Toxic Blacklist
26-06-2008
The BBC has reported that Employers have begun a blacklist of “bad” employees who have been dismissed or those who have left before disciplinary proceedings can be commenced. To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare. An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty, regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime, which bosses can access when vetting potential employees. But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.

Harrods and Selfridges are among two of Britain's best known high street businesses to have signed up to a controversial database for blacklisted staff that could affect the careers of three million workers. Under the privately run scheme, the names and personal details of former employees whose behaviour has offended the companies will be placed on the newly created National Staff Dismissal Register.

While some employees whose crimes are prosecuted in court will have a chance to defend themselves, other staff may never know their behaviour has found its way on to the register or that they have become a blacklisted worker. 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. Seven businesses have so far signed up to the register, which went live last month, according to the scheme's organiser, Action Against Business Crime. They include Mothercare and Reed Managed Services.

Yesterday, politicians and lawyers condemned the database and called on the Government to bring in immediate safeguards to protect employees. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, Baroness Sue Miller, said it was "a disgrace that the Government has ignored the rights of employees while private businesses have established a blacklist with no safeguards for the employees put on it".

Baroness Miller added: "A website run for profit is trying to take the place of police, prosecution, judge and jury. There need to be stringent safeguards put in place on this blacklist. "Employees should not be placed on the register until they have been given the opportunity to object. The burden must be on employers to prove an employee's guilt before they are entered on the register."

But Action Against Business Crime says the register will comply with data protection legislation and will hold details of individuals who have been under investigation for acts of dishonesty. "This information is shared with other members of the register who are able to access the national system to search for details of an applicant, ensuring both cost saving through reduction in losses, and a more efficient recruitment process," said Action Against Business Crime.

Selfridges said last night that any offence that was sent to the register would be properly investigated and that appropriate efforts would be made to notify the former member of staff.
A spokeswoman for Harrods, which is owned by Mohamed Al Fayed, said the company had agreed in principle to sign up to the National Staff Dismissal Register. She added: "Our existing internal disciplinary procedures ensure that no person subject to a frivolous or malevolent allegation would find themselves on the register.”We believe that our involvement with the scheme will give extra reassurance to current staff and customers alike."

Well these PR words pale against the proven, documented track record of Mohamed Al Fayed which demonstrates the great danger of the scheme and the damage to employees from this covert Kangaroo Court where no ACAS guidelines need be followed, no employee has a right of representation or appeal and where in Defamation Law malice and an intention to cause harm to the individuals listed can be assumed, foe why else have this database other than to stop people being successful in applying for jobs? There is not just the Department of Trade inquiry which found "We are satisfied the image they created between November 1984 and March 1985 of their wealthy Egyptian ancestors was completely bogus." He was later accused by his business rival Tiny Rowland of breaking into a safety deposit box at the store. Without admitting responsibility, Mr Al Fayed settled the dispute with Rowland's wife after his death. Al Fayed had been arrested during the dispute and sued the Metropolitan Police for false arrest in 2002. He lost the case. He has been refused a British Passport by no less than four Home Secretary’s on character grounds, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. Mohamed Fayed was also involved in the cash for questions scandal, having offered money for questions in the commons to the Conservative MPs Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. Both left the government in disgrace. Fayed also revealed that the cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken had stayed for free at the Ritz Hotel in Paris at the same time as a group of Saudi arms dealers leading to Aitken's subsequent unsuccessful libel case and imprisonment for perjury.

His record as an employer and as a reliable witness begs scrutiny and includes:

• The substantial number of out of court settlements by Fayed for sexual harassment by Harrods and Fayair (His executive jet business) employees
• Fayed's recorded quotation that the reason he wanted British citizenship was that he didn't like queuing up with the Pakis at Heathrow
• The number of occasions upon which Harrods employees have successfully obtained a finding of racial discrimination at an employment tribunal
• The resignation of the managing director of Harrods Bank, citing improper practices instructed to him by Fayed, leading to the interest taken in the probity of the arrangements there by the Bank of England, which led to Harrods subcontracting the operation of the bank to a reputable bank
• The opening of a safe deposit box belonging to a customer of Harrods Bank, being a person Fayed was known to have an interest in
• The DTI's conclusion that he lied to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its investigation of the take-over of Harrods
• His bribe to a member of parliament to facilitate his getting citizenship
• His subsequent admission of that bribe to embarrass the MP when he failed to deliver it
• His apparent almost daily handling of very large sums of cash which get handed out to people
• His loss of an Employment Tribunal case taken by the former Fulham Manager in Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd V Jean Tigana. (£3m award against Al Fayed)
• Diana’s Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones V Al Fayed (County Court 2000, Breach of Contract).

