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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I hope someone at Subway either seriously tightens up their HR policys and regulations, or someone takes them to the cleaners in employment court.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

She’s just an obsessed stalker, who slanders the Libz at every opportunity, regardless of the topic.

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?

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.