Employers criminal records checks unlawful

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Employers criminal records checks unlawful

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

jamiemartin721 Reading 25 Jan 16 4.19pm
Quote Stuk at 25 Jan 2016 4.07pm Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 Jan 2016 4.02pm Quote Stuk at 25 Jan 2016 2.23pm Quote johnfirewall at 23 Jan 2016 10.16am Can everyone who's ever been refused a job on that basis sue then? [Link] I had a mate near Gatwick who'd been done for nicking a chocolate bar and no one in the airport would touch him as being a sensitive location they all conducted checks. A lawyer just explained that this was only justified in a financial role in a company and not for example working on a checkout but I had another mate refused a job he'd been offered at a bank as he'd missed a couple of credit card payments. Surely they're 'arbitrary' by nature when it's a teaching assistant job the judge is talking about where absolutely everyone in the school will be checked. The funniest part about that is when people who work at the airport get caught nicking things at work, their employers get rid of them but try as hard as possible to not have them charged for it. This is true of many employers in general (and especially true in retail - where at least half of the stock lost is to staff members rather than shoplifters). I worked a few places where it was generally accepted that staff could 'tax' a reasonable amount of goods, provided they ensured people they knew didn't steal and they also shopped in store where possible. Remember once seeing a store manager loading up his car with what must have been several hundred pounds worth of books and merchandise (at cost to us) - Easily a grand's worth of stock - some of which he'd specifically ordered. Which is, sort of, fair enough if they're nicking off the employer. It's their loss after all. When it's the passengers, commercial freight and insurance that's suffering the losses, and they just want to save any bad press for the employer, it's taking the piss. Wasn't the managers business though, its just that the money in retail and the hours generally suck. A consequence of this is that most managers are closer to the staff than the company they work for. Senior management generally are regarded with distrust. Most of the retail places I worked in my early years wrote off 30k a year to cover theft. I'm pretty certain the managers plan was to ensure that theft was kept as close to that as possible. When I worked for Tesco's one of the full time staff got caught nicking 8,500 and the consequence, she could resign rather than the police being called. They caught her with marked notes, and the rumour was she'd gotten away with nicking a large sum at least once before. But generally I agree, that nicking stuff that's owned by people is indefensible. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 25 Jan 16 4.19pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Jan 2016 4.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 25 Jan 2016 4.02pm

Quote Stuk at 25 Jan 2016 2.23pm

Quote johnfirewall at 23 Jan 2016 10.16am

Can everyone who's ever been refused a job on that basis sue then?

[Link]

I had a mate near Gatwick who'd been done for nicking a chocolate bar and no one in the airport would touch him as being a sensitive location they all conducted checks.

A lawyer just explained that this was only justified in a financial role in a company and not for example working on a checkout but I had another mate refused a job he'd been offered at a bank as he'd missed a couple of credit card payments.

Surely they're 'arbitrary' by nature when it's a teaching assistant job the judge is talking about where absolutely everyone in the school will be checked.

The funniest part about that is when people who work at the airport get caught nicking things at work, their employers get rid of them but try as hard as possible to not have them charged for it.

This is true of many employers in general (and especially true in retail - where at least half of the stock lost is to staff members rather than shoplifters). I worked a few places where it was generally accepted that staff could 'tax' a reasonable amount of goods, provided they ensured people they knew didn't steal and they also shopped in store where possible.

Remember once seeing a store manager loading up his car with what must have been several hundred pounds worth of books and merchandise (at cost to us) - Easily a grand's worth of stock - some of which he'd specifically ordered.

Which is, sort of, fair enough if they're nicking off the employer. It's their loss after all.

When it's the passengers, commercial freight and insurance that's suffering the losses, and they just want to save any bad press for the employer, it's taking the piss.

Wasn't the managers business though, its just that the money in retail and the hours generally suck. A consequence of this is that most managers are closer to the staff than the company they work for. Senior management generally are regarded with distrust.

Most of the retail places I worked in my early years wrote off 30k a year to cover theft. I'm pretty certain the managers plan was to ensure that theft was kept as close to that as possible.

When I worked for Tesco's one of the full time staff got caught nicking 8,500 and the consequence, she could resign rather than the police being called. They caught her with marked notes, and the rumour was she'd gotten away with nicking a large sum at least once before.

But generally I agree, that nicking stuff that's owned by people is indefensible.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Employers criminal records checks unlawful

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors