Now I've seen it all...

[hellokitty]

The employer should have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to immediately fire the prick.
Naturally if he had any brains he'd ring the Police and alert them to the threats made and implore them to go and gather his family in case they were targeted.
Oh wait up, we live in NZ.
First the fucker has to actually make good on his threat before they can act.
Oh and as if that isn't enough someone has! to have been hurt before he can even be arrested and charged with anything.
We're too soft these days.

hmmm when i spoke to police about my stalker-ex, i was told they can't do anything until he does something to me.... i said if i turn up dead then maybe they might believe me?

[nzspokes]

hmmm when i spoke to police about my stalker-ex, i was told they can't do anything until he does something to me.... i said if i turn up dead then maybe they might believe me?

I have the same issue with my ex-wifes ex-boyfriend. Cops cant/wont do anything. Her new boyfriends a pussy and wont go sort the guy out. If the ex-boyfriend turns up when my kids are there I will have to.

[Oakie]

That is, the financial penalty is less severe for manslaughter than dismissing an employee?

But I guess that was just a myth anyway...

Yeah, financial penalty probably is smaller (although I have seen large reparation payments) but there's no chance you'll be doing time behind bars following a PG.

[skippa1]

Not wasted. Invested.

nup....its wasted. Wasted simply because the employee doesnt have the same requirement to adhere to any process when they wrong you.........they can drag out the process, postpone meetings, bring unrelated matters to the table, bring a myriad of "support people", talk to the media and generally make your life a misery because they fucked up. In all cases they are treated as the innocent victim of the almighty employeer that has massive profits at its disposal thanks to the combined efforts of the poor oppressed worker. With the requirement to adhere to more and more stringent H&S, NZTA, OSH........compliance, employment law, a good portion of management time is taken up with compliance and human resources. It gets to the point where the smart thing isnt to create jobs, its to invest in something with lower return but less grief.
Imagine if your line managers had more time to grow the business, concentrate on streamlining process, work on relationships within and outside the business...........we might get the opportunity to employ more people, the business might be more profitable which would flow through to better wages and conditions happier staff, shit, maybe even zero turnover of staff.
I tried to employ 2 labourers. WINZ sent me 10 applicants down. Due to the nature of the job, they had to pass drug tests. When informed of this, 8 walked straight out. Two were tested and one passed. The one that passed started work, he had an accident at work a while later and when drug tested he failed. He was got a lawyer involved and wasted a whole lot of time to the point where you are better off paying him out a couple of grand and starting again.....
I have had a couple of victories, but they are only moral ones, got paid out through the employment court by two guys a total of $30k, but when you weigh that against the hours taken, legal costs, travel to their town, witness costs and worse still, the money that they stole and business reputation they messed up while employed....you dont even break even.

[skippa1]

Which is why the majority of claims are for about $8k, just a tad less than the cost of fighting it.

And it's the businesses that take the easy way out that keep the PG rort working. If they simply followed a few basic rules and fought every claim on it's merit the whole dodgy industry would fold.

I do agree but its a collective thing, you as one employeer are not able to achieve that and if you are in a business with skinny margins, you have to consider profitability over the collective good. No ROI.....no investment.....no business

[Oakie]

nup....its wasted. Wasted simply because the employee doesnt have the same requirement to adhere to any process when they wrong you.........they can drag out the process, postpone meetings, bring unrelated matters to the table, bring a myriad of "support people", talk to the media and generally make your life a misery because they fucked up.

They can try but if you've followed good process it does them no good. That's why it's an investment. Well it works for us anyway. My boss started the whole good process thing when she arrived nearly 8 years ago and the single PG taken against us in that time was unsuccessful.

I tried to employ 2 labourers. WINZ sent me 10 applicants down. Due to the nature of the job, they had to pass drug tests. When informed of this, 8 walked straight out. Two were tested and one passed. The one that passed started work, he had an accident at work a while later and when drug tested he failed. He was got a lawyer involved and wasted a whole lot of time to the point where you are better off paying him out a couple of grand and starting again..... .

I hear what you're saying on WINZ referees. Never had a good one. Most recent one (last week) went: "So you have no convictions?" "Ummm, no". I heard the hesitation so asked again at the end of the interview ... "No" she said. Sure enough the police check came in the following week and had about 15 convictions. As far as druggies are concerned I inserted the following line into our application form "Our workplace has zero tolerance for drug use. Would you consent to a drugs test as part of the recruitment process?". Tends to put them off. Oh, we don't actually do drug testing ... just asking if they would consent to a hypothetical test

I dunno. Perhaps our different perspectives are from being in different industries. I probably employee quite different people to you.

[Woodman]

Imagine if your line managers had more time to grow the business, concentrate on streamlining process, work on relationships within and outside the business...........we might get the opportunity to employ more people, the business might be more profitable which would flow through to better wages and conditions happier staff, shit, maybe even zero turnover of staff.

Wouldn't it be wonderful.

[Kickaha]

Oh, we don't actually do drug testing ...

We do as part of the pre employment check, I think one person out of probably the last 25-30 has failed, it doesn't mean the ones that pass haven't been dickheads though

[Oakie]

We do as part of the pre employment check, I think one person out of probably the last 25-30 has failed, it doesn't mean the ones that pass haven't been dickheads though

Haven't had any drug problem in my 5.5 years there although I did toss a couple last year for drinking at work. Bought a couple of breathalysers on the strength of it because we relied on their admission that they had done it.

[skippa1]

They can try but if you've followed good process it does them no good. That's why it's an investment. Well it works for us anyway. My boss started the whole good process thing when she arrived nearly 8 years ago and the single PG taken against us in that time was unsuccessful. .

My point exactly. I does them no good.....and likewise you. Just costs time and money. Our comapny employs over 300 people and believe me, the process is sound. It is written, step by step, by Simpson Grierson and Harrison Stone. It doesnt mean they cant challenge you.

I hear what you're saying on WINZ referees. Never had a good one. Most recent one (last week) went: "So you have no convictions?" "Ummm, no". I heard the hesitation so asked again at the end of the interview ... "No" she said. Sure enough the police check came in the following week and had about 15 convictions. As far as druggies are concerned I inserted the following line into our application form "Our workplace has zero tolerance for drug use. Would you consent to a drugs test as part of the recruitment process?". Tends to put them off. Oh, we don't actually do drug testing ... just asking if they would consent to a hypothetical test

I dunno. Perhaps our different perspectives are from being in different industries. I probably employee quite different people to you.

Drug testing IS mandatory as part of our employment process and they still come. They cheat and use someone elses piss, they buy products from hippy stores to help them through, they drink litres and litres of water to flush their systems.....We have mandatory testing after near miss or accident and in our industry, it is a 90% chance they fail. We employ from lower/mid socio economic groups and they just dont give a shit. Really, they cant even think further ahead than smoko.