Security Searches

Richard Hillman

I work at a retail outlet.


As part of the staff security procedure, employees when leaving the store through the staff entrance, staff members were required to press a random search or go button. Should the search sign show on the screen, staff would then show the insides of their bags and sign a sheet to say that you were seached.

As of last week the random search button has been removed and we have been told by security that ALL staff members will have to show the contents of their bags. Now staff members have now been told that all members bags will be searched upon leaving the store and also external items of clothing must be opened to show that they are not hiding something beneath their clothing.

This latest security "procedure" seems to have appeared out of the blue and staff have not been informed about any changes in protocol. It also seems to be very invasive. Even if jackets are opened, you are still required to open them up and in some cases taken off for security before leaving the store.

Female staff members feel extremely uncomfortable with an all male security team asking them to remove clothing.

I generally didn't mind the old procedure of opening up my backpack and letting them have glance inside but this seems like a step too far.

Is this legit? It seems a bit over the top and invasive

Strumms

As for the legality I wouldn’t have an idea, we’ll need someone with some legal or whatever background to confirm that.

It’s 100% not ethical, 100% not acceptable though.

Effectively what they are doing is placing every team member under suspicion of theft, a crime without cause... insisting employees are lined up and searched is Naziesque...and ‘probably’ illegal.

If they have suspicions that there is theft going on they need to investigate fully, using cameras, covert surveillance and other investigation techniques.

Lining everyone up for an invasive search before they can go home is unsatisfactory, it’s lazy and I would not put up with it... “hello valued employee, before we ‘allow’ you to leave for home we are going to physically search you to make sure you haven’t nicked anything”.... madness, find another job away from these cûnts...

If a security person tried to prevent me from leaving work at the end of a shift for ‘whatever’ reason I’d be calling the Gardai, ambulance or most likely both.

Richard Hillman

The security company were contacted. They said it would have been an order issued by the store not the security company.

Basically, when you leave the store for lunch they look through your bag and tell you to open your jacket. If your jacket is open then they want it open wider.

A lot of people are finishing work at 5pm or 9pm then it's basically a queue to get out. So everyone is lined up. "Bag, unzip your jacket, Wider".

There is no formal complaint procedure within the company without going through the store management, who have issued the order. So you'll basically complain to the person you're complaining against to inform their superiors that they are complaining about them. Fat chance that the complaint will ever leave the store.

odyssey06

You weren't notified of this change, so is there anything to be said for all staff together need to stop complying with it and just leave the office?
Or you can only leave when buzzed out?

John Hutton

Contact mandate and unionise your workplace

Richard Hillman

odyssey06 wrote: »

You weren't notified of this change, so is there anything to be said for all staff together need to stop complying with it and just leave the office?
Or you can only leave when buzzed out?

Nobody was notified by the change. It just happened one day. You can only leave the store via one entrance of which you pass by security.

The old procedure was when passing the security desk, you press a button that would trigger a random response of "Pass or Search". It used to be about 1 in 10 would be "Search" then it seemed like every second one would be search, then we think it went up to about 9 in 10 were "search".

People were generally fine with the old system until it went to about 9in10. You'd be waiting about 15 minutes just to leave the store at night as the queue was massive

Pronto63

If all staff refuse to open jackets etc and just stand there have you been kidnapped/detained against your will?

Have you clocked out?

Everyone could run up an hour or two overtime by not opening your jackets!

Thoie

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Female staff members feel extremely uncomfortable with an all male security team asking them to remove clothing.

As a generally sensitive female when it comes to this kind of thing, even I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about being asked to take off my jacket.

The overall situation is a bit ****. Is there an recent employee handbook that talks about searches? http://www.workplacerelations.ie/ have an enquiry form that you could start with to see if there are any guidelines around personal searches.

jmreire

If this is a new requirement, and it come's from the management, I'd presume that it's in response to an increase in theft ?

Richard Hillman

Pronto63 wrote: »

If all staff refuse to open jackets etc and just stand there have you been kidnapped/detained against your will?

Have you clocked out?

Everyone could run up an hour or two overtime by not opening your jackets!

Staff would have clocked out before. A lot of staff are not required to clock out as they are essentially contractors.

