind , you are going too fast and /or following too close. It's that simple.

In this case the following car appears to take no evasive action and barely slows at all.

In principle you're correct, in practice however there are many situations where the car in front is at fault.

If I am driving a high performance sports car with amazing brakes and great tyres and I SLAM on the brakes at a light the instant it goes amber when I am nearly into the intersection already and the 1980s commodore following a legal distance behind me can't stop (or change lanes due to other traffic), then who is at fault in that single, specific, one off instance?

If you agree the driver behind shouldn't be at fault then now all we're arguing about is in WHICH cases the driver behind could be at fault.

Think of it the other way.

Imagine you're behind the sports car with amazing brakes and you crash into it. How are you going to convince a judge it wasn't your fault for following too close?

I think you'lll be having a very hard job to do so.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

NzBeagle

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#2162896 18-Jan-2019 08:45

There are occasions where the front vehicle can be charged for dangerous/reckless driving (or something to that effect) if they do something stupid, eg brake check a vehicle. Not sure if that gets the following vehicle off the hook though.

Talkiet

4786 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2162898 18-Jan-2019 08:47

Jase2985:

the driver in front cant be at fault, period. it doesnt matter what they do, the rear driver must be able to stop in half the traveling distance. its called failing to stop short.

With no exceptions? Oh, ok.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FhiOMkZSo

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

RunningMan

8842 posts

Uber Geek

#2162899 18-Jan-2019 08:48

Talkiet:

The more I think about this, the more I think the front camera video has been deliberately withheld to make this look worse than it is.

N

Perhaps the PB driver actually crashed into the car in front first.

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