Join the Subway Boycott
Go to Aucklander at Large to get your own boycott badge.
Subway may have had the legal right to get a staff member arrested for a $2 drink, but likewise customers have the right to show their disapproval. I feel sorry for the other Subway owners but am sure they can pressure the Dunedin branch to do the right thing.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New Zealand
May 8th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
shall we all take a guess at how much this is going to cost subway as a group?
real cost – $20 grand in lost sales?
loss of rep/goodwill – 100k?
man id love to be at the next subway conference hahaha i suspect the dunedin people will be sitting alone!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Here here.
I was already half boycotting the place because they put the price up for my favourite sub – ‘Subway Melt’. & their new loyalty scheme, although more convenient, isn’t as good value.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Without knowing all the facts, why not boycott a company? The mob is always right!
I’ll pledge to visit Subway a few extra times just to show my disgust with public lynchers who do need judge nor court.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I worked at a movie theatre once upon a time. We were allowed all the soft drink we wanted because the real cost of a Coke in that setting is in the ones of cents. That Subway management would have an employee arrested over such a trivial sum boggles the mind.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Having taken the trouble to gather enough facts to satisfy myself that Subway did indeed fire an employee at a disciplinary meeting without advising the employee that it was such a meeting and that subway did indeed make a complaint to the police in RESPONSE to a personal grievance I’m supporting a boycott.
I will now boycott subway even more in response to berends can’t be arsed finding out for myself so I’ll support the scummy bastards policy.
By the way berend although large I don’t regard myself as a “mob”. I managed to make the decision all by myself.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I’ll boycott too. Of course, since I never visit Subway that won’t make much difference to them, but I’ll feel good about it.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
There was another large-ish protest (about a dozen or so people) outside that branch today at lunchtime. Not sure whether it’s affecting trade or not, but it must certainly be wearing down the morale of the owners…
Interesting that the flyer handed out today had only the top half devoted to Jackie Lang’s plight. The bottom half comprised a section headed “Why we need a workers’ movement”. It concluded with the line “The International Socialists Organisation aims to build [sic.] every protest, every demonstration and every strike. Join us!”
Interesting also to note that the most vociferous person present (bellowing “Subway Sucks!” heartily at 3 second intervals) was not part of the protest proper, but was a passing ‘tramp’.
Now that the socialists have come out of the woodwork, I’m tempted to dine there each day! Except I need a foot-long to satisfy me
May 8th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
How tribal. Punish all for the actions of one stupid individual.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Yeah they can never just make it about the issue its always ideology first.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
30 years to build a good market reputation;
5 minutes to destroy it.
Well done Subway…
May 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
WAIT for the 2 week delay from the toliet cameras ,saying you used 3 sheets wiping,SACKED for destroying the earth, shit out, more shit out
May 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
“Why we need a workers’ movement” … why, to prevent greedy capitalists from firing those who steal from them, of course.
She stole, she was caught, she was fired and reported to the Police. This is a simple case of right and wrong – she, the thief, is wrong and her employers are right.
It astounds me that people here (especially you, David) who claim to be in favour of capitalism & the rule of law are coming out in support of someone who broke the law and her employment contract, and then had the gall to bitch about her employer laying a complaint with the Police.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Subway is a franchise. How will boycotting the store on Queen street, Auckland, help anyone in Dunedin?
How about this people:
write the dunedin owners an email or snail mail instead, listing your levels of outrage. CC the letters to the director of frachises in NZ too.
Then go get a foot long meatball (no cheese, wouldn’t want to over do it). mmmmmm yummy yummy.
Alternately, if you’re too lazy to write an email, just buy a six inch rather than your usual foot long for lunch. That’ll show the bastards!
May 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Ah, it’s not entirely clear whether the law was even technically broken. She shared the drink with her friend. Was that theft? That’s a matter for the courts to decide.
To call what she did wrong – that is, an alleged technical and trivial breach of the law – is pushing things a bit. David has actually impressed me on this one by showing that despite his generally pro-business politics he can see the clear injustice in this case and can identify that the employer is acting in a petty, malicious way.
You, on the other hand, seem to have your moral compass so out of whack that a vicious and ridiculous prosecution over a legal technicality (where maximum potential damage is less than 20c) somehow puts poor Jackie on the latter end of ‘a simple case of right and wrong’.
Be careful not to let your ideology overcome you to the point where you lose your humanity. Whether it’s kicking the poor in the face or sending kulaks off to the gulag, pure ideology can bring out the worst in us.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
“It astounds me that people here (especially you, David) who claim to be in favour of capitalism & the rule of law are coming out in support of someone who broke the law and her employment contract, and then had the gall to bitch about her employer laying a complaint with the Police”
Rule of law applies both ways DB. The company broke the law when they fired her in the way they did. That is what entitled the employee to file a PG…it may suck, but it is the law.
Clearly she is being used as a martyr by the blood sucking union, poor girl. I bet she wishes she had gone thirsty.
