NationStates Jolt Archive

Though this may not directly affect you in whatever country you live in, I urge you to boycott Subway in protest of the appalling nature of their actions in Kiwiland New Zealand.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4050150a10.html

That article should explain it all. Open forum for slagging off Subway or defending them.

That`s gross, but since SubWay is franchise business boykotting them would only hurt my local franchise owner - who as I should mention - is a very cool guy, a model employer and overall decent person.

I agree as well. I'm not boycotting because my local SubWay is run by a cool and nice guy; he's given me free cookies before because I am a frequent customer.

Awww, but I was going to play Mornington Crescent.

Sounds rather harsh, but I still like their sandwiches.

Consider it done, they're too expensive for me anyway. :p

That's harsh! They could have just made her pay for the drinks instead - she was better off cleaning out the cash register by the looks of it.

And people still wonder why some of us advocate protective labour laws...

I'll boycott them when I get to the end of the four voucher books I was handed on campus last week...

And people still wonder why some of us advocate protective labour laws...

This sort of thing wouldn't be covered under protective labor laws though...sure, it's idiotic, but technically she took four dollars from the company.

Prolly it's just one branch. And for me it doesn't justify boycotting all.

Oh heck. I think we've got just only one Subway in my country anyway.

Awww, but I was going to play Mornington Crescent.

Spanish reverse rules and todays a tuesday! Hmmm Marble arch!

Subway is too noxious to eat anyway.

I think the moral is; dont sit in front of cctv when you are pinching stuff at work!

Spanish reverse rules and todays a tuesday! Hmmm Marble arch!

There hasn't been an MC thread here in aaaaages, I'll have to try and find my map.

Normally I'd go for Gospel Oak, but with SRR that'd land me right in spoon. I'll have to play it safe and go for Wapping.

I think the moral is; dont sit in front of cctv when you are pinching stuff at work!

Except they are everywhere these days.

This sort of thing wouldn't be covered under protective labor laws though...sure, it's idiotic, but technically she took four dollars from the company.

As I understand it, she's entitled to free soda during her work hours. Management didn't specify that this has to be consumed by herself and nobody else. As such, ending that contract was frivolous under most European labour laws.

AS, huh? Welcome to my world.

Which is pointless in saying, because she's already in my world.

That article should explain it all. Open forum for slagging off Subway or defending them.

Taking something without paying for it is stealing.

As I understand it, she's entitled to free soda during her work hours. Management didn't specify that this has to be consumed by herself and nobody else. As such, ending that contract was frivolous under most European labour laws.

That's ridiculous. By that reasoning she can have 300 friends over for 300 free sodas.

She can't give free soda to her friend and I'm willing to bet this isn't the first problem they've had with her.

That's ridiculous. By that reasoning she can have 300 friends over for 300 free sodas.

She can't give free soda to her friend and I'm willing to bet this isn't the first problem they've had with her.

Wouldn't that be the fault of the company, since they wrote the contract?

Wouldn't that be the fault of the company, since they wrote the contract?

Is she a contract employee?

Is she a contract employee?

I don't know.

Wouldn't that be the fault of the company, since they wrote the contract?

No.

Not if they wrote the contract in good faith.

Subway is trying to be nice and give there employeess free soda during working hours.

Just because someone finds a technical loophole in in an employee handbook doesn't give them the right to steal.

Jared would be horrifed.

That's ridiculous. By that reasoning she can have 300 friends over for 300 free sodas.

She can't give free soda to her friend and I'm willing to bet this isn't the first problem they've had with her.

The article says that she had a perfectly clean record before that.
And not specifying that is hardly her fault, the company would be to blame for not making that clear.

Is she a contract employee?

The article is not clear if she was a bargained for employee. They hint at it.

I haven't eaten at Subway in years.

Their sandwiches are crap (they used to be good, oh so many years ago).

There's a local deli that I go to, if I want a great sub. Much tastier.

as pointed out subway is a franchise. and as it appears it is the franchise owner that is being a huge dick about it. now if the subway headquaters were in on this then i would completely agree with you. im betting it wont be too long before the head guys at subway step in and take disciplinary action against the owner.

and what the hell is with new zealand going to court for $4. here a cop might be called and the cop might just make you pay a civil fine. but that would be pretty much it. especailly for the first time which im assuming this is.

Taking something without paying for it is stealing.

I've seen far worse and you know what? This is hardly an actionable offense. Most places wouldn't write you up for that, and if there was a problem, they would have informed her first and not called the police. They went too far given the circumstances.

Oh and since taking something without paying is stealing, I suppose if I find a book lying on the street and no one claims it and I keep it for myself that it's stealing? I mean, I didn't pay for it...

By that logic, finding something and keeping it when no one claims it is stealing according to your logic.

That's ridiculous. By that reasoning she can have 300 friends over for 300 free sodas.

She can't give free soda to her friend and I'm willing to bet this isn't the first problem they've had with her.

The article said it was the first occurrence and that she had a clean employment and criminal record before then.

You've never worked in fast food have you? Friends are always giving friends freebies.

My cousin gave me free coffee when she was working at Tim Hortens. I used to give my boyfriend free coffee when he picked me up from work and I could take leftover goods home and I would often leave with 3 cups of coffee, one for me, my boyfriend and my dad.

Policy allowed for us to. Officially they would tell us not to but they didn't stop us, at least the evening supervisor was cool like that.

The article says that she had a perfectly clean record before that.

Clean.

Which to me just means she hasn't done anything illegal or dishonest.

I'm not sure what they mean by "clean employment history".

She could have had a shitty attitude or been late alot, who knows.

Personally I would have just shit canned her.


And not specifying that is hardly her fault, the company would be to blame for not making that clear.

They shouldn't have to specify common sense. What if she wheeled in a 55 gallon drum and wanted to fill it?

She can't give free soda to her friend and I'm willing to bet this isn't the first problem they've had with her.
Which is of course why her work record is clean?

And stealing a $4 soda? Petty theft at best. And since she's an employee, she should've got a warning and at most dismissed. A theft charge is horse shit.

Clean.

Which to me just means she hasn't done anything illegal or dishonest.

I'm not sure what they mean by "clean employment history".

She could have had a shitty attitude or been late alot, who knows.

Personally I would have just shit canned her.

They shouldn't have to specify common sense. What if she wheeled in a 55 gallon drum and wanted to fill it?

"Clean employment history" means she was rarely late, if at all. Lateness is recorded in employee records.
A shitty attitude would still not warrant a police arrest, merely a nice talk with the manager. And that conversation would have been marked in her record, too.

Normally, contracts or agreements like the ones in question tend to have a reference to consuming soda on the premises, during their shift.
And I would say that it is common sense to give a few freebies to friends and relatives of employees. It's standard business practice.

And I would say that it is common sense to give a few freebies to friends and relatives of employees. It's standard business practice.

As would I, but apparently the franchiser is an uptight tool...I know from my short term stint in food service that oftentimes that can indeed be the case.

