And they eat them one byte at a time...😂

It's also pretty common for number plates to be stolen and then used in petrol station drive-offs - so def get that sorted ASAP as convincing the oil companies that it wasn't your car is a nightmare...

It seems to be entirely based on the premise the current govt doesn't agree with how the public service works, so they intend to set up a parallel service to usurp it - what a giant idealogical waste.

Next priority should be submitting on the reg standards bill - it's a giant orwellian waste of taxpayer money, setting up a whole new service that would massively duplicate other parts of the public service, all because of a certain party... consultation.regulation.govt.nz/rsb/have-you...

No no no no no, vote for the actual Avian of the night... #voteruru

I did - and while that's amazing for the workers I am a little suspicious of the motives of the donor, as it suits the banks for this case to slip out of view of the media...

For better or worse this has already been tested many years ago by the case we took for exactly the same situation - and lost in both the employment tribunal and lost again on appeal to the employment court. This is why a law change (or even better the Labour govt insurance scheme) is needed.

I checked the companies office website - Workerly is 100% owned by Supie, so not an 'agency'.

Which would end up with basically the same outcome - agency will be an unsecured creditor and thus subject to even less protection. And I suspect we're gonna see more of that as well in the current economic climate.

We need CTU to start lobbying for a change in insolvency law - the law has allowed this for a very long time, and I fear as we come into a season where more companies are likely to fail we're gonna see more of this bsky.app/profile/antz...

Reading the news about Supie made me pretty sad - my situation happened over a decade ago, and the law still allows this.

The bank fought us hard - first trying to have the action struck out (we did it as a class action) and then on points of law. And then the employment court took nearly a year to make the ruling, leaving us all in limbo.

We fought the receivers/bank in the employment tribunal and employment court, arguing that the situation was clearly designed to disadvantage the employees. Despite the case being pretty clear cut the way the law works meant we lost.

How do I know this? Well I once found myself in this exact situation where I lost a 5 figure sum in entitlements along with around a 100 other employees due to this exact structure. I was 'fortunate' to have only lost holiday pay, others lost wages.

And while I can't prove it, IMHO some banks/investors require this structure before they will give money to a company - basically pre-emptively stuffing employees if things go south.

And guess who gets the money instead - usually the bank/investors - for whom the amount is often a rounding error. Deeply, deeply unfair and this is a part of our laws which are well overdue for reform.

Buuuut if the debtors and stock are held in one legal entity and the employees are employed by another - they are SOL as they can't get access to the money owed to/recovered from stock by the other entity. Even if the 2 entities are obviously related and have a common owner

What does this mean? So basically employees get first dibs on any money owed to an insolvent co, and any money recovered from stock that they hold. Seems like good law right?