Common sense says management over reacted on this occassion. This isn’t China.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Horace, while Subways are individually franchised they operate under the umbrella of the corporate HQ. You’d think in a situation like this the head office would have stepped in by now to fix things, if for no other reason than damage control. But they haven’t – Subway head office are just waiting for this to all blow over. By their silence they’re tacitly accepting this kind of outrageous behaviour, and for that they should be punished.
Perhaps a boycott is just what’s needed to make the head office realise that it needs to put in and enforce proper guidelines to make sure its employees are treated fairly.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
dpf, just wondering how this stance of yours fits with your support for the 90 Day Bill?
That piece of national policy would have given employers the right to fire any worker in the first 90 days for anything. An incident like this would count and there would be no access to redress under the law.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I think that subway is the best of the “fast food” outlets so I’ll keep going there when I’m travelling around (as in not in Westport where there is no subway). I’ll choose my brand on taste and convenience in that order.
It’s very easy to come down on the side of the worker. We don’t know whether the owners of this franchise had other reasons to sack her – she may have been a really useless worker in which case employment law will not work to get rid of an employee. So you have to find an excuse. It’s no different to people being sacked for nicking company stationery. Again only speculation, but perhaps whoever was employee of the month wouldn’t have got sacked for the same offence.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Or perhaps they had other reasons for firing her? It said she was a union member. Maybe she was going to sign up more staff? Maybe she asked her employer too many questions? Maybe he just didn’t like her hair colour?
In any case, Radio NZ said last night that there was nothing on her employment record to show any warnings or employment issues.
But if her employer wanted to get rid of her he should have gone through the proper process. Believe it or not, it is actually possible to fire employees who aren’t performing. You just need to have a good reason to do so and to give your employee proper process.
But there is no evidence that this woman was not performing.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
WATCH YOUR ASS,,AND THE NUMBER OF SHEETS,YOU USE,(TOILET)WHEN YOU VIST SUBWAY,you might get a bill, they checkl
May 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Gaz – apparently she had a clean employment record.
MVT – I think there’s a pretty big jump between this case and the 90 Day Bill.
I think it’s brilliant that so many people have put their weight behind this, regardless of what party they’re from they can see the injustice here.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Duncan – have you never ever, for example, taken a pen home which technically belongs to someone else? Do you think you should be arrested and thrown in jail for taking a pen home?
God forbid the state you want us to live in, when every minor infraction leads to an arrest and prosecution.
Subway may or may not have acted within their legal rights. That is not the point. The point is they are being arseholes. Just like the moronic peace protesters at ANZAC Day – they were also being arseholes. Now in both cases they may be within the law, but that doesn’t mean we have to approve of what they did. It does not mean we have to trade with them. Trade is voluntary Duncan.
I am not calling for any Govt action against Subway. I am saying I don’t want to give my money to arseholes. You should be supporting my right to not trade with them.
Maria – absolutely. The fact that there are a small proportion of abusive employers is not sufficient reason to not protect the other employers from being sadled with incompetent employees.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
> Duncan – have you never ever, for example,
> taken a pen home which technically belongs to
> someone else? Do you think you should be
> arrested and thrown in jail for taking a pen
> home?
Yes to the first, and no to the second.
As far as I understand, the Police notification was primarily a pre-emptive action to prevent her from bringing a personal grievance over her dismissal.
At most, I think a few hours community service – plus of course repayment of the value of the stolen goods – would be perfectly appropriate.
> You should be supporting my right to not
> trade with them.
I do support that right, unreservedly – only authoritarians object to people exercising rights in a manner they find offensive
I just think you’re wrong to exercise it in defence of someone who stole property, and against an employer who was the victim of a crime.
What it comes down to is that you’re out there, supporting a thief against her victims (even though her crime was trivial). That’s just plain wrong.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
After watching the unwashed socialist scum who marched in Dunedin today I have decided that I will purchase lunch from Subway for the rest of this week and possibly all of next week.
The worker was fired for stealing, she knew the rules and she broke them.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“Duncan – have you never ever, for example, taken a pen home which technically belongs to someone else? Do you think you should be arrested [b]and thrown in jail[/b] for taking a pen home?”
I’m sorry but someone find the planet she is on and give it a name. I mean there is hyperbole, but to label an amendment which will lower the degree of force the current laws allow, as “the worse possible thing we could do for the kids of this country” is just hysterical bullshit.
The way that supporters of outright repeal of Section 59 have tried to portray opponents has been very dishonest, and in fact reeks of the worst excesses of the US religious right.
Yes that’s right. For take the analogy to abortion. I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion, as I am pro-choice when it comes to parents smacking. However in my personal lifestyle I would hope I would never be involved with an abortion or would ever smack a child of mine.
Now the anti-choice brigade for smacking have tried to portray opponents as people who supporting beating and hitting children.
This is intellectually just as dishonest as the religious right in the US trying to claim someone pro-choice on abortion “supports murdering foetuses”.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Why does she want her job back if the management are so poor. It sounds like they have done her a favour! Move on…
May 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
big bruv
Labour party MP’s didn’t get fired for stealing, they knew the rules and they broke them also.