Hell, I quit a job after two weeks because the owner of the franchise let loose on four or five employees in that time period...made three of them cry.

Pft, who goes to Subway, when Quiznos is much better.

Potbelly's is where it's at man, Potbelly's.

Pft, who goes to Subway, when Quiznos is much better.

Potbelly's is where it's at man, Potbelly's.

Never heard of that place, although I have a potbelly :p

Never heard of that place, although I have a potbelly :p

Aye, Potbelly's is delicious...I used to only be able to get it on the East Coast of the US, but now it has moved into the midwest and I looooooooove it! I hope they expand more!

She could have had a shitty attitude or been late alot, who knows.

Not with Aspergers.

Personally I would have just shit canned her.
Yeah well that makes you an asshat too.

They shouldn't have to specify common sense. What if she wheeled in a 55 gallon drum and wanted to fill it?
$4 NZ worth of soda is equivalent of 55 gallons of soda? I'm fucking moving there.
Charging anyone, much less an employee, with theft over that amount is the pinnacle of asshattery.

Not with Aspergers.

I dunno, I spend a lot of my time with a shitty attitude or late. It's like my job.

I dunno, I spend a lot of my time with a shitty attitude or late. It's like my job.
Maybe a shitty attitude, but late is doubtable.

And even with a history of "shitty attitude and lateness," there is no justification for a charge of theft.

i had a friend work at that sorry so called place. there is a reason why Subway changed its motto from "Always fresh" to "Eat fresh", its because they want u to eat elsewhere since there food is FAR from fresh. i seen first hand the crap they serve, i wouldnt feed it to my dumbass neighbors dog! close the chain for all i care

:mp5:

Clean.

Which to me just means she hasn't done anything illegal or dishonest.

I'm not sure what they mean by "clean employment history".

She could have had a shitty attitude or been late alot, who knows.

Personally I would have just shit canned her.

What exactly do you think a "clean employment history" is? Being late or having a bad attitude doesn't sound like something you can describe as "clean". And part of Subway policy is that they can have a drink at work. Firing her for sharing one with a friend and getting the police involved is just stupid. I can only hope her judge tosses this charge out for the "theft" of a $4 soda.

And four bucks? What crazy prices do they have there?


They shouldn't have to specify common sense. What if she wheeled in a 55 gallon drum and wanted to fill it?

:rolleyes:

Perhaps this was just an excuse to get rid of someone with a disability.

Perhaps this was just an excuse to get rid of someone with a disability.

It wouldn't surprise me. In which case, she should file a grievance since it would be discrimination.

What a dick.

Everytime I see someone flipping out on thier minimum wage employees, be it a hole in the wall franchise owner or shift supervisor at a McDonalds I always think that the notion that "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely," is an incomplete phrase. What is missing is that everyone has in them a fixed point of absolute power, the highest level of power they're ever going to reach and when they hit it, that's when they go asshat. When you see a fast food shift supervisor lording over the register monkeys you know that dude just has a really fucking low ceiling.

It says bad things about a manager/owner who would flip out over sharing a soda (especially reviewing tapes to find her doing that...sweet crap dude, you lost more than $4 worth of your time fucking doing that), but even worse things for the authority sicophants that would try and defend this level of action over $4 fucking dollars worth of soda. At American Subways most of the time refills are free, because soda surup is pretty fucking cheap. It's not going to cripple his business to dole out a soda now and then.

Wow, just fucking...wow.

You learn something a little disturbing about people every day.

While the register price of the soda might be $4, the actual cost to the company is only a few cents. Soda syrup and carbonated water, plus a wax paper cup, is a negligible cost.

This is a franchise manager who has some serious problems.
The reaction was way out of line and I am surprised the cops even bothered to detain the girl. The cops around here would just tactfully tell the guy he was full of shit and that it really wasn't worth the $4 (especially considering the 'theft' should not be valued at sale price but in actual damages of less than a buck).

I do not know what the laws are in this jurisdiction, but the prosecutor should refuse to pursue the matter and fine the store owner for wasting the court's time over something so insignificant.

Having had a roommate with Asperger's syndrome, I can attest to how awkward they can be at times. Had he just fired her I would say he was just looking for an excuse. Getting the cops involved was probably because she pissed him off and he was just looking for a way to hurt her.

I will wager that this little incident is going to cost the franchise significantly in lost sales. It could even potentially kill the business (I've seen enough go belly up around here even without protests outside).

Were this in the US she would easily be able to sue, accusing him of doing this because of her disability, and win. Generally I just chalk that up to a sue-happy culture, but it would be justified here.

I always boycott large fast food chains anyway and have done for about 6 years.

Subway, McDonalds, BurgerKing, Pizza Hut, KFC. All a no no on my food list. Apart from second rate food I am aginst their general mission statesments to take over the world.

In the high street where I live a Subway opened up directly from an independant Sandwhich shop that has been there for around 20 years. The independant is still going strong, and the Subway looks a bit grotty.

$4 dollars for a soda?! Diet coke!?

my local subway is mostly run by Polish women who mother me because I'm a frequent so boycotting the place is impossible especially when I think I have an addiction

I will however say that manager is a dick and the employees should just walk out

i woud never eat there anyway. why eat at a chain when you can get better food and more variety in and independant sandwich place? and cheaper too.

i woud never eat there anyway. why eat at a chain when you can get better food and more variety in and independant sandwich place? and cheaper too.

why eat at a independent shop when you can make the food at home for half the cost and a third the imagination!?

why eat at a independent shop when you can make the food at home for half the cost and a third the imagination!?

Not easy if you work upto 40miles from home everyday and fancy a hot butty.

why eat at a independent shop when you can make the food at home for half the cost and a third the imagination!?

ah, well, if you are organised enough to wake up in time to do that or have the foresight to do it the night before then that's all good :p.

also, if i have the kind of ingredients i'd like to choose from in a sandwich shop at home i'd eat it all at once and end up costing myself more in the long-run because i don't often buy sandwhiches out, i generally get a 50p jumbo sausage roll from Piemaker or go hungry.

Not easy if you work upto 40miles from home everyday and fancy a hot butty.

all you need to do is bring some equipment :)

workers of the world shake off ye shackles of the burger van! you've got nothing to lose but salmonella! :D

all you need to do is bring some equipment :)

workers of the world shake off ye shackles of the burger van! you've got nothing to lose but salmonella! :D

but i like rat-burgers! :( :p

Reminds me of the scene in clerks: Dante was punished for what the company was doing.

i generally get a 50p jumbo sausage roll from Piemaker or go hungry.

