Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Or do you think that it is perfectly acceptable to ruin someone's reputation over $20 because a Court didn't find them guilty, or you just decided to dispense your own brand of justice?

First of all, I don't see this as a justice system. If it were in fact attempting to determine guilt or innocence then okay, maybe then you have a point. But it's not, at least not how I'm reading it.

Would it be better if the database said "suspected" or "allegedly"? The end result is the same. What if it's a simple "I would hire this person again or not?" - like many references are these days due to threats of lawsuits.

So, let's say I make a database, call it "reference db". And employers can go in, when someone is let go or quits, and simply says yes/no I would hire this person again? No reasons. Kind of like eBay - this employee/employer relationship was positive/neutral/negative. Would that be better?

You're going to see the same result. People with negative references will have a harder time getting hired. Okay, so we removed the word theft. Would that then be acceptable to you?

I think the difference in our approach to this is that you're seeing it as something new, and something that definitively says Person X stole from me. I'm seeing it as nothing new, no different from word-of-mouth references excepting in ease of use, and that people who are actually interested in background checking their employees would have turned up the exact same results if they'd been forced to make phone calls rather than logging into a system.

 Redbeard wrote:
First of all, I don't see this as a justice system. If it were in fact attempting to determine guilt or innocence then okay, maybe then you have a point. But it's not, at least not how I'm reading it.

People who are under qualified to determine someones guilt are passing along accusations as fact. Yes, they are determining guilt and in a lot of cases it seems by bullying staff into signing something incriminating instead of going through the proper channels.

 Redbeard wrote:
Would it be better if the database said "suspected" or "allegedly"? The end result is the same. What if it's a simple "I would hire this person again or not?" - like many references are these days due to threats of lawsuits.

So, let's say I make a database, call it "reference db". And employers can go in, when someone is let go or quits, and simply says yes/no I would hire this person again? No reasons. Kind of like eBay - this employee/employer relationship was positive/neutral/negative. Would that be better?

You're going to see the same result. People with negative references will have a harder time getting hired. Okay, so we removed the word theft. Would that then be acceptable to you?

There is a world of difference between a negative reference and accusing someone of stealing, having it recorded as a fact, and allowing the accused no way to prove their innocence

 Redbeard wrote:
I think the difference in our approach to this is that you're seeing it as something new, and something that definitively says Person X stole from me. I'm seeing it as nothing new, no different from word-of-mouth references excepting in ease of use, and that people who are actually interested in background checking their employees would have turned up the exact same results if they'd been forced to make phone calls rather than logging into a system.

It is new, in scope and in scale. And it does contain material that says Person X stole from Company Y, material that cannot be tested by the accused and it doesn't give the person any way to clear their name. The industry itself has concerns about it, the government has concerns about it and lawyers are lining up to take shots at it.

This system is designed to give a veneer of respectability to what is malicious rumour. That is very different from phoning up and asking for a reference because no sane former employer will slander you for fear of a lawsuit.

This is a further weakening of workers rights.

It is clearly a slanderous means of implying criminality of an individual where none exists.

Supporting it is akin to supporting unfounded gossip.

It will be used to harm innocent people by bullies.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

There is a world of difference between a negative reference and accusing someone of stealing, having it recorded as a fact, and allowing the accused no way to prove their innocence

First, from the article I read, the one linked here, it seems that these aren't accusations, they're actual statements from the employees that are stored in the database.

Secondly, no, there's not a world of difference, not in the practical application of that data. Would you buy something from an eBay seller with a -1 rating? I've never seen an account with a -1 rating, because on eBay, it's easy to make a new account and that single -1 makes a seller a pariah. If companies are using this database as blacklist, that's exactly what a rating system would become. And it wouldn't even be based on the employee's own statements.

It is new, in scope and in scale. And it does contain material that says Person X stole from Company Y, material that cannot be tested by the accused and it doesn't give the person any way to clear their name.

That's because the material in the database is the employee's own statement. Is it at all surprising to you that someone who later realizes that their statement to company X is now stopping them from being hired at company Y is going to want to revise that statement?

 Redbeard wrote:

Until guilt has been established by a court of law they are accusations that are being passed off as fact. The accused still has no way to contest these accusations. Many of these statements are not going to meet evidentiery standards to prove guilt and as the article highlights many of them have been obtained by coercion, these aren't statements being given of their own free accord.

 Redbeard wrote:
Secondly, no, there's not a world of difference, not in the practical application of that data. Would you buy something from an eBay seller with a -1 rating? I've never seen an account with a -1 rating, because on eBay, it's easy to make a new account and that single -1 makes a seller a pariah. If companies are using this database as blacklist, that's exactly what a rating system would become. And it wouldn't even be based on the employee's own statements.

So an ebay account having a negative review is now the same as an accusation of a crime and the long term implications that an innocent party could be blacklisted and be unemployed? Your comparison isn't worth the pixels its taking up on my screen.

