Latest news with #employeerights
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Business
- RNZ News
'Difficult conversations' for employers if staff chat about pay, lawyers say
Camilla Belich's bill would prevent employers prosecuting employees for discussing their salaries. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Employers may need to be ready to face up to some uncomfortable discussions about employee pay, employment experts say. On Wednesday night, Labour MP Camilla Belich's Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill passed its second reading, with National voting alongside the three opposition parties. The bill would ensure that pay secrecy clauses, which prevent employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues, would no longer be enforceable, meaning employers could not take legal action, if an employee talked about pay. Simon Schofield, a professional teaching fellow in University of Auckland law school, said it would be a positive move. "The underlying reason for the bill is to ensure that people who are discriminated against have the ability to see where they sit relative to other employees doing the same work and allows them to discuss that." He said some employers may have to deal with challenging situations, justifying why certain people were paid a certain rate compared to others. "Those questions may be uncomfortable for an employer to answer, but I don't think that means an employee should be dismissed for having those discussions. "If someone isn't feeling that they're getting paid well compared to their peers, they'll often just leave the employment relationship, but by ensuring that people can have these discussions, it puts the onus on employers to justify some of their decisions around pay, which sometimes… can have elements of unconscious bias involved and that feeds into the gender pay gap." Hesketh Henry partner Alison Maelzer said remuneration was slightly taboo, so people might be reluctant to talk about it anyway. "It's awkward both ways," she said. "If you find out you're being paid less than the person you're talking to or if you're being paid more than the person you're talking to, either way, it opens up all kinds of a can of worms." She said, if the bill passed, salaries could become a water cooler conversation for a while. "It might be prompting people to ask their colleagues a question they might not have done otherwise." Duncan Cotterill partner Alastair Espie said he saw people getting into trouble over pay disclosure "very infrequently". "It's an issue that is often difficult for employers to prove, so concerns about employees talking about their salary will often go unaddressed or be dealt with through more informal channels." Maelzer said she had been an employment lawyer for more than 20 years and had not been on either side of such a matter. "Perhaps employers are reluctant to take disciplinary action, because it could open up a can of worms related to the reasons why the employee is sharing salary details." She said agreements often contained a clause that made the terms of employment confidential. "The way it would be in there is not a specific clause, but when you're defining confidential information, client information, marketing strategy or whatever, you'd also include the terms of your employment in that list." She said the bill would not prevent employers doing that, but would prevent them taking action against an employee for remuneration disclosure. Schofield said action had been taken against employees who disclosed their pay. "Employers are entitled to treat pay as confidential information, therefore - because there's been a breach of that confidential information - employers may think they're entitled to dismiss an employee for that disclosure." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
CBS News
7 days ago
- CBS News
Workplace raids demonstrate the vulnerability of the federal E-Verify system, experts say
Omaha, Nebraska — Gary Rohwer built his Quicksteak empire at a meat processing center in Omaha, Nebraska. But then, a tactical team of federal agents raided his facility on June 10, and more than 70 of his assembly line employees were arrested by Homeland Security Investigations. He showed CBS News an old company photo, disclosing that about half of the employees in that photo were swept up in the raid. "Oh my God, half of them," Rohwer said. "It makes me sad, it really does, because these guys made us successful." Rohwer says he put his faith in E-Verify — the federal system used by more than one million employers each year, and which is mandatory in 10 states and by most federal contractors — to confirm the employment eligibility of would-be hires. "We did everything right, but yet we got penalized big, I mean, big time," Rohwer said. The government tells employers like Rohwer that E-Verify provides "peace of mind." To greenlight employees, the system matches documents, such as licenses and Social Security cards, to a U.S. government database of eligible workers. But it vets paperwork, not people. Experts say that the E-Verify system is broken, not only exposing employers like Rohwer to raids, but also increasing an all too common crime, identity theft. "This is a nationwide problem," Elhrick Cerdan, assistant special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations Omaha, who led the investigation into Gary's Quicksteak, told CBS News. Cerdan calls Rohwer and his business victims. "This was in fact a targeted criminal investigation to rescue over a hundred victims of stolen entities," Cerdan said, emphasizing that this was a criminal investigation, not civil immigration enforcement. "Everybody is the victim of this broken system," Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies for the Libertarian Cato Institute, told CBS News. Nowrasteh calls E-Verify a "wink-and-nod" system. "The thing that experts know that is sort of a dirty little secret, is E-Verify is a very easy to fool program," Nowrasteh said. He adds that part of its appeal is that it doesn't work. "It allows politicians to talk tough about illegal immigration without actually imposing enormous costs on the U.S. economy," Nowrasteh said. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesperson Matthew J. Tragesser told CBS News in a statement that "E-Verify consistently receives high marks from users and maintains a nearly perfect accuracy rate, while requiring no special software or additional costs to employers." "In recent months, staff at USCIS have taken an aggressive approach in concert with the Social Security Administration to systematically block E-Verify from automatically accepting SSNs that are known to have been used fraudulently," Tragesser went on. "E-Verify supports employers, but it does not take the place of their legal responsibility to ensure employee-presented documentation reasonably appears to be genuine and relates to the person presenting it."