:eek: 80p gets a small sausage roll here!

mind you I've been guaranteed that there bandage free:p

I agree as well. I'm not boycotting because my local SubWay is run by a cool and nice guy; he's given me free cookies before because I am a frequent customer.

same here... not the free cookies thing but one free refill. :p

:eek: 80p gets a small sausage roll here!

mind you I've been guaranteed that there bandage free:p

piemaker is the 'quality' pie shop round here. i've yet to find gristle in one and they are so greasy you can actually feel them insulating your innards :)

but i like rat-burgers! :( :p

oh you still have faith that what goes in those burgers could at any point be 'alive' :p

piemaker is the 'quality' pie shop round here. i've yet to find gristle in one and they are so greasy you can actually feel them insulating your innards :)

presumably you should avoid the pies though?

all you need to do is bring some equipment :)

workers of the world shake off ye shackles of the burger van! you've got nothing to lose but salmonella! :D

Apart from seasoning the lobster bisque, he farted on the meringue, sneezed on braised endive, and as for the cream of mushroom soup, well...

Apart from seasoning the lobster bisque, he farted on the meringue, sneezed on braised endive, and as for the cream of mushroom soup, well...

surely you could have a friend do that for the authentic European taste

surely you could have a friend do that for the authentic European taste

Hmmm...

Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit against the Pressman Hotel over the urine content of their soup.

A boycott would hurt a lot of innocent people, people who didn't do anything!

I'm boycotting it because it tastes like crap, unlike the local bakers' bacon sandwiches.

Not with Aspergers.

Her Autism makes her unable to have a shitty attitude or late to work?


Yeah well that makes you an asshat too.

Asshat?

I thoughy people stopped using that once it made it on the O.C.

What's next? A hearty "Whoomp there it is."?


$4 NZ worth of soda is equivalent of 55 gallons of soda? I'm fucking moving there.
Charging anyone, much less an employee, with theft over that amount is the pinnacle of asshattery.

You're having trouble following this thread.

You're having trouble following this thread.
Your hyperbole was absurd.

"Clean employment history" means she was rarely late, if at all. Lateness is recorded in employee records.
A shitty attitude would still not warrant a police arrest, merely a nice talk with the manager. And that conversation would have been marked in her record, too.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating her arrest just her bosses' right to fire her.

"Normally, contracts or agreements like the ones in question tend to have a reference to consuming soda on the premises, during their shift.

Within reason.

Hanging out with your friend at work and giving them free soda is, IMO, beyond reason.

I wish I had the subway guide book

"And I would say that it is common sense to give a few freebies to friends and relatives of employees. It's standard business practice.

Common practice, but not common sense.

It's also a horrible business practice to have employees friends hanging around and mooching soda.

I was re-reading the article and I guess this woman really is a bargained for employee, if that is the case her Union sucks.

Hanging out with your friend at work and giving them free soda is, IMO, beyond reason.
What are you, a task master? Does your job involve some guy beating a drum and another wielding a whip? People get lunch breaks at least. And she gets free soda as an employee. A full cup of soda, without ice, is what? 12 ounces? Better fire her for stealing a 75 cent soda.

It's also a horrible business practice to have employees friends hanging around and mooching soda.
So besides being an asshat taskmaster, you are also uncaring and unfeeling? It's sad when some one with Asperger's has better social graces than a, I assume, normal person.

Your hyperbole was absurd.

Isn't that the point of hyperbole?

giving a drink without payment is theft good on SubWay

What are you, a task master? Does your job involve some guy beating a drum and another wielding a whip? People get lunch breaks at least. And she gets free soda as an employee. A full cup of soda, without ice, is what? 12 ounces? Better fire her for stealing a 75 cent soda.

She gets 1 free soda.

Security video footage of the incident shows Lang sharing the drink with her friend, then refilling the cup and leaving it on the table when she returned to work.

Here she is not only hanging out with her friend at work but giving them free soda.

The employeer is within his right to boot her. It's not her soda, it's his.



So besides being an asshat taskmaster, you are also uncaring and unfeeling? It's sad when some one with Asperger's has better social graces than a, I assume, normal person.

Whoomp dey it is!

She gets 1 free soda.
Thank you for your insight into something you already admitted you don't have, Genghis Khan.

Here she is not only hanging out with her friend at work
Like I said, outside your slave ship, workers have lunch breaks to do with as they please.

but giving them free soda.
A single free soda, a dubious reason to fire anyone with a clean record.

Whoomp dey it is!
It's like arguing with a wall. A wall from 1995.

SUBWAY is the EVIL EMPIRE! If YOU buy a sub anywhere in the world, then YOU support EVIL in this one particular store! harbleharblehapjaSDPnjmafdspgnjdfrgn

I always boycott large fast food chains anyway and have done for about 6 years.

Subway, McDonalds, BurgerKing, Pizza Hut, KFC. All a no no on my food list. Apart from second rate food I am aginst their general mission statesments to take over the world.

In the high street where I live a Subway opened up directly from an independant Sandwhich shop that has been there for around 20 years. The independant is still going strong, and the Subway looks a bit grotty.

Amen.

For me, it was reading Eric Schlosser's book Fast Food Nation (the recent movie based on it is a fictionailzation -- not a bad one, but it didn't have the same impact as the more compendious book). The notion that you can tell when you've reached the next town by when the fast food restaurants and strip-mall franchises repeat, the notion of using illegal immigrants as a ridiculously cheap workforce, the notion of mass-production farming and meat processing -- it all turned me off. I haven't been to a McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, or the like for going on six years.

Besides, you're doing more to help the local economy by either going to a locally-owned, locally-supplied restaurant or making your own sammiches at home.

Thank you for your insight into something you already admitted you don't have, Genghis Khan.

I prefer Atilla.

Like I said, outside your slave ship, workers have lunch breaks to do with as they please.

No they don't.

She's not allowed to have her lame-o friend come over and drink free soda.

A single free soda, a dubious reason to fire anyone with a clean record.

It wasn't 1 soda. But keep chanting that over and over and it might come true.

It's like arguing with a wall. A wall from 1995.

That's mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.

She's not allowed to have her lame-o friend come over and drink free soda.
So there's no freewill in NZ? People can go to a sandwich shop that their friend is working at now? :rolleyes:

There is nothing that says she can't share the soda with her friend.

You've never worked in fast food have you? If you had, you'd know that this kind of thing is very common and as long as you don't do it while on shift, they generally won't punish you. This is why you have breaks. You use those breaks as you want because it gives you time to rest before you go back to work.

Do you know how many free drinks the average worker in the fast food industry gets? More than you'd ever know because it's pennies to the employer. At Tim Hortens we could drink all the coffee and tea we wanted because it's so cheap for us to brew. Ice caps were not on the list but we could take a freebie if the manager was in a good mood.

My manager gave free coffee to others before and we gave free coffee and drinks to employees who weren't even working that day. It's common practice.

Fast food is not easy work. The standing is hard on the human body especially when you're not permitted to sit under any circumstances.

Employers care more about how you do your damn job. The only people they hate aren't the ones who steal but the ones who threaten the workplace. People who smoke on break are more likely to incur the wrath of the managers than those who take free coffee.

Asshat?

I thoughy people stopped using that once it made it on the O.C.

What's next? A hearty "Whoomp there it is."?

After reading this and your sig, I have to ask -- who appointed you the Deputy Minister of Pop-Culture for catchphrase self-life? Lighten up, junior.

