Driving you car into work literally
The Press reported:
A Christchurch tax worker fed up with his bosses has made a spectacular protest by driving his car through three plate-glass windows in the Inland Revenue building.
I do hope he gets made t pay the cost of repairs, so us taxpayers don’t have to.
But anyway the part I thought was really funny was:
Theobald posted the letter suspending him from work, written by a human resources manager, on the internet.
“Information has come to my attention which indicates that you may have intentionally driven a vehicle through Inland Revenue’s Christchurch building,” the manager wrote.
“I am concerned that your conduct may be inconsistent with the code of conduct.”
That is such an HR letter. Driving your car into the front of your workplace “may be inconsistent” with the code of conduct they are concerned.
August 19th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Insert eye roll. With all respect HR people do leave themselves open for the suggestion that their role is make work.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Hilarious! A few weeks ago there was a bit of talk about “Media” not having enough substance to obtain a degree in. I’d like to add HR to that list too!
August 19th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Those are the words of an HR manager who knows all too well that the ERA will always side with an employee (regardless) and that you have to cover your arse in a million layers any time you send any sort of letter which could be construed as disciplinary.
In other words this is a sad indictment on our labour laws which have swung the balance of power so far in the direction of the employee, that employers can no longer be straight up and deal with issues at face value.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Link to photos and documents: http://theaxemen.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/mick-elborado-the-car-crash-set/
August 19th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
I think we should have a whip-round for the guy!
August 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
According to a comment left on Keeping Stock:
“Mr Theobolds specialist area is (yes IS, he hasn’t yet been suspended) auditing tax returns over $100,000…”
Consider this to be a warning before commenting, especially if you are in that particular demographic
August 19th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
A report I read said he did it because he felt “bullied”.
The IRD, bullies? Shurely not?!
August 19th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I think everybody should drive their cars through the tax department window. Not only would the tax department know exactly what we think of them (I think they do anyway), the recession will be over with money going into the panelbeating industry!
August 19th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Typical HR, thinking “their” internal company policies are higher than the law. All it takes is a clause in the employment contract to say breaking the law is a sackable offence. Instead these moronic HR people want to create their own policies giving them something to do. And when they need to apply these said policies, they can’t even do that without dancing around the issue. HR would themselves be the most inconsistent department of any company.
August 19th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
I too thought what this guy had done until I saw him on the news tonight.
What a fucking drop kick!
Looks sounds and acts like a mate of Sue Bradford.
A 3 year employment dispute?
That says it all.
August 19th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Just finished reading the letter that was sent to Dave, it just gets even more ridiculous this HR BS!
THe Code of Conduct he is supposed to have broken is:
1) Contributing to a safe workplace and ensuring activities do not discredit IRD
and/or 2) the standards of integrity and conduct and/or your obligations to IRD
Perhaps he’ll keep his job, he drove his car into the building outside of work hours.
Patrick Crawford then says in his “Questions” section, “I will be the decision maker in this process”
Good one Patrick, if you can stop yourself getting tied up in your company’s “policies” and just apply the law you might make the process a bit easier.
Best part is the “Confidentiality” section – “to this end you are instructed to not communicate with anyone other than your representive and/or support person about matters referred to in this letter or the ongoing investigation” (everyone on Kiwiblog and internet is now a bona fide advisor)
Perhaps this is a reflection in the workplace of Labor and Helen Clark’s utopia for NZ. Bloody socialists.
Comforting that good ol’ Patrick offers poor Dave counselling, can’t have his coming back and going “postal”
August 19th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
One of the worst things you can do to a Government Department is piss them off.
Socialists just hate being challenged. They will now come back at Dave Theobold as faceless people with a mission.
They will make a special case of you, after all they have nothing better to do.
But then again Dave, you are one of the faceless people working in a Government Department huh?
Provoked? nah that shit wont stick. Whatever you do, thankyou for costing the taxpayer more money
August 19th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
@ wolfjung – you slag off Patrick Crawford over confidentiality. But it seems to me that it is Dave Theobald who has released a supposedly “confidential” letter into the public domain.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
While I am not an HR person and I do not work in government I do manage staff and I could imagine myself writing this letter. This is the type of bullshit you have to write to make sure that you do not get a PG thrown at you for not following due process.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
What a mess our Employment law is, what happened to the old days….
Boss: “got a minute mate”?
Worker: “yes, what’s up”?
Boss: “it’s not really working out is it?”
Worker: “what do you mean?, are you saying that you want me to go?”
Boss: “Yes, this job is not really for you is it”
Worker: “well when do you want me to go?”
Boss: “Now is as good a time as any, grab a box and clear your desk, good luck in the future”
August 19th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@inventory2,
not sure where you get the idea of me slagging off Patrick Crawford over confidentiality.
Dave made his letter public domain and has highlighted the internal workings of the majority of HR departments in NZ that have to work within the confines of ridiculous employment law. Patrick is probably nervous as he knows that one slip up in anything he says can result in a PG or worse yet compensation for poor Dave. I wonder why a lot of NZ businesses now employ people as contractors?……..wouldn’t be something about avoiding various parts of employment law?
I would have thought that anyone who drives their car intentionally into their working premises causing damage and then openly admitting to it, that it wouldn’t be a problem to sack them immediately.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“Information has come to my attention which indicates that you may have intentionally driven a vehicle through Inland Revenue’s Christchurch building,” the manager wrote.
How detached are these guys. The manager could not see it for him/herself.
August 19th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Understandable that the IRD piss off taxpayers but what the hell are they up to so pissing off a staff member that he deliberatley damages the building or is he does a twit?
August 20th, 2009 at 3:19 am
Insolent Prick has the final word on HR types. The man is an absolute visionary.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:09 am
I see Simon Henry, the building owner, was on TV last night complaining about the cost of repairs. This is a guy who charges the taxpayers TRIPLE the going rate for commecial space in central Christchurch and now he has the gall to complain about having to pay a few bucks for repairs.
August 20th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Mike – IRD no doubt entered into the lease because of the superior nature of the space (large floor plates, suitable for technology etc), wanted security of tenure and the last rent review was probably before the current recession. your ‘benchmark’ figure would be an average and includes crap space.
Landlord says it will be 50k to fix and is concerned that the insurance claim could well cost him perhaps $20k over the next few years in higher premiums – sort of like a loss of no claims bonus.
Perhaps every IRD landlord should be quaking in their shoes, not at the possibility of a tax audit but at a possibility of a drive in by a disgruntled employee or taxpayer.
August 20th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Inland Revenue kept this guy on for 25 years. What does that say about them?
August 20th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Back in the 1960′s unemployment was almost non-existent. It was a news item when an unemployment applicant listed his occupation as ‘burglar’ A cartoon showed the Minister of Labour saying, in response to a parliamentary question on the matter, “He has been satisfactorily placed with the IRD”.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
odc: Sorry this was the culmination of a three year employment situation which involved people high up on both sides. The letter from PC is not the only absurd letter received. If the state of the law is such that you believe PC has to be protected with phrases like the ones in his letter don’cha think something’s a little wrong?
Inventory2: My job involved checking (certainly not auditing) accounts with transaction movements greater than $100,000 and if these involved refunds recommending the refund be approved. Personal politics didn’t enter into these decisions.
Razork: Not sure what a ‘dropkick’ is, but I’ve done a careful analysis of the TV1 segment and what the 30+ minutes of time with TV1 boiled down to on http://cryptome.org If you’re not perceptive enough to realise there’s something odd about a person doing this having less to say than the building’s owner, and being out in a cafe with pictures of the damage, I genuinely worry about the future of New Zealand.
I’ll point out that if the building’s owner can find me a job I’ll pay for his glass, but also point out the unusual circumstances regarding the removal of the need for protection as a historical building that occured at the time the plans were readied. You can find all the details on-line if you care to look.
All: