Byron Burgers immigration raid.
Discussion
FredClogs said:
Seems to me Byron Burger are in the wrong. Makes me feel very uncomfortable that large corporate businesses can claim ignorance or wash their hands in this manner.
Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the s
t to avoid taking any responsibility.
I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
Fred are you serious? I know you have posted some way left of the universe stuff before but blimey.....really? Think about it.Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the s
t to avoid taking any responsibility.I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
An E/or who employ illegals are liable for fines. that's what you have asked for. BUT they have a defence to fines and penalties if the documents were good to pass normal checking but still fake. Clearly this was picked up somewhere along the line and hence the raid. perhaps the compulsory pension requirement for employers now.
Its not just large business but ANY business that is liable to fines and penalties for employing illegals. How would you feel if you were an employer who checked the docs given and employed that person which then turns out its a fake document? You want to be pay compo and sponsor that person? get real.
The govt have moved immigration and work checks onto the general population such as employers and letting agents.
rscott said:
FredClogs said:
Seems to me Byron Burger are in the wrong. Makes me feel very uncomfortable that large corporate businesses can claim ignorance or wash their hands in this manner.
Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the st to avoid taking any responsibility.
I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
Did you read the whole report - where it explains they had fake documentation? So Byron thought they were employing staff here legally, but turns out they aren't and did the right thing by co-operating with the investigation.Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the s
t to avoid taking any responsibility.I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
It's not rocket science, if the system of proving yourself eligible to work is so easily circumvented and you're a massive corporate employer then you should have better checks and balances and better procedures, you have a legal responsibility - if you don't it's no mitigation. These are staff, not shop lifters or dine and dashers, businesses owe a debt to their staff - even if the did lie to get the job, Byron Burger should be petitioning to get these staff citizenship not washing their hands of them.
Halb said:
Digga said:
Halb said:
Vandenberg said:
Its part of the reason why I only use PH for work purposes, its full of people who wear their politics, gender and feelings on their sleeves and need everyone to know they have an opinion.
So there.
But I need the work...
"London-based Spanish language newspaper El Iberico reported that some 150 more staff were "in hiding" after the raids, which a number of employees claim took place after they were asked to attend staff health and safety training sessions that had been set up as a "trap"."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/byron-b...
They've caught 35 illegal workers and 150 more are 'in hiding'. That's over 10% of their work force. How can you fail to recognise false paperwork 185+ times?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/byron-b...
They've caught 35 illegal workers and 150 more are 'in hiding'. That's over 10% of their work force. How can you fail to recognise false paperwork 185+ times?
FredClogs said:
It's not rocket science, if the system of proving yourself eligible to work is so easily circumvented and you're a massive corporate employer then you should have better checks and balances and better procedures, you have a legal responsibility - if you don't it's no mitigation.
It's not rocket science, yet what you've posted is demonstrably false.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I can't copy and paste, unfortunately.
The employer's duty extends to carrying out document checks and retaining copies of requisite documents, having viewed originals. The guide at the link above details a three step process for checking documentation. Part of that is satisfying yourself that valid documentation is genuine.
Following that three step process - and this is explicitly stated - grants you an excuse against any civil penalty levied in relation. You do not get that excuse - and again, this is made explicit - if it's 'reasonably apparent' the document is false.
These checks extend only to satisfying yourself that the documentation is genuine because it's impossible to go any further. One cannot reasonably expect an employee carrying out an HR function - i.e. the individual charged by the government, on behalf of the company, with carrying out the check - to be an expert in counterfeit documentation.
Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 28th July 15:56
iphonedyou said:
These checks extend to satisfying yourself that the documentation is genuine because it's impossible to go any further. One cannot reasonably expect an employee carrying out an HR function - i.e. the individual charged by the government, on behalf of the company, with carrying out the check - to be an expert in counterfeit documentation.
One of the lines the UK may need to consider drawing in the sand is the policy of penalties for those using fake documentation, and also those found guilty of forging or supplying the same.BlackLabel said:
"London-based Spanish language newspaper El Iberico reported that some 150 more staff were "in hiding" after the raids, which a number of employees claim took place after they were asked to attend staff health and safety training sessions that had been set up as a "trap"."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/byron-b...
They've caught 35 illegal workers and 150 more are 'in hiding'. That's over 10% of their work force. How can you fail to recognise false paperwork 185+ times?
Here's how - they didn't check it.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/byron-b...
They've caught 35 illegal workers and 150 more are 'in hiding'. That's over 10% of their work force. How can you fail to recognise false paperwork 185+ times?