 Redbeard wrote:
That's because the material in the database is the employee's own statement. Is it at all surprising to you that someone who later realizes that their statement to company X is now stopping them from being hired at company Y is going to want to revise that statement?

The employee's own statement that was given because there was a threat hanging over them of police action, a criminal record or other action by the company. That is not a freely given statement. That is duress.
You still seem quite happy to accept that everyone in that database is guilty so there is no need to ensure that the data is accurate, or that it can be tested by the accused. If the person is truly guilty of the theft then surely the accusation will stand up to scrutiny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is a further weakening of workers rights.

It is clearly a slanderous means of implying criminality of an individual where none exists.

Supporting it is akin to supporting unfounded gossip.

It will be used to harm innocent people by bullies.

Its malicious water cooler gossip that now looks credible because it comes printed out from a database.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So an ebay account having a negative review is now the same as an accusation of a crime and the long term implications that an innocent party could be blacklisted and be unemployed? Your comparison isn't worth the pixels its taking up on my screen.

No, that's not what I said. I made the comparison to eBay not to compare a negative review to a crime, but to illustrate how any negative comment, be it an accusation of a crime, the implication that an employee is habitually late, or is rude to customers or just about anything can be used the same way. Both eBay buyers and sellers have learned that any negative means a lack of sales. It's foolish to think that blacklists only exist where the implication of criminal activity has been made.

We already have a system that allows a potential employer to contact a previous employer and solicit information about the work habits of the potential employee. You seem to think that wrapping this in the mystery that is a database somehow makes it more significant. It's not. Information isn't more credible because it's printed.

The employee's own statement that was given because there was a threat hanging over them of police action, a criminal record or other action by the company. That is not a freely given statement. That is duress.

And that never happens in the legal system does it. And again, if it's the database "veil of credibility" issue that's hanging you up, then you'd have no problem with someone forwarding the employee's statement in response to a reference check.

You still seem quite happy to accept that everyone in that database is guilty so there is no need to ensure that the data is accurate, or that it can be tested by the accused. If the person is truly guilty of the theft then surely the accusation will stand up to scrutiny.

No, I think it's irrelevant if they're innocent or guilty, because there is no criminal charge being leveled. The question being asked isn't "is this person a criminal", it's "is this person worth hiring for a retail position". If anything, making it a "retail theft" database makes it less useful to a potential employer than a simple "Would rehire" database.

What method can you propose that allows the accused to contest this, that doesn't involve clogging the courts over trivial amounts?

Do you have a problem with the following scenario:

I have a store, and an employee who I caught habitually stealing candy bars. I don't want to press charges because the amount spent isn't worth my time, but I don't want it to keep happening, so I fire the employee. And, because I'm friends with the shopkeeper next door, I tell him what happened and that he probably shouldn't hire that person.

All this database does is the above, on a larger scale. It allows shop keepers to warn others about potential problem employees.

 Redbeard wrote:
No, that's not what I said. I made the comparison to eBay not to compare a negative review to a crime, but to illustrate how any negative comment, be it an accusation of a crime, the implication that an employee is habitually late, or is rude to customers or just about anything can be used the same way. Both eBay buyers and sellers have learned that any negative means a lack of sales. It's foolish to think that blacklists only exist where the implication of criminal activity has been made.

That's exactly the comparison that you made so please don't pretend otherwise.
Also at least ebay has dispute resolution and investigation, something that this database does not

 Redbeard wrote:
We already have a system that allows a potential employer to contact a previous employer and solicit information about the work habits of the potential employee. You seem to think that wrapping this in the mystery that is a database somehow makes it more significant. It's not. Information isn't more credible because it's printed.

I never said it was more credible, I said it had the appearance ("veneer") of being more credible when its just nasty rumour collected up and stored. Comparing a negative reference to a database of accusations is very different.

 Redbeard wrote:
And that never happens in the legal system does it. And again, if it's the database "veil of credibility" issue that's hanging you up, then you'd have no problem with someone forwarding the employee's statement in response to a reference check.

It does happen. But it happens in a system were there is oversight to prevent abuses, where the accused can have their say and were the evidence can be tested. You are trying to compare rumour to the criminal justice system.
So you've taken information from a source that an employee is not aware of, read contents that the employee will not have had access to and you want them to defend themselves? Sounds perfectly fair....

 Redbeard wrote:
No, I think it's irrelevant if they're innocent or guilty, because there is no criminal charge being leveled.

So you have no problem with someone being refused a job if they haven't done anything wrong? Yeah that really speaks volumes

 Redbeard wrote:
The question being asked isn't "is this person a criminal", it's "is this person worth hiring for a retail position". If anything, making it a "retail theft" database makes it less useful to a potential employer than a simple "Would rehire" database.

So if its no issue as to whether the person committed a criminal act then why do you want a database cataloging allegations? A "Would rehire" database is a different animal.

 Redbeard wrote:
What method can you propose that allows the accused to contest this, that doesn't involve clogging the courts over trivial amounts?

