What is going on? I was driving on a motorway earlier at a fairly
sedate pace when I noticed (in my mirrors) a car approaching from
behind at speed. As it drew closer and then passed I saw what turned
out to be a Police car following suicidally close behind it. I
expected the police to pull the car over, but they didn't - very odd.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Joe Jackson
A Cure For Gravity, the Joe Jackson book I mentioned before is one of
those I have mixed feelings about as I approach the end. On the one
hand I look forward to reading more; on the other hand I don't want to
finish it because I've enjoyed it so much. I have dug out a load of
old Joe Jackson recordings, and will be digging out many more. Often
I'm dissapointed when people who are famous for one talent try
another, but Joe is a really gifted writer in my none too humble
opinion.
those I have mixed feelings about as I approach the end. On the one
hand I look forward to reading more; on the other hand I don't want to
finish it because I've enjoyed it so much. I have dug out a load of
old Joe Jackson recordings, and will be digging out many more. Often
I'm dissapointed when people who are famous for one talent try
another, but Joe is a really gifted writer in my none too humble
opinion.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Employee Screening
Over at Health Business is an article that caught my eye whilst I was looking for something else. This, for me represents all that is going wrong in the UK today.
The author selectively quotes research, but it is intermingled with unsubstantiated claims that justify his central thesis that outsourcing your snooping and prying into the backgrounds of anyone who was the temerity to work for you is an essential part of the business of any modern day employer.
I won't go through the whole thing, as I don't have time, but just a few examples;
The author quotes some research, but then goes on to say "80 per cent of UK jobseekers now search online, but this growth is mirrored by a huge rise in CV fraud" He doesn't say what "huge" is in this context, or what his definition of fraud is - I seem to recall a fairly high percentage of people owning up to a little artistic licence and similar on their CVs but there's nothing here to distinguish people trying to cover up a gap year or a period of unemployment they'd prefer to forget from those who are keeping quiet about the time they served for embezzlement. Just an alarming and entirely unjustified claim about CV fraud - whatever that is.
He goes on:
"Historically, it’s true that employers have preferred to invest in IT, data and premises security whilst overlooking or neglecting what’s possibly the greatest risk of them all – the internal risk of employing wrong or ‘rogue’ staff. To be fair, that’s probably because the technology to outsource independent staff screening procedures has not been widely available until recently. " Or maybe to be fair, it's because, as he says it is only possibly the greatest risk of all. As in not actually.
There's more - apparently, you can't even trust people you know who you have worked with for years:
"Get your outsourced screener to verify signatures and addresses of directors and cross-reference against dates of birth. Check against photos on annual reports or social network sites. It’s amazing how many don’t tie up!"
My Facebook picture is of two old cars - and I never, ever sign up for social networking sites using my own name or date of birth - so how's that going to look when I'm screened?
"Think for a moment about the corporate manslaughter risks of not checking the validity of something so basic as a driving licence – if an employee with a fake or invalid licence endangers a customer or fellow employee and the employer hasn’t even bothered to undertake simple verification screening with the DVLA, then company insurance will be invalid and any claim will rest with the negligent directors. "
I used to work in the insurance industry - and I can't recall a single case of this type. Nor can I recall a prosecution for corporate manslaughter on the grounds an employer didn't demand to see the driving licence of every employee and then pay someone to check with the government agency renowned for its faultless accuracy that it was valid. I can't recall that because it hasn't happened - and it isn't likely to.
My point is that whilst there are bad people out there, the problem may be overstated (certainly no hard evidence is put forward in the article - it's all about the terror that comes from not snooping into everything and everyone). People and organisations like this are (in league with civil servants) trying to create work for themselves on what, in my opinion, is a largely false premise. If most people weren't basically honest, society couldn't function - shame on those who want to suspect everyone on the basis of a few bad eggs.
The author selectively quotes research, but it is intermingled with unsubstantiated claims that justify his central thesis that outsourcing your snooping and prying into the backgrounds of anyone who was the temerity to work for you is an essential part of the business of any modern day employer.
I won't go through the whole thing, as I don't have time, but just a few examples;
The author quotes some research, but then goes on to say "80 per cent of UK jobseekers now search online, but this growth is mirrored by a huge rise in CV fraud" He doesn't say what "huge" is in this context, or what his definition of fraud is - I seem to recall a fairly high percentage of people owning up to a little artistic licence and similar on their CVs but there's nothing here to distinguish people trying to cover up a gap year or a period of unemployment they'd prefer to forget from those who are keeping quiet about the time they served for embezzlement. Just an alarming and entirely unjustified claim about CV fraud - whatever that is.
He goes on:
"Historically, it’s true that employers have preferred to invest in IT, data and premises security whilst overlooking or neglecting what’s possibly the greatest risk of them all – the internal risk of employing wrong or ‘rogue’ staff. To be fair, that’s probably because the technology to outsource independent staff screening procedures has not been widely available until recently. " Or maybe to be fair, it's because, as he says it is only possibly the greatest risk of all. As in not actually.
There's more - apparently, you can't even trust people you know who you have worked with for years:
"Get your outsourced screener to verify signatures and addresses of directors and cross-reference against dates of birth. Check against photos on annual reports or social network sites. It’s amazing how many don’t tie up!"
My Facebook picture is of two old cars - and I never, ever sign up for social networking sites using my own name or date of birth - so how's that going to look when I'm screened?
"Think for a moment about the corporate manslaughter risks of not checking the validity of something so basic as a driving licence – if an employee with a fake or invalid licence endangers a customer or fellow employee and the employer hasn’t even bothered to undertake simple verification screening with the DVLA, then company insurance will be invalid and any claim will rest with the negligent directors. "
I used to work in the insurance industry - and I can't recall a single case of this type. Nor can I recall a prosecution for corporate manslaughter on the grounds an employer didn't demand to see the driving licence of every employee and then pay someone to check with the government agency renowned for its faultless accuracy that it was valid. I can't recall that because it hasn't happened - and it isn't likely to.
My point is that whilst there are bad people out there, the problem may be overstated (certainly no hard evidence is put forward in the article - it's all about the terror that comes from not snooping into everything and everyone). People and organisations like this are (in league with civil servants) trying to create work for themselves on what, in my opinion, is a largely false premise. If most people weren't basically honest, society couldn't function - shame on those who want to suspect everyone on the basis of a few bad eggs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