As far as I can see it's either the employers responsibility or it isn't, some sort of bizarre plea bargaining situation for turning "states evidence" provides no justice for society as a whole. Once again the poorest, most vulnerable, hardest working, highest tax paying ordinary folks at the bottom of the hill have the s
t roll onto them. It sinks, I definitely would boycott them, but wouldn't eat there anyway, if I want to eat a £12 sat on plastic seats I'll go to a motorway services. It's noticeable that properly run companies like Mcdonalds don't ever get into this sort of debacle.FredClogs said:
rscott said:
FredClogs said:
Seems to me Byron Burger are in the wrong. Makes me feel very uncomfortable that large corporate businesses can claim ignorance or wash their hands in this manner.
Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the st to avoid taking any responsibility.
I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
Did you read the whole report - where it explains they had fake documentation? So Byron thought they were employing staff here legally, but turns out they aren't and did the right thing by co-operating with the investigation.Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the s
t to avoid taking any responsibility.I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
It's not rocket science, if the system of proving yourself eligible to work is so easily circumvented and you're a massive corporate employer then you should have better checks and balances and better procedures, you have a legal responsibility - if you don't it's no mitigation. These are staff, not shop lifters or dine and dashers, businesses owe a debt to their staff - even if the did lie to get the job, Byron Burger should be petitioning to get these staff citizenship not washing their hands of them.
iphonedyou said:
Digga said:
ne of the lines the UK may need to consider drawing in the sand is the policy of penalties for those using fake documentation, and also those found guilty of forging or supplying the same.
I'd be minded to agree with you.ds that are behind a lot of it and using false ID for terrorist means.Digga said:
It hardly demonstrates arriving with good intent. I am sure, some of those meant no harm by it, but the dangers are clear and if the penalties were stiff and known, it might make the trade of forging documents a bit less lucrative and therefore a bit trickier for the really nasty bds that are behind a lot of it and using false ID for terrorist means.
Absolutely, with the upside that it should also avoid the use of penalties against well meaning staff members and companies - who, of course, constitute the vast majority of those checking and employing immigrants, respectively.ds that are behind a lot of it and using false ID for terrorist means.iphonedyou said:
FredClogs said:
It's not rocket science, if the system of proving yourself eligible to work is so easily circumvented and you're a massive corporate employer then you should have better checks and balances and better procedures, you have a legal responsibility - if you don't it's no mitigation.
It's not rocket science, yet what you've posted is demonstrably false.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
I can't copy and paste, unfortunately.
The employer's duty extends to carrying out document checks and retaining copies of requisite documents, having viewed originals. The guide at the link above details a three step process for checking documentation. Part of that is satisfying yourself that valid documentation is genuine.
Following that three step process - and this is explicitly stated - grants you an excuse against any civil penalty levied in relation. You do not get that excuse - and again, this is made explicit - if it's 'reasonably apparent' the document is false.
These checks extend only to satisfying yourself that the documentation is genuine because it's impossible to go any further. One cannot reasonably expect an employee carrying out an HR function - i.e. the individual charged by the government, on behalf of the company, with carrying out the check - to be an expert in counterfeit documentation.
Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 28th July 15:56
They have a legal duty to do reasonable checks (the punishment for not doing being quite harsh), evidently their checks were not that reasonable or carried out reasonably because a reasonably large proportion of their workforce turned out to be illegal.
Other reasonable firms act more reasonably as evidenced by them not having border control officers crawling up their arses.
rscott said:
FredClogs said:
rscott said:
FredClogs said:
Seems to me Byron Burger are in the wrong. Makes me feel very uncomfortable that large corporate businesses can claim ignorance or wash their hands in this manner.
Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the st to avoid taking any responsibility.
I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
Did you read the whole report - where it explains they had fake documentation? So Byron thought they were employing staff here legally, but turns out they aren't and did the right thing by co-operating with the investigation.Either they're using this as a way of laying off some staff and avoid redundancy or settlement
Or
They've been found out not checking their employees particulars well enough and either the Border Security have threatened them into shopping the staff or someone else has but either way they've chosen to drop the staff in the s
t to avoid taking any responsibility.I'd like to see employers who employ illegal staff fined and pilloried and force them to pay compo to the immigrant and sponsor their citizenship or naturalisation procedure.
They come over here... Working, paying taxes... etc... etc...
It's not rocket science, if the system of proving yourself eligible to work is so easily circumvented and you're a massive corporate employer then you should have better checks and balances and better procedures, you have a legal responsibility - if you don't it's no mitigation. These are staff, not shop lifters or dine and dashers, businesses owe a debt to their staff - even if the did lie to get the job, Byron Burger should be petitioning to get these staff citizenship not washing their hands of them.
FredClogs said:
So how was what I posted false?
They have a legal duty to do reasonable checks (the punishment for not doing being quite harsh), evidently their checks were not that reasonable or carried out reasonably because a reasonably large proportion of their workforce turned out to be illegal.
Other reasonable firms act more reasonably as evidenced by them not having border control officers crawling up their arses.
You said:They have a legal duty to do reasonable checks (the punishment for not doing being quite harsh), evidently their checks were not that reasonable or carried out reasonably because a reasonably large proportion of their workforce turned out to be illegal.
Other reasonable firms act more reasonably as evidenced by them not having border control officers crawling up their arses.
FredClogs said:
It's not rocket science, if the system of proving yourself eligible to work is so easily circumvented and you're a massive corporate employer then you should have better checks and balances and better procedures, you have a legal responsibility - if you don't it's no mitigation.
The government's own advice, linked to in my post above and summarised in same, shows this to be false. On following the three step process, satisfying yourself the documentation is genuine and it not being reasonably apparent they are false you are granted an exception to civil penalty. Counterfeits not reasonably apparent on following the checks are mitigation.The rest of your latest post is applying your own definition of reasonable which whilst laudable isn't what Byron is working to - rather, they work to the law.
FredClogs said:
Here's how - they didn't check it.
How do you know? FredClogs said:
It's noticeable that properly run companies like Mcdonalds don't ever get into this sort of debacle.
They don't need to bother, they exploit children instead.https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/aug/01/childpr...
iphonedyou said:
FredClogs said:
So how was what I posted false?
They have a legal duty to do reasonable checks (the punishment for not doing being quite harsh), evidently their checks were not that reasonable or carried out reasonably because a reasonably large proportion of their workforce turned out to be illegal.
Other reasonable firms act more reasonably as evidenced by them not having border control officers crawling up their arses.
You said:They have a legal duty to do reasonable checks (the punishment for not doing being quite harsh), evidently their checks were not that reasonable or carried out reasonably because a reasonably large proportion of their workforce turned out to be illegal.
Other reasonable firms act more reasonably as evidenced by them not having border control officers crawling up their arses.
FredClogs said:
It's not rocket science, if the system of proving yourself eligible to work is so easily circumvented and you're a massive corporate employer then you should have better checks and balances and better procedures, you have a legal responsibility - if you don't it's no mitigation.
The government's own advice, linked to in my post above and summarised in same, shows this to be false. On following the three step process, satisfying yourself the documentation is genuine and it not being reasonably apparent they are false you are granted an exception to civil penalty. Counterfeits not reasonably apparent on following the checks are mitigation.The rest of your latest post is applying your own definition of reasonable which whilst laudable isn't what Byron is working to - rather, they work to the law.
Isn't the fact that they employed so many illegals sort of evidence that their checks weren't reasonable? They certainly weren't reasonably effective.
Mr_B said:
Your analogy is a bit off and veers into an emotive one. Its a big well known brand and not one guy working for a single private employer. Had it been as you suggested, I would agree with you. They seemed to have had the chance to comply or just get loads of branches raided at some time or other and probably had to close for the day.
They seem to have picked the least worst option ( or so they thought ) of what they thought would minimize the bad news, rather than possibly have it all over social media as people film it live as they sit down for a burger and the joint gets raided. I don't blame them for doing so as it is they who were conned and who take the risk from what is a dishonest bunch of employees.
As said, Byron burger probably thought they were doing the right thing with the least amount of impact to the business' reputation in the public eye, and as I said, they are right to cooperate with the authorities in this matter. They seem to have picked the least worst option ( or so they thought ) of what they thought would minimize the bad news, rather than possibly have it all over social media as people film it live as they sit down for a burger and the joint gets raided. I don't blame them for doing so as it is they who were conned and who take the risk from what is a dishonest bunch of employees.
Shady as s
t though, there's no arguing it. If they hadn't done anything wrong, and did the right and proper checks to the book, then the authorities can do their jobs themselves. I'm sure they'd show discretion if you haven't done anything wrong for the sake of your business. FredClogs said:
Usually "in the law" the term reasonable is used to imply what a normal bod in the street would do or think or perceive as proper in a given circumstance.
Isn't the fact that they employed so many illegals sort of evidence that their checks weren't reasonable? They certainly weren't reasonably effective.
Familiar with the man on the Clapham omnibus concept but the test feels about right here - the man on that omnibus is most unlikely to be able spot, having followed the three step process referred to earlier, a counterfeit any better than 'reasonably apparent' as fake.Isn't the fact that they employed so many illegals sort of evidence that their checks weren't reasonable? They certainly weren't reasonably effective.
The man on that bus would satisfy himself to the best of his knowledge, not being a forensic specialist, that the documentation is genuine. He'd follow the guidance of the government. The government gives him an exception if he does this.
And that looks to be about what's happened here.
Edited by iphonedyou on Thursday 28th July 16:50
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff