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.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/retailers-track-employee-thefts-vast-015834369.html

Basically there is a privately owned database that tracks the identities of employees who have committed theft against the business where they were employed. This database is used as part of a background check to weed out "undesirables" during the application process. With all the concerns about privacy in Europe, anti-Big Brother types here in America and the civil rights groups all over, what do you think about this? Is it okay for a private group to do what people would rage against had the government done it?

Do the police, prosecution services and criminal records not already perform this role in most nations.

Unless we need a database for "I thought they were a scumbag but can't proof it" In which case I would suggest it may be a little open to abuse.

There are some states that have anti-blacklisting laws.

A manager with an axe to grind could falsify records against an employee upon termination.

I had an employer who lied in order to try to avoid paying my unemployment and unpaid overtime. The short of it is he is in jail and I am still working in the industry for a good outfit that I give my all to every day.

A database like that is a dangerous thing. IANAL but I wonder if it doesn't violate the 4th amendment somehow.

xraytango wrote:
... I wonder if it doesn't violate the 4th amendment somehow.

It doesn't violate the Constitution because this isn't a government database. It's privately owned and maintained. Businesses have to subscribe to it, or the people they hire to do background checks do.

 Breotan wrote:

xraytango wrote:
... I wonder if it doesn't violate the 4th amendment somehow.

It doesn't violate the Constitution because this isn't a government database. It's privately owned and maintained. Businesses have to subscribe to it, or the people they hire to do background checks do.

Is this a database of convicted thieves or just a database of people who the companies involved believe stole from them? If it's the former, I question the need but see nothing wrong with it as most working age people's criminal record is a matter of public record. The latter though, oh boy, I smell a lawsuit.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

xraytango wrote:
... I wonder if it doesn't violate the 4th amendment somehow.

It doesn't violate the Constitution because this isn't a government database. It's privately owned and maintained. Businesses have to subscribe to it, or the people they hire to do background checks do.

Is this a database of convicted thieves or just a database of people who the companies involved believe stole from them? If it's the former, I question the need but see nothing wrong with it as most working age people's criminal record is a matter of public record. The latter though, oh boy, I smell a lawsuit.

da article wrote:The repositories of information, like First Advantage Corporation’s Esteem database, often contain scant details about suspected thefts and routinely do not involve criminal charges. Still, the information can be enough to scuttle a job candidate’s chances.

So...yes.

xraytango wrote:


I had an employer who lied in order to try to avoid paying my unemployment and unpaid overtime. The short of it is he is in jail and I am still working in the industry for a good outfit that I give my all to every day.

This is not uncommon, except for the outcome. You were lucky your employer got caught. We call it 'constructive dismissal' and its rife, and the scum who get rid of employees don't baulk at inflating the reasons for doing so to help ensure the booting works, the consequences to the mismanaged worker are not relevant. As the unions largely only take on cases that have a special minority status its all too easy to get away with this.

I have two friends who are unemployable for no fault of their own from separate cases of employee feth over, with grossly inflated reasons for dismissal that prevent employment elsewhere.

 deathholydeath wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

xraytango wrote:
... I wonder if it doesn't violate the 4th amendment somehow.

It doesn't violate the Constitution because this isn't a government database. It's privately owned and maintained. Businesses have to subscribe to it, or the people they hire to do background checks do.

Is this a database of convicted thieves or just a database of people who the companies involved believe stole from them? If it's the former, I question the need but see nothing wrong with it as most working age people's criminal record is a matter of public record. The latter though, oh boy, I smell a lawsuit.

da article wrote:The repositories of information, like First Advantage Corporation’s Esteem database, often contain scant details about suspected thefts and routinely do not involve criminal charges. Still, the information can be enough to scuttle a job candidate’s chances.

So...yes.

well, lawsuits for everyone!

Seems like you'd have a pretty strong defamation case if you got in there incorrectly. They are literally lying about you to prospective employers.

That is pretty much textbook defamation depending on where you live.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

xraytango wrote:
... I wonder if it doesn't violate the 4th amendment somehow.

It doesn't violate the Constitution because this isn't a government database. It's privately owned and maintained. Businesses have to subscribe to it, or the people they hire to do background checks do.

Is this a database of convicted thieves or just a database of people who the companies involved believe stole from them? If it's the former, I question the need but see nothing wrong with it as most working age people's criminal record is a matter of public record. The latter though, oh boy, I smell a lawsuit.

da article wrote:The repositories of information, like First Advantage Corporation’s Esteem database, often contain scant details about suspected thefts and routinely do not involve criminal charges. Still, the information can be enough to scuttle a job candidate’s chances.

So...yes.

well, lawsuits for everyone!

Yup.

Also from the article:

article wrote:Since the recession, lawsuits have proliferated against the companies that operate retail theft databases, like LexisNexis, which owned Esteem until this year, HireRight and GIS, according to a review of court records. In the last year, the nature of the lawsuits has changed, too, as lawyers try to build class-action cases. HireRight did not return calls for comment, and the other firms declined to comment.

If you've got a criminal record you employer can probably see it. So this is a list of allegations, which could be accurate or could be a smear. That's worthy of legal action, because its completely unjust to have unproven things held against you. Unfortunately, in teaching in aware that allegations, even those proven false, can be held on permenant record which could affect employment. It's not as if these sorts of things are totally without precedent.

It seems to me they are always worried about the minions stealing from work, that's why there are increasing levels of authorisation where I work when ordering. I used to complete an order and get it signed off by my senior/budget holder. Now that has to be signed off by a second even higher member of senior staff. The more things something has to go through the slower everything gets.

But all the cases of fraud I can think of that I've known first or second hand, through friends/family etc, have all been perpetrated by senior staff who were in a position allowing them to abuse their power. None of them were prosecuted, just forced to resign and sometimes pay some back. It's not the minions that you should worry about, it's those with authority that are the danger, yet they are loath to prosecute them. My suspicion is that above a certain level they are reticent to make a public spectacle of it, undermining public confidence in certain public bodies, it's embarrassing to employers that their senior staff are untrustworthy. A departmental head in a local authority, a head of finance and the headmaster of a school specifically come to mind as cases I've seen, but similar applies to bank managers and company managers on the fiddle. But if I were to steal, as a lowly minion, you can bet I'd be made an example of what they do to such people. The 'higher they are the harder they fall' isn't true from what I've seen.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee37d03c-1948-11e2-9b3e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2PTwVDB7c

It happens in the UK, in the building industry at least, and is most definitely illigal here.

My wife showed this to me on Yahoo last night

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Seems like you'd have a pretty strong defamation case if you got in there incorrectly. They are literally lying about you to prospective employers.

That is pretty much textbook defamation depending on where you live.

That was my thinking too. We have a database of allegations of crime, with information collected by people with little or no knowledge of the law, with little or no oversight, no real way to check accuracy and they don't see a problem with that?

My problem is allowing retail manager and loss prevention officers to play Dirty Harry. The vast majority of them don't have the training to determine what is criminal and what is not. That's why the Police are there. In one previous job a manager called all the staff into a meeting and accused us all of being thieves. Just a blanket statement that every single member of staff was a thief because there were minor discrepancies. Eventually the manager retracted the accusation. Now imagine the consequences if this manager had then entered our details into one of these databases

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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
several of the managers were halfwits, elevated to their positions by dint of the Peter principal.

Several? That sounds like the overwhelming majority of managers that I've ever known

I don't see a problem with this.

The company managing the database is not making accusations, they're simply holding information.

The manager who reports an incident may or may not be making things up. But, they could also make stuff up when the new employer called them for a reference check, so I don't think having the database creates new problems that did not exist before the database.

For all the concerns about false reporting, what about the legitimate concerns of the small business owner, operating on a tight budget already, who simply wants to have a good idea that his new hire isn't going to steal from him?

 Redbeard wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.

The company managing the database is not making accusations, they're simply holding information.

The manager who reports an incident may or may not be making things up. But, they could also make stuff up when the new employer called them for a reference check, so I don't think having the database creates new problems that did not exist before the database.

For all the concerns about false reporting, what about the legitimate concerns of the small business owner, operating on a tight budget already, who simply wants to have a good idea that his new hire isn't going to steal from him?

They're holding what could be very inaccurate information, complied by people with little to no training, with no way to correct the information - all of which has the very real potential to harm innocent people from getting a job.

You do know that giving a false reference denigrating the potential employee is grounds for defamation too, right?

The problem of a malicious manager etc. making up an accusation may not be new, but it was often a very local issue and word of mouth only were the people talking knew each other and knew when accusations were false. Now a false accusation can go global, and very quickly, and have a veneer of respectability because its coming from a 3rd party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
We call it 'constructive dismissal' and its rife, and the scum who get rid of employees don't baulk at inflating the reasons for doing so to help ensure the booting works, the consequences to the mismanaged worker are not relevant.

I once had a manager tell me (when talking about another member of staff) that constructive dismissal was "fine, because its like constructive critiscism"

 Redbeard wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.

The company managing the database is not making accusations, they're simply holding information.

The manager who reports an incident may or may not be making things up. But, they could also make stuff up when the new employer called them for a reference check, so I don't think having the database creates new problems that did not exist before the database.

For all the concerns about false reporting, what about the legitimate concerns of the small business owner, operating on a tight budget already, who simply wants to have a good idea that his new hire isn't going to steal from him?

It's a legit point, but the potential for abuse is enormous. And spreading false infomration that damages a persons professional reputation is per se defamation. What bothers me is that a person could never know they had such a black makr on their record.

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

 Redbeard wrote:
I don't see a problem with this.

The company managing the database is not making accusations, they're simply holding information.

The manager who reports an incident may or may not be making things up. But, they could also make stuff up when the new employer called them for a reference check, so I don't think having the database creates new problems that did not exist before the database.

For all the concerns about false reporting, what about the legitimate concerns of the small business owner, operating on a tight budget already, who simply wants to have a good idea that his new hire isn't going to steal from him?

In the EU there are laws requireing that all databases be accurate for a very good reason. If someone is effectively black listed and cannot get a job because of this list it has allot more damageing effect than the risk of petty theft. If someone has broken the law then it should be delt with via the legal routes avalable. If not then it is nothing more than hearsay.

To be honest I don't see it as a legitimate concern by small business owners. They already have the balance of power in being able to request references and having probationary periods. Unless you have high value stock or are silly enough to let new staff handle things like cashing up the risk is minimal.

These would be the same small business owners that complain about review sites:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2011/jan/25/tripadvisor-duncan-bannatyne

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-02/local/36212098_1_yelp-online-reviews-injunction

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-03-04/finance/37368031_1_online-reviews-review-site-amazon-mechanical-turk/3

And this isstuff in the public domain that they have the ability to dispute, not just a "I'm sorry, but I don't think your right".

 Redbeard wrote:
what about the legitimate concerns of the small business owner, operating on a tight budget already, who simply wants to have a good idea that his new hire isn't going to steal from him?

He's asking for the impossible. No database is ever going to solve this.

Should the inability to completely solve a problem mean that steps that lessen the problem have no value?

 Redbeard wrote:
Should the inability to completely solve a problem mean that steps that lessen the problem have no value?

If those steps to lessen it are based on hearsay, with flimsy evidence, untrained and possibly malicious staff collecting the data, massive potential for abuse and no means to correct false recording then no, it has no value.

I'm not sure that what you mention doesn't describe the flaws in the system. Do you have firsthand experience with it? Then your concerns are based on hearsay. Do you have concrete evidence that the staff is untrained or malicious, or is that also based on hearsay?

I'll agree that having a way for people to contest their entries is valuable, but everything else you mention is already an issue with getting references for people. The same malicious manager who enters false information is unlikely to tell the truth when he's called to provide a reference.

I also think that the 'false reporting' thing is overblown. If we are to believe the article linked, 44% of retail loss is due to employees. I find it hard to believe that the number of fraudulent database entrees would exceed 5%.

Part of the problem is that it's easier for a business to determine if there is employee theft than for a prospective employee to determine if there is bad information out there.

It's fixable, I just think like a credit score it's information a person should have a right to access and contest.

Employee theft is a huge problem, that's for sure. If anything, it's probably underreported. But I think you're underestimating the vindictive nature of many employers, espcially with unemployment being so high.

One of my good buddies used to be a Worker's Compensation hearing officer. He said that both sides lied about the same amount, and it was standard practice for companies to fight basic medical procedures for clearly work related injuries, because it was cheaper to fight it and hope to win a few, than to simply pay.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure that what you mention doesn't describe the flaws in the system. Do you have firsthand experience with it? Then your concerns are based on hearsay. Do you have concrete evidence that the staff is untrained or malicious, or is that also based on hearsay?

Your defense of it, is it based on first hand experience, or hearsay?
My thoughts and opinions on these databases are based on my extensive experience in retail, along with that of many others that I have spoken with. Unless you think that store managers and loss prevention officers are highly trained in criminal law and should be imbued with the power to determine criminal guilt. If I'm looking for advice on an upcoming surgery I don't ask a butcher, I ask a surgeon.

 Redbeard wrote:
I'll agree that having a way for people to contest their entries is valuable, but everything else you mention is already an issue with getting references for people. The same malicious manager who enters false information is unlikely to tell the truth when he's called to provide a reference.

If he can be personally sued for a false reference then no, he isn't going to take that risk. Having a database of accusations gives the allegations a veneer of respectability to what could otherwise be malicious gossip.

 Redbeard wrote:
I also think that the 'false reporting' thing is overblown. If we are to believe the article linked, 44% of retail loss is due to employees. I find it hard to believe that the number of fraudulent database entrees would exceed 5%.

Any source for the 5% or did you pull it out of thin air?
Yes, employee theft is an issue. But just like regular theft it should be punished by the criminal justice system, not the whispers of people who aren't qualified to properly determine if someone is a thief

I can see companies doing that, unfortunately. But, I think that's why they'd rather have a database like this than take an employee to court over theft.

If someone steals $20 of merch from their employer, how much is going to cost the employer to take the case to court, including lost man-hours spent there? Or, they file the incident in the database and fire the employee.

 Redbeard wrote:
I can see companies doing that, unfortunately. But, I think that's why they'd rather have a database like this than take an employee to court over theft.

If someone steals $20 of merch from their employer, how much is going to cost the employer to take the case to court, including lost man-hours spent there? Or, they file the incident in the database and fire the employee.

You mean how much does it cost them to phone the Police and give a statement, as well as turning evidence over (that's generally part of a manager or loss prevention officer's job anyway)? That way when it goes to Court the employee has an opportunity to defend him/herself, avail of the proper checks and balances in the legal system and a suitably qualified person can make a determination of guilt or otherwise. That way if found guilty there is a proper and verifiable record of what transpired. Not whispers, not rumours and not a decision being made by someone who is in no way qualified to make that decision.

Yeah, sure, all of that. If they paid the manager minimum wage, then it only takes three hours in court to exceed the value of what the ex-employee stole.

From a civil liberties point of view, everything you said makes a lot of sense. 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. And while Walmart can easily afford this, many small business operate on shoestring margins. It's more cost effective for them to let that $20 theft go. Unfortunately, letting it go sends a message that it's safe to steal from that store. Blacklisting employees who steal from you is a far more cost-effective means of preventing future theft than tying up a bloated legal system over $20.

Again, I think the false reporting scenario is being overblown. Even the case in the article had the employee's written statement backing it. It's only after she found out that her own statement was being circulated that she changed her story.

Clearly the normal justice system isn't good enough for some private businesses. They must have a private justice system for their benefit alone.

 Redbeard wrote:
Yeah, sure, all of that. If they paid the manager minimum wage, then it only takes three hours in court to exceed the value of what the ex-employee stole.

You mean that the manager should have to carry out functions that relate to the job for which (s)he was hired? Perish the thought. Besides its very rare for a store manager to have to testify before a Court concerning theft. In a decade of retail across a variety of stores I never seen it happen. It was more common for a manager to have to go to Court because a customer took them to Court. Should the manager not have shown up for that either?

 Redbeard wrote:
From a civil liberties point of view, everything you said makes a lot of sense. 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. And while Walmart can easily afford this, many small business operate on shoestring margins. It's more cost effective for them to let that $20 theft go. Unfortunately, letting it go sends a message that it's safe to steal from that store. Blacklisting employees who steal from you is a far more cost-effective means of preventing future theft than tying up a bloated legal system over $20.

And you pay store managers and loss prevention to do these as part of their duties. 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?

So you're more than happy with a private, parallel system that stands apart from the legal system. A system were guilt is determined by the whims of untrained and unqualified individuals, on evidence that may not be challenged, and with no means to challenge or amend inaccuracy and there is no accountability unless you go through the actual legal system that should have been used in the first place? If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should consider forming a kangaroo court in your neighbourhood, or moving to Somalia

 Redbeard wrote:
Again, I think the false reporting scenario is being overblown. Even the case in the article had the employee's written statement backing it. It's only after she found out that her own statement was being circulated that she changed her story.

So you think its overblown, pull a magic 5% from thin air and because of one instance with very unclear facts that means false reporting is overblown

**edit**
You're happy to quote the article but maybe you missed this;

“That is not a product that we sell, because I think it’s a product fraught with risk and inefficiency,” said William Greenblatt, the chief executive of the background-check company Sterling Infosystems

Federal authorities have zeroed in on background-check data. Last summer, the F.T.C. settled charges with HireRight, which provides a retail-theft database along with other types of screenings. Among the accusations, the agency said that some records were inaccurate and that the firm made it too difficult for consumers to dispute claims.

LexisNexis agreed last week to pay $13.5 million to settle a class-action suit on behalf of 31,000 people that accused the firm of violating consumer protection laws by selling background checks to debt collectors. . . lawsuits have proliferated against the companies that operate retail theft databases, like LexisNexis, which owned Esteem until this year, HireRight and GIS, according to a review of court records. In the last year, the nature of the lawsuits has changed, too, as lawyers try to build class-action cases