News24
30-06-2025
- Business
- News24
‘How did you afford a car?': Cashier's joy becomes nightmare after boss demands bank records
A Maitland petrol station cashier was told to resign or work as a petrol attendant after her boss questioned how she could afford a car on her salary. The woman says her boss demanded to see her bank statements and emailed them to himself. The National Insourced Workers Union says forcing an employee to resign over a personal purchase is illegal and requested formal documentation from the employer. What was meant to be a moment of celebration quickly became a distressing ordeal for 28-year-old Eza Limelintaka, a cashier at Shell Garage in Maitland, Cape Town. After nine months of diligently saving and securing a bank loan, she proudly bought a second-hand vehicle. But instead of congratulations, her boss allegedly became suspicious. 'He asked how I could afford a car on my salary and demanded access to my bank account,' Limelintaka told News24. 'He then emailed my bank statements to himself. I stood there watching him go through my finances. He found nothing suspicious but still said he no longer trusted me.' She said when she asked whether any money was missing from the business or if she was suspected of theft, her employer said no but claimed he was 'uncomfortable' with her continuing in her cashier role. According to Limelintaka, he then gave her an ultimatum: work outside as a petrol attendant or resign. 'I refused. I was hired as a cashier and have done nothing wrong,' she said. Limelintaka was then told to go home and 'consider her options'. She said her till was closed, and her work halted. 'I had hoped the car would help me run a side hustle and keep working. Now it feels like I'm being punished for trying to improve my life.' The National Insourced Workers Union has taken up her case. Siviwe Shiyeni's representative said the union contacted her employer and requested documents, including her employment contract and duty roster. 'They're trying to force her to resign under duress, which is unlawful,' added Shiyeni. 'We have advised her to report for duty. If the employer intends to change her role, they must put it in writing.' In response to queries from News24, Berkley Motors, the company that runs the garage, denied any wrongdoing. 'Nothing was done without consent, and discussions are ongoing. She has left out many facts that were stated. Nobody was accused of anything, and she has not been fired,' it said. 'Now that she has falsely accused the company of improper procedures, due diligence can be followed accordingly.' When asked what prompted the investigation into Limelintaka's finances, Berkley Motors declined to answer, citing the issue as an internal matter. Limelintaka said when she returned to work on Monday, her employer told her she had the right to refuse him access to her bank account and claimed he had received a 'tip-off' that she was planning to steal from the company. He then offered her two weeks of paid leave while the police investigated the alleged tip-off. Limelintaka declined the leave offer and requested that all communication and decisions be formally documented.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Tradie 'forced' to quit job after boss's controversial act
The Fair Work Commission has found a tradie was 'forced to resign' from his job after his employer swore at him during a secretly recorded meeting about his performance. A workplace lawyer said the issue 'cuts both ways' with both employees and employers potentially able to take action if they face swearing at work. Commissioner Susie Allison found that while swearing was likely to be a part of the 'everyday work culture' of the tradie's employer, Melbourne small business DMG Building & Electrical Services, the language and behaviour directed at him were 'not appropriate or acceptable behaviour in any workplace'. She said the worker was 'reasonably concerned for his mental and physical safety' and had no 'real choice' but to resign. McCabes Lawyers principal Tim McDonald told Yahoo Finance the case raised issues for both employees and employers. RELATED Right to disconnect warning as worker sues former employer for $800,000 ATO $1,519 cash boost heading for Aussies in weeks Centrelink payment alert for 58,000 Aussies in caravans 'This sort of issue cuts both ways. It's a precedent in the sense that if there is swearing and so forth, yes, an employee can be entitled to take it that that type of behaviour can force them to resign,' he said. 'But on the flip side of the coin, it would also be the case that if a worker was engaging in that type of behaviour then it would be reasonable for the employer to treat it as a valid reason to terminate the employee.' McDonald said the decision suggested the 'standards of behaviour' had changed and what might have been acceptable in the past was no longer acceptable today. 'It doesn't really matter what industry you're in, and even if you're in the construction industry what might have been okay 20 years ago, may not be the same,' he said. The tradie had started working at DMH Building & Electrical Services in September, 2024. The commission heard the DMG director had raised concerns about the tradie's work levels, along with his undertaking of religious prayer during work hours without informing the company. The worker alleged there was a series of discussions where his boss swore. That included discussions over the worker using his personal phone to contact clients and a vehicle reversing into his company van while he was at a mosque. The worker made a secret recording of his performance meeting with the director in November, where the director raised his voice and swore at him. The boss raised concerns that the worker was 'self-absorbed' and 'not a team player', and said his not revealing he was taking time off to pray was 'deceitful'. 'There's two things I can't f***ing tolerate, its people who steal and people who lie. Right now you've done that,' he said. 'I don't want any negative Nancys running around my company f***ing becoming toxic to other blokes. It festers. What we do with those people, we f***ing weed them out... You need to be on the same page as everyone.' The meeting ended with them discussing how the worker might take time off for his religious practices and make up work time. The director told the worker he was willing to work with him, but he needed to be clear on what times he would not be available. But the next day, the tradie took personal leave due to mental health reasons. He then resigned the following day, alleging bullying, poor treatment and serious safety concerns. DMG denied any inappropriate behaviour, with the director stating he addressed the situation in a normal manner that he would with any other employee. Commissioner Allison ruled in the worker's favour. She said she did not think that the boss intended the worker to resign. She acknowledged he was an employer who cared about his employees and listened to their concerns, including being open to flexible work arrangements. Having said that, she said the language and behaviour was 'not appropriate or acceptable' and noted that they did not approach each other 'on a level playing field' as employer and employee. She found the director was acting in an 'aggressive, confrontational and inappropriate way' that was likely to make the worker feel intimidated. The matter will now proceed to mediation. McDonald said there could be actionable consequences for swearing in the workplace. If it falls into bullying, workers would have the right to seek orders from the Fair Work Commission if they were staying in their employment. 'This case would suggest that if there was a pattern of behaviour that was so terrible that it forced you to resign, then you could do that and say you were forced to resign and seek damages from the employer,' McCondald said. 'The other thing is where there is that type of inappropriate behaviour, you could bring in Safe Work alleging that there is a psychosocial hazard in the workplace.'
Daily Mail
28-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Boss sparks outrage with 'absurd' texts to an employee on their holiday: 'This is beyond inappropriate'
A boss has been slammed online for attempting to cancel an employee's approved annual leave after the worker had already arrived at their destination. The text exchange, shared on British career expert Ben Askins ' TikTok account, has gone viral and sparked fierce debate about workplace boundaries and power abuse. In the messages, the boss contacted the employee late in the week with a blunt message: 'Hey, I am sorry to do this so late, but there has been a mistake with the annual leave and I am going to have to cancel the second half of your annual leave this week. You will need to be in the office Thursday and Friday.' The stunned employee replied, 'Huh? But I am already in Mexico?' Unfazed, the manager continued: 'Sorry, like I said, there is nothing I can do. I am going to update the system now saying you will be in.' The employee made it clear this wasn't possible: 'But I won't be in? I am literally in another country, there is no scenario where I can make it back in time.' Incredibly, the boss doubled down and suggested a new flight. 'You will have to move your flights around. I have just checked and there is one on Wednesday evening that you can get.' A boss has been slammed online for attempting to cancel an employee's approved annual leave after the worker had already arrived at their destination The employee, increasingly frustrated, asked: 'This is a joke right? You aren't seriously asking me this?' The response was serious: 'Definitely not a joke. And I am not asking, I am telling you the situation. I appreciate it isn't ideal but too many people are off Thursday and Friday and so you are going to have to be back here by then. I have updated the system.' At that point, the employee shut it down: 'You can do what you want. Even if I wanted to come back in time (which I can't), I wouldn't, and if you push this I will be reporting this.' Ben Askins, who regularly posts workplace advice to his large TikTok following, was stunned by the boss's behaviour. In his video, he told viewers the demand was 'completely out of order' and reminded workers that annual leave, once approved, is a right, not something that can be taken away at a manager's convenience. He pointed out the absurdity of the situation, saying it was not the employee's job to solve rota mistakes made by management. Instead of trying to drag a worker back from their holiday, the company should have looked for a contractor or a temporary solution. The video struck a nerve with thousands of viewers, many of whom shared their own workplace horror stories in the comments. The text exchange, shared on British career expert Ben Askins' TikTok account, has gone viral and sparked fierce debate about workplace boundaries and power abuse One person said they would only consider returning under one condition: 'Pay for my flights, reimburse my holiday in full and book me another holiday where you won't disturb me - and we have a deal.' Others couldn't believe the employee even replied. 'Their first mistake is replying. No signal in Mexico,' one viewer joked. Another added, 'Why do people reply when on holiday? I would just leave it unread.' One user recalled being in Dubai for their brother's wedding when the assistant manager of a German supermarket demanded they fly home for a four-hour shift - or face disciplinary action. Another explained how they're expected to check the work roster daily, even on scheduled days off, or risk being written up if it changes without notice. Others shared stories of their leave being cancelled due to staffing changes, with one employee billing HR for their pre-booked trip after cover fell through - and receiving only a snarky 'have a nice trip' in response. While the texts in question came from the UK, similar workplace protections exist in Australia. Once leave is approved and commenced, cancelling it without mutual agreement is generally considered unlawful. The incident has sparked broader conversations around toxic management, poor planning, and the erosion of work-life boundaries. Commenters were quick to express their frustration with bosses who treat employees as if they are on call around the clock. In the words of one viewer: 'I actually genuinely hate bosses and managers who think they own you simply because you work for a company. It's sickening.' Askins echoed those sentiments and urged employees to know their rights. He said the boss in this case didn't just mishandle the situation - they trampled over basic employment standards and common sense. For many watching online, the story wasn't just about one bad manager. It became a symbol of the creeping expectation that workers should sacrifice personal time for jobs that offer little in return, even when they're halfway across the world.