If you are accused of a crime the only real way to clear your name is to be found not guilty by a court. Of course you don't care if a person is innocent or guilty so I'm sure that a single case challenging the database will be seen as clogging up the system.

 Redbeard wrote:
Do you have a problem with the following scenario:

I have a store, and an employee who I caught habitually stealing candy bars. I don't want to press charges because the amount spent isn't worth my time, but I don't want it to keep happening, so I fire the employee. And, because I'm friends with the shopkeeper next door, I tell him what happened and that he probably shouldn't hire that person.

All this database does is the above, on a larger scale. It allows shop keepers to warn others about potential problem employees.

So you can't be arsed to prosecute him and we're meant to have sympathy with you?
Do I have a problem with a self appointed judge, jury and executioner who sets up kangaroo court?
Or a database of allegations used to keep people out of a job when they may be innocent?
You don't seem to be prepared to consider any scenario whereby the accused may be innocent, the example you give is supposed to be cut and dry guilt but that doesn't happen in every instance. You're happy to take accusations at face value and you don't care if someone is innocent or not in any event.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

That's exactly the comparison that you made so please don't pretend otherwise.

Just because you misinterpreted something doesn't mean that's what I said. If I was unclear, I have since clarified why I used that example. Attacking a position I do not hold is strawmanning the debate, move on.

It does happen. But it happens in a system were there is oversight to prevent abuses, where the accused can have their say and were the evidence can be tested. You are trying to compare rumour to the criminal justice system.

You're trying to compare a reference swapping system with a criminal justice system. I was unaware that sharing information about potential hires needed to be subject to a full legal review.

So you have no problem with someone being refused a job if they haven't done anything wrong? Yeah that really speaks volumes

Do you live on the same planet as me? People are refused jobs all the time, even when they haven't done anything wrong. People get refused jobs because they wore the wrong shirt to the interview, or because they had a visible tattoo. Or because the hiring manager thought the other applicant was cuter. Not being hired isn't the end of the world, it's not like they're having to serve a jail sentence. Not being hired is actually the most likely result of applying for any job in this economy.

So, "done anything wrong"? It's a risk vs reward proposition. I have a position to fill. One potential employee poses a greater risk to my business than the other, why should I incur the additional risk? Whether true or not, the existence of the allegation is risk. Not as great a risk as if the allegation were true, but still a risk all the same.

If you are accused of a crime the only real way to clear your name is to be found not guilty by a court. Of course you don't care if a person is innocent or guilty so I'm sure that a single case challenging the database will be seen as clogging up the system.

To some extent, you're right. I fully acknowledge the idea that this database is essentially water-cooler talk. Well, maybe a little more than that, it's more like water-cooler talk at the local merchant's association. It has no legal standing, it's not seeking to determine innocence or guilt, it's the equivalent of me saying to the owner of the shop next door, "Bob stole from me, I wouldn't hire him". My neighbor isn't going to ask me to provide ironclad proof that Bob did it. But neither should he have to take the risk inherent in hiring Bob.

So you can't be arsed to prosecute him and we're meant to have sympathy with you?

No one is asking for sympathy. At least I'm not. You seem to expect sympathy for the thieves who gave statements acknowledging what they had done. You're looking for any reason possible to give those people sympathy. How many man-hours go into a prosecution for a misdemeanor theft? Someone steals a couple of candy bars. You think it's reasonable to involve the courts and expend a hundred man-hours to establish all the facts in a legal setting, when all I want to do is warn my neighbors that the person isn't to be trusted in their stores. Well gosh, I could be wrong. I could be causing the thief undue duress by catching them stealing from me.

You don't seem to be prepared to consider any scenario whereby the accused may be innocent, the example you give is supposed to be cut and dry guilt but that doesn't happen in every instance. You're happy to take accusations at face value and you don't care if someone is innocent or not in any event.

You're right, largely, I don't because I don't see a positive cost-benefit in knowing this. Try to follow along.

- The cost to establishing actual innocence or guilt is quite high. It puts a load on the court system, which is already backlogged with petty cases. When you consider that the stat from the article was that 44% of retail theft come from employees, consider the total cost of going through this for every case where someone stole $20 or less.

- In all cases where someone is put into the system, they have provided their own statement acknowledging the crime. This establishes, if not actual guilt, then at least poor judgement in their other actions that made admitting to a crime they didn't commit seem like an attractive option, or, at the very least, the poor judgement of writing a statement admitting that they committed a theft.

- The benefit being sought is not knowing the person's innocence or guilt, but rather, are they a good risk for hiring. I would certainly argue that someone who admits to a theft that they didn't commit is not the best bet to man the till in my shop.

I should be able to warn my neighbors of potential problems without needing to jump through legal hoops to do so. That's what this database allows. And while I have no statistics to back it up, I'm willing to bet that the number of innocent people wronged by this system is fairly low. So a few people can't get retail jobs because they showed the poor judgement of admitting to a crime they didn't commit. That's a shame, but I don't think it's worse than a few businesses being stolen from because they're not allowed to screen their applicants. Don't the businesses deserve some protection too?

