Should DCL require an enhanced background check of all employees?

Should DCL require an enhanced background check of all employees as standard?

Should they also require all Youth Activities staff to have additional more extensive checks?

ex techie

I voted, but its pretty much irrelevant as the mechanisms for anything beyond a basic check (and even those are mostly unreliable) do not exist in most countries where cruise ship staffs are sources.

For example, in India, a not insignificant portion of sexual assaults on females are not followed up or logged by police.

The name "Disney" tends to make people feel child friendly and safe for children. To keep this image more intensive background checks apparently are needed after the unfortunate last two on Disney. :o

LuLu

~~~

I voted, but its pretty much irrelevant as the mechanisms for anything beyond a basic check (and even those are mostly unreliable) do not exist in most countries where cruise ship staffs are sources.

 

For example, in India, a not insignificant portion of sexual assaults on females are not followed up or logged by police.

That is a very exaggerated and uninformed generalisation IMO.

Stating India as an example that they may have a history of not correctly or not reporting sex crimes at all does not lump all countries who provide a significant amount of staff for cruise ships staff into the same category nor mean they do not hold accurate and correct records.

There are many many more countries than just India that provide staff for ships that do keep correct or accurate records. Especially those that have had child sex abuse scandals in more recent times.

ex techie

A background check will only show up what someone has been caught doing in the past. Most criminals commit many crimes before they ever get caught, so I'm not sure it would do any good.

A background check will only show up what someone has been caught doing in the past. Most criminals commit many crimes before they ever get caught, so I'm not sure it would do any good.

Really?

I'm aware they can also show up:

Standard CRB:

Spent and Unspent Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands and Final Warnings. So your whole criminal record.

Enhanced CRB:

Same as above + additional relevent information held on you by the police, disclosed at the discretion of your local police force's Chief Constable's discretion. That includes police intelligence on you (mental health issues, if they know you're a drug user, if you reside with a convicted paedophile, etc) and if you were ever arrested or charged or summoned to court, but no further action was taken.

ex techie

Really?

I'm aware they can also show up:

 

Standard CRB:

 

Spent and Unspent Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands and Final Warnings. So your whole criminal record.

 

Enhanced CRB:

 

Same as above + additional relevent information held on you by the police, disclosed at the discretion of your local police force's Chief Constable's discretion. That includes police intelligence on you (mental health issues, if they know you're a drug user, if you reside with a convicted paedophile, etc) and if you were ever arrested or charged or summoned to court, but no further action was taken.

 

ex techie

This assumes that local police have someone on their radar and are willing to disclose that information. Many, many criminals are never even suspected until after they ahve committed several crimes.

This assumes that local police have someone on their radar and are willing to disclose that information. Many, many criminals are never even suspected until after they ahve committed several crimes.

In YOUR opinion, not fact.

ex techie

In YOUR opinion, not fact.

 

 

 

ex techie

Are you saying that the police are aware of every criminal before they commit a crime or that they all get caught the first time? SMH.

Really?

I'm aware they can also show up:

 

Standard CRB:

 

Spent and Unspent Convictions, Cautions, Reprimands and Final Warnings. So your whole criminal record.

 

Enhanced CRB:

 

Same as above + additional relevent information held on you by the police, disclosed at the discretion of your local police force's Chief Constable's discretion. That includes police intelligence on you (mental health issues, if they know you're a drug user, if you reside with a convicted paedophile, etc) and if you were ever arrested or charged or summoned to court, but no further action was taken.

 

ex techie

So I was looking into background checks in the United States. The Standard is what is used (and can be done at federal, state, or county level). I thinkt hat the "enhanced" ones do not exist outside of getting clearance for government jobs or hiring a private investigator. Needless to say, these are very expensive. There may just be more privacy laws linked to our constitution then there is in the UK.

Now looking at the enhacned CRB you cited above on http://www.gov.uk it says:

Enhanced (£44)

 

This includes the same as the standard check plus any additional information held by local police that’s reasonably considered relevant to the workforce being applied for (adult, child or ‘other’ workforce). It takes about 4 weeks.

 