By the way, using a zero instead of the letter O in your screen name is sooo last century.
(There -- see how pretentious that sounds?)

You're having trouble following this thread.

And you're having trouble with basic decency. That soda actually costs Subway about 4 CENTS, not $4 -- why else would they permit employees to help themselves? If you've read anything on where the profit margin for restaurants is, you'd know it's almost always beverages, and soda is the cash cow.

No they don't.
So people don't have lunch breaks where you work? I think you need a union.

She's not allowed to have her lame-o friend come over and drink free soda.
She's allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants on her break.


It wasn't 1 soda.
She shared one soda then gave her a full one. Each being worth at most a seventy five cents due to brand naming. Factually worth not even a dollar altogether. Also, something she is granted for working there. Maybe you should go picket McDonald's or Burger King - they give their employees either free or heavily discounted food. Every time!

Within reason.

Hanging out with your friend at work and giving them free soda is, IMO, beyond reason.

I wish I had the subway guide book.

Common practice, but not common sense.

It's also a horrible business practice to have employees friends hanging around and mooching soda.

I was re-reading the article and I guess this woman really is a bargained for employee, if that is the case her Union sucks.

As mentioned numerous times, and illustrated by several examples in this thread so far, it is common business practice to allow employees to have free sodas, and to share that with friends. The article itself mentions that the regulations at this particular Subway made note that free soda was within the rights of the employee.
I think it's fair to assume that the manager of a ranchise such as this is well aware of business practices in his field of work (in this case, fast food restaurants). If giving out freebies to friends and family of his employees was such a pet hate for him, he should have made sure that his employees were aware of that by either noting it down in the handbook or by informing each employee when hiring them.
There is nothing in this article that indicates that this had happened. He didn't give a simple statement to the press saying that the employee was aware that what she did was against regulations at his restaurant, and what the consequences would be. We must therefore assume that she had not been explicitly informed that against common practice, she was not allowed to share her free drinks with her friend.

McDonalds lost a million dollar law suit for selling coffee that was hotter than the common temperature at other restaurants. If you want to go against common practice, you had better make sure that whoever you are dealing with is aware of that fact.
If you don't do that, you had better not complain if people expect things to be the same at your restaurant as at all other restaurants in town. Firing an employee because she went against a rule she didn't know existed should be illegal.

At least Subway actually serves food rather than just the food substitute that places like McDonalds sell.

She gets 1 free soda.



Here she is not only hanging out with her friend at work but giving them free soda.

The employeer is within his right to boot her. It's not her soda, it's his.





Whoomp dey it is!
You are creating policy that is not stated.

The article indicates that Subway free soda and water while working.
It does not indicate quantity, as you assume.

Every job has breaks, and she is being fired for the soda and not for sluffing off at work. If she was talking to her friend when she should have been working it would have been given as a reason. The only reason we're given is the soda. She was on a break. She was drinking the soda she was allowed. Once you give something to someone you have no agency over what they do with it. It was her soda given to her by the allowances of the Subway handbook, what she does with it once it is hers is her business.

The only reason I stopped going to Subway was because in Vegas they don't carry the veggie patty at any of them. I miss it so too. :(

As mentioned numerous times, and illustrated by several examples in this thread so far, it is common business practice to allow employees to have free sodas, and to share that with friends. The article itself mentions that the regulations at this particular Subway made note that free soda was within the rights of the employee.where I worked, such perks were ONLY for the employee, not their friends and family. this includes employee discounts also. so it could be (tho not mentioned either way) that the free soda is for the employee only.
I think it's fair to assume that the manager of a ranchise such as this is well aware of business practices in his field of work (in this case, fast food restaurants). If giving out freebies to friends and family of his employees was such a pet hate for him, he should have made sure that his employees were aware of that by either noting it down in the handbook or by informing each employee when hiring them.and how do you know they were not told that? just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. for all we know, they probably never interviewed the manager...

There is nothing in this article that indicates that this had happened. He didn't give a simple statement to the press saying that the employee was aware that what she did was against regulations at his restaurant, and what the consequences would be. We must therefore assume that she had not been explicitly informed that against common practice, she was not allowed to share her free drinks with her friend. her work history is also not printed. thus are we to assume then that she was a model employee and that this one incident was her only offense? no. employee records are not given out to the press. how do we know that this employee was warned repeatedly for giving all of her friends free sodas? how do we know that the manager did infact warn her of such actions in the past? just because it's not printed doesn't mean it didn't happen.

To be fair, to demonize either employee or manager without knowing all the facts is doing nothing but jumping to conclusions.

each Subway has basic rules, but outide of those rules, each franchise can add other polices that their store runs by. some may allow 1 drink, others unlimited in number but only to the employee. To say "well here is how it is in my subway so..." is also wrong.

The only reason I stopped going to Subway was because in Vegas they don't carry the veggie patty at any of them. I miss it so too. :(

That sucks. That's why I love the SubWay near me. They always have it in stock!

The only reason I stopped going to Subway was because in Vegas they don't carry the veggie patty at any of them. I miss it so too. :(

:confused: so why not just get a Veggie sandwich?

That sucks. That's why I love the SubWay near me. They always have it in stock!

Sure, just rub it in. :p

:confused: so why not just get a Veggie sandwich?


Not enough protein, plus they just aren't as good.

We don't have Subway in Poland.

Sure, just rub it in. :p

*rub rub rub*

SUBWAY is the EVIL EMPIRE! If YOU buy a sub anywhere in the world, then YOU support EVIL in this one particular store!
Really? Even If the store I buy a sub at isn't a Subway?
harbleharblehapjaSDPnjmafdspgnjdfrgn

Ihavenoideawhatyouaretalkingabout.

*rub rub rub*

*chafes*

her work history is also not printed. thus are we to assume then that she was a model employee and that this one incident was her only offense? no. employee records are not given out to the press.
-
Lang had a clean employment history and no criminal record.

Subway, McDonalds, BurgerKing, Pizza Hut, KFC. All a no no on my food list. Apart from second rate food I am aginst their general mission statesments to take over the world.


Well, if that is their mission, then all but McD's and Pizza Hut are forgetting poland. Thus, they cannot have the whole world.

how do we know that the manager did infact warn her of such actions in the past?
I would assume "clean history" meant clean..

-

I would assume "clean history" meant clean..

clean employment record only means nothing "officially written up."

Clean Employment History just means nothing offically written or noted from past employers.

if her current employer warned her repeatedly for having friends over and giving them free drinks but didn't officially write her up for it, then yes, her employement record will be clean.

also, make note, I'm not saying either side is right. that is for the courts to decide.

where I worked, such perks were ONLY for the employee, not their friends and family. this includes employee discounts also. so it could be (tho not mentioned either way) that the free soda is for the employee only.
and how do you know they were not told that? just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. for all we know, they probably never interviewed the manager...

her work history is also not printed. thus are we to assume then that she was a model employee and that this one incident was her only offense? no. employee records are not given out to the press. how do we know that this employee was warned repeatedly for giving all of her friends free sodas? how do we know that the manager did infact warn her of such actions in the past? just because it's not printed doesn't mean it didn't happen.

