If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Orwellian nightmare?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
0
Comments
Agreed.
Companies being able to do random drug testing did it for me ...totaly owned.
Selling some shite from Harrords isn't one of them - 'accusations' of previous crimes is a disgraceful way to make decisions.
What's really fucking appalling - and a total disgrace - is the idea that the Home Office can work with private business to introduce what is effectively an unregulated privately run blacklist system.
Shame on them.
Exactally. Just being accused of it?
Orwellian Nightmare is the usall hyperspin of the media. But this is crap - so a co-worker with a thing against you just has to say "I think he is stealing boss, wtf fire him plox lololol" and you are screwed forever.
Unfair or what.
Convicted, yes. Accused? no.
However we've also seen government departments are pretty bad at being able to hang on to people's private data.
A private company is probably easier to sue if they mess up so at least they're more likely to be careful with the information they hold.
It looks like the system would only say bad things about a person if previous employers could also be allowed to use the same system to report good previous employees then maybe it would be a lot more balanced.
There should also be a similar system though for employees to rate their employers if they want to be totally fair.
It's all very tricky - I can see why employers need to be more careful these days in hiring people - especially with the no win no fee culture developing in the UK.
There's no easy answer to this particular problem.
Like Jim states, there are some jobs you need to prove your innocence, for example when working with children you have to prove that you're not convicted of sex related crimes. But this is a registers maintained by the government and on the basis of a court conviction.
What is most frightening is the "upon accusation part". Should there not least be a valid conviction?
Like the many banks who have had to admit they've lost information about people.
If the information is in private hands you've probably got less access to it and less ways of redressing false information.