Should DCL require an enhanced background check of all employees?

[DahliaRW]

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.

 

I believe the sealed record thing is a constitutional protection here in the United States. :)

[PhillyRomantic]

Enhanced backgrounds won't change anything. If a person has never been caught, the background will be clean. Not worth the expense to cruise lines.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[Ex techie]

I believe the sealed record thing is a constitutional protection here in the United States. :)

 

As of at least 2005, if this document is still correct:

 

http://www.legalmomentum.org/sites/default/files/reports/answeringcrquestions.pdf

 

2. What should I do if a potential employer asks about my arrest record on a job application or in an interview?

 

The answer to this question depends on where you live. In some states, it is illegal for potential employers to ask about or consider arrests that did not lead to convictions. As of January 2005, the states that make it illegal are: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wisconsin. All other states allow most or all potential employers to ask about arrests as well as convictions. (This question may be asked in many different ways. For example, an employer may ask whether you have ever been charged with a crime – this is essentially another way of asking whether you have ever been arrested).

 

States that do not have a law -

 

If you live in a state that does not have a law that prohibits potential employers from asking about arrests, you must answer any questions you are asked about arrests truthfully. You might think it would be helpful to lie about your arrest record, but this is not a good idea. Obviously, lying is unethical. Also, if you lie on a job application or in an interview and the employer finds out, the employer is legally entitled to refuse to hire you. If you have already been hired, the employer may fire you because of the lie. This is true even if you have been a good employee in all other respects. Many employers now do criminal background checks on potential employees (see question #6, below), so it is likely that the employer will find out about the arrest.

 

States that do have a law -

 

If you live in a state that does have a law that prohibits employers from asking questions about arrests that did not lead to convictions, you should not be asked whether you have ever been arrested. However, some employers may ask you this anyway. The employer may not know that this is an illegal question. This can put an applicant in an uncomfortable position. You can refuse to answer the question, but this may make it unlikely that you will get the job. Some advocates suggest that if you decide to answer the question, you can lawfully leave out any arrests that did not lead to convictions. You may wish to consult with an attorney about how to handle this situation. You may also wish to get a copy of your “Rap” sheet to make sure that it is accurate and includes all relevant information (such as that charges were dropped). (See Question #7 below.)

 

 

3. What should I do if a potential employer asks about my conviction record on an application or in an interview?

 

 

You should answer questions about convictions truthfully – but make sure to answer the specific question asked. Is the question: “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” “Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years?” “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” To prepare for such questions, before you begin the job application process you should make sure that you understand exactly what your criminal record is (for example, is a conviction a misdemeanor or a felony?). If you are asked about convictions, you do not need to disclose any arrests that did not lead to a conviction. You might think it would be helpful to lie about your conviction record, but this is not a good idea. Obviously, lying is unethical. Additionally, if you lie on a job application or in an interview and the employer finds out, the employer is legally entitled to refuse to hire you. If you have already been hired, the employer may fire you because of the lie. This is true even if you have been a good employee in all other respects. Also, many employers now do criminal background checks on potential employees (see Question #6, below), so it is likely that the employer will find out about the conviction anyway.

[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.

 

Just as crazy as someone applying for a job that needs security clearance and has a crazy neighbor or jilted ex with an axe to grind.

 

On a ship that "dining job" the server has also means they are living in almost a sealed apartment tower with you.

You do not get to drive away after a meal back to the safety and security of your own home, they live just a few floors beneath you.

They know your kids name, where you "live" for the cruise, what they like, maybe even overhear where they will be the next day, what your arrangements may be etc.

So much more than a server in a restaurant on land.

 

Just a couple of thoughts, crazy I know.

 

ex techie

[DahliaRW]

Just as crazy as someone applying for a job that needs security clearance and has a crazy neighbor or jilted ex with an axe to grind.

 

On a ship that "dining job" the server has also means they are living in almost a sealed apartment tower with you.

You do not get to drive away after a meal back to the safety and security of your own home, they live just a few floors beneath you.

They know your kids name, where you "live" for the cruise, what they like, maybe even overhear where they will be the next day, what your arrangements may be etc.

So much more than a server in a restaurant on land.

 

Just a couple of thoughts, crazy I know.

 

ex techie

 

I honestly am not worried about that at all. My house has way more ways to get into it than a stateroom does. And anyone in the world in theory could break into my house. If something were to happen in my stateroom there are only a few thousand people it could have been (and even less in reality since a lot of the passengers are children). There is a ready list of suspects with pictures on file.

 

I'd be more worried about some creep at a restaurant overhearing where my kids go to school, or what park I'm going to, etc, or even following me home and breaking into my house.

 

If there really was an issue with dining room servers (or anyone else) breaking into staterooms we'd hear about it. But it's not.

[Ex techie]

I honestly am not worried about that at all. My house has way more ways to get into it than a stateroom does. And anyone in the world in theory could break into my house. If something were to happen in my stateroom there are only a few thousand people it could have been (and even less in reality since a lot of the passengers are children). There is a ready list of suspects with pictures on file.

 

I'd be more worried about some creep at a restaurant overhearing where my kids go to school, or what park I'm going to, etc, or even following me home and breaking into my house.

 

If there really was an issue with dining room servers (or anyone else) breaking into staterooms we'd hear about it. But it's not.

 

You missed the point of my post.

By being their server and living in the same "neighbourhood" (for example the closed environment that a ship is) for a few days, they can get the trust of a child. Then lure them into an area with the child's trust. (maybe they told him to get you, they are sick etc)

I wasn't suggesting a dining room server would break into your State Room and molest them.

 

ex techie

Edited April 19, 2014 by Ex techie

[DahliaRW]

You missed the point of my post.

By being their server and living in the same "neighbourhood" (for example the closed environment that a ship is) for a few days, they can get the trust of a child. Then lure them into an area with the child's trust. (maybe they told him to get you, they are sick etc)

I wasn't suggesting a dining room server would break into your State Room and molest them.

 

ex techie

 

Possibly. But there are WAY more adults in my childrens' everyday life that they trust that could do that too (teachers, family, coaches, church leaders, neighbors, etc). Most of those people have had at least basic background checks done (neighbors and family being the exception). That is why I teach my children how to be safe. It is no different on a cruise ship. Statistically my kids are WAY more likely to be molested by someone they know in the real world than a dining room server or other worker on a cruise ship, even if we cruised frequently. In the 2 Disney cases on the Dream, neither of the children knew the perpetrator before the incident, so forming trust was not even part of what happened at all.

Edited April 19, 2014 by DahliaRW

[Ex techie]

Maybe, maybe not.

At least one of the offender's wore a white jacket, possibly suggestive that he was "official" to a kid and if he said he work's for Mickey / your Mommy told me to come get you / your Mommy is hurt and she needs our help ?

 

ex techie

[DahliaRW]

Maybe, maybe not.

At least one of the offender's wore a white jacket, possibly suggestive that he was "official" to a kid and if he said he work's for Mickey / your Mommy told me to come get you / your Mommy is hurt and she needs our help ?

 

ex techie

 

My kids know to not go alone anywhere with anyone unless we tell them they can. And we specifically told them on the ship to never go anywhere alone with one employee (groups of 2 were ok, in case there was an emergency), to never go in anyone's stateroom but ours, to never go off with another adult (non CM), etc. Basic safety rules.

 

Anyone in the real world could dress up like a policeman and do the same thing you're proposing a CM could do. Except there would be no automatic group of people to suspect that are "trapped" on a boat and can't just run off into obscurity.

 

I honestly do not spend extra time worrying over these extremely unlikely scenarios. I teach my kids basic safety rules, protect them best I can, and refuse to live my life in fear. And while I teach my kids to use discernment, I don't teach them to suspect every single person they come into contact with off the bat of bad intentions. That is just ridiculous.

 

Bad things happen everywhere, regardless. There are some rotten apples in this world. But the best prevention is education, not suspicion and fretting over every possible horrible scenario that could ever happen.

Edited April 19, 2014 by DahliaRW

[Ex techie]

My kids know to not go alone anywhere with anyone unless we tell them they can. And we specifically told them on the ship to never go anywhere alone with one employee (groups of 2 were ok, in case there was an emergency), to never go in anyone's stateroom but ours, to never go off with another adult (non CM), etc. Basic safety rules.

 

Anyone in the real world could dress up like a policeman and do the same thing you're proposing a CM could do. Except there would be no automatic group of people to suspect that are "trapped" on a boat and can't just run off into obscurity.

 

I honestly do not spend extra time worrying over these extremely unlikely scenarios. I teach my kids basic safety rules, protect them best I can, and refuse to live my life in fear. And while I teach my kids to use discernment, I don't teach them to suspect every single person they come into contact with off the bat of bad intentions. That is just ridiculous.

 

 

Bad things happen everywhere, regardless. There are some rotten apples in this world. But the best prevention is education, not suspicion and fretting over every possible horrible scenario that could ever happen.

 

 

I am not suggesting you live your life in fear, nor that they should suspect every person they come in contact with off the bat of having bad intentions.

And not every kid on ships/parks/hotels has such diligent and attentive parents as you.

Just saying that if you could remove more of the rotten apples before hand, then surely that is a better situation? Prevention is better than cure right?

 

ex techie

[DahliaRW]

I am not suggesting you live your life in fear, nor that they should suspect every person they come in contact with off the bat of having bad intentions.

And not every kid on ships/parks/hotels has such diligent and attentive parents as you.

Just saying that if you could remove more of the rotten apples before hand, then surely that is a better situation? Prevention is better than cure right?

 

ex techie

 

Yes, which is why DCL does not allow anyone convicted of a crime work for them and does run background checks through their hiring agency, just like every other cruise line. Just like they do in the parks. Just like the background checks that teachers, coaches, etc go through here. If there were a cost-effective way that would result in them being weeded out, sure, that would be great. But there really isn't.

 

Even the guy on HA, that nearly killed a passenger, had a clean record and glowing references.

 

Just for some perspective on how rare these things are, on cruise ships:

 

Speaking at a Senate committee hearing on the cruise industry last July, Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, compared crime rates on cruise ships with those in cities.

 

"When you take rates like assaults with serious bodily injury, it's 3.8 per 100,000 [cruise passengers]," he said. "But when you compare it to cities … it's 27.1 per 100,000. It's nine times worse in a city."

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-02-19/news/fl-cruise-line-security-20140219_1_cruise-ships-azamara-club-cruises-cruise-industry

 

I am 100% comfortable with the procedures to "weed out rotten apples" on cruise ships that are being done now. Incidences like these on DCL and on other lines are really quite rare, and I have yet to hear of a crew member who was involved in an assault/molestation that was not identified. In the real world those who are not found out is at a much higher rate.

[Tonka's Skipper]

I have been following the comments and opinions and frankly I think everyone is basically saying the same thing.....more background information the better and safer.

 

The question is what is effective and how much so?????

 

None of us are not really in a position to judge if DCL or any line for that matter, is doing enough checking , to much or to little. With respect to CM's here, even you folks only know what your filled in on questionnaires and information and questions asked at interviews. Not what the Line procedures were in further investigations of your background that you were not made aware of.

 

More US and other first nation Cm's would be easier to do good background checks on as there is more information about these persons lives on record.

 

3rd world person s have much less information on record as these countries don't have the record keeping ability.

 

There is culture differences to also be taken into account.

 

What system would I want????.....I want a system of checks that would keep 100% of the folks who are pervs or a danger to the guests or anyone else onboard a cruise ship, the hell off the ships!

 

Will is happen.... no it cannot as there is not perfect system.

 

Sadly there are pervs and criminals around us everyday, and since cruises ship have 1,000 + Cm's onboard, and based on the few cases of children or adults being attacked I think they are likely doing a pretty good job keeping the pervs and criminals off the ships.

 

It is really up to us as parents and adults in general to keep a eye on our kids, grandkids and others kids so it makes it harder for them to be hurt in any manner.

 

IMHO!

 

AKK

[Ex techie]

I am 100% comfortable with the procedures to "weed out rotten apples" on cruise ships that are being done now. Incidences like these on DCL and on other lines are really quite rare, and I have yet to hear of a crew member who was involved in an assault/molestation that was not identified. In the real world those who are not found out is at a much higher rate.

 

December 24, 2007 Explorer of the Seas

Royal Caribbean International From the FBI: A female passenger (15 year old) complained that she had been sexual assaulted by an unknown male at 2:00 AM. Sexual assault (minor)

 

Unless you have information that clarifies if it were a CM or Guest?

Your attitude seems to be that as long as they are caught and punished, then all is okay?

 

And references to land or the "real world" are not really relevant when discussing being in a closed environment IMO.

There is a lot more than can be controlled in a closed environment like a cruise ship over the "real world". Again IMO.

 

ex techie

[DahliaRW]

Unless you have information that clarifies if it were a CM or Guest?

Your attitude seems to be that as long as they are caught and punished, then all is okay?

 

And references to land or the "real world" are not really relevant when discussing being in a closed environment IMO.

There is a lot more than can be controlled in a closed environment like a cruise ship over the "real world". Again IMO.

 

ex techie

 

My point was not that it's ok as long as they are caught. My point was the likelihood of being caught is higher in a closed environment, and that in and of itself is a deterrent to criminals. No one wants to get caught.

 

And references to "on land" is relevant when it comes to showing whether or not crime on a cruise ship occurs at a higher or lower rate than it does "on land". The fact is, you are more likely to be a victim of crime "on land" than on a cruise ship. And I would hazard a guess that you're more likely to be a victim of crime from another passenger than an employee.

Edited April 19, 2014 by DahliaRW

[Ex techie]

I have been following the comments and opinions and frankly I think everyone is basically saying the same thing.....more background information the better and safer.

 

The question is what is effective and how much so?????

 

None of us are not really in a position to judge if DCL or any line for that matter' date=' is doing enough checking , to much or to little. With respect to CM's here, even you folks only know what your filled in on questionnaires and information and questions asked at interviews. Not what the Line procedures were in further investigations of your background that you were not made aware of.

 

More US and other first nation Cm's would be easier to do good background checks on as there is more information about these persons lives on record.

 

3rd world person s have much less information on record as these countries don't have the record keeping ability.

 

There is culture differences to also be taken into account.

 

What system would I want????.....I want a system of checks that would keep 100% of the folks who are pervs or a danger to the guests or anyone else onboard a cruise ship, the hell off the ships!

 

Will is happen.... no it cannot as there is not perfect system.

 

Sadly there are pervs and criminals around us everyday, and since cruises ship have 1,000 + Cm's onboard, and based on the few cases of children or adults being attacked I think they are likely doing a pretty good job keeping the pervs and criminals off the ships.

 

It is really up to us as parents and adults in general to keep a eye on our kids, grandkids and others kids so it makes it harder for them to be hurt in any manner.

 

IMHO!

 

AKK[/quote']

 

Pretty much agree with all you have said Skipper.

 

I just posed the question of would Guest like a more thorough BG check as a poll to see what others thought. (in this thread).

I made my views apparent in another.

 

It is about time the employers lobbied the governments of countries that supply a massive proportion of labor to the shipping industry to have an accurate system to report and collect data. Countries such as the Philippines and India which have around 11% and 12% (respectively) of nationals working abroad if the information I found is correct.

 

Do I think it will happen, No. The labor is too cheap and as long as the cruise line has done the minimum it has to. Not what it could do.

But then again, the cost to do a thorough investigation into someones BG is equally a lot lot lot cheaper in a 3rd world country. Nowhere near the $15k mentioned before.

Will it be as thorough, no, will it be susceptible to corruption yes.

The amount of US citizens that work on cruise ships is a negligible percentile of employees really.

 

But as you say, it's up to the legal and good people working on ships, and for the Guests to exercise due diligence and common sense as well.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

My point was not that it's ok as long as they are caught. My point was the likelihood of being caught is higher in a closed environment, and that in and of itself is a deterrent to criminals. No one wants to get caught.

 

And references to "on land" is relevant when it comes to showing whether or not crime on a cruise ship occurs at a higher or lower rate than it does "on land". The fact is, you are more likely to be a victim of crime "on land" than on a cruise ship. And I would hazard a guess that you're more likely to be a victim of crime from another passenger than an employee.

 

Yes that is a fact, but I have not said you are at more risk of being attacked or violated on a ship than you are on land, and I'm not sure anyone else has?

But being on land in the general population is a very different environment to being in a closed environment on a ship.

On land you cannot stricktly control who goes where and when (unless they are under house arrest etc), you are most likely not on vacation unless visiting a hotel or resort or if it is a different city than you are used to, be alert of the dangers.

On a cruise IMO most people relax more and let their guard down more. It feels like a safe environment because it is contained, people in white suits walking around. After all how many cops do you physically walk by and interact with, not drive by, each day in comparison to walking past or interacting with a Quarter Master/Security personnel on a ship?

 

A more accurate and representative proportion of assaults and violations, land vs. sea would be to compare WDW or Universal parks with a cruise ship and adjust the percentage proportionally to the foot fall of each.

 

JMO

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

And I would hazard a guess that you're more likely to be a victim of crime from another passenger than an employee.

 

I'm sorry, I forgot to address this part.

I totally agree that you're much more likely to be a victim of crime from another passenger than an employee. Criminal checks are performed on Guests on cruise ships and their backgrounds. There have been reports in the past couple of years of cruise ship Guests being arrested for not attending court or not paying fines etc.

My point is you cannot screen each and Guest to the level you can screen your employees, and if you can reduce the number of CM offenders further but screening them further, that can only be a good thing.

 

Just whilst I'm here, how often do you think a background check should be performed?

Obviously one needs to be completed before commencement of employment, but how regularly should they be renewed in your opinion?

 

ex techie

[ducklite]

You missed the point of my post.

By being their server and living in the same "neighbourhood" (for example the closed environment that a ship is) for a few days, they can get the trust of a child. Then lure them into an area with the child's trust. (maybe they told him to get you, they are sick etc)

I wasn't suggesting a dining room server would break into your State Room and molest them.

 

ex techie

 

Which is why parents need to do a better job of parenting--minding their children or educating them on what is OK and not OK to do. We teach our kids about creeps claiming to need help finding a lost puppy when our kids are 2-3 years old, this is no different.

[ducklite]

I'm sorry, I forgot to address this part.

I totally agree that you're much more likely to be a victim of crime from another passenger than an employee. Criminal checks are performed on Guests on cruise ships and their backgrounds. There have been reports in the past couple of years of cruise ship Guests being arrested for not attending court or not paying fines etc.

My point is you cannot screen each and Guest to the level you can screen your employees, and if you can reduce the number of CM offenders further but screening them further, that can only be a good thing.

 

Just whilst I'm here, how often do you think a background check should be performed?

Obviously one needs to be completed before commencement of employment, but how regularly should they be renewed in your opinion?

 

ex techie

 

The check performed will catch some--but not all-outstanding warrants. It won't stop a convicted felon from boarding a cruise ship unless s/he has outstanding warrants. The irony is that they generally catch them on the way back into the country--not leaving. Convicted felons, including sex and other violent offenders cruise every day, whether you want to believe it or not.

 

Certain countries (Canada for example on Alaskan itineraries) will also run checks and bar those with certain felony convictions.

 

As I have said before, people need to stop checking their common sense at the port and be responsible for themselves and their children.