To be fair, to demonize either employee or manager without knowing all the facts is doing nothing but jumping to conclusions.

each Subway has basic rules, but outide of those rules, each franchise can add other polices that their store runs by. some may allow 1 drink, others unlimited in number but only to the employee. To say "well here is how it is in my subway so..." is also wrong.

They said they tried, but management refused to comment.
How do we know that whole thing ever happened? We can only go with what information the article provides.

Personally, I assume there's more history behind all this. But for some reason, the manager decided to give the soda in question as a reason for firing her. Which in turn makes me wonder what his real reasons might have been and why he didn't use any of them to fire her. But that's mere speculation.

I never worked in restaurants, but a couple of my friends did. They were allowed to give out free drinks to friends and family, although not excessively (something like one drink per person dropping round to say hello, usually). They were also allowed to take home leftovers from the kitchens. A freind of my mother basically raised her kids on leftovers from the restaurant where she worked.
Another friend of mine works in a bakery, and usually brings round free cake whenever she comes over to my place.

Neither of us are from New Zealand, so neither our experiences carry much value here.
I agree that it is entirely up to the manager to decide if and how much free soda his employees should get, and if they are allowed to share it or not.
All I'm saying is that it has to be made clear. We don't have any comment from the manager, so it's hard to tell. If he did inform her of the restrictions AND the consequences, I think he was within his right to fire her. If he didn't (and that's what this sounds like at the moment), then he was overreacting and way out of line.

clean employment record only means nothing "officially written up."

Clean Employment History just means nothing offically written or noted from past employers.

if her current employer warned her repeatedly for having friends over and giving them free drinks but didn't officially write her up for it, then yes, her employement record will be clean.

also, make note, I'm not saying either side is right. that is for the courts to decide.

There's 'being fair' and then there is bending backwards. There is plenty in that article to indicate that this came out of nowhere and nothing to support your theory. I am not prepared to bend backwards to make the employer look good. Sure, it's possible that the owner rode in on a unicorn everyday, but it doesn't seem likely.

The plot thickens (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Subway-sacks-NZ-worker-for-sharing-drink/2007/05/06/1178390129483.html)
"Management called her into a meeting without telling her it was a disciplinary, gave her no chance to have representation and then blind-sided her with accusations of theft. She never had a chance."

He said although Subway initially implied Ms Lang would face prosecution, none was brought until the union filed a case against them for unfair dismissal.

"As far as I can see the criminal charges are a clear attempt to keep her quiet about how she was treated by the company."

There's 'being fair' and then there is bending backwards. There is plenty in that article to indicate that this came out of nowhere and nothing to support your theory. I am not prepared to bend backwards to make the employer look good. Sure, it's possible that the owner rode in on a unicorn everyday, but it doesn't seem likely.

The plot thickens (http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Subway-sacks-NZ-worker-for-sharing-drink/2007/05/06/1178390129483.html)
that maybe true, but you are allowing yourself to be bent over as others put the manager on trial in the MEDIA and not a court where it should be.

also, just because someone is saying it may not be as the media reports it, does NOT make that person trying to paint management as some saint.

That is only in the minds of people who are trying to paint the employee as Mother Theresa.

if her current employer warned her repeatedly for having friends over and giving them free drinks but didn't officially write her up for it, then yes, her employement record will be clean.
She was repeatedly warned but never written up? And then suddenly canned? Horseshit any way you look at it.

That`s gross, but since SubWay is franchise business boykotting them would only hurt my local franchise owner - who as I should mention - is a very cool guy, a model employer and overall decent person.

Yeah. The guy I know who runs a Subway up in Winchester is really nice. He always greets us friendly because we're weekend regulars.

that maybe true, but you are allowing yourself to be bent over as others put the manager on trial in the MEDIA and not a court where it should be.

also, just because someone is saying it may not be as the media reports it, does NOT make that person trying to paint management as some saint.

That is only in the minds of people who are trying to paint the employee as Mother Theresa.
I'm taking the facts that are available and making a reasonable conclusion. This isn't the O.J. trial, it's a minimum wage employee at a Subway.

And it looks like you can have asshat policies and business practices if you want, but they have consiquences (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=74&objectid=10438638)...
Multinational fast-food giant Subway is distancing itself from one of its own franchises in the fall-out from the dismissal of a Dunedin employee.
...
The branch said about 50 people attended the protest, and about 200 people signed a petition.
...
Subway said yesterday Subway restaurants were owned and operated by independent franchisees.

"As a franchisor, the Subway chain provides guidance in menu and operational matters," the fast-food operator said. "It is not involved in matters between the franchisee and staff."

The decision to fire Ms Lang was made by the owner of the Subway George Street store, Galcol. Subway said Galcol continued to be willing to resolve the matter via mediation.

They said they tried, but management refused to comment.and you will find that most places won't comment on employee firing/internal matters.
How do we know that whole thing ever happened? We can only go with what information the article provides.and rarely do newspapers and other media portray both sides fairly or equally. so take it as it's presented. an employee was fired for percieved thieft. that employee is filling for Unfair dissmissal though her union. all relevant information will come out in court.

and you will find that most places won't comment on employee firing/internal matters.
and rarely do newspapers and other media portray both sides fairly or equally. so take it as it's presented. an employee was fired for percieved thieft. that employee is filling for Unfair dissmissal though her union. all relevant information will come out in court.

It's ridiculous that she has to go to court, which -
"They responded by taking the matter to the police - now Jackie’s up in court over the theft of a free Coke and facing thousands of dollars in legal costs. It’s ridiculous and vicious.”
over $4 of soda.
new source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21686568-401,00.html)

I'm taking the facts that are available and making a reasonable conclusion. This isn't the O.J. trial, it's a minimum wage employee at a Subway.

And it looks like you can have asshat policies and business practices if you want, but they have consiquences (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=74&objectid=10438638)...

and in the eyes of the courts and law, it shouldn't matter if it's Murder or fraud or unfair treatment.

also, I never said those policies couldn't be asshat. just that each franchise can set their own rules and policies. I also never said such policies and rules are NOT without consiquences.

I'm just saying to say so adamantly that the employee deserved firing or that the manager was wrong by just the facts of the news article is wrong.

I'm reading, in this thread, people defining what the rules of that particular subway is, also who was the devil or who was the saint all by the backing of one article and their experience in another Subway franchise.

It's ridiculous that she has to go to court, which -

over $4 of soda.
new source (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21686568-401,00.html)

most places have other options to court. we don't know if those are available in NZ or if they were persued.

and should she win, thats Thousands of dollars + $4 that franchise will be paying her (legal fees + damages.)

Plus A clean and GLOWING recommendation from the franchise...

all for the actions of one manager.

add to that the chance that the franchise owners may not renew that franchise reguardless of outcome...

Edit. noticed this last bit...
In a letter addressed to Lang, the directors said she had given the drink to a friend without payment and that was considered "serious misconduct" and a breach of their "trust and fidelity".

