Searching Staff....Is this right?

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:53 AM

"RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:39 PM

I do not know whether this is true or not.

But one thing for certain - I would check very carefully before posting to anything that Lizzie says."



















So, moving on from fatuous comments.....

I've rung up ACAS this morning and they put me on to the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Both of them were very shocked to hear the story.

The Human Rights folks told me to contact the 'Human Resources' section of Boots. (Goodness, how I hate that HR word!) Needless to say, the HR department would not talk to me...so I was ushered along to the Customer Services Department..The young woman there was as shocked as the two previous people.

Basically, it's down to the young person concerned to now take this further, because even Boots own Customer Care Department wanted that to happen.



As far as people stealing, Gervase...you know, I'm almost at the point of understanding why they do it...because down here in the West Country you get shite wages, minimum wages more often than not...and if an employee won't even give you a tea break for free, after you've worked for them from 8am in the morning for SIX hours, on your feet all the time...well, you know what, the bastards deserve all they get!

If you show your staff no loyalty, then you will get NONE back..and sadly, that is what is happening all over the place, as penny pinching accountants claw back money from the very people who MAKE the money for their Corporate Masters.

You cannot and should not treat all employees as if they are criminals.

This world wide craziness that we have, where we are all regarded as potential criminals, terrorists, paedeophiles etc...is utter madness!

The young woman concerned was NOT stealing....she was just picked at random out of all the staff.

I'm not sure why some people on here seem to think this is right, or that she should be glad to have a job. That's the kind of thinking that has brought this abhorrent situation into being in the first place.

It's *not* right, not right at all.

And just think on this one....If you have a boss who's a little weird, well....what a wonderful idea for perverts to give themselves a good time at Boots the Chemist expense....

"Now then young woman, just lift your shirt up and pull your trouser waistband out....and....."

It's sick, it's disgusting and it's morally wrong.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:42 AM

I think its horseshit of course but beyond that..........

There are times I just love the UK or whatever we're calling folks over there today.............

BOOTS THE CHEMIST

See, our chain pharmacies are named things like Rite-Aid, CVS, Walgreens, and stuff like that............Boots the fuckin' chemist just cracks me up!


Spaw

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 09:06 AM

Sorry, JiK, but to be an exempt employee requires more than just being on salary. It also requires (among other things) supervisory responsibility. Some libraries have tried to get around the FLSA by putting everyone on salary, only to learn that there's more to exemption than that.

In lieu of overtime I get six additional days of leave each year -- and believe me, I earn 'em!

This isn't the definitive Word from the government, but it gives a fair discussion of what defines an exempt employee.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 04:42 AM

I'm with Terry & Kevin on this. No point not joining a union & then complaining if you get exploited. Unions should deal with these problems on your behalf. That means not just paying your dues but going to meetings, serving on committeees etc. Yes, it's 90% boring but if you don't who will?

RtS
Retired Member UCU, former Dept Rep, Branch Member & Union Rep on University Academic Board.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 03:52 AM

>>The Executives of GEC should have had some of their own volts shoved up their trousers for doing that...
<<

Don't be silly Lizzie

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 03:40 AM

Yikes. In the US, federal law requires ...

There are some regulations in US federal law regarding working hours, breaks, and other conditions; but as also pointed out the main impact of federal law is on (minimum) wage and overtime pay - - - however - - -

The laws generally apply only to businesses doing business with the government in some way, and even then only to businesses above a certain size. They may be applied to businesses without government contracts if the size (number of employees) is sufficiently large.

Most states have additional "requirements" that apply more broadly than the federal ones, but in most cases they again apply only to companies with "state contracts" and/or above a certain size - typically 12 to 40 or so employees in a single workplace.

Additionally, a business is permitted to ignore the rules for overtime pay for "salaried exempt" employees, so that the rules do not apply to almost anyone paid a salary as opposed to an hourly wage. There are "lots of words" about who qualifies to be called "salaried exempt" but all the words are overridden by the provision that anyone who's salary exceeds a specific amount can be considered "exempt" and not subject to the rules. The last time I checked, the "specific amount" was about 80% of the federal poverty level income.

A second "out" for businesses is that anyone who's is eligible to receive "commissions" on work performed - rather than only an hourly wage - generally are exempted from the rules, even if they also receive a "base wage" and even if they never actually receive a "commission." ("Tips" from customers are (sometimes) treated as "commissions" but that gets pretty fuzzy in practice.)

An employment contract is about the only way to know what "they" can do to you, and about the only way to get a decent and clearly defined contract - and to have some assurance that the contract will be enforced - is to be in a decent union.

John

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 01:46 AM

Sorry to contradict my dear friend Ebbie, but there is no provision US labor law (FLSA, Fair Labor Standards Act) which requires an employer to provide breaks, rest periods, or even lunch breaks. The only requirement is to pay time and one half after 40 hours. The only exceptions I know of to this involves employees who are minors. And to put a point on it, a few years back the Republicans proposed not having overtime kick in until a worker worked 2080 hours in a year. Doesn't require too much to see how that would be abused.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 10:42 PM

If I search, or even just look in for something, a person's desk I have someone else with me as a witness.

If I had to have a search of the person done I would call the police to do it.

If there is suspicion of theft there are other ways of confirming or denying the person's supposed guilt without an invasive search. Don't these firms employ security personnel (and I don't mean low-paid security guards, but professional loss prevention specialists)?

I'd scream bloody murder over this -- if a woman and searched by a man, in private, I'd scream sexual abuse.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 08:45 PM

It is legal for employers to search their employees' bags.