Richard Hillman

Thoie wrote: »

As a generally sensitive female when it comes to this kind of thing, even I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about being asked to take off my jacket.

The overall situation is a bit ****. Is there an recent employee handbook that talks about searches? http://www.workplacerelations.ie/ have an enquiry form that you could start with to see if there are any guidelines around personal searches.

A lot of the women in work are saying they are uncomfortable with it. It an all male security staff. The old security manager (he's gone now) was suspended for sexual harassment, so there is a general mistrust of security.

I contacted them earlier, I am awaiting response but thank you.

Richard Hillman

jmreire wrote: »

If this is a new requirement, and it come's from the management, I'd presume that it's in response to an increase in theft ?

Apparently stock went missing a couple of months ago but this was boxes of stuff, not exactly stuff you'd put in your bag or carry out of the staff entrance. If it was stolen, it went out through the loading bay or a fire exit.

It's obviously in response to theft. Blame the thieves not the management or security.

I would imagine staff have agreed to security searches when they sign their contracts?
Can't see the type of searches would make any difference once they are, in general, agreed to

Richard Hillman

I spoke to somebody at Mandate. They said they tried to introduce this at other outlets but it was resisted. They had to reintroduce the old random search system.

John Hutton

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I spoke to somebody at Mandate. They said they tried to introduce this at other outlets but it was resisted. They had to reintroduce the old random search system.

Mandate are very good - it will have to be collectively resisted and the trade union will help with that

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

It's obviously in response to theft. Blame the thieves not the management or security.

Blame the management...

That their hiring procedures and checks are not robust preventing thieves being hired..

That their security is not adequate enough that instead of covert surveillance and other techniques identifying the ACTUAL culprit they are demanding to search all employees on leaving the building... by doing so they are casting suspicion on each and every victim of the search.. unsatisfactory,

Personally I’d walk out , refusing to be searched and see what happens...if they lay a glove on you defend yourself...you don’t need to be working in that environment.

punisher5112

Under gdpr request all electronic and paper data they have on you including CCTV if you've been on it.

I done so in work.

Might be time for you all to play the game.

Have thefts increased or have staff been found to be stealing?

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Blame the management...

That their hiring procedures and checks are not robust preventing thieves being hired..

That their security is not adequate enough that instead of covert surveillance and other techniques identifying the ACTUAL culprit they are demanding to search all employees on leaving the building... by doing so they are casting suspicion on each and every victim of the search.. unsatisfactory,

Personally I’d walk out , refusing to be searched and see what happens...if they lay a glove on you defend yourself...you don’t need to be working in that environment.

I worked in retail back in the 90’s. After some stock went missing it was normal procedure for every bag to be searched as we left the store. It was summer time so coats weren’t worn much, but if they were, they were to be removed before bag search. This search was just a brief glance into the bag. Unfortunately, you get chancers in every large organisation. Once the culprit was identified searches were reduced.

Salary Negotiator

Might be time to re read your job description and stop doing all the extras not included. Work to rule basically.

Retail management usually rely on a lot of goodwill from their staff.

Princess Calla

This happened in a place I worked. Absolute pain as the extra time meant bus missed.

Most of the girls started to use very small handbags that would only hold essentials. Leave their jacket off until checked. Our uniforms were trousers and blouse/shirt so wouldn't hide anything.

The thief was eventually caught and measures relaxed again.

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

I worked in retail back in the 90’s. After some stock went missing it was normal procedure for every bag to be searched as we left the store. It was summer time so coats weren’t worn much, but if they were, they were to be removed before bag search. This search was just a brief glance into the bag. Unfortunately, you get chancers in every large organisation. Once the culprit was identified searches were reduced.

All I can say is, if I worked in a company who requested me to empty my pockets via a search or open a bag as I left the building I’d simply refuse. My personal property is contained on my person and in my bag. It’s fûck all of anyone else’s business what I have with me. If they tried to initiate a disciplinary I’d refuse to cooperate. If they attempted to fire me I’d sue them...

