On 8 May, 15:24, "Jethro" wrote:
> Surprised no one else noticed this :
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.stm
>
> Workers accused of theft or damage could soon find themselves blacklisted =
on
> a register to be shared among employers. It will be good for profits but
> campaigners say innocent people could find it impossible to get another jo=
b.
>
> To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare.
>
> An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty, regardless =
of
> whether they have been convicted of any crime, which bosses can access whe=
n
> vetting potential employees.
>
> But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National Staff
> Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live. =A0 Individuals would be=
> treated as criminals, even though the police have never been contacted
>
> Hannah Reed of the TUC
>
> Organisers say that major companies including Harrods, Selfridges, Reed
> Managed Services and Mothercare have already signed up to the scheme. By t=
he
> end of May they will be able to check whether candidates for jobs have fac=
ed
> allegations of stealing, forgery, fraud, damaging company property or
> causing a loss to their employers and suppliers.
>
> Workers sacked for these offences will be included on the register,
> regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them. Also on
> the list will be employees who resigned before they could face disciplinar=
y
> proceedings at work.
>
> The project has attracted little publicity. But the BBC News website can
> reveal that trade unions and civil liberties campaigners are warning that =
it
> leaves workers vulnerable to the threat of false accusations.
>
> TUC policy officer Hannah Reed says that while criminal activity in the
> workplace can never be condoned, she fears such a system is open to abuse.=
> WHAT WILL GET YOU ON IT
> Theft or attempted theft of money, merchandise or property from company,
> suppliers or customers
> Falsification or forgery of documents
> Fraudulently obtaining money, services or information
> Damaging company property
>
> "The TUC is seriously concerned that this register can only lead to people=
> being shut out from the job market by an employer who falsely accuses them=
> of misconduct or sacks them because they bear them a grudge. Individuals
> would be treated as criminals, even though the police have never been
> contacted.
>
> "The Criminal Records Bureau was set up to assist employers to make safe
> appointments when recruiting staff to work with vulnerable groups. The CRB=
> already provides appropriate and properly regulated protection for
> employers. Under the new register, an employee may not be aware they have
> been blacklisted or have any right to appeal."
>
> James Welch, the legal director of human rights group Liberty, also says
> that he is concerned that the register does not offer sufficient redress t=
o
> the falsely accused.
>
> "This scheme appears to bypass existing laws which protect employees by
> limiting the circumstances when information about possible criminal activi=
ty
> can be shared with potential employers."
>
> The register is an initiative of Action Against Business Crime (AABC), a
> partnership between the Home Office and the British Retail Consortium.
> Selfridges has signed up
>
> Set up by Surrey-based firm Hicom Business Solutions, the database will
> allow employers to search for potential workers by name, address, date of
> birth, national insurance number and previous employer.
>
> Records on individuals - accessible online via an encrypted password
> system - will be kept for a five-year period and can include photos.
>
> Mike Schuck, chief executive of AABC, says that theft by members of staff
> costs the British economy billions of pounds each year and rejects the
> notion that the register is a blacklist.
>
> He says that all participating companies will be obliged to abide by the
> Data Protection Act and that workers named on the database, maintained by
> AABC, will have the right to change their entries if they are inaccurate.
>
> Should a dispute take place between an employee and an employer about
> whether an incident occurred, Mr Schuck adds, the worker will be able to
> appeal to the Information Commissioner's Office.
>
> "We are limiting access to the database to employers who can comply with t=
he
> Information Commissioner's employment practices code," he says. "We're not=
> going to allow Mr Smith's hardware store. We're quite open about this.
> People will be told when they apply for jobs that they may be checked as
> part of the application process.
>
> "Theft in the workplace hurts staff as much as employers because it puts
> everyone under suspicion."
>
> Nonetheless, many workers may get a nasty surprise when old allegations
> return to haunt them when they next apply for a job.
This reminds me of a former boss who made much of the fact that he was
a freemason and revelled in anouncing that employees x,y or z would
never work again.
As the database would only include former employees I would have
thought that it would be redundant if restricted to the types of
employer who would probably want to follow up references before making
a job offer - or perhaps not as I don't really know.
I do get the impression that there has been something in the way of an
exponential increase in pathalogical petty dishonesty throughout the
country over the past 40 years or so which has become almost an an
accepted norm. In dealing with crooks and liars we think little more
of that than if they walked with a limp unless we perceive them as a
direct threat to us.
j |