Businesses already have the protection of the law. Which apparently isn't good enough, so they have to invent some private law of their own.

As the database contains statements about the alleged conduct of ex-employees it is potentially a libellous document and its publishers could be sued.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Businesses already have the protection of the law. Which apparently isn't good enough, so they have to invent some private law of their own.

Again, I don't see how sharing information constitutes a law of their own. And, no, "the protection of the law" isn't good enough because it's retroactive. Have you never heard the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why require a business to hire a poor risk employee and be stolen from before taking action?

Protection of the law is never good enough. You can prosecute a murderer, but you cannot bring the murdered back to life. You can prosecute a rapist, but you cannot put the life of the raped back together. I may have insurance, but that doesn't mean that I can't suffer loss, money cannot replace sentimental items, and jail terms for thieves doesn't bring them back. Minimizing the risk that you're the victim of crime is always better than being the victim and hoping that the law punishes someone for you.

As the database contains statements about the alleged conduct of ex-employees it is potentially a libellous document and its publishers could be sued.

It contains the ex-employee's own statements. While I acknowledge the argument that these statements may have been coerced, I'm not sure that someone's own statement could be considered libel.

I generally think this type of HR blacklisting is a toxic practice wherein everybody loses ultimately; but in the short term I'm inclined to take the stance that any reason for keeping someone out of retail is a good thing for that person.

Retail is awful.

 Redbeard wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Businesses already have the protection of the law. Which apparently isn't good enough, so they have to invent some private law of their own.

Again, I don't see how sharing information constitutes a law of their own. And, no, "the protection of the law" isn't good enough because it's retroactive. Have you never heard the saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why require a business to hire a poor risk employee and be stolen from before taking action?

Protection of the law is never good enough. You can prosecute a murderer, but you cannot bring the murdered back to life. You can prosecute a rapist, but you cannot put the life of the raped back together. I may have insurance, but that doesn't mean that I can't suffer loss, money cannot replace sentimental items, and jail terms for thieves doesn't bring them back. Minimizing the risk that you're the victim of crime is always better than being the victim and hoping that the law punishes someone for you.

As the database contains statements about the alleged conduct of ex-employees it is potentially a libellous document and its publishers could be sued.

It contains the ex-employee's own statements. While I acknowledge the argument that these statements may have been coerced, I'm not sure that someone's own statement could be considered libel.

The publisher (the database) not the employee is responsible for propagating the statements and thus would be potentially liable to libel. If co-erced they would not be true statements, and the defence of truth would be lost.

 Redbeard wrote:
Just because you misinterpreted something doesn't mean that's what I said. If I was unclear, I have since clarified why I used that example. Attacking a position I do not hold is strawmanning the debate, move on.

You said "'Secondly, no, there's not a world of difference, not in the practical application of that data. Would you buy something from an eBay seller with a -1 rating? ". Just because you found yourself in an untenable situation doesn't mean you shout "Strawman" and run away.

 Redbeard wrote:
You're trying to compare a reference swapping system with a criminal justice system. I was unaware that sharing information about potential hires needed to be subject to a full legal review.

You were happy with making the comparison yourself - "And that never happens in the legal system does it."
What I expect is that if someone is accused of a crime there is at least sufficient evidence presented, collected by a qualified and competent individual and open to challenge. Not some database that employees aren't told about, which is then used to deny them employment when they may be innocent

 Redbeard wrote:
Do you live on the same planet as me? People are refused jobs all the time, even when they haven't done anything wrong. People get refused jobs because they wore the wrong shirt to the interview, or because they had a visible tattoo. Or because the hiring manager thought the other applicant was cuter. Not being hired isn't the end of the world, it's not like they're having to serve a jail sentence. Not being hired is actually the most likely result of applying for any job in this economy.

That is an impressive leap of logic. Just so we're clear here - its ok to deny people employment based on accusations of criminal conduct and possibly obtained by coercion, and leave them without the ability to challenge the accuracy of these allegations, all because hiring managers can make arbitrary decisions and the economy is in the dumps anyway?

I see you're not trying to defend your comment that " I think it's irrelevant if they're innocent or guilty,"

 Redbeard wrote:
So, "done anything wrong"? It's a risk vs reward proposition. I have a position to fill. One potential employee poses a greater risk to my business than the other, why should I incur the additional risk? Whether true or not, the existence of the allegation is risk. Not as great a risk as if the allegation were true, but still a risk all the same.

Only if the accusations are true. And the problem is that we can't be certain that they are because there is no way to test them bar the class action lawsuits that have been popping up.

 Redbeard wrote:
To some extent, you're right. I fully acknowledge the idea that this database is essentially water-cooler talk. Well, maybe a little more than that, it's more like water-cooler talk at the local merchant's association. It has no legal standing, it's not seeking to determine innocence or guilt, it's the equivalent of me saying to the owner of the shop next door, "Bob stole from me, I wouldn't hire him". My neighbor isn't going to ask me to provide ironclad proof that Bob did it. But neither should he have to take the risk inherent in hiring Bob.

You're only content to see the absolute scenario that Person X was caught cash in hand and is obviously guilty, therefore this database is a great idea because everyone in it is the same as Person X.
Those comments do have legal standing because if they aren't true then they are prima fascie slander, and that opens up a whole set of legal problems.

 Redbeard wrote:
No one is asking for sympathy. At least I'm not. You seem to expect sympathy for the thieves who gave statements acknowledging what they had done. You're looking for any reason possible to give those people sympathy. How many man-hours go into a prosecution for a misdemeanor theft? Someone steals a couple of candy bars. You think it's reasonable to involve the courts and expend a hundred man-hours to establish all the facts in a legal setting, when all I want to do is warn my neighbors that the person isn't to be trusted in their stores. Well gosh, I could be wrong. I could be causing the thief undue duress by catching them stealing from me.

I expect some sympathy for people who were coerced into incriminating themselves because they were strong armed into it and didn't realise the full consequences of what signing a slip of paper had done. I expect that innocent people be able to challenge the database and have their records expunged if there are false or inaccurate claims, something which you seem to consistently ignore.

 Redbeard wrote:
You're right, largely, I don't because I don't see a positive cost-benefit in knowing this. Try to follow along.

- The cost to establishing actual innocence or guilt is quite high. It puts a load on the court system, which is already backlogged with petty cases. When you consider that the stat from the article was that 44% of retail theft come from employees, consider the total cost of going through this for every case where someone stole $20 or less.

- In all cases where someone is put into the system, they have provided their own statement acknowledging the crime. This establishes, if not actual guilt, then at least poor judgement in their other actions that made admitting to a crime they didn't commit seem like an attractive option, or, at the very least, the poor judgement of writing a statement admitting that they committed a theft.

- The benefit being sought is not knowing the person's innocence or guilt, but rather, are they a good risk for hiring. I would certainly argue that someone who admits to a theft that they didn't commit is not the best bet to man the till in my shop.

I should be able to warn my neighbors of potential problems without needing to jump through legal hoops to do so. That's what this database allows. And while I have no statistics to back it up, I'm willing to bet that the number of innocent people wronged by this system is fairly low. So a few people can't get retail jobs because they showed the poor judgement of admitting to a crime they didn't commit. That's a shame, but I don't think it's worse than a few businesses being stolen from because they're not allowed to screen their applicants. Don't the businesses deserve some protection too?

So the Court should ignore some laws and only uphold others, so what is important and what isn't? Consider the cost of dealing with public nuisance from drinkers at the weekend. The costs to the State in Police power, administration and prosecution, the cost of taking them to Court etc. aren't recouped by small fines. Should we ignore those too? The same with assaults and other violent crimes. The State has to spend a lot of money dealing with those. Surely dealing with 44% of a type of crime isn't "petty", its actually quite substantial.

Finding out if a person is a good hire is more than just if they stole. Do they do their job, are they punctual, have they the right skills, can they work in a team, can they work under pressure etc. Please stop pretending that this database is suddenly going to make hiring people so much easier.

So a single mother in an office with the loss prevention officer and a manager standing over her calling her a thief and threatening to phone the Police on her, telling her how her name will be mud, how she could lose her kid isn't going to be pressured into signing if she's told she can just leave and she won't be arrested? And you asked me what planet I was on

Business do have protection from hiring thieves, and there is screening available. Its called a criminal background check and is already in place. They don't need to supplement it with their own naughty list.


But, no matter what I say lets be honest - you're more than happy to say that you have your blinkers on because you don't care one iota whether someone is innocent or not, and you think that everyone accused is guilty. You're in favour of people being to make accusations that may be wholly unfounded and not be challenged, just because they should be spared the inconvenience of prosecuting people and damn whoever happens to get caught up in it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Just because you found yourself in an untenable situation doesn't mean you shout "Strawman" and run away.

What would you have me do, argue the position that you think I'm in favor of, or clarify what I meant? If you insist on ignoring my clarification, then that is indeed a strawman attack, you're ignoring what I'm saying in favour of what you want me to be saying.

What I expect is that if someone is accused of a crime there is at least sufficient evidence presented, collected by a qualified and competent individual and open to challenge. Not some database that employees aren't told about, which is then used to deny them employment when they may be innocent

So you're okay with me telling another person that I believe Bob stole from me and that they shouldn't hire Bob, but you're not okay with me putting that in writing or in a computer? Is that it?

Just so we're clear here - its ok to deny people employment based on accusations of criminal conduct and possibly obtained by coercion, and leave them without the ability to challenge the accuracy of these allegations, all because hiring managers can make arbitrary decisions and the economy is in the dumps anyway?

Yes. Are you saying hiring managers should be barred from considering the opinions of their peers before hiring?

If I say, "in my opinion, Bob stole from me, but I can't prove it", is that slander? Do we now need to involve the police and the courts in everything we think might have happened?

I see you're not trying to defend your comment that " I think it's irrelevant if they're innocent or guilty,"

Nope. From a business perspective, it is irrelevant. An individual accused of theft who then puts in writing that they committed the theft is an increased risk to hire. If they're not a crook, they're at least both a liar and none too bright.

You're only content to see the absolute scenario that Person X was caught cash in hand and is obviously guilty, therefore this database is a great idea because everyone in it is the same as Person X.

Not true. I've explained the logic behind increased risk for people who are accused, and put it in writing, when not guilty.

I expect some sympathy for people who were coerced into incriminating themselves because they were strong armed into it and didn't realise the full consequences of what signing a slip of paper had done. I expect that innocent people be able to challenge the database and have their records expunged if there are false or inaccurate claims, something which you seem to consistently ignore.

It's a wonderful goal, I just think it's impractical. What I see is a system designed to avoid the high costs of prosecuting minor crimes - minor crimes that taken together are a major problem for businesses, but taken individually are still minor crimes. The goal is not to incarcerate or punish the accused, in fact, they're getting off easier than had the had to go to court. (you think background checks aren't going to turn up misdemeanor charges?) The goal is to protect the business community from criminal activity at a reasonable cost. If they have to go through the full criminal trial system for everyone then the system fails its reasonable cost goal, and there is no benefit to it.

What if instead of having an 'employee theft' database, each company simply maintained their own "do not hire" list, and shared those lists? Would that make you feel better, now that it's not about these thousands of falsely accused easily duped types, and it's simply a list?

So the Court should ignore some laws and only uphold others, so what is important and what isn't? Consider the cost of dealing with public nuisance from drinkers at the weekend. The costs to the State in Police power, administration and prosecution, the cost of taking them to Court etc. aren't recouped by small fines. Should we ignore those too?

I don't know where you live. They're pretty much ignored everywhere I've been, precisely because they are a waste of taxpayer money to attempt to enforce.

The same with assaults and other violent crimes. The State has to spend a lot of money dealing with those.

So you're getting on me for comparing a rating system on eBay with this database, but now you're comparing rape and murder to taking a $20 from the till? And you say I've no perspective.

Surely dealing with 44% of a type of crime isn't "petty", its actually quite substantial.

As I mentioned above, there's a difference between the 44% total, and each individual theft. This database is obviously an attempt to address the 44% significant problem, without making the individual minor transgressions into major events.

Finding out if a person is a good hire is more than just if they stole. Do they do their job, are they punctual, have they the right skills, can they work in a team, can they work under pressure etc. Please stop pretending that this database is suddenly going to make hiring people so much easier.

When businesses get a few hundred applications for each open position, everything that can rule a person out earlier in the process makes hiring easier. The sooner you can weed out the definitely-nots, the more time you can spend evaluating the important things such as those you mention.

So a single mother in an office with the loss prevention officer and a manager standing over her calling her a thief and threatening to phone the Police on her, telling her how her name will be mud, how she could lose her kid isn't going to be pressured into signing if she's told she can just leave and she won't be arrested? And you asked me what planet I was on

I'm sorry, I have a really hard time feeling sympathy for thieves and liars. The woman you described above is either one or the other. Someone willing to lie to avoid short-term trouble is not a reliable hire.

Business do have protection from hiring thieves, and there is screening available. Its called a criminal background check and is already in place. They don't need to supplement it with their own naughty list.

Apparently they do. The nature of the free market indicates that this tool exists because there is a need for a tool that solves a problem. The state is not doing their job, certainly not in a cost-effective manner, and the losses incurred by businesses from employee theft are too high.

But, no matter what I say lets be honest - you're more than happy to say that you have your blinkers on because you don't care one iota whether someone is innocent or not, and you think that everyone accused is guilty.

Hey look, you're making up stuff again. I don't believe everyone accused is guilty. I believe that everyone accused is a greater risk to a business than those not accused. That's an important distinction. Maybe they didn't do something wrong, but they did do something stupid. (And that's a fairly easy proof, if you require it).

You're in favour of people being to make accusations that may be wholly unfounded and not be challenged, just because they should be spared the inconvenience of prosecuting people and damn whoever happens to get caught up in it.

I'm in favour of small businesses being allowed to share their opinions about the risks involved with potential hires, without government red tape making them spend money they don't have to do so, and without spreading that cost to the taxpayers. You're in favour of allowing Bob the Thief to go from one shop to the next, plundering small amounts until he's caught at each one, and then being able to move on to the next with no reprecussion, and damn whatever small businesses fail as a result.

There are pretty simple laws regarding what kind of questions can be asked by potential employers and what kind of answers can be given by old employers.

Inventing a new system to circumvent old laws is never a good idea.

If you fire someone because they stole something, then simply mark them as "no rehire" and tell the new job that is asking for a reference that you would not hire your former employee again. That's within the law and solves all the problems this "check system" is pretending to fix.

There used to be a similar system for nurses in Texas that was nothing but trouble. I will see it I can find the info for that.

 Redbeard wrote:
So you're okay with me telling another person that I believe Bob stole from me and that they shouldn't hire Bob, but you're not okay with me putting that in writing or in a computer? Is that it?

I'll ignore the irony of you accusing me of strawman arguments when you're mis-reading my words

 Redbeard wrote:
Yes. Are you saying hiring managers should be barred from considering the opinions of their peers before hiring?

If I say, "in my opinion, Bob stole from me, but I can't prove it", is that slander? Do we now need to involve the police and the courts in everything we think might have happened?

I'm saying that managers should not be accusing people of crimes to anyone but the Police as part of an investigation. Its not a manager's job to slander ex-employees. If asked for a reference either base it on their performance or refuse to give a reference.

 Redbeard wrote:
Nope. From a business perspective, it is irrelevant. An individual accused of theft who then puts in writing that they committed the theft is an increased risk to hire. If they're not a crook, they're at least both a liar and none too bright.

Well, if nothing you're consistent in your contemptible views. Who cares if they were bullied into signing something eh?

 Redbeard wrote:
Not true. I've explained the logic behind increased risk for people who are accused, and put it in writing, when not guilty.

No. Your logic is that people accused (even if wholly innocent and were accusations are made maliciously) are guilty. Not a single scenario you've described shows anything other than guilt

 Redbeard wrote:
It's a wonderful goal, I just think it's impractical. What I see is a system designed to avoid the high costs of prosecuting minor crimes - minor crimes that taken together are a major problem for businesses, but taken individually are still minor crimes. The goal is not to incarcerate or punish the accused, in fact, they're getting off easier than had the had to go to court. (you think background checks aren't going to turn up misdemeanor charges?) The goal is to protect the business community from criminal activity at a reasonable cost. If they have to go through the full criminal trial system for everyone then the system fails its reasonable cost goal, and there is no benefit to it.

What if instead of having an 'employee theft' database, each company simply maintained their own "do not hire" list, and shared those lists? Would that make you feel better, now that it's not about these thousands of falsely accused easily duped types, and it's simply a list?

What you see and what the reality is are two different things. There are already systems in place to prevent thieves putting businesses at risk, and systems in place for the falsely accused to clear their names. Just because you do not like the hassle of doing things properly does not give you the right to circumvent them.
I like your assertion that the accused person isn't being punished by being kept out of a job. What would you describe it then for an innocent person caught up in this with no way to clear their name?

 Redbeard wrote:
I don't know where you live. They're pretty much ignored everywhere I've been, precisely because they are a waste of taxpayer money to attempt to enforce.

I live in the US and I've lived in the UK. I've seen Police deal with public disorder in both.

 Redbeard wrote:
So you're getting on me for comparing a rating system on eBay with this database, but now you're comparing rape and murder to taking a $20 from the till? And you say I've no perspective.

Nope, once again see the irony in you accusing me of strawman arguments when you're doing it yourself. There's a reason why that statement was under that particular quote. You were bleating on about how much it cost to prosecute theft and tried to make it out like it was such a burden whereas other types of crime cost the state significantly more.

 Redbeard wrote:
As I mentioned above, there's a difference between the 44% total, and each individual theft. This database is obviously an attempt to address the 44% significant problem, without making the individual minor transgressions into major events.

So you agree that 44% is a substantial number, but you don't actually want to take any constructive action to tackle it. Gotcha.

 Redbeard wrote:
When businesses get a few hundred applications for each open position, everything that can rule a person out earlier in the process makes hiring easier. The sooner you can weed out the definitely-nots, the more time you can spend evaluating the important things such as those you mention.

So its ok to ignore an application from a great worker who has been falsely accused of something and has no way to clear there name, but who might otherwise be an asset to your business. So making HR's job easier is now more important than hiring the right person?

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm sorry, I have a really hard time feeling sympathy for thieves and liars. The woman you described above is either one or the other. Someone willing to lie to avoid short-term trouble is not a reliable hire.

Ok, someone gets bullied into signing something and they're a liar. But believing and enabling the slander of people is ok.

 Redbeard wrote:
Apparently they do. The nature of the free market indicates that this tool exists because there is a need for a tool that solves a problem. The state is not doing their job, certainly not in a cost-effective manner, and the losses incurred by businesses from employee theft are too high.

So as long as its cost effective damn the consequences. So what if we make innocent, talented people unemployable its fine because it was done in a cost effective manner. Lets just ignore the fact that this person and their family will collect welfare, have less disposable income and not be able to spend money in your business to help the economy. We were able to bypass proper checks from qualified bodies and saved a few bucks!!!!

 Redbeard wrote:
Hey look, you're making up stuff again. I don't believe everyone accused is guilty. I believe that everyone accused is a greater risk to a business than those not accused. That's an important distinction. Maybe they didn't do something wrong, but they did do something stupid. (And that's a fairly easy proof, if you require it).

You said that it doesn't matter whether they were innocent or not. Your words. Once again, you have accused me of strawman arguments but you seem to be indulging in it more than I.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm in favour of small businesses being allowed to share their opinions about the risks involved with potential hires, without government red tape making them spend money they don't have to do so, and without spreading that cost to the taxpayers. You're in favour of allowing Bob the Thief to go from one shop to the next, plundering small amounts until he's caught at each one, and then being able to move on to the next with no reprecussion, and damn whatever small businesses fail as a result.

No. You're in favour of malicious rumour being passed off as fact to deny people jobs, you're in favour of doing things the easy way instead of the right way out of laziness, you think that a business shouldn't have to worry about government red tape and taxes but should pay a private firm to vet people instead. You don't care if they're innocent and damn the social consequences. I have been very clear and consistent in my views so I'd appreciate if you distorted them less to make a point. I'm in favour of letting innocent people clear their names, I'm in favour of letting the guilty be dealt with by the proper authorities who are best suited to deal with these accusations. I'm not in favour of some manager with 30 minutes of training, supplemented by Law & Order marathons thinking that they are better qualified to deal with the issue than the police and the courts.

Do you want to know the really funny part is? You think that a small family business that can't afford to phone the police over a $20 theft, or a large retail store who hire people to deal with theft will somehow save money by paying the firms that run the databases for staff to be vetted. Somehow its more cost efficient to not have paid staff to do their jobs and phone the police, but it is cost efficient to pay to screen potential employees through a database of unproven accusations

Since you insist on rewriting my position, there's no point to continuing this. Clearly we disagree on what steps businesses should be allowed to take to protect themselves from criminals. I guess we'll see what the courts decide to allow.

 Redbeard wrote:
Since you insist on rewriting my position, there's no point to continuing this. Clearly we disagree on what steps businesses should be allowed to take to protect themselves from criminals. I guess we'll see what the courts decide to allow.

As I've shown above, you've been pretty adept at re-writing my argument yourself.
If you see a database of accusations as a step for businesses "to protect themselves for criminals" (showing that you assume guilt yet again were it has not been proven), and that businesses are better off spending money on a privately run database with no oversight than dealing with the existing mechanism that has sufficient safe guards for both parties then I doubt we're going to agree on much.

Seeing as the courts have already paid out on lawsuits against the databases, there are more lawsuits in the pipeline, the industry isn't standing by those running the databases and the government is taking an interest things could get interesting in the not so distant future.

Take care.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The loss prevention guy in my last job had a screw missing upstairs, everyone was a criminal to him, he claimed to have worked for 'special forces' and would frequently break company health and safety to climb up into the gaps between aisle shelves, some 25ft high, to spy on the night crews or 'potential perps'. The HR was an embittered woman in an abusive marriage to a drunk, who would take her self loathing out with petty acts of cruelty to staff she thought she could get away with picking on, several of the managers were halfwits, elevated to their positions by dint of the Peter principal.

Any of those fethwits having access to this database would frighten me, because they'd abuse it with personal attacks and damage people past their 'entitled' time of the victim's employment.

You literally just described every retail job ever.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
You literally just described every retail job ever.

Its scary how the horror stories from retail mirror each other, no matter what side of the Atlantic you're on

 Redbeard wrote:
From a business sense though, every hour you're paying an employee to give testimony, assist police, or appear in court is an extra hour when you're paying them to do something that's not helping you make money.

Strictly speaking, it would be unwise to pay an employee to do any of those things (except assist police in the course of normal working hours); as it could be very easily construed as bribery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The loss prevention guy in my last job had a screw missing upstairs, everyone was a criminal to him, he claimed to have worked for 'special forces' and would frequently break company health and safety to climb up into the gaps between aisle shelves, some 25ft high, to spy on the night crews or 'potential perps'. The HR was an embittered woman in an abusive marriage to a drunk, who would take her self loathing out with petty acts of cruelty to staff she thought she could get away with picking on, several of the managers were halfwits, elevated to their positions by dint of the Peter principal.

Any of those fethwits having access to this database would frighten me, because they'd abuse it with personal attacks and damage people past their 'entitled' time of the victim's employment.

You literally just described every retail job ever.

To be fair, I would be fairly bitter if I were managing a staff composed primarily of people in their late teens and early twenties, because I remember what I was like when I was in my late teens and early twenties.

 Polonius wrote:
Make it so that anytime a potential employer runs a check, the person gets a copy, and I'd be ok with it.

I concur. I think businesses should have nothing to fear from such an approach, since the truth is an absolute defense, while wrongfully-accused employees have some recourse against slander since they now are aware they are being slandered.

I remember a talk from Jeff Jonas. He was into the same sort of thing but coming from a different angle.

What he was wanting, was a lot of companies (particularly store chains), to start integrating their own databases - not the same one for multiple companies. Presumably, they'd make less money from that.

In any case, the idea was that there were quite regular case of say, someone getting banned from a store in City A for shoplifting, only to apply for a part time job there in City B.

That seems like a lot more sensible an approach to me and, since it's all internal to companies it shouldn't be breaking any individuals rights.

Of course, it does nothing to help small business owners.