It’s for this reason that the socialists feel compelled to support this crook.
Leave them alone, they are lefties and as such will forget all about this next time they are hungry and can see a Subway….
Any day now dear leader will step in and tell us all to move on….
May 8th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I started boycotting Subway years ago. Their sauces are truly awful.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
It is not hyperbole to talk about being thrown into jail because as I understand it Ms Lang was jailed for a couple of hours while being charged and processed.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
She was trying to suupot a firend, and according to the news report I read, she has Asperger’s. it isn’t asking much to allow your employees to be human.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Their sweet onion sauce is pretty good. I usually have mayonnaise & sweet onion sauces on my ‘subway melt’ but that was until, on the face of it at least, they treated this girl badly.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Christopher Nimmo
“She was trying to suupot a firend, and according to the news report I read, she has Asperger’s. it isn’t asking much to allow your employees to be human.”
Yes as an employer you pay your employees, what they choose to do with their money is their business.
Hey lets say my friend needs an operation that will cost $60,000 – lets say I work in a place where I have signing rights on an account that can easily handle a cheque of $60,000 being written out – it’s only human for me to take it and it’s only human for my employer to say – sure no worries, it’s only human…..
Get off you tall poppy bashing horses the lot of you – exactly what is the problem here.
As I see it the fact that Subway is a successful franchise, enjoyed by thousands of people every day now seems to be a good enough reason to bash them. Why do you all feel a need to defend the little guy when they did something wrong – have the policies of envy and the “Success is sinful” tall poppy bashing encouraged by Labour been so successful that now you defend criminal behaviour simply because a successful company is the one pressing charges…. you have all lost the plot.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Lindsay had it right. How tribal. As many have said Subway is franchise, so why boycott other stores just because one Dunedin manager was an arsehole. Expected better of you David.
Hope all you over-reacting socialist-loving clowns get fat while you eat McD’s, Wendys, BK, Pizza Hut and KFC. Im sticking to my favourite, the Italian BMT, from my local, socially responsible Subway, in Lynfield, AKL.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
@ Burt & Sean:
Simple answer – do you think that any store manager of any brand of fast food (franchise or no) will do what this guy did again?
May 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
All those at Red Rasputin wish to show there solidarity with Jackie and will boycott Subway…saying that I do rather like the food.
Surely Subway will not let this run!
May 8th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Good on you DPF, great to see a Tory addressing an industrial issue on its facts and not just sticking up for the bosses because they are “born to rule”.
Hope you would have done the same when Dr DB was Leader, but still a bit skepical about that! Anyway, good to see the new people and environment focused face of the National Party. Us greenies may be able to work with you yet.
Mind you, you do need to do something about that 90 day policy – why should workers be denied the right to run a personal grievance just because they are new to a job? If the Subway worker here had been in the job for less than three months under that policy, she would have no comeback, however outrageous the actions of the employer.
As for the bigots who are saying it’s okay to be dismissed and arrested over a $2 drink that she thought she was entitled to anyway, go and join the Destiny Party and pray for Pastor Brian to become Fuhrer.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Why not Digg the story and get HQ in the States to sort it out?
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Fast_Food_Worker_Faces_Criminal_Charges_for_Sharing_a_Four_Dollar_Drink
May 8th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Having thought about this a bit Im going into Subway and support them against this socialist bullshit.Yes they were wrong in the over reaction…a quick word by the manager would have been enough…but a nationwide boycott? No….that punishes innocent people and is wrong.Subway is a great business and the foods good….
May 8th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I’m with James. Boycott the Dunedin store, sure, no drama fill your boots.
Hamish.“Simple answer – do you think that any store manager of any brand of fast food (franchise or no) will do what this guy did again?”
No, I doubt they will, I think he over reacted and I’m also sure there are some parts to the story we don’t know about.
Do you think Subway will take the unconditional agreement to prosecute theft out of the employment contract?
May 8th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Not sure about boykotting Subway.
But I will boykott National next year for sure.
Thanks for selling 80% of NZers out, DPF!
May 8th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Yeah she was wrong, knew the rules, busted them. So what. There is a question of scale. How about showing some grace Subway? You make Shylock look like a drunken Irish sailor on leave. What ever happened to some common sense by the cops? What was the matter with a desk sargeant telling subway to stop wasting Police time, the court’s time and taxpayer money, getting the girl on the phone, giving her a verbal bollocking about honesty, telling her to pay for her drinks and apologise.
Everybody involved looks petty and now the great unwashed proles have found something to occupy their day.
Get over it Subway, when you are in a hole stop digging.
And this is the legalistic nit-picking society that Sue bloody Bradford assures us we can trust with discretion over kids getting their bum smacked?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Put me down as boycotting subway till this is resolved as well. She should have got a verbal warning max.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Put me down as boycotting subway till this is resolved as well. She should have got a verbal warning max.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
As Craig Ranapia said, but in my lingo, “what part of INDEPENDENTLY OWNED FRANCHISE you collectivist fuckwits fail to understand ?
May 8th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“At most, I think a few hours community service – plus of course repayment of the value of the stolen goods – would be perfectly appropriate.”
Got change for a nickel Duncan?
Put me down as boycotting Subway till this is sorted too. This isn’t about left and right – this is about the manager being an arrogant, power-crazed arsehole, and as long as head office remain silent they are arseholes too.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Subway may have had the legal right to get a staff member arrested for a $2 drink, but likewise customers have the right to show their disapproval.
Oh, give yourself a bloody medal. Don’t actually ask yourself whether this boycott is well-directed, effective or will actually achieve anything.
And in future, why don’t we just abolish the Employment Court and have employment disputes settled though trial by media? I couldn’t really give a flying f**k where anyone else decides to eat or why, but it’s rather depressing to see a virtual lynch mob get fired up.
I also hope the polling/market research industry is squeaky clean on the industrial relations front, because it would be a damn shame if DPF’s own business was boycotted because another polling company (allegedly) treated an employee disgracefully.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Yes Craig how dare people actually get pissed at an employer abusing their power, every man for himself.
Fucking pathetic to see so many here basing their position on politics.
The fastest way to get me to withdraw my support for Jackie is for more sad assed fuckie hippies to bitch about joining unions and bloody yooth rates because none of you have even bothered to find out whether or not shes a union member or what rate she was on.
And she doesn’t want her job back, she already has another one. Demanding her job back was a position taken by another loud mouth leftist site who don’t bother to find out what they’re talking about before they mouth off and have kindly added my name to list of people making this demand although I didn’t ask them to.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Yes Craig how dare people actually get pissed at an employer abusing their power, every man for himself.
Fucking pathetic to see so many here basing their position on politics.
Murray, people can get “pissed off” all they like. Please haul arse down to Dunedin, set up a tent in the middle of George Street and ostentatiously eat the competition’s products right outside their door.
However, I don’t see how depriving totally unrelated Subway franchises in Auckland – who may well be model employers for all I know – of business proves a bloody thing.
It’s got nothing to do with ‘politics’ and everything about actually being effective rather than just posturing. Meanwhile, I do hope Jackie Lang comes out of this with a nice fat settlement and an order for costs from the Employment Court.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:18 am
“Good on you DPF, great to see a Tory addressing an industrial issue on its facts and not just sticking up for the bosses because they are “born to rule”.”
That was pure socialist crap Egbert. Born to Rule? Most people I know who buy franchises are people who mortgage their house and use every scrap of personal savings to finance their business, and then they work crazy hours getting it established and paying off their subtabtial business loans. A subway franchise is hardly “t’ local mill” and the owners are hardly the local Squires.
There is no point boycotting any Subway branch other than the one involved. Ask to see the duty manager and tell him or her that you think the Dunedin outlet was over the top in the treatment of it’s worker would probably achieve the same thing. The message will get through.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Craig and others are wrong (IMO) when they compare totally different companies in the same industry with companies part of the same franchise, who generally have common HR policies.
Individual owners benefit from the positive Subway brand, hence they also get damaged by actions which lessen that brand as has happened here. And Subway NZ does have control and influence over franchisees. They are not totally independent.
And Uriah – please insert a brain chip before commenting. Unless you have some evidence to suggest I was part of the negotiating team which agreed the smacking amendment with Helen, how do you conclude I have sold anyone out, let alone 80%?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:28 am
Some of you guys are just plain strange.
This woman steals the merchandise – agreed fact?
Subway has a no stealing policy – agreed?
Subway manager sacks staff member for stealing – agreed?
Woman lodges PG as manager hasnt followed due process – agreed?
Manager under legal advice lodges theft complaint to preempt employment case – agreed?
Now I think he/she over-reacted and this is going to cost the manager big time in mediation. However the woman did steal the merchandise, and unlike David’s analogy this firm does not use coke as an input to its business, its business is selling coke.
That is, to use the pen analogy, a person working in a shop selling pens is stealing the stock. A very different picture emerges. Or David one of your employees gives a copy of your client list to a friend. Its only a copy, you didnt really lose anything, but its your key merchandise.
Thats whats going on here on a very small scale.
Stealing stock from your employer is wrong. Taking a pen when you are a knowledge worker renders the theft trivial. When you work at a pen shop, employee theft of the merchandise is a different matter.
Whats next, stealing a pair of jeans when you work in a shop on the high St, hell they only cost $30 wholesale, get over it?
mmmm, think i’ll have a sub for lunch today.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:24 am
This woman steals the merchandise – agreed fact? Actually Nigel that’s the one fact that is under some dispute given that it is sometimes reported that she:
“shared her drink with her friend” vs
“took two drinks and gave one to her friend”.
For me I find it hard to form any opinion on this unless it was actually clear which of the events took place – mainly because there is very different impressions of intent.
To refer to DPF’s pen point; there actually is a big difference between having walked out the door unconciously still with a pen in my pocket and deliberatly picking up an extra one from stationery so I can take it.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:44 am
While we argue about a 2 cent drink, the Aussies get 35 billion in Tax Cuts.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:57 am
David this is just silly. Lynching a whole franchise chain for the actions of one independant operator is the sort of thing I expect from a Labour Party activist.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:02 am
I’m glad there are still people here who have never taken a pen home without asking.