National Distribution Union solicitor David Fleming said he had heard of cases where people were dismissed for similar things, but getting the police involved was unusual. So it looks like there has been similar reasons for dismissal.

Video srce (http://www.tv3.co.nz/default.aspx?tabid=112&articleID=26645#vidlist26645)
most places have other options to court. we don't know if those are available in NZ or if they were persued.

and should she win, thats Thousands of dollars + $4 that franchise will be paying her (legal fees + damages.)

Plus A clean and GLOWING recommendation from the franchise...

all for the actions of one manager.

add to that the chance that the franchise owners may not renew that franchise reguardless of outcome...

We have from the articles presented that the franchise didn't even follow it's own procedures in dealing with this.

You're right, a court will decide, but I can make reasonable predictions on the outcome.

most places have other options to court. we don't know if those are available in NZ or if they were persued.

and should she win, thats Thousands of dollars + $4 that franchise will be paying her (legal fees + damages.)

Plus A clean and GLOWING recommendation from the franchise...

all for the actions of one manager.

add to that the chance that the franchise owners may not renew that franchise reguardless of outcome...

Edit. noticed this last bit...
So it looks like there has been similar reasons for dismissal.
Similar is handing sodas out to costumers and such, not necessarily sharing one. And it does indicate that the level of action is far from the norm.

More from TV3 (http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/26638/Default.aspx)
he case raises the question of exactly where the line is drawn in respect of theft as an employee.

“Employers need to have strict rules about these kinds of things – especially in retail – so that their product doesn't keep going out the door, and they don't keep losing money off the bottom line,” said Employment law specialist Neil McPhail.

The case is going to the Employment Court, and Lang is due to appear on the theft charge in a fortnight.
So it looks like New Zealand has an Employment Court for this, still at the initial cost to the employee (someone who was working at a Subway) of thousands of dollars.

No matter where you decide to throw your belief on this, it's clear that this was the worst possible way for the franchise to handle the situation.

I boycott subway anyway...begrudge paying four pound fifty for a fucking sandwich...:mad:

After reading this and your sig, I have to ask -- who appointed you the Deputy Minister of Pop-Culture for catchphrase self-life? Lighten up, junior.

Lighten up?

I was called an asshat and I responded with some light ribbing of my own.

It doesn't get any lighter than that.

I appointed myself Deputy Minister of Pop-Culture.

By the way, using a zero instead of the letter O in your screen name is sooo last century.
(There -- see how pretentious that sounds?)

:)



And you're having trouble with basic decency. That soda actually costs Subway about 4 CENTS, not $4 -- why else would they permit employees to help themselves? If you've read anything on where the profit margin for restaurants is, you'd know it's almost always beverages, and soda is the cash cow.

I never said I was a decent person and profit margins for restaurants are irrelevant.

Stealing isn't okay because the victim can afford it.

Having your friends bring there problems to work and drink soda is unacceptable.

She shouldn't have been arrested, just fired.

I'd also like to hear the owners' version of what happened.

I worked at a McD's, and let me tell you: Theft is theft. We at McDonald's got free drinks on shift anyway, but I had no tolerance for people that gave out free product over the counter to their friends.

I agree that calling the police was a bit overblown, and I have yet to hear why her friend needed comforting. But if she wanted her friend to have a drink, she could've bought her one.

Video srce (http://www.tv3.co.nz/default.aspx?tabid=112&articleID=26645#vidlist26645)


We have from the articles presented that the franchise didn't even follow it's own procedures in dealing with this.

You're right, a court will decide, but I can make reasonable predictions on the outcome.nothing wrong with making predictions... however, it also depends on their lawyers. ;)

and do you have the written Policies and procedures for this particular Franchise?

Similar is handing sodas out to costumers and such, not necessarily sharing one. And it does indicate that the level of action is far from the norm.leaving the cup full of soda infront of someone is no longer sharing.
Security video footage of the incident shows Lang sharing the drink with her friend, then refilling the cup and leaving it on the table when she returned to work.

More from TV3 (http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/26638/Default.aspx)

So it looks like New Zealand has an Employment Court for this, still at the initial cost to the employee (someone who was working at a Subway) of thousands of dollars.except that in a lawsuite, or at least here in the US, the legal fees can be added into damages sought. dunno if that is done in NZ...

No matter where you decide to throw your belief on this, it's clear that this was the worst possible way for the franchise to handle the situation.agreed... the Franchise, not the parent corporation.

IMHO, calling the cops was extreme given the infomation available.

nothing wrong with making predictions... however, it also depends on their lawyers. ;)

and do you have the written Policies and procedures for this particular Franchise?
We have what is reported. If in the defense someone presents something that addresses this specificly I will be surprised and redact. However, since her council is making the case that it isn't there I would be shocked if they themselves didn't check or actually hoped that in the legal proceedings no one else checked.

leaving the cup full of soda infront of someone is no longer sharing.
She is taking what has been given to her and giving it to someone else. Once you give someone something you no longer have agency with what they do with it.


except that in a lawsuite, or at least here in the US, the legal fees can be added into damages sought. dunno if that is done in NZ...

Except it's not a lawsuit, it's a criminal charge.
agreed... the Franchise, not the parent corporation.

IMHO, calling the cops was extreme given the infomation available.
That's certainly what the parent company is trying to tell people.

I'm willing to bet someone is frantically typing up some new franchisee/employee guidelines right now to prevent any more of this nonsense.

It's not their only problem (http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10829) concerning dismissals...

leaving the cup full of soda infront of someone is no longer sharing.
Unless of course she is just absent minded and thought nothing of forgetting a cup in a hurry to get back to work.


It's not their only *link* concerning dismissals...
I find the "Judy Garland recordings fail at auction" news article amidst the rest of the serious HIV and gay discrimination related articles on "gay.com" hilariously ironic.

Unless of course she is just absent minded and thought nothing of forgetting a cup in a hurry to get back to work.

I'm not willing to go that far. It's reasonable to assume she was leaving that soda for her friend and we don't have much reason to think otherwise.

I find the "Judy Garland recordings fail at auction" news article amidst the rest of the serious HIV and gay discrimination related articles on "gay.com" hilariously ironic.
That's kind of an Alanis Morisette type of irony...I guess...

She is taking what has been given to her and giving it to someone else. Once you give someone something you no longer have agency with what they do with it. that can go into a whole new area of definitions including intent and "fair use" which shouldn't be argued here.

Except it's not a lawsuit, it's a criminal charge.I thought she was filing a lawsuite... not pressing criminal charges...

That's certainly what the parent company is trying to tell people.

I'm willing to bet someone is frantically typing up some new franchisee/employee guidelines right now to prevent any more of this nonsense.that they can do. Enforcing it tho would be a problem.

I find the "Judy Garland recordings fail at auction" news article amidst the rest of the serious HIV and gay discrimination related articles on "gay.com" hilariously ironic.

oh man... if I had the money...

unreleased recordings... on VINYL!!!

and WTF?!? a Minimum amount at an auction?!?

that can go into a whole new area of definitions including intent and "fair use" which shouldn't be argued here.
That applies to intellectual property, not physical property.

