abelard wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2008 21:40:00 +0100, James Hammerton
> wrote:
>
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>>>> "James Hammerton" wrote in message
>>>> news:68h136F2stlmsU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Yet more guilt by accusation in Britain. From the BBC
>>>>> (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.stm):
>>>>>
>>>>> "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 when vetting potential employees.
>>>>>
[etc...]
>>>> Mind you so many business these days are run by criminals that
>>>> they might very the the fact that you are percieved to be a criminal
>>>> as a positive attribute, someone who would fit in well with the crooks
>>>> already working there.
>>> And what of the Data Protection Act?
>>>
>> Good question! Do employers have the right to pass on unproven
>> allegations against their employees to other employers without the
>> consent of the employees concerned?
>
> while this is (and has been) standard for many years....
By "this" do you mean the practice of passing on unproven allegations
from one employer to another? I'm sure it has occurred in an informal
manner since year dot, but for it to be formalised with what looks like
some sort of government backing like this seems new to me. This also
seems a larger scale exercise than anything informal.
> 'they' have various ways of dealing with (getting around) this
> by always 'phoning up (or meeting) for confirmation of any
> written reference...
> and by 'damning with faint praise'....
> in 'professions' they widely keep black lists.....
For example?
James |