I’ve worked in retail all be it some years ago and never had that requested of me despite having access to tens of thousands of euros to hundreds of thousands of euros of valuable goods on a daily basis, both in the shop stores and shop floor...there was security and cctv all over the place that seemed to prove adequate and deter as well as verify nothing was going awol..

punisher5112

Strumms wrote: »

All I can say is, if I worked in a company who requested me to empty my pockets via a search or open a bag as I left the building I’d simply refuse. My personal property is contained on my person and in my bag. It’s fûck all of anyone else’s business what I have with me. If they tried to initiate a disciplinary I’d refuse to cooperate. If they attempted to fire me I’d sue them...

I’ve worked in retail all be it some years ago and never had that requested of me despite having access to tens of thousands of euros to hundreds of thousands of euros of valuable goods on a daily basis, both in the shop stores and shop floor...there was security and cctv all over the place that seemed to prove adequate and deter as well as verify nothing was going awol..

Some places will have it in ones contract and as some things maybe case sensitive they may have to to protect themselves.

If theft has increased this is a way to prevent.

More CCTV and better protocols are most likely needed.

Strumms

punisher5112 wrote: »

Some places will have it in ones contract and as some things maybe case sensitive they may have to to protect themselves.

If theft has increased this is a way to prevent.

More CCTV and better protocols are most likely needed.

Just refuse, if you believe your staff are on the nick you need to invest in better background checks as regards two or three verifiable good reference checks.. and as for the act of theft it needs to be witnessed either in person or by CCTV. I’m not going to be working for anyone of such a lazy bastárd unscrupulous nature seeking to check my person or bag routinely on the way out of a job...

“ Mr Strumms, before you leave we need to examine your bag and person “

“ ehhh no, I do not consent to that, I’m leaving goodbye “

If at any point your employer would attempt to block your exit as an intimidatory method of you opening up your bag and or person to be checked...without your consent...

the first thing is that you call your local Garda station on your mobile and advise that you are being held against your will.

After the call film the subsequent interactions on your mobile. This will worry and antagonize. Don’t try and leave. They won’t be thinking clearly, it might be that the security (rarely the brightest anyway) having their back put up against the wall will attempt to get hold of your device...that will escalate to assault, on camera and verifiable.

Mention on the arrival of the Gardai that once the footage has been shown to them it will be published on social media and you will seek a solicitor , that WILL get heads rolling...

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Just refuse, if you believe your staff are on the nick you need to invest in better background checks as regards two or three verifiable good reference checks.. and as for the act of theft it needs to be witnessed either in person or by CCTV. I’m not going to be working for anyone of such a lazy bastárd unscrupulous nature seeking to check my person or bag routinely on the way out of a job...

“ Mr Strumms, before you leave we need to examine your bag and person “

“ ehhh no, I do not consent to that, I’m leaving goodbye “

If at any point your employer would attempt to block your exit as an intimidatory method of you opening up your bag and or person to be checked...without your consent...

the first thing is that you call your local Garda station on your mobile and advise that you are being held against your will.

After the call film the subsequent interactions on your mobile. This will worry and antagonize. Don’t try and leave. They won’t be thinking clearly, it might be that the security (rarely the brightest anyway) having their back put up against the wall will attempt to get hold of your device...that will escalate to assault, on camera and verifiable.

Mention on the arrival of the Gardai that once the footage has been shown to them it will be published on social media and you will seek a solicitor , that WILL get heads rolling...

If searches are being carried out, the employee has obviously agreed to them on commencing employment.
Behave as you suggest and I very much doubt that you’ll ever work there again.

jmreire

Strumms wrote: »

Just refuse, if you believe your staff are on the nick you need to invest in better background checks as regards two or three verifiable good reference checks.. and as for the act of theft it needs to be witnessed either in person or by CCTV. I’m not going to be working for anyone of such a lazy bastárd unscrupulous nature seeking to check my person or bag routinely on the way out of a job...

“ Mr Strumms, before you leave we need to examine your bag and person “

“ ehhh no, I do not consent to that, I’m leaving goodbye “

If at any point your employer would attempt to block your exit as an intimidatory method of you opening up your bag and or person to be checked...without your consent...

the first thing is that you call your local Garda station on your mobile and advise that you are being held against your will.

After the call film the subsequent interactions on your mobile. This will worry and antagonize. Don’t try and leave. They won’t be thinking clearly, it might be that the security (rarely the brightest anyway) having their back put up against the wall will attempt to get hold of your device...that will escalate to assault, on camera and verifiable.

Mention on the arrival of the Gardai that once the footage has been shown to them it will be published on social media and you will seek a solicitor , that WILL get heads rolling...

Strumms..I have worked for company's where checking bag's coats etc were carried out, and I never had a problem with it. One reason was that I was never reduced to stealing, and for me, at any rate, if some one has an objection to being searched then I would have my suspicions about that person. ( bags coats etc. we are not talking strip search's here ) One company I did work for became insolvent and closed. One of the reasons it closed was due to wholesale theft. There were other reasons too of course, but the theft was the straw that broke the camel's back. So go ahead, and insist on your right's. But before you do that, I'd recommend reading the small print in your contract. Be a shame after calling the Police and accusing the security staff of all kinds of wrong doing, that they were within their right's in searching their staff. I have no time for thieves of any kind, big or small, if the store security catch them, well done !!!

Strumms

jmreire wrote: »

Strumms..I have worked for company's where checking bag's coats etc were carried out, and I never had a problem with it. One reason was that I was never reduced to stealing, and for me, at any rate, if some one has an objection to being searched then I would have my suspicions about that person. ( bags coats etc. we are not talking strip search's here ) One company I did work for became insolvent and closed. One of the reasons it closed was due to wholesale theft. There were other reasons too of course, but the theft was the straw that broke the camel's back. So go ahead, and insist on your right's. But before you do that, I'd recommend reading the small print in your contract. Be a shame after calling the Police and accusing the security staff of all kinds of wrong doing, that they were within their right's in searching their staff. I have no time for thieves of any kind, big or small, if the store security catch them, well done !!!

If a company closed due to theft then the issue is...

Why are they hiring thieves ? What sort of lazy assed hiring process can lead to a situation where people are getting passed checks, into a company and as well as getting in are actively stealing without being found out to the extent that the company are forced to close ? Madness.

I’ve worked in companies where a Garda background check was required to be passed before you could start work. I wouldn’t be against this.

jmreire

Strumms wrote: »

If a company closed due to theft then the issue is...

Why are they hiring thieves ? What sort of lazy assed hiring process can lead to a situation where people are getting passed checks, into a company and as well as getting in are actively stealing without being found out to the extent that the company are forced to close ? Madness.

I’ve worked in companies where a Garda background check was required to be passed before you could start work. I wouldn’t be against this.

The Company I speak about did not close solely because of theft,,but for sure it did not help either. Believe me, thieve's do not advertise their thieving abilities on the CV. They can play along, and get well established, and when they have the place well sussed out,,they start thieving.Nowadays, Guarda checks are common place, I've had them done several times...no problem. But still, you will find Company's that go on CV's and Reference's. And as in the OP case, increased checks on staff leaving the building, because there were theft's being carried out. There is an " acceptable" level of "Shrinkage" in most outlets, simply because it's not worth the hassle to go through it with a fine tooth comb, but when the management do react with increased checks, its a sign that the level of theft has become unacceptable, and action has to be taken. Like I have said earlier....if you have nothing to hide, why the fuss?

Strumms

jmreire wrote: »

The Company I speak about did not close solely because of theft,,but for sure it did not help either. Believe me, thieve's do not advertise their thieving abilities on the CV. They can play along, and get well established, and when they have the place well sussed out,,they start thieving.Nowadays, Guarda checks are common place, I've had them done several times...no problem. But still, you will find Company's that go on CV's and Reference's. And as in the OP case, increased checks on staff leaving the building, because there were theft's being carried out. There is an " acceptable" level of "Shrinkage" in most outlets, simply because it's not worth the hassle to go through it with a fine tooth comb, but when the management do react with increased checks, its a sign that the level of theft has become unacceptable, and action has to be taken. Like I have said earlier....if you have nothing to hide, why the fuss?

I simply would consider that if I was requested or required to be searched that it was because I was personally under suspicion. Having your person and personal belongings searched is invasive and an invasion of your privacy. I wouldn’t accept a job where those sorts of practices were acceptable and commonplace. If I was asked to be searched I’d point blankly refuse, they could carry out whatever action they might choose as a result of this refusal but they’d want to have all ducks in a row, legally, every way.

No way in hell am i agreeing to searches of my person or belongings either when accessing or leaving a workplace unless it’s somewhere like an airport where I have worked and acceptable.

ziedth

I was a store manager a couple of years ago for a relatively well known Discount retailer and they have had this policy for years. It made it sick to my absolute stomach and 100% I would not do it and just got staff to sign the forum that they had been searched as area managers would check on their visits to make sure they had been done.

Really, and I don't say this lightly but I genuinely believe retail workers are one of the worst treated workforces

jmreire

Strumms wrote: »

I simply would consider that if I was requested or required to be searched that it was because I was personally under suspicion. Having your person and personal belongings searched is invasive and an invasion of your privacy. I wouldn’t accept a job where those sorts of practices were acceptable and commonplace. If I was asked to be searched I’d point blankly refuse, they could carry out whatever action they might choose as a result of this refusal but they’d want to have all ducks in a row, legally, every way.

No way in hell am i agreeing to searches of my person or belongings either when accessing or leaving a workplace unless it’s somewhere like an airport where I have worked and acceptable.

Given the present litigious society we are living in, I'm pretty sure that any company who would carry out searches of this nature, will have covered themselves in their Terms and Condition's of employment. And it will have been explained in detail to all prospective employee's. So if this is not acceptable to the job candidate, he can just withdraw his application, but once He / She accepts and signs on the dotted line...That's it. I have signed several such documents, no problem. Its pretty much SOP now.

Allinall

Strumms wrote: »

I simply would consider that if I was requested or required to be searched that it was because I was personally under suspicion. Having your person and personal belongings searched is invasive and an invasion of your privacy. I wouldn’t accept a job where those sorts of practices were acceptable and commonplace. If I was asked to be searched I’d point blankly refuse, they could carry out whatever action they might choose as a result of this refusal but they’d want to have all ducks in a row, legally, every way.

No way in hell am i agreeing to searches of my person or belongings either when accessing or leaving a workplace unless it’s somewhere like an airport where I have worked and acceptable.

I presume you would never take a job where. It was written into the contract that searches could, and would be carried out.

Therefore your gung ho “call the guards” and dramatically videoing stuff on your phone wouldn’t come in to play.

It’s normal procedure in companies all over the country, and the vast majority of people have no problem with it.

Strumms

Allinall wrote: »

I presume you would never take a job where. It was written into the contract that searches could, and would be carried out.

Therefore your gung ho “call the guards” and dramatically videoing stuff on your phone wouldn’t come in to play.

It’s normal procedure in companies all over the country, and the vast majority of people have no problem with it.

The vast majority of people are not victim to these practices. I’ve worked all be it briefly in retail and there were none. CCTV, undercover store security and other means of detection and surveillance. Non invasive, respectful and effective without saying to someone... “hey, empty your pockets and bag I want to see did you steal anything, ohhh valued employee”

Employers had more trust in their ability to hire good and reliable non criminals, had more respect for their staff that they were not going to say .... “hey, despite us thinking you were good enough to work for us I still want to check if you are on the nick..”

Allinall

Strumms wrote: »

The vast majority of people are not victim to these practices. I’ve worked all be it briefly in retail and there were none. CCTV, undercover store security and other means of detection and surveillance. Non invasive, respectful and effective without saying to someone... “hey, empty your pockets and bag I want to see did you steal anything, ohhh valued employee”

Employers had more trust in their ability to hire good and reliable non criminals, had more respect for their staff that they were not going to say .... “hey, despite us thinking you were good enough to work for us I still want to check if you are on the nick..”

Ever fly out of Dublin airport?

You’re taking it far too personally.

Strumms

Allinall wrote: »

Ever fly out of Dublin airport?

You’re taking it far too personally.

Of course, do you think security screening in Dublin airport is an anti theft measure ? No it’s EU law adopted in the wake of 9/11...that the majority of reasonable people will say.. “ yep, that’s a good inconvenience for all of our safety.”

Walking out of work however to be subject to searches of your person and personal belongings... unsat..

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Of course, do you think security screening in Dublin airport is an anti theft measure ? No it’s EU law adopted in the wake of 9/11...that the majority of reasonable people will say.. “ yep, that’s a good inconvenience for all of our safety.”

Walking out of work however to be subject to searches of your person and personal belongings... unsat..

I wonder would you feel the same if you were the business owner? These searches are visual and non intrusive.

It’s pretty common practice at concerts, race meeting, but on the way into the venue.

razorblunt

I worked in a retail store years and years ago that had this policy.
Lads had to lift their t-shirts too regardless of who was behind them.

I openly questioned who checks the manager when she leaves and who checks the security guards.
Followed it up with a letter to HR.

Searches were stopped. Bag checks only from there on.

Strumms

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder would you feel the same if you were the business owner? These searches are visual and non intrusive.

It’s pretty common practice at concerts, race meeting, but on the way into the venue.

If I was a business owner I’d ensure that I’d carry out the necessary checks, interview and screening process of each and every candidate I was hiring.

I’m not going to be accosting employees on their way home after a days work to open bags, take off coats, lift up shirts, demean them and make them feel like I believe they may have or are capable of stealing from me...

jmreire

Strumms wrote: »

If I was a business owner I’d ensure that I’d carry out the necessary checks, interview and screening process of each and every candidate I was hiring.

I’m not going to be accosting employees on their way home after a days work to open bags, take off coats, lift up shirts, demean them and make them feel like I believe they may have or are capable of stealing from me...

So as a Business owner, and after all those precautions, and when the selected staff has passed the probation term, you find that your stock is "Shrinking"? What's next?

FishOnABike

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Staff would have clocked out before. A lot of staff are not required to clock out as they are essentially contractors.

If a security search is required before someone can leave the building then clocking out should be after security.

Employees that do not clock in/out should be through security screening by the end of their contracted hours. If they are delayed 15 minutes every day they should present to security 15 minutes before they are due to finish for the day.

Strumms

jmreire wrote: »

So as a Business owner, and after all those precautions, and when the selected staff has passed the probation term, you find that your stock is "Shrinking"? What's next?

If you have a business with stock you are going to need to have CCTV... staff could steal, a break in could happen. CCTV will cost to install and operate but much of the cost will be offset by cheaper insurance who will provide you with FAR better premiums once you can tell them you have CCTV...

CCTV is a far better deterrent than hand searching or trying to hand search every staff member entering the building, leaving the building, going on breaks, going to stockroom etc...it’s working as a deterrent, it’s evidential as once caught the thief is on camera.

ziedth

I was thinking about this a little further OP but I think what I would do almost by way of silent protest to put an item in your bag that will get a reaction.... the stranger that you can find the better, you could get a real kick out of it. Ladies thong one day..... empty can of Tuna the next...... then a dildo.... you get the idea

jmreire

Strumms wrote: »

If you have a business with stock you are going to need to have CCTV... staff could steal, a break in could happen. CCTV will cost to install and operate but much of the cost will be offset by cheaper insurance who will provide you with FAR better premiums once you can tell them you have CCTV...

CCTV is a far better deterrent than hand searching or trying to hand search every staff member entering the building, leaving the building, going on breaks, going to stockroom etc...it’s working as a deterrent, it’s evidential as once caught the thief is on camera.

The only real defence against theft, is honest employee's...you can reduce the risk of stock loss by using CCTV etc, but you cannot eliminate it completely.. a thief will plan and plot his theft, and then carry it out.Even searching employees as they leave, may not yield any visible results, yet the shrinkage continues...dishonest people are a fact of life. Unfortunately.

Strumms

jmreire wrote: »

The only real defence against theft, is honest employee's...you can reduce the risk of stock loss by using CCTV etc, but you cannot eliminate it completely.. a thief will plan and plot his theft, and then carry it out.Even searching employees as they leave, may not yield any visible results, yet the shrinkage continues...dishonest people are a fact of life. Unfortunately.

I agree, hiring process is most important.

kennethsmyth

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Staff would have clocked out before. A lot of staff are not required to clock out as they are essentially contractors.

What you all should do is contact wrc as now you are being underpaid by 15 mins, if they want to search all they can but any delay needs to be paid for by employer. Look up apple in america (I know we are Ireland) but same basis applies.