Employee's blacklisted?

[Oneeyedvic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7389547.st m

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 job.

Later this month, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.

Organisers say that major companies including Harrods, Selfridges, Reed Managed Services and Mothercare have already signed up to the scheme. By the end of May they will be able to check whether candidates for jobs have faced 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 disciplinary proceedings at work.

Good or bad?

Personally I feel that this is a bad thing and a terrible infringement of civil liberties - although I would not have such an issue with it if they only put on people convicted of a criminal offense.

[squarebear]

I don't see how it's a bad thing. It will help protect employers no end and it serves people right if they've been previously sacked for such offences.

[Oneeyedvic]

not sure if you read the full story: Also on the list will be employees who resigned before they could face disciplinary proceedings at work.

If you have a boss that doesn't like you and you have resigned, you can get put on this list without you knowing about it.

Seems far to open to abuse to people who may not have even carried out an offence.

[jake-the-peg]

So fall out with the HR manager and they have the right to put you on a blacklist with no appeal, no checks, no recourse

and that's a good thing?

[ludwig]

It's a bad thing for two reasons. Firstly because you only have to have been accused of something to be put on the blacklist - you may well be innocent.
Secondly, it means that someone who perhaps made one stupid mistake and is now reformed is never able to work again.
Checking for a criminal record would be fair enough, but this doesn't seem right.

[squarebear]

But if you are innocent of doing these things, you wouldn't be sacked and so not appear on the list.

[jake-the-peg]

Simple answer is to make such a list publically available.

In which case any company that put something on it that was not true or misleading could be sued for libel or defamation.

I wouldn't expect it to happen a lot but in my experience most companies are very very careful what they say when it could land them in court.

[birdie1971]

This is absolutely terrible.

Big bust up with the boss, you leave, boss shafts you completely. You would be unaware you were even on this register unless another potential employer told you about it.

This system will definetly be abused by unscrupulous individuals.

[squarebear]

But then you would appeal against your entry on the list, if the boss put you on it for spite.

[jake-the-peg]

That's the point isn't it?

If the list is not publically available how would you know?

Currently it's only available to scheme members.

http://www.brc.org.uk/aabc/default.asp?content _id=19

[Oneeyedvic]

squarebear - if you are sacked, you may not appeal if you do not like working there.

You will also not know if you are on the list or not, so you would have no chance of appeal.

[squarebear]

But people are told when they apply for jobs that they might be checked. It's not just any old firm that can register.

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 the 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.

[nedflanders]

give it up squarebear! The idea sucks no end! There are too many power mad empire building managers out there with a chip on their shoulder to let innocent workers who are probably better at their jobs than the managers be put on this list and potentially have their lives ruined.

[squarebear]

To me, the idea only sucks if you have something to hide. If I were a boss, I'd want to know what sort of people I was employing.

[jake-the-peg]

I think it would be better to tell people when they are listed!

That would give them the right to seek redress when it happens.

Most people will not know that such a register even exists and it just trusts companies to act ethically with no legal compulsion.

You note he's only mentioning an appeal as to whether an incident took place.

So a company fires Joe Smith (wrongly) for suspicion of Theft.

Joe is not taken to court so has no opportunity to clear his name.

He is listed (validly) for having been dismissed on suspicion of theft.

What does Joe do?

[jake-the-peg]

Make no mistake about it

This is guilty until proven innocent - if we had a constitution it would be against it!

[squarebear]

Yes I do agree that people should be informed when they are put on the list but I have certainly no problems with the list itself.

[jake-the-peg]

What other than transfering the burden of proof to the accused?

Suppose we did that in law?

[Oneeyedvic]

I am a boss and will be employing someone shortly.

I will of course look at their previous jobs and get references from their previous employers which will of course throw any light on previous misdemeanours.

I anticipate that this system will be used in advance of job interviews, otherwise the current system operates fine. Therefore, the applicant will simply get a letter saying "sorry, not interested" and have no way of knowing that they are on a list somewhere.


When I left a previous job (working selling advertising for a local newspaper), a company who I had sold advertising to said that I had fabricated the order and that they weren't paying (it was a large order at the time). I hadn't left on good terms with my employer (as I was going to a competitor) and the next thing I knew was getting called into my new manager's office as they had received a bad reference which said that I had fabricated an order.

The company had not contacted me, just written the reference. Luckily, I knew the company who had lied about the order and it transpired that they were trying to get out of paying their bill and as they knew I had left, thought that they would try it on. Luckily, all was rectified, but could easily have been different (the business in question went down a few weeks later and therefore I would not have been able to go in there and find out what was going on).

If this list had been there at the time, i doubt I would have gotten an interview.

[Bushwhacker]

I agree that this whole idea sucks and is a terrible infringement of civil liberties. I can see how some employers with a grudge could just accuse some ex employees for spitefulness (I know, because I have had an ex boss who was just like that - right little tin-pot hitler !!)

If the database is not to be made accessible to the public, at the very least an individual should receive notification from the database administrator that their details are on the database, so that they have some right of appeal.

I would also feel that on a legal level that a company would have to make it apparent on their application forms that they intended to use this database as a check - otherwise this would have to be classed as discrimination.

BW

[keyplus90]

Let me give an example to Squarebear. I have a friend who got sacked from his work after about 7 years service. Reason given was theft and rudeness to employer. I could not believe it as he was a nice person. I asked him so many times as I felt he was hiding something. After few months he came to my home and said that he wanted to show me the reason why he was sacked. He put a DVD in the player and it was a secretly filmed about 10 minutes his boss screwing his secretary. I had suspicion, he said, that something was going on after working hours so he decided to film secretly. Although later on he decided to tell the boss that he should not be doing it as secretary was also his (boss's) sister in law. For some reason he decided not to mention about DVD as he felt that he shouldn't have gone that far as it was nothing to do with him but moral thing as he felt about boss�s family. Later boss sacked him and he still decided to keep DVD hidden apart from me as according to him if he tells anyone then it would break boss's family and that he did not want as he knew them like a family member. He could have used that evidence even to black mail boss but according to him he never felt easy there since he found out about this affair. Now what if his boss puts him on register, is he guilty?.