It is TOTALLY illegal for them to do body searches of any kind (like looking into pockets). If they have suspicions they can call the police, who do have such powers but will only use them if given good reason. And "it's Friday afternoon" is not a good reason.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 08:29 PM

So join the Union while you may

Dont wait until your dying day

For that may not be far away

If You're a black Leg Miner

As Kevin said - The Union is the place to start

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Smokey.
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:57 PM

In 2005 the British retail sector lost nearly £2.5 billion from shrinkage,

Or so they told the Inland Revenue.. 'Shrinkage' is a tax-deductable expense and a heaven-sent opportunity for creative accountancy.

and more than a third of that was down to staff theft.

How could they possibly know that?

Beware of statistics :-)

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:56 PM

Not to comment about the accuracy of the events related, at all, but this sort of thing does happen. I think that, at a minimum, a person has a right to privacy while undergoing any kind of invasive search, and it should be performed by a person of the same gender. I can't honestly discuss the legality of it, since I'm not in the UK.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 07:39 PM

I do not know whether this is true or not.

But one thing for certain - I would check very carefully before posting to anything that Lizzie says.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 06:06 PM

It doesn't sound legal. In fact I suspect they could be in serious trouble if she decides to make a complaint.

If she's in a union that would be the place to start.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Gervase
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:45 PM

I agree that being searched is an intrusive and degrading process - but on the other hand, retailers are losing huge amounts to what is euphemistically termed 'shrinkage', and in some sectors more is taken by the staff than by shoplifters. In 2005 the British retail sector lost nearly £2.5 billion from shrinkage, and more than a third of that was down to staff theft. It's why more and more shops have CCTV over the counters; they need to monitor the staff as much as the customers. Very few chains have no process in place to monitor staff; if they don't search they will have cameras trained on them.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:34 PM

Ebbie.....thank you so much for posting that. I'll pass that on to the young girl concerned..and well done USA!

Someone else has just told me to go to ACAS to find out the rules and regulations that the employers have to meet.

I'm not shopping at Boots from now on. Or Laura Ashley!

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:31 PM

'emplop' ?    I like that word! :0)

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:31 PM

Yikes. In the US, federal law requires the establishment to allow a ten minute (paid!) break every two hours and a (paid!) 30 minute break after four hours. Any time worked after 8 hours is overtime at time and a half.

If an establishment does not honor this law, the Department of Labor will step in.

Every now and then I realize that other countries are not necessarily as civilized as the US.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 05:30 PM

"If you do not have anything then no harm, but do remember its in the contract."


Sorry, I totally disagree.

I worked for Boots when I was young and we were NEVER treated this way, ever.

Many young people think it has always been this way, it hasn't.

Now, employers often go out of their way to emplop staff only for 7 1/2 hours so they don't have to give them a paid lunch hour.   In all he jobs I had, I had a paid lunch hour and a tea break morning and afternoon..and I was NEVER searched, ever.

Goodness me, there'd have been a total outcry if employers had done that.

The Executives of GEC should have had some of their own volts shoved up their trousers for doing that...

If you feel you cannot trust your staff, then you shouldn't be in business....because one of the main reasons that staff are possibly now stealing things is because they are treated so shittily. No tea breaks, no lunchtimes, searches, no contracts (often) no regular hours, no support.

Where the hell are the Unions???????

Thank God the Dustmen have come out on strike!
I fully support them, every inch of the way...because this morning I sat watching a pratty councillor telling the BBC that being a dustman wasn't a skilled job, and therefore it was right for the council to now pay them less under the new equal wages rules. One dustman said his pay would drop from £19,000 to £14,500 ?????!!!!!!

You cannot keep treating people like this!   I bet that snivelly, snotty arsed councillor would never pick up his own dustbin....yet he thinks that he has the right to pay his dustbin collector less, because 'he' is not as 'skilled' as Snotty Arse!

Holy Dumping Dustbins!!

WHAT has happened to us all???????????

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Rasener
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:59 PM

Nothing wrong if it is in the contract.

However I would be dead worried if it was only one member of staff doing this behind closed doors. That is not acceptable and should be reported immediately.
It should be 2 memebers and preferably one male and one female.

If you do not have anything then no harm, but do remember its in the contract.

I remember back in the sixties when I worked for the GEC in Birmingham with over 18000 employees, every exit had guards at the gates and they had the right to search you and your car without question. I got searched several times. I didn't complain. I was clean.

Subject: RE: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:51 PM

Apologies. Could this be moved to the BS section please. Thanks.

Subject: Searching Staff....Is this right?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Nov 09 - 04:50 PM

I have a friend whose daughter has not long started working at 'Boots the Chemist', which, for our American, Canadian and Australian friends on here is the most major pharmacy chain in the UK.

Today, the young person was searched.

She was taken into a room which locked itself from the inside, with another member of staff, a young man, who was also searched. They had to take their shoes off, pull the waist of their trousers open so that person checking them could see they had nothing hidden down there.

I know someone else who works for Laura Ashley, the clothes shop, and they too are subject to random searches, but bags only.

Both these companies are paying basic minimum wages to their staff, not even allowing them a paid tea break, even if they work for 6 hours...They are allowed to have one, but it's taken out of their wages. They are not allowed lunch breaks.

What the f*ck is going on?

Boots has not long been taken over by some Italian Billionaire Bastard, apparently....

What right does he have to insist his staff are treated this way?

Is it legal?
Can they be prosecuted for invasion of privacy, or some such thing?

I believe the young girl says it's in her contract that she agrees to be searched, but is this morally, ethically or legally right?

Geez, have we lost the plot!