Does almost every employee in NZ take things home? Is that normal acceptable behaviour?
Maybe I shouldn’t take on kiwis in my business…
May 9th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I don’t know why you guys all love going to subway in the first place. The bread is so light and fluffy and full of sugar it may as well be candyfloss. The cheese is three varieties of plastic. The meat seems to come out of a mold. The only good thing is the salad ingredients.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:22 am
This really is too silly for words. Girls die in ChCh; baby shot in Wanganui … and for a few cents worth of drink we go into meltdown!!!!
Hope the Police exercise their discretion and decide that to prosecute is not in the public interest.
There might just be some precidents.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:49 am
The issue as I see it is very very poor New Zealand Head Office (franchisor) management.
There will no doubt be idiot managers from time to time doing very silly things like this.
They should have stepped in long ago and shut this crap down, placated those involved, done a few deals etc. Even sent in a ‘trouble-shooter’. This is creating massive damage to a valuable brand.
I know that’s what Coca-Cola do. A hint of anything like this the big boys from the USA are on the next plane and they take over.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:47 am
New Zealand employees are working out in increasing numbers that you can do what you like at work (including stealing) and it is almost impossible for their companies to do anything about it.
Even if caught red handed PG’s usually follow any dismissal with the associated wasted management time and cost.
If the manager at Subway thought she had broken the rules and her worth as an employee was such that he didn’t think to overlook this then he should have every right to fire her.
Calling the cops was probably an attempt to teach a lesson to the rest of his light fingered crew that he hadn’t managed to catch yet.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:49 am
New Zealand employees are working out in increasing numbers that you can do what you like at work (including stealing) and it is almost impossible for their companies to do anything about it.
Even if caught red handed PG’s usually follow any dismissal with the associated wasted management time and cost.
If the manager at Subway thought she had broken the rules and her worth as an employee was such that he didn’t think to overlook this then he should have every right to fire her.
Calling the cops was probably an attempt to teach a lesson to the rest of his light fingered crew that he hadn’t managed to catch yet.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Oh, so they filed a complaint with the Police after the thieving ex-employee lodged a personal grievance? That makes even more sense – they were protecting themselves from malicious legal action.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I’m a Dunedinite, and was one of the people protesting outside the George St Subway yesterday. For the record, the protest was a joint operation by various university groups (Young Labour, Campus Greens, and the International Socialists).
Anyway, the employee’s “crime” was to share a free drink with an upset friend. The drink would have retailed for $2 or so, and would have actually cost Subway all of ten cents. Subway then pressed charges after she went to the union about it (god forbid that workers actually belong to unions), in a fairly blatant attempt at intimidation.
Was the employee in the wrong? Technically, yes. That is not, however, the issue. Rather than giving her a warning (either in the form of a talking to, or a written warning), the management simply fired her on the spot, denying her any form of “due process” (this was, incidentally, an employee with a previously spotless record). The management then tried to bully her with this (insane and expensive) prosecution.
Quite frankly, I hope that the publicity that this generates will cause the Head Office to come down on the management of that place like a tonne of bricks. Also, I hope that it causes managers like that to realise that their employees are not a bunch of serfs to be bullied and lorded over.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Even if caught red handed PG’s usually follow any dismissal with the associated wasted management time and cost.
No. You can be fired on the spot for serious misconduct. And if it’s a clean-cut case then a union will not take a case as it’s a waste of time and resources that could be better used elsewhere.
Please, stick to the facts and leave your recycled talking points at the door.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
James L – not quite fired on the spot. You still need to tell the employee what you believe they have done, why it constitutes misconduct and give them time to explain or justify. But once the process is followed one can then dismiss.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
> Was the employee in the wrong? Technically,
> yes.
She stole, got caught stealing, got fired, bitched to the union … who then, along with the local socialist groups, came out in defence of the her, the thief.
There are a bunch of negative stereotypes surrounding unions and socialists, and you guys seem hell-bent on living up to them in this case.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“Interesting that the flyer handed out today had only the top half devoted to Jackie Lang’s plight. The bottom half comprised a section headed “Why we need a workers’ movement”. It concluded with the line “The International Socialists Organisation aims to build [sic.] every protest, every demonstration and every strike. Join us!”
The ole rent-a-crowd’s out in force, I see. That’s almost a reason to support Subway.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
dammit. As a capitalsit employer I was quietly proud of my support for this lady who was treated harshly.
I had found a line in the sand where I could happily say..no, this isn’t stealing, this was no big deal. have a chat, make it clear it’s not acceptable if that’s the case and get back to work..
And because you have some common sense and compassion…you end up having to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bloody International Socialists Organisation, with all of their pontificating communist slogans…..Life sux sometimes.
Still think the SUBWAY manager is a dick.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Mr DB just remember that every time you your speedometer goes above 50km/h whilst driving in a 50km/h zone you are technically speeding and breaking the law.
I hope you apply your own technical and moral standards for law abiding to yourself and don’t make “exceptions” to any of the rules or laws in our Country. After all if you do not you are just a hypocrit and no better than a law breaking scumbag thief.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Mr DB just remember that every time you your speedometer goes above 50km/h whilst driving in a 50km/h zone you are technically speeding and breaking the law.
I hope you apply your own technical and moral standards for law abiding to yourself and don’t make “exceptions” to any of the rules or laws in our Country. After all if you do not you are just a hypocrit and no better than a law breaking scumbag thief.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
“Life sux sometimes.”
Heh Craig, you should rejoice that you have met on common ground.
“Still think the SUBWAY manager is a dick.”
And you secretly know it
May 9th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
> Mr DB just remember that every time you your
> speedometer goes above 50km/h whilst driving
> in a 50km/h zone you are technically speeding
> and breaking the law
>
> After all if you do not you are just a
> hypocrit and no better than a law breaking
> scumbag thief.
When I used to speed around NZ on my motorcycle I knew I was breaking the law, and on the two occasions I was caught, I shut the hell up, paid my fine, and took the points on my license.
I certainly didn’t have the gall to complain about being treated harshly, and then whip up all my socialist pals to stage a protest outside the local Police station.
Perhaps I should put this another way: if she had been speeding, say, rather than stealing from an employer, would you still be lining up to protest on her behalf?
May 9th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
She has been found guilty of stealing, has she? Or is she accused of stealing…..you might not understand the subtle difference, Duncan.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I can’t believe the support this person is getting for being fired, especially on a blog site.
Employees thieving from businesses account for huge losses that the consumer eventually pays for.
Whilst the value of the theft was small, Subway had no choice but to sack the thief. If they didn’t it would set a precedent, and make it difficult to discipline when other employees choose to steal.
I work in a resthome and I wouldn’t dare take a bandage or plaster from the stores. We have a separate staff first aid kit, which you sign for when you use it.
Once you take are caught taking something from your employer,however small, it can open you up to accusations if something larger is stolen. Should be a no go zone.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
And because you have some common sense and compassion…you end up having to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bloody International Socialists Organisation, with all of their pontificating communist slogans….
Well, such is life. Just accept there will always be nutters who support causes you agree with and deal with it. I didn’t see too many people round here worrying that opposing the repeal of Section 59 would put them on the same side as Brian Tamaki.
How very childish of you.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
James leadbeater- “How very childish of you.”
well na na nana na to you too.
James, I was being sarcastic. Lighten up dude.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Who in their right mind would want to steal a coke.
I wouldn’t drink that crap if you paid me to.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
[i]“She stole, got caught stealing, got fired, bitched to the union … who then, along with the local socialist groups, came out in defence of the her, the thief.”[/i]
Again, the issue is one of due process. If you want to enforce technicalities here*, a warning from the management would have been more than enough. Not a sacking, and certainly not anti-union bullying.
*As you seem to want to do. I just hope that next time you tap someone on the shoulder they charge you with assault.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Bayne — it amuses me how you still take umbrage at me saying several months ago that Libertarians were full of extremists and racists, when just about every day you confirm this via your comments here and on NRT.
You continually think inside an opaque box – even though it is moving toward a brick wall at the speed of light. It keeps you happily caged from reality.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Well all I can say is clearly Subway were clutching at straws to find a way to terminate her employment. Such is life with employment laws that make it almost impossible to fire somebody.
A 90 day prohabition period would reduce the incidence of this sort of crap. Not a good thing for employment lawyers and unions so Labour would never agree with such a simple and fair employment policy.
Just remember the golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules. The unions seem to forget that to look after employee’s there needs to be employers that are not afraid to employ people.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Ruth,
I am not a racist, and take serious offense at the fact you’re calling me a racist in a public forum.
Furthermore you’re lying about what you posted earlier – as I’ve said here before, you made a few very specific accusations against the Libz membership in general, and then utterly failed to substantiate them.
I note you still haven’t got around to addressing my last posts. You have a tendency to cut and run the moment you are asked pointed questions.
Perhaps it’s suggestive of a learning problem on my part, but I’ll try wasting my time by asking you another one: why do you think I am a racist? Quote some posts or emails, please. In other words – put up or shut up.
As to whether I an extremist – sure I am. To quote Barry Goldwater, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
To continue with Goldwater, the other half of that quote is “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
I’ll grant you that firing the thief might have been an overreaction on the part of management … but even if it was, I’m still saddened by the fact that so many people are turning out in favour of the thief, instead of turning out in favour of the overreacting manager.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Duncan Bayne,you would be the hit at any firms party, counting drinks , food everthing ,2 chippies per person else you are stealing from the firm. Duncan, this poorly paid fast food slave should be lashed and have a hand amputated, DAVID ,you have to many souless SUITS on this blogg with shallow thoughts,these are my thoughts(PS HAS SHE BEEN CONVICTED YET, NO, i repeat NO, REMEMBER FILM CAN BE TAMPERED WITH, (the truth is out there)
May 9th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
I believe this is, in part, what I had to say on NRT about racism:
Why not judge people as individuals, rather than as members of a group? Why not look at the circumstances of an individuals suffering, and ask whether he brought it upon himself – not what the colour of his skin is?
Your claim that one racial group is morally obliged to help another is founded in the ugliest type of collectivism: racism.
I’m guessing you wouldn’t choose to trot out that post as an example? Perhaps you were you referring to some other post of mine? Maybe you could enlighten me, and the rest of the people here, by posting the post that so offended you?
Or, more likely, you’ll just leave this thread entirely, and take up sniping at me again on another thread, again without posting a shred of evidence to substantiate your assertions.
Ruth, when P.C. described your behaviour as ’stalking’ I didn’t really understand what he meant. Now, having been on the receiving end, I’m not at all surprised he banned you from his blog – and frankly, being banned from a Libertarian blog takes some doing.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Your claim that one racial group is morally obliged to help another is founded in the ugliest type of collectivism: racism.
That was supposed to be italicised, and part of my post that I was quoting – I didn’t mean to imply that you, Ruth, supported ‘affirmative action.’
Oh yeah, one final thing: a while back you were complaining about me hijacking threads here on David’s blog … I presume that criticism doesn’t apply to you, only to me?
May 9th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Why is a good debate always ruined by Libz infighting (poke poke)?
May 9th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Libz infighting? Last I checked (& I think she would agree with me on this) Ruth isn’t a member of the Libz … unless of course she is one of the imaginary expelled neo-NAZIs she was referring to in her original post?
She’s just an obsessed stalker, who slanders the Libz at every opportunity, regardless of the topic.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Bayne could you ensure I do not keep getting sent your libz nonsense then? I received a copy of ‘Liberty’ or something a week ago. Fortunately no one has phoned me asking for money in a while…
I replied to you on NRT.
Your politics in respect of this Subway issue are the typical extension of the ego of a particularly spoiled two-year-old –pretty much what libertarianism boils down to with the blather cut away.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
DPF wrote:
And Subway NZ does have control and influence over franchisees. They are not totally independent.
OK, that’s a fair point – but I’ll just say without having access to any Subway franchise agreement, I very much doubt employment matters are micro-managed from head office.
What is beyond dispute, however, is that all employers and employees in New Zealand are subject to New Zealand’s employment law. I’ll donate my pay from the PA Radio piece I recorded today ($90 after tax) to Lang’s defence fund, in the fond hope the specific franchisee gets a down and dirty judicial spanking. I think that’s a more meaningful response than boycotting Auckland Subway Restauraunts I purchase food from three or four times a year, at most.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Ruth,
I’m not exactly in the Libz loop any more, not being a New Zealander any more. But I’ll fire P.C. an email and ask him to remove you from the mailing list.
Once again, though, I note you didn’t respond to any of my questions. Your reply on NRT was actually quite polite & detailed (& so I replied in kind), but you still haven’t provided a shred of evidence regarding:
– your previous claims re. the Libz
– your claim that I am a racist
– your implied claim that I am an anti-semite for hating John Key (an odd claim given that I turned up to protest in favour of Israel, but what the hell, don’t let facts get in the way of a good story)
> Your politics in respect of this Subway issue
> are the typical extension of the ego of a
> particularly spoiled two-year-old
Leaving aside the fact that that is an ad-hominem attack, and another neat sidestep around the issues at hand … how exactly would you characterise the politics of someone who is caught stealing, files a personal grievance for being fired, and is then happy for a bunch of socialists and unionists to protest on her behalf?
May 9th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
OK, that’s a fair point – but I’ll just say without having access to any Subway franchise agreement, I very much doubt employment matters are micro-managed from head office.
What makes you say that, Craig? These sorts of places have a standard menu, standard promotions, standard prices, standard loyality scheme, standard uniform, and probably standard point-by-point cleaning-the-bog instructions, so I’d imagine employment dispute resolution is covered in the “How to manage a Subway store” manual.
If the manager at George St followed their instructions to the letter, it shows how unpricipled Subway HQ is. If procedure wasn’t followed, why haven’t HQ come down on the George St store like a tonne of bricks?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Actually, I have some experience with Subway management; many many years ago, my wife worked at a Subway store in the same role as the thief in question.
I don’t know if things have changed since then, but at the time, the franchisee was almost entirely unsupervised in daily operations, in every respect from food handling to HR.
There were infrequent inspections, but the person doing the inspecting was a friend of the franchisee, and so warned the franchisee in advance of inspection dates and times. The franchisee was almost completely unaware of his obligations under employment law and under my wife’s employment contract.
I personally had to call his wife (who handled HR matters) and explain the concept of a day in lieu vs. a day’s pay, and how the two were not interchangable, as clearly stipulated in the employment contract.
May 10th, 2007 at 8:36 am
AAL:
As far as I know, neither of us have a copy of a Subway franchise agreement or any other pertinent documentation sitting before us… so we’re both speculating.
Which is why I still hold to my position that the appropriate forum to settle this matter is the Employment Court, not a trial by media.