I thought she was filing a lawsuite... not pressing criminal charges...
The franchise owner is pressing criminal charges. Did you even read these articles before you leapt to the defense of the franchisee?

tthat they can do. Enforcing it tho would be a problem.
They hold the license (now we're back to intellectual property). Right of denial is the best tool they have.

EDIT: Before someone jumps on me, for all I know I made up the term 'right of denial,' and hopefully you all know what I meant. It was not meant to construe an actual legal term or anything like that.

Seems the actions of a district. Still sick.

PS: Everyone remember to boycott walmart for hiring children to make their products.

Though this may not directly affect you in whatever country you live in, I urge you to boycott Subway in protest of the appalling nature of their actions in Kiwiland New Zealand.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4050150a10.html

That article should explain it all. Open forum for slagging off Subway or defending them.

Both you and them are going overboard.

That`s gross, but since SubWay is franchise business boykotting them would only hurt my local franchise owner - who as I should mention - is a very cool guy, a model employer and overall decent person.

Good point.

That applies to intellectual property, not physical property.by leaving her drink, it shows intent on giving a free drink to her friend.

The franchise owner is pressing criminal charges. Did you even read these articles before you leapt to the defense of the franchisee?considering...

He also confirmed Ms Lang had brought a personal grievance action against Subway, and that mediation had been undertaken.

...

He said although Subway initially implied Ms Lang would face prosecution, none was brought until the union filed a case against them for unfair dismissal.which is what I was referring to...

sounds like a civil suit to me...

also, since you brought up reading... please show where I 'Lept to the defense of the Franchise' otherwise, I suggest you practice your own advice.

by leaving her drink, it shows intent on giving a free drink to her friend.

considering...

which is what I was referring to...

sounds like a civil suit to me...

also, since you brought up reading... please show where I 'Lept to the defense of the Franchise' otherwise, I suggest you practice your own advice.

Mediation is not a civil suit, it's mediation. That's why they have separate words for it.

Your selling yourself as 'nuetral' about this, but your efforts have primarily been in defense of the franchise owner peppered with 'the courts will decide.' Regardless of your faith in the courts, your arguments have defended the franchise owner.

The first comment doesn't actually answer what I said. Perhaps you have me confused with Pantless, who I also disagreed with.

Mediation is not a civil suit, it's mediation. That's why they have separate words for it.

Your selling yourself as 'nuetral' about this, but your efforts have primarily been in defense of the franchise owner peppered with 'the courts will decide.' Regardless of your faith in the courts, your arguments have defended the franchise owner.

The first comment doesn't actually answer what I said. Perhaps you have me confused with Pantless, who I also disagreed with.

ah, so you ASSUMED that I was 'leaping to the franchises defense' I never said the Franchise ower/manager was right in doing what they did. I said they HAD the right to do it. That's not defending their action. That is also not saying they were either right or wrong in their action.

I say "leave it to the courts" because there is information that is not given to the media but will come out in court.

I will conceed the mediation. it was a paper cup collection they were doing, I thought it was seeking legal fees from Subway as well.

1. What happened to Ms. Lang was very unfortunate, and her boss is an idiot.
2. However, the boss's actiosn do not reflect the rest of Subway at all.
3. Why in the hell should the rest of us care? I don't mean to sound liek the "average American bratty 15 year oold girl" but Jesus Christ, a world-wide boycott over something that happened at ONE Subway?
4. I very rarely eat at Subway anyway. A boycott would be pointless.

Yesterday I gave my subcard to a guy who works there so he can stack it up a bit for me. I think ripping them off will be better than boycotting them. For me anyway.

ah, so you ASSUMED that I was 'leaping to the franchises defense' I never said the Franchise ower/manager was right in doing what they did. I said they HAD the right to do it. That's not defending their action. That is also not saying they were either right or wrong in their action.

I say "leave it to the courts" because there is information that is not given to the media but will come out in court.

I will conceed the mediation. it was a paper cup collection they were doing, I thought it was seeking legal fees from Subway as well.
I didn't assume anything. I assessed your actions correctly. You can characterize them as skipping through pozzies if you want, they are what they are. What's bolded, by the by, is a defense.

I didn't assume anything. I assessed your actions correctly. You can characterize them as skipping through pozzies if you want, they are what they are. What's bolded, by the by, is a defense.
no, what you bolded is fact.
The manager can fire anyone for any reason, and that reason can be right or wrong, legal or not. anything from insubordination to theft.

Just like the employee and/or union can take action should they view the termination of employment being wrong.

I never said the manager is right. and you still cannot show where I said the manager is right or wrong.

Though this may not directly affect you in whatever country you live in, I urge you to boycott Subway in protest of the appalling nature of their actions in Kiwiland New Zealand.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4050150a10.html

That article should explain it all. Open forum for slagging off Subway or defending them.


There are a lot of Subway "restaurants" that are independently owned and operated, so boycotting a Subway in Connecticut more than likely won't affect a Subway in New Zealand.

no, what you bolded is fact.
The manager can fire anyone for any reason, and that reason can be right or wrong, legal or not. anything from insubordination to theft.

Just like the employee and/or union can take action should they view the termination of employment being wrong.

I never said the manager is right. and you still cannot show where I said the manager is right or wrong.

Actually, what I bolded is what is in contention. If it is indisputable that the manager had the right to do this there wouldn't be a mediation or a labor representative. In fact you have decided out of court the issue by taking the stand that the manager did indeed have the right. That is his side in this case and you have taken it. Congratulations on getting off the fence.

Pft, who goes to Subway, when Quiznos is much better.


The problem I have with Quiznos is, for the same size sub, they charge way more than Subway. And as far as taste, they're not so much better that I can justify the extra cost.

There are a lot of Subway "restaurants" that are independently owned and operated, so boycotting a Subway in Connecticut more than likely won't affect a Subway in New Zealand.

If it affects Subway as a whole then it will force Subway to create a stronger standard for its franchise holders, and franchise holders will press for that standard as they see their business' suffer. Subway lisenced their name and bare the reponsability for their image. Subway can't hide behind its franchises, so it has to take a degree of responsability for how they present Subway's image.

Not saying I'm boycotting them, but I don't eat there often enough for that to matter anyway.

Actually, what I bolded is what is in contention. If it is indisputable that the manager had the right to do this there wouldn't be a mediation or a labor representative. In fact you have decided out of court the issue by taking the stand that the manager did indeed have the right. That is his side in this case and you have taken it. Congratulations on getting off the fence.
oh... so if I say that the police has the right to ask you questions, that mean I am FOR a fascist Government... so if I were to say that I consider Birth to be a miracle, then I am really ANTI-ABORTION... and if I say I like Girls that MUST mean I am a Homophobe. so that's how you think.