‘Other’ workforce means those who don’t work with children or adults specifically, but potentially both, eg taxi drivers. In this case, the police will only release information that’s relevant to the post being applied for.

So they only will release information "relevant" to the workforce being applied to. It sounds like those who don't specifically work with children would not have the same information released as those who do specifically work with children. So a cabin steward or server would have different information shared than a CM in the kids clubs.

That being said, not every country seems to offer this type of "enhanced" check for employers. It varies country to country.

It does not look like even the basic background checks in Indonesia are the same as the standard ones in the UK (it only collects information from the district where the potential employee is currently living).:

http://blog.ssek.com/index.php/2013/08/background-check-guidelines-for-indonesia/

Indonesia does not have a data protection authority or governmental agency that controls background checks...

 

Employers may require prospective or existing employees to obtain a Statement of Good Behavior, or Surat Keterangan Catatan Kepolisian (“SKCK”), from the local district office of the Indonesian National Police.

 

An SKCK is a letter issued by or on behalf of the Chief of Police in the district in which an individual is domiciled confirming that the individual named in the letter is of good behavior and not presently involved in any criminal investigation or proceedings. This statement from the Chief of Police is based on the information provided by the head of the village or sub-regency where the individual lives and a review of the local criminal record. An SKCK does not indicate whether an individual has a criminal record but confirms that the individual is not currently involved in criminal proceedings within that specific district only. Centralized/national criminal records are not available or searchable.

 

An SKCK is valid for six months and only relates to the specific police district where the individual is domiciled. Only the employee concerned may apply for and obtain an SKCK but prospective employers are entitled to require a “clean” SKCK as a precondition to hiring, and the employment agreement and related terms and conditions of employment may include an obligation for the employee to produce a valid, “clean” SKCK at any time.

There are no "enhanced background checks" available in Indonesia. My guess would be a lot of non-western countries are similar. Which explains why a vast majority of CMs in the kids clubs are from western countries, IMO, where better background checks are available.

I'm willing to make that generalization, based on the simple matter of working in the law enforcement space before my current job. Most departments in what we would consider source countries are underfunded and undermanned, with some still using IT facilities from the 1980s.

Most countries besides the US also don't have anything like Megan's law or an offender registry. Using Indonesia, the Phillipines, India and Slovakia as a base (the origin points for my last 4 stewards on different lines), NONE of them have an active registry system in place.

Now, lets take the US, which is generally considered a decent performer. 75 to 95 percent of all sexual assaults in the US are projected as not reported (depending on the study). And we're considered progressive.

So if the us at best lets say gets 30% on the record, and MAYBE 30 percent of those go to a legal conclusion.... We are looking at 10 percent of all incidents making it to a standard background check and maybe 25 percent to an enhanced.

Add in the simple fact that countries with less assets have less robust systems means that just on averages, maybe if you are lucky 7-8 percent of sexual assaults will make it to a point where they will show on a background check. That makes it an unreliable predictor of future behavior.

I've worked extensively with HR departments. Background checks are for the protection of the company in terms of claims of negligence (we did everything reasonably available to us!) not for the protection of customers or co-workers.

That is a very exaggerated and uninformed generalisation IMO.

Stating India as an example that they may have a history of not correctly or not reporting sex crimes at all does not lump all countries who provide a significant amount of staff for cruise ships staff into the same category nor mean they do not hold accurate and correct records.

There are many many more countries than just India that provide staff for ships that do keep correct or accurate records. Especially those that have had child sex abuse scandals in more recent times.

 

ex techie

While I hate to "blame the victim," it seems that many (I am not saying all) of the assaults on cruise ships could have been avoided if the victim had moderated their alcohol consumption or been monitored more closely by their parent or guardian.

A cruise ship is like a city with good people and bad, and far too many let their guard down. I guess a good metric would be, "would you do this in NYC?" If not, then doing it on a cruise ship is probably a bad idea.

There is a difference between blaming the victim and expecting a certain amount of reasonable common sense (and the lack thereof is NOT justification for the actions of the perpetrator). That's how people learn to avoid it next time. I guarantee this episode is being used as a cautionary tale in many conversations with kids on board or cruising soon now and that's ok

Assuming the facts of the case are as stated, the victim in this case made the mistake of entering the unoccupied cabin (there has been no indication force was involved). The penalty for that mistake appears to have been harsh. There is also no indication alcohol was involved.

By all the facts we have (and we certainly do not have all of them), a predator took advantage of a mistake. We have to be very careful not to blame the victim for their actions but still use them as a guideline to help reduce the risk in the future. It's a fine and difficult line to walk.

While I hate to "blame the victim," it seems that many (I am not saying all) of the assaults on cruise ships could have been avoided if the victim had moderated their alcohol consumption or been monitored more closely by their parent or guardian.

 

A cruise ship is like a city with good people and bad, and far too many let their guard down. I guess a good metric would be, "would you do this in NYC?" If not, then doing it on a cruise ship is probably a bad idea.

it never hurts to enhance the background check

it never hurts to enhance the background check

The problem is that in many of the countries that DCL recruits from, there is no possibility if an "enhanced" check.

This assumes that local police have someone on their radar and are willing to disclose that information. Many, many criminals are never even suspected until after they ahve committed several crimes.

That is true, but what is also true is that your behavior can have some indication before hand.

Are you saying that the police are aware of every criminal before they commit a crime or that they all get caught the first time? SMH.

Not at all.

As above, previous behavior can be an indication, not definitive, but an indication.

Also you assume that the local police who may have someone on their radar that they do not wish to disclose that information?

ex techie

Now looking at the enhacned CRB you cited above on http://www.gov.uk it says:

 

"Enhanced (£44)

 

This includes the same as the standard check plus any additional information held by local police that’s reasonably considered relevant to the workforce being applied for (adult, child or ‘other’ workforce). It takes about 4 weeks.

 

‘Other’ workforce means those who don’t work with children or adults specifically, but potentially both, eg taxi drivers. In this case, the police will only release information that’s relevant to the post being applied for.

 

 

So they only will release information "relevant" to the workforce being applied to. It sounds like those who don't specifically work with children would not have the same information released as those who do specifically work with children. So a cabin steward or server would have different information shared than a CM in the kids clubs.

 

That being said, not every country seems to offer this type of "enhanced" check for employers. It varies country to country.

 

It does not look like even the basic background checks in Indonesia are the same as the standard ones in the UK (it only collects information from the district where the potential employee is currently living).:

 

http://blog.ssek.com/index.php/2013/08/background-check-guidelines-for-indonesia/

 

 

 

There are no "enhanced background checks" available in Indonesia. My guess would be a lot of non-western countries are similar. Which explains why a vast majority of CMs in the kids clubs are from western countries, IMO, where better background checks are available.

I would disagree completely with your statement that a taxi driver would not have the same level of investigation as a server or State Room Host/Hostess by the policy above?

What if you are staying at Disney Land Paris?

What checks are done on the MouseKeeping CM's? The maintenance CM's?

By my reckoning, the Stateroom Host/Hostess on DCL has much more opportunity to gain the trust of a young Guest and then be alone with them?

I totally agree that DCL chose western countries for CM's in the kids clubs (YAC's) because they can provide a better background check as well as training, and also cover their rears.

ex techie

That is true, but what is also true is that your behavior can have some indication before hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all.

 

As above, previous behavior can be an indication, not definitive, but an indication.

 

 

 

Also you assume that the local police who may have someone on their radar that they do not wish to disclose that information?

 

 

 

ex techie

I don't assume anything, I know. Russia had info on the Boston Marathon Bombers that they didn't disclose. That's just the tip if the iceberg.

If behavior was an indication that someone was going to commit a crime, we'd have a lot less crime because the police could be more proactive about preventing it, given your assumptions.

If behavior was an indication that someone was going to commit a crime, we'd have a lot less crime because the police could be more proactive about preventing it, given your assumptions.

No, that was not what I said.

It isn't a case of the Minority Report.

But being arrested and charged but not convicted could be reasonable grounds for not hiring someone that works around children, not directly, but with them around you, in your workspace (i.e a bathroom, hallway), if you have to open areas they may be in alone (i.e a Stateroom)

ex techie

No, that was not what I said.

It isn't a case of the Minority Report.

 

But being arrested and charged but not convicted could be reasonable grounds for not hiring someone that works around children, not directly, but with them around you, in your workspace (i.e a bathroom, hallway), if you have to open areas they may be in alone (i.e a Stateroom)

 

ex techie

I disagree. You are innocent until proven guilty. I was arrested once, and in court was able to clearly prove that I was innocent of what I was arrested for. Are you saying that someone with a personal grudge against me (who ultimately got in a heap of trouble for making false statements under oath) should have been allowed to prevent me from finding work?

How much more are these cruises worth to you? You will pay for these checks and they are not cheap

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

How much more are these cruises worth to you? You will pay for these checks and they are not cheap

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Life is all about balancing risk. Most risky situations are easily mitigated with common sense, and unfortunately regardless of how hard you try, you can't save everyone and you can't force people to use common sense. Millions of people sail in cruise ships every year, and 99.9999% of them have no issues. The .00001% that do generally do something to put themselves in a situation where they allow themselves to become a victim. There are very, very, very few victims who mitigated their circumstances. There are Generally two common threads to victims at sea, alcohol and entering an area they shouldn't be in with someone they shouldn't be with. You just can't fix stupid. I am not saying that the criminal has the right to commit a crime, but I am saying that people need to be more proactive about safeguarding themselves and their property--which also means parents being more mindful of their children.

One of the few I've ever heard of who did everything right and still became a victim was the woman who was attacked in her cabin by the crew member who thought she had called him a name and hid in her cabin until she returned. He had a clean record and was in his second or third contract without incident, so I don't see where a more extensive check would have made a difference.

I would disagree completely with your statement that a taxi driver would not have the same level of investigation as a server or State Room Host/Hostess by the policy above?

What if you are staying at Disney Land Paris?

What checks are done on the MouseKeeping CM's? The maintenance CM's?

 

By my reckoning, the Stateroom Host/Hostess on DCL has much more opportunity to gain the trust of a young Guest and then be alone with them?

 

I totally agree that DCL chose western countries for CM's in the kids clubs (YAC's) because they can provide a better background check as well as training, and also cover their rears.

 

 

 

ex techie

Go read the government site that had this info, because it specifically spells light what information is disclosed. I wasn't making it up.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Here are the guidlines for having an enhanced DBS check done (looks like it is no longer CRB, you can find information about that on http://www.gov.uk too) - not just anyone can have one done, there are criteria that must be met showing it is necessary: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260319/DBS_guide_to_eligibility_v2.2.pdf

And here is the act that specifies if the person qualifies for an enhanced DBS check under the "Safeguarding Vunerable Groups Act of 2006) which is referenced in the above document. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/schedule/4 There is nothing in there that would qualify a room steward, even if you think he should be included. But, an CM working in the kids club, edge, or vibe would qualify for an enhanced DBS check under the guidelines in the act of 2006..

This is specific to the UK. Other countries have their own laws, some countries don't even have criminal records databases. And all countries have their own disclosure laws.

No, that was not what I said.

It isn't a case of the Minority Report.

 

But being arrested and charged but not convicted could be reasonable grounds for not hiring someone that works around children, not directly, but with them around you, in your workspace (i.e a bathroom, hallway), if you have to open areas they may be in alone (i.e a Stateroom)

 

ex techie

And in NY, at least, your record is sealed if you're found not guilty.

If your suggestion is to interview people, like they do for security clearance stuff, you could have a crazy neighbor or jilted ex with an axe to bring prevent someone from getting a dining room job? That's crazy.