May 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
The franchisee was almost completely unaware of his obligations under employment law
If you’re going to employ people then a basic awareness of your obligations under employment law is kind of necessary. If you don’t bother to learn and then get caught out it’s your own damn fault.
May 10th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I’m absolutely astounded that Subway would franchise their brand without any sorts of staffing and HR quality control. If what you say is right, Duncan (and I have no reason to believe it isn’t) then Subway had this coming.
I hope someone at Subway either seriously tightens up their HR policys and regulations, or someone takes them to the cleaners in employment court.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:40 am
I am writing from the perspective of someone who has never posted in a blog before, hence I would like to think that I am as far away from being an ‘extremist’ as possible. I have absolutely no political or social leanings in any direction.
Having said that, I think that Duncan is a scary individual. It is people like him who get into power and ruin everything for everyone else.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:42 am
I am writing from the perspective of someone who has never posted in a blog before, hence I would like to think that I am as far away from being an ‘extremist’ as possible. I have absolutely no political or social leanings in any direction.
Having said that, I think that Duncan is a scary individual. It is people like him who get into power and ruin everything for everyone else.
May 11th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Sorry Subway, you have just lost another customer.
Sure we all guilty of taking pens home from work. Are Kiwi employers so mean & tight that they would waste the time of the Police to arrest us for that?
I must also congratulate the NZ POlice once again, for their consistency of being totally incompetent & unable to make a sensible judgement call. Fancy wasting time over a drink when there are so many crimes to solve.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:51 am
you people need lives
it’s subway, a resturant for god’s sake
May 24th, 2007 at 9:52 am
you people need lives
it’s subway, a resturant for god’s sake
May 29th, 2007 at 10:37 am
>Some of you guys are just plain strange.
Right back at you.
>This woman steals the merchandise – agreed fact?
No, once she pours her drink she is not legally obliged to drink it.
Also leaving a drink on a table is not sharing it if you want to get technical and technical is all you have in this argument.
>Subway has a no stealing policy – agreed?
Does that no stealing policy mean they must have people arrested and jailed for the most astoundingly trivial things?
Was she not stealing Subway by inhaling the atoms emitted as aroma?
>Subway manager sacks staff member for stealing – agreed?
Subway manager ILLEGALLY sacks staff member for “stealing” and has staff member arrested and jailed.
>Woman lodges PG as manager hasnt followed due process – agreed?
Agreed.
>Manager under legal advice lodges theft complaint to preempt employment case – agreed?
Not heard that, so it’s ok to have malicious prosecution if it may protect you from a f*ckup?
>Thats whats going on here on a very small scale.
very, very, very small scale, a 10c coke from Subways perspective.
>Stealing stock from your employer is wrong.
And yet being human and showing compassion by sharing your coke is not.
Of course the employer knows nothing about being human or compassionate.
>Whats next, stealing a pair of jeans when you work in a shop on the high St, hell they only cost $30 wholesale, get over it?
Your poor analogy involves a cost 300 times higher to the employer.
But if the employee was allowed to have free jeans and a friend came in there with a sudden severe wardrobe malfunction and was then fired without the legal rights afforded I would still think it wrong.
>mmmm, think i’ll have a sub for lunch today.
mmmm, I think that since unlike you I’m not a Subway employee I’ll snub them for the foreseeable future.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
>Some of you guys are just plain strange.
Right back at you.
>This woman steals the merchandise – agreed fact?
No, once she pours her drink she is not legally obliged to drink it.
Also leaving a drink on a table is not sharing it if you want to get technical and technical is all you have in this argument.
>Subway has a no stealing policy – agreed?
Does that no stealing policy mean they must have people arrested and jailed for the most astoundingly trivial things?
Was she not stealing Subway by inhaling the atoms emitted as aroma?
>Subway manager sacks staff member for stealing – agreed?
Subway manager ILLEGALLY sacks staff member for “stealing” and has staff member arrested and jailed.
>Woman lodges PG as manager hasnt followed due process – agreed?
Agreed.
>Manager under legal advice lodges theft complaint to preempt employment case – agreed?
Not heard that, so it’s ok to have malicious prosecution if it may protect you from a f*ckup?
>Thats whats going on here on a very small scale.
very, very, very small scale, a 10c coke from Subways perspective.
>Stealing stock from your employer is wrong.
And yet being human and showing compassion by sharing your coke is not.
Of course the employer knows nothing about being human or compassionate.
>Whats next, stealing a pair of jeans when you work in a shop on the high St, hell they only cost $30 wholesale, get over it?
Your poor analogy involves a cost 300 times higher to the employer.
But if the employee was allowed to have free jeans and a friend came in there with a sudden severe wardrobe malfunction and was then fired without the legal rights afforded I would still think it wrong.
>mmmm, think i’ll have a sub for lunch today.
mmmm, I think that since unlike you I’m not a Subway employee I’ll snub them for the foreseeable future.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:23 am
nydsv voecyzxbw rmlji gmonwpey fmnehukt cwqgaxry aowq