Answer me this. In a small franchise/business like Subway, who has the Right to terminate a worker's employment? (reason doesn't matter, but if YOU need one. we'll say theft. the employee was caught stealing money out of the till.)

oh... so if I say that the police has the right to ask you questions, that mean I am FOR a fascist Government... so if I were to say that I consider Birth to be a miracle, then I am really ANTI-ABORTION... and if I say I like Girls that MUST mean I am a Homophobe. so that's how you think.

Answer me this. In a small franchise/business like Subway, who has the Right to terminate a worker's employment? (reason doesn't matter, but if YOU need one. we'll say theft. the employee was caught stealing money out of the till.)

We're not arguing a hypothetical, we're arguing a real situation so I won't be taking your red herring.

The manager's stand is that he had the right to fire her, the labors stand is that he didn't. We know where you come down on the subject. We can step off this merry-go-round now.

We're not arguing a hypothetical, we're arguing a real situation so I won't be taking your red herring.

The manager's stand is that he had the right to fire her, the labors stand is that he didn't. We know where you come down on the subject. We can step off this merry-go-round now.
no, the labors stand is that management's treatment of the employee was not fair. I.E. the reason he gave for firing her. also the involvement of the Police is another issue.

they are not protesting that the manager had the right to fire her, but that the management was WRONG to fire her.

as for the merry-go-round. you started it by saying I was defending the Franchice when I did nothing of the sort. I was also saying she has right to sue; when I thought she was, and will support her action, should she file for a lawsuit. something you seem to conviently overlook.

as for the 'Red Herring'. it's nothing of the sort. it clearly shows how you percive anyone you are debating with and how you determine how and where you classify them in your mind.

no, the labors stand is that management's treatment of the employee was not fair. I.E. the reason he gave for firing her. also the involvement of the Police is another issue.

they are not protesting that the manager had the right to fire her, but that the management was WRONG to fire her.

as for the merry-go-round. you started it by saying I was defending the Franchice when I did nothing of the sort. I was also saying she has right to sue; when I thought she was, and will support her action, should she file for a lawsuit. something you seem to conviently overlook.

as for the 'Red Herring'. it's nothing of the sort. it clearly shows how you percive anyone you are debating with and how you determine how and where you classify them in your mind.

You're about a step away of asking what the definition of 'is' is.

You're about a step away of asking what the definition of 'is' is.

only if you make it a point. :p

My stance is to wait till both parties are done talking. That's what it was from the beginning, and it still is now.

Man, I was starting to lose interest in arguing about a Subway on the other side of the planet, I can't muster up enough energy trying to show you how you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Believe what you want. Just to save you the trouble of looking for a response later on.

That's an incredible over-reaction by her boss.

I never eat at Subway anyway, I don't like the food.

I can agree that this particular Subway owner went way too far in pressing charges...$4 is quite frankly moronic to press a theft charge for (talk about penny pinching). I'm just not sure about what Jackie Lang did...seems borderline between her giving "the rest of her drink she no longer wanted" (since it was in her cup, not a new one) and actually giving her friend a free drink. I worked a Tim Horton's and Wendy's before...both places specifically say you can't give away "free stuff" to your friends, even if it's "common practice" (I never did), so I suspect Subway has a similar policy. I also wonder if Lang did this before- I suspect since she's a long-time worker she probably did, and if the manager didn't say anything about it before, it's a bit absurd to be bringing it up now.

I also find it abhorrent Subway itself is distancing itself from the affair:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=74&objectid=10438638

Doesn't seem like a company I'd want to do business with anyway- if it was just the store, I'd simply say I'd boycott the store, because I know that the other Subway restaurants (at least I think I know) are not as stupid. However, when the franchise itself is inching itself away, that sends a huge red flag. I hear that argument far too many times from Multi-Level Marketers like Primerica and Quixtar that keep saying "a bad office is just a bad office and isn't indicative of the company"- no, a bad office or store is a bad reflection on the company, and anything less than "we are not pleased with what has happened and will look into it" is simply inexcusable. Subway should want its franchisees *not* to act this way because of situations like this, and the fact they don't want to rein in their franchisees' conduct indicates to me that they don't care how their stores are run. Well, if they don't care about their stores I simply won't bother with them.

Ok, now that there has been Subway bashing and defending in roughly equal measures, for ten pages (I was amazed when I came back to see that), I am going to present my viewpoints, adressing the major arguments that have come out.

1) It is just the franchise, not Subway as a whole.

It is ok to say this if the issue at the franchise is addressed by the next level up. What we actually see is the NZ main office saying they want nothing to do with it. There is a major issue, enough so to spark a protest at that Subway WITHOUT union involvement. For those of you not so clued up, that is impressive. To then distance yourself from this, as the "boss" of the franchises is inexcusable. They should either be supporting the franchise or having words with the franchise about the ludicrousy.

2) Theft is theft is theft

Agreed, but for someone who has worked for you for minimum wage for two years, with a clean record* should not be fired and taken to court for the sharing of one drink and giving of another. A more appropriate solution might be "that's coming out of your wages, black mark" and a talking to, not court with $2000 dollars (possible) of court costs.

*Clean record means CLEAN RECORD. There has been no comments made reflecting bad attitude, sharing of drinks or anything, and according to the AWU (Autonomous Workers Union) the grounds for dismissal is this incident alone.

3) The reliability of news sources

Yes, we don't have all the information, but in terms of accurate reporting, www.scoop.co.nz is the most reliable news source in NZ for unbiased reporting, as it is not for profit and is merely an online news source. The information we do have though, is that there was a SIX WEEK gap between the incident and police involvement.

4) I am going OTT about it

I am calling for the boycott of a global company that has completely distanced itself from its franchises over a major issue that it can't really sit on the fence for. OTT, perhaps, I personally don't think so, but you are entitled to your opinion.

5) $4/4c?

The cost is negligible, and as I said earlier, a wrist slap with the damage deducted from wages would be more appropriate especially considering a) a perfect record, b) long time good service, c) aspergers.


I am waiting for people to attack me, go ahead, I enjoy it.

I agree with your viewpoints, however the notion of boycotting an multinational company via a small singular Subway store in NZ is almost like rolling a Minuscule glass marble at a 200 tonne steel ball and hoping to knock the steel ball into the ocean to sink to a crushing demise (a bit of flubber and anything is possible).

I agree some action should be taken though but not in an international boycott sense. I feel that by approaching the issue as a nation (New Zealand) there would be a more positive outcome to this incident, and possibly future incidents of the sort. I acknowledge the fact that the owners had every right to charge the worker, however as you said $4/4c, it could have been easily dismissed, with a 'slap on the wrist' and costly court costs and time could be better spent on administering the hand of the law upon more pressing matters.

In particular i think the police were a little bit nutsy on this particular case, but thats just me. Maybe the policing system needs a major overhaul.

I can't...I love SubwWay:(...PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME DO THIS!

Sorry to thread bump, but I thought I should finish the thread off by saying thanks for the support from everyone, the charges have been dropped and there are discussions taking place to bring this issue to a close. Full details here

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4054993a19719.html