A Philippines-based contractor says a New Zealand roofing employer paid just $130 of an agreed $560 for 80 hours of remote work, highlighting potential exploitation of overseas workers by NZ companies operating in the digital economy.
The worker, posting publicly on social media, provided detailed contract evidence showing they were hired at USD $7 per hour for 40 hours per week by an employer operating under the name JP Franklin, connected to multiple roofing and construction websites.
According to the worker's account, they completed 80 hours of work and should have been paid $560. Instead, they received $130 — leaving them $430 short. The payment was also sent eight days late, contrary to the contract terms.
The worker named nine websites allegedly connected to the employer: residentialroofing.co.nz, deltaroofing.co.nz, oneroofing.co.nz, ambientcivil.co.nz, ambientconstruction.co.nz, asbestosroofremoval.co.nz, cleangutters.co.nz, shingleroofers.co.nz, and nzbarns.co.nz.
"This is not just about delayed payment," the worker wrote. "This is about being underpaid, not being paid on time, breach of contract, and unfair treatment of an overseas worker."
Mate, when New Zealand companies hire overseas workers remotely, those workers have almost no legal recourse if things go wrong. They're not covered by NZ employment law. They can't easily pursue claims through local courts. They're essentially working in a regulatory void.
This case exposes how some NZ businesses are exploiting that void. Remote workers from developing countries are hired on contracts, then underpaid or not paid at all. The employer faces minimal risk of enforcement or legal consequences.
The worker's decision to name the businesses publicly is significant. Without legal recourse, public shaming becomes one of the few tools available to seek accountability.
The case also highlights the broader challenge of regulating remote work in the global digital economy. New Zealand businesses can hire workers anywhere in the world, but the legal frameworks governing those relationships are often unclear or non-existent.
Some workers from Philippines, India, and other developing countries are willing to work for rates well below New Zealand minimum wage — currently NZD $23.15 per hour — because even those reduced rates represent good income in their home countries.
But the lack of legal protections makes them vulnerable to exploitation. And when employers underpay or don't pay at all, workers have few options.
New Zealand employment law is generally considered strong, with robust protections for local workers. But those protections don't extend to overseas contractors working remotely.
The government has shown limited interest in regulating this space. Remote overseas workers aren't voters, and there's no domestic political constituency pushing for their protection.
For now, workers like the one who posted publicly about the alleged underpayment are left to seek justice through social media exposure and public pressure.
Whether that's enough to change behavior — or whether it will take regulatory intervention — remains to be seen.
The worker concluded their post by saying "workers deserve to be paid fully and on time."
Hard to argue with that.