The main source for much of the above is Tom Bauer's book "Fayed", which itself has very detailed sources. Bauer is very careful in what he says, and no one has successfully sued Bauer for libel, despite frequent threats to do so. So no doubting the quality of the entries on the Toxic Blacklist then!

But Kerry Waters, an employment rights expert at Clarions Solicitors, said that the register was potentially "wide open to abuse, with little detail being provided by the Action Against Business Crime Group as to how (or even whether at all) the register will be policed or monitored." She warned that one "minor blip" on someone's record "could wreak havoc with their career".

There is a dilemma here. When firms detect dishonesty it certainly reflects on the employee but it also reflects on the control systems and oversight in the company. For this reason companies rarely prosecute - it exposes weakness in their systems and inadequate management. It is the first principle of Justice that it should be public and open - If companies feel they have been the victims of fraud and dishonesty they should have the courage of their convictions to prosecute with all that entails, including reputational risk.

Otherwise a blacklist is unethical and guaranteed to lead to successful actions for defamation and breach of Data Protection legislation - it is a poltroonerish way of having your cake and eating it? So this Toxic Blacklist is a clear breach of the rules of natural justice and the Human Rights, can be negated by requests under the Data Protection Act to remove individual subject data and is a ready made grudge weapon for every inept and incompetent employer who does not follow due process and ACAS guidelines and has grudges against employees including whistleblowers who are protected by statute.

So what is the sound of sharpening wood and laughter your hear in the background? Why it is the lawyers of Britain sharpening their pencils and laughing their heads off that the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) has made proving malice and seeking damages so easy! I predict writs at dawn!

http://daithaic.blogspot.com/2008/06/toxic-blacklist.html
David Caldwell

Post a comment 

Looking for UK based HR bloggers!
11-06-2008
I have been blogging for almost 2 years now. The benefits to my practice and my own personal development have been huge. Most bloggers spend a lot of time on other people's blogs and the range of HR/leadership/management/personal development blogs out there is wide and varied.
BUT - and here is a big problem for me - I have only found ONE UK based blogger in this area. No amount of Googling is leading me anywhere. My favourite blogs are mainly based in the US and some in Australia. The quality is great but the differences mean that American organisations' methods of hiring and firing won't work here and advice and comments on holiday/maternity/sick situations of course cannot relate to the UK benefits system and employee rights.

By the way - did you know that in the US people who have been through an interview are expected to write a thank you letter to the prospective employer afterwards and how they do that might even influence if they get the job or not! Some years ago we interviewed and American for a job here in the UK and she sent a letter to the three of us on the interview panel. We thought that was really quaint but now I realise that it's crucial to the whole process across the Atlantic.

So - if you blog on people matters or read good UK based blogs please share!

jackie@consultcameron.com
www.consultcameron.com

Jackie Cameron

Post a comment  | Read 2 comment(s)

Apprentice star Lee, caught out for lying on his C.V.
6-06-2008
This week's episode (Wed 4/6/08)showed the final five contestants being interviewed for the 6 figure salaried job, working for Sir Alan Sugar. How embarrassing was it for Lee McQueen, to know that everyone watching saw him being caught out for lying on his c.v? Lee, a recruitment sales manager, stated that he had been to university for 2 years. In actual fact he had been for 4 months. We watched him squirm in his seat, trying to wiggle his way out of being caught out red handed in front of millions of viewers.

But is it so rare to find a candidate that hasn't lied on their c.v? How many of us have actually checked that deeply into the background of the candidate we see before us?

The trouble is, that when we interview, we are just hearing what the candidate wants to tell us. Everyone exaggerates in one form or another, its human nature to do so. Being at an interview is like being at a sales conference, only the product is “you”, so why wouldn't you want to “over milk the pudding?”

For H.R, lying on the c.v can have disastrous consequences. I have spoken to a number of interviewers who have taken on people based on the c.v and interview process and then regretted the decision. Sales managers who said they can increase revenue but the company found out later that he/she couldn't sell ice-cream on the hottest day of the year, team managers who said they motivated teams and then found most of their team leaving within 3 months. It's a problem that many of us have encountered.

My answer is simple, if you want to know what people are really like then assess them. Personality and ability tests sort out the men from the liars. You can't lie on a personality test, people can say they are outgoing but one look at the test will show you otherwise. The ability test, whether it's numerical or verbal reasoning will show if someone can problem solve or not. It's that simple. A psychometric test combined with an interview will soon show whether the candidate is exaggerating their talent's or you really have found a gem.

Jacqui van Loen
Post a comment 

KISS -- Easy Rules for Online Applications
22-05-2008
In life and in business the every-day activities should be easy and simple. People like simple.

I keep hearing horror stories about poor candidate experiences which tend to make me cringe. A couple of months ago I attended a networking event presented by Dan from Broadbean. He gave a painful demo of a bank’s online application process. When I say painful, I mean – he was dying on the stage. The demo was undertaken in real-time to demonstrate the problem, and it was very unpleasant to watch. Hat’s off to Dan for sticking at the presentation – the heckling was fierce. Before Dan made the presentation, I was wondering where I might put my head if he showed one of our client’s sites - thankfully this didn’t happen!

I cannot state this more plainly: you must get the application process right. If you don't – you’ll either have too many applications, or not enough. It’s that simple.

Here’s some considerations:

1. Don’t make people register with your site unless you intend to build an online relationship with them. What’s the point? It’s just another password for them to remember, it’s just more private data for you to consider as part of your data retention and privacy policy.
Solution: Ensure that you use the right entry method/form type for the job.

2. Don’t ask people to give you information that you don’t need or won’t use. The data protection act states that you cannot knowingly capture and store information that is not relevant. It’s illegal.
Solution: Monitor your data capture. Maybe even talk to a lawyer.

3. Get the length of the application form right. Too short or not enough filtering questions and you’ll receive too many applications. Too long and you won’t receive enough candidates to fill your recruitment hopper.
Solution: Regularly review your application with hiring managers and candidates.

4. Get the right data at the right time. I often see companies capture referees on their graduate application forms. Typically, only around 1-2% of applicants are going to have their referees contacted. So if that’s a grad campaign attracting 2,000 candidates you will have over 1,900 elements of data capture that is outside of data protection regulations.
Solution: Check with a lawyer!

Keep it simple, and monitor it. Watch out for the tell tale signs of it not working – not enough applicants, too many phone calls to your recruitment phone lines, hiring managers choosing to ‘go it alone’. These are all symptoms of the process not working.

From Recruitment 2.0 http://blog.advorto.com/
Susanna Cesar Morton

Post a comment 

Source Tracking
13-05-2008
Where did you hear about us?
How did you find out about this job?
What prompted your application?

Probably most important after asking the candidate's name, is asking the media source question.

Why? Well, without this you have no idea as to which advertising method worked or not. Given that the biggest spend in the recruitment process is either an advertising campaign, or recruitment agency fees – this is important to get right!

The ATS/RMS (or spreadsheet) you use should then be able to spit out any number of reports based around the answer to this question.

These are principles everyone reading this blog will understand.

So it should all be simple, shouldn’t it?

There are a number of pitfalls with capturing media source:

Problem 1: Ask the question at the right time.
If you undertake any kind of filtering/killer questions, you need to know the source at this point. If you ask killer questions and then ask the source question on the application form, you won’t have captured the media source of those candidates that were automatically rejected. This is important information.

Problem 2: How big is the list?
If this list has greater than 15 entries, then candidates will get bored and either choose the top entry or choose a random one. Not good.

Problem 3: You have your own web site listed.
Contentious one this. I disagree with adding the client’s website into the source list. The reports we see when clients do this are that 80%+ of applicants will choose this.

Problem 4: Don't ask if you already know the answer.
If you advertise your job online, then at the point the candidate clicks 'Apply Now' or 'More Details' on the jobsite, he will be transferred to your careers site. An important snippet of information is available to the careers site, namely, the “Referer” (it’s actually spelled that way). This piece of information is a reference to the exit page from the referring site. So, chances are that, if you advertise online, you don’t even have to ask candidates the source question. We already know.

I'm amazed as to how many systems DO NOT do this.

I saw Dan's painful demonstration of a bank's online recruitment process at a networking event in January and key to this was the media source being obfuscated on the application form. This would totally mislead the recruiters as to which advertising source worked.

Problem 5: List isn't up to date.
If you’ve just spent £10k with a new advertiser, you must add it to the source list entry. If you don’t, it won’t be in the list for candidates to choose.

The solutions

If you have a long list of advertisers, go down the “double drop-down” route. This should consist of two drop down lists – the first containing media types, the second containing the actual advertisers for that media type.
Only add media sources in which you actually advertised for that job. Can your ATS/RMS provider do this? It’s probably a feature they just need to enable for you.

Don’t put your website in the list. If you do advertise specific jobs on your website, then the 'Referer' that I mentioned earlier will capture this and pre-fill the media source answer.

Have your provider properly implement the referer capture method, so that the media source question isn’t even asked.
Keep the list up to date.

Test, test and test again. Don’t trust your providers to do this for you. Typically, there are a number of companies involved in providing a recruitment strategy – there are numerous elements of technology involved. Don’t trust – test.

Now you can rely on those media source reports!

from Recruitment 2.0 ( http://blog.advorto.com/blog/2008/04/source-tracking.html)
Susanna Cesar Morton

Post a comment