National Staff Dismissal Register: Make another mistake

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.

It suffers from the same problems that all these databases suffer from.

To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare.

That is EXACTLY what it is.

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.

Guilty before proven innocent. There is no law…every man for himself!

But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.

It is dystopian fact.

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.

They are just the beginning.

And you can be sure that this database will be sold to everyone that wants it, no matter where they are in the world. I wonder; will it include your fingerprints, your photo? For sure, it will have your address and telephone number.

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.

What this will do is bolster the ‘black economy’ as the ‘straight world’ or ‘the system’ fences itself off with more and more measures. As ordinary people find themselvs shut out of ‘the system’ just for being themselves, or alive, they will come to the ‘black economy’. The black economy will grow so big that it becomes the real economy, or at the very least, an equilibrium is reached, where the two systems co-exist side by side.

The project has attracted little publicity. But the BBC News website can reveal that trade unions and civil liberties campaigners are warning that it leaves workers vulnerable to the threat of false accusations.

You can warn all you like. The sheeple do not care, and the ones that do are not in the system, so they do not care.

TUC policy officer Hannah Reed says that while criminal activity in the workplace can never be condoned, she fears such a system is open to abuse.

“The TUC is seriously concerned that this register can only lead to people being shut out from the job market by an employer who falsely accuses them of misconduct or sacks them because they bear them a grudge. Individuals would be treated as criminals, even though the police have never been contacted.

“The Criminal Records Bureau was set up to assist employers to make safe appointments when recruiting staff to work with vulnerable groups. The CRB already provides appropriate and properly regulated protection for employers. Under the new register, an employee may not be aware they have been blacklisted or have any right to appeal.”

You stupid fool.

The CRB is s STATE operation. The NSDR is s PRIVATE operation. Private people can do what they like, you socialist simpleton. Why don’t you set up your OWN database, instead of bellyaching like a stuck pig. You could then call a national strike if one of your workers is abused…but then, that would mean actually being effective.

James Welch, the legal director of human rights group Liberty, also says that he is concerned that the register does not offer sufficient redress to the falsely accused.

“This scheme appears to bypass existing laws which protect employees by limiting the circumstances when information about possible criminal activity can be shared with potential employers.”

It is a brilliant commercial opportunity; the only problem is, that it has been done in reverse. See below.

Set up by Surrey-based firm Hicom Business Solutions, the database will allow employers to search for potential workers by name, address, date of birth, national insurance number and previous employer.

Records on individuals “accessible online via an encrypted password system – will be kept for a five-year period and can include photos.

Here we go with the ‘encrypted password system’ snake oil again. We know all about that don’t we?!

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.

It IS a blacklist you scum:

A blacklist is a list or register of entities who, for one reason or another, are being denied a particular privilege, service, mobility, access or recognition. As a verb, to blacklist can mean to deny someone work in a particular field, or to ostracize them from a certain social circle. Conversely, a whitelist is a list or compilation or list identifying entities that are accepted, recognised, or privileged.

[…]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist

And the dictionary says so!

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.

And if they are accurate? And what if they want to be deleted? This is a blacklist you tosser, be honest and you won’t look so stupid.

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.

Yeah, and we all know how well those procedures work, and how much they cost in time and money.

“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.

How can people be put on this register without their consent?

“Theft in the workplace hurts staff as much as employers because it puts everyone under suspicion.”

ROTFL

This database puts everyone in the country under suspicion!

You are a suspect and untrusted until we can check you on the database, only after that do you become trusted. That is the operating principle of this database and of every other identity system like it, including the NIR and its ID Cards.

Freedom is slavery!

Nonetheless, many workers may get a nasty surprise when old allegations return to haunt them when they next apply for a job.

[…]

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

Nasty surprises happen to the bosses too, and when they happen to the bosses, its MUCH WORSE.

I have a better idea you villians. Yes, ‘villians’.

Do you remember that song by Sun Ra, ‘Make another mistake’?

Why not set up a database of GOOD WORKERS who are 100% reliable?

Everyone would compete to be on it, it would be another thing to put on your CV…why do these people think that the only thing a database can be used for is keeping a list of BAD people?

Probably because this venal mass murdering government has a mania for ‘registers’ of every sort of ‘criminal’.

Think about it, people try to keep their credit histories clean because they want to be on the list of people who have good credit. This is exactly the same; a voluntary database where an employee’s references are turned into a score. You do not have to be on it, but if you choose to be on it, people will trust you more.

The company makes money from registrations of workers.
The company makes money from database access by employers.

Its a better business model, and is less immoral.

Its just my idea off the top of my head, but what I have demonstrated is that the thinking of these vendors is evil, not creative, not positive and corrosive to community. It doesn’t take the desire to be and do good and use it; it instead, feeds off of evil and suspicion.

Advertisements
About

We are the best.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Bollocks, How To, Idiocracy, NIR, Post Tipping Point, Someone Stupid Said, Told You So
4 comments on “National Staff Dismissal Register: Make another mistake
  1. […] NSDR (siglas de National Staff Dismissal Register) es una iniciativa para reducir las perdidas atribuibles a comportamientos poco honrosos por parte […]

  2. […] NSDR (siglas de National Staff Dismissal Register) es una iniciativa para reducir las perdidas atribuibles a comportamientos poco honrosos por parte […]

  3. […] is a suspicion, there would be no way to dispute the validity of the information held on you.  Irdial from Blogdial gives the legal lowdown: “Entries have traditionally been regarded as ‘accurate’ if they accurately […]

  4. irdial says:

    there is some disingenuity in the claims by those who will run this scheme. in particular in the following passage:

    “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.”

    there are two problems with this:

    first of all, under uk dp law, entries have traditionally been regarded as “accurate” if they accurately reflect what the source says. so if an employer passes on that he believes a particular employee had stolen from him, an entry that says “employer X informs us the Y stole from him” is “accurate” – even if Y didnt steal from X. Y can perhaps sue X for defamation, but we all know the defects of the law of defamation …

    second (and related), an appeal to the ICO will often be ineffective, eg if the information is “accurate” in the above sense. also, individuals do not have a strong position at all in proceedings before the ICO: they are not fully involved, or even informed, and have no right of appeal to the information tribunal, while companies that are found wanting do have such a right.

    strictly speaking this “accurate as recorded” rule comes from the old (1984) data protection act and was dropped from the new (1998) one because it is not in line with european thinking. but in practice it is still taken as a guide. so while i can come up with arguments against rumours and allegations being recorded like this, on the basis of european dp law (as noted below), it is not at all certain that these will be effective here.

    the issue has been addressed by the “article 29 working party”, the most authoritative european body on data protection: see the Working Document on Black Lists (document nr WP65 of 3.10.2002), which can be found at:

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/wpdocs/2002_en.htm

    this notes that under the main ec directive on data protection (dir 95/46/ec), data on criminal offences may in principle only be processed by public authorities. the document says:

    “As regards the processing of personal data relating to criminal offences, most Member States have files incorporating this kind of information which are controlled by an official authority.

    This notwithstanding, various supervisory authorities have found that files with these characteristics are created and managed privately in their countries and refer, essentially, to files existing in large supermarkets or in vehicle rental firms. When supervisory authorities have detected cases of personal data on “undesirable customers” being collected and processed in supermarkets, hypermarkets or department stores, they have instructed the data controller to end such processing because it is inadmissible for private companies to keep this kind of file.”

    in my opinion, it is disingenious to argue that information on “criminal offences” should be read as only relating to convictions, and thus to exclude alleged offences (but which were not even prosecuted): that would create an obvious, perverse loophole, giving suspects less rights than convicted criminals in the protection of their record …

    i also believe that being recorded (effectively) as an “undesirable employee” is, if anything, worse than being recorded as n “undesirable customer” – so most european dp authorities would regard such registers as obnoxious and unlawful.

    but will the ICO?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: