Perspective on trust

[Medlin Software, Dennis]

For those with employees, do you trust them?  I am asking because you are likely in the tax prep business, and have to have the trust of your clients.  With that said, you are likely to need to also trust your employees as they represent you.

 

Just lost a customer because I could not promise them our password protection would keep out their untrustworthy employees (I am not foolish enough to make such a guarantee...).  The person was offended when I inquired how they could have employees they do not trust, yet have those same emplyees handle client information.  I can see setting up surveillance as a prevention tool (I have them around my home for just such a purpose, good fences and good cameras make good neighbors out of bad ones), but I cannot see how having employees you know you do not trust is beneficial.

[Catherine]

I cannot fathom having an employee whom I could not/would not trust.  We deal every day with super-confidential information that could ruin peoples' lives -- having folks around who cannot be trusted to deal safely with that information (from stealing it themselves to "just" not shredding papers that need it, or - in a larger office - leaving things out for the night cleaners to glean) is unfathomable.

 

That said, sounds like your (now-ex) client is a good loss.  NO password can be guaranteed to keep out someone who is on-site, has access to the computers, knows your patterns for password-protection, and has the time to tinker until they can figure it out.  The client who asks for that guarantee is looking for someone to BLAME when their own wimpy password is breached.  

 

There are spyware programs people use to track employees' actions. (Heck, some folks use those programs to track their kids!)  Works in arrears (catching not preventative), unlikely to be accepted as evidence in court, doesn't protect the firm's reputation, and tend to be memory hogs, and doesn't solve the essential problem of untrustworthy employees.  If that is SUCH a danger to these folks, best to do payroll on a standalone computer at home that no employee has access too -- or farm it out to one of the service specialists.  And keep the company checks under lock and key, as well.  Still sounds, to me, like he's looking for someone to blame, though.

[Lee B]

I worked as the controller for 12 years for a 300 employee wholesale distribution co that made deliveries to small restaurants, bars, small retail stores etc. During those years, i was personally involved in investigating about 8 different employee theft incidents where the employee was fired for cause. Since these were Union employees, the level of proof required was significant.

 

Over the last sixty years there has been a lot of research done that consistently shows that given the opportunity about 10 to 15 % of employees will steal. Hiring a new employee is somewhat of a crap-shoot, since it's very difficult to tell what their personal moral/ethical standards are. Job interviews and reference checking will not answer that question.

 

Just look at how many government/military personnel with top secret clearances are caught committing felonies.

[kcjenkins]

"Trust but Verify" is good policy.  When it comes to employees, I never employed one I did not think I could trust, but I also observed their behavior, and limited the access of support staff.  It's always something you have to be concerned about, in this business, because of the extent of confidential info we handle.  So, an emphatic NO to employing anyone you feel is not trustworthy. 

[Sailor]

Do you check backgrounds before you hire?  I mean really check.  Not just checking references.

[Medlin Software, Dennis]

What got me was the ex customer was offended when I asked why employ those you clearly do not trust - since it was not a remove the temptation type of inquiry, but how to keep out those he already knew were not trustworthy.  Had to be one of those "setup someone else to blame" situations.

 

I have no history of needing to work with untrustworthy employees to relate to, as the couple I had who were untrustworthy, were made ex employees at the moment trust was gone.

 

'Tis the life of providing support.  One time, you are too "dry" for only answering exactly what is asked, in as short and direct manner as possible.  The next, you are butting in when you read between the lines, and talk to the person as if they were standing next to you.  Sucesfully reading/guessing/lucking into the intent of the other party is the money zone...

 

For Sailor.  References are fairly worthless these days, as the former employer wants to cover themselves.  Background checks are not fool proof, not even if just looking for the big issues.  (Have experience with checking volunteers for a national org, and all they really do is allow the org to say they tried to find issues.)  To me, the best is to start with a safe position and get to know the person before adding more responsibility.  Yes, you do what you can to check, but you cannot reply on those checks, or always eliminate people because of one item in their past.  In other words a reference background check is no better than buying a used car based solely on carfax, since both rely on the reporter to actually report, and when they do, to report correctly.  You still have to test drive the car, and the employee.

[Lee B]

Obviously, since someone with less than solid moral/ethical standards can pass a background check and receive a security clearance.

[kcjenkins]

Background checks are not as reliable, IMHO, as your own gut feeling when interviewing them.  Both good and bad info may be 'planted'.  And, as Medlin said, the best is to start with a safe position and get to know the person before adding more responsibility.

[ILLMAS]

 I wondering if the customer who called you was my wife.

[BulldogTom]

Trust no one and you won't be disappointed.

 

Sorry, just a little jaded.  As a CFO for a construction company, employee theft is a normal part of the business.  Never leave anything in a place where it can be stolen.  Tools and small equipment goes missing all the time.  If you give these guys any opportunity to be dishonest, they will be.

 

I know that is a broad generalization.  But it comes from history and experience.

 

Tom

Hollister (soon to be Newark) CA

[Medlin Software, Dennis]

ILLMAS: It was a male.

[SaraEA]

We had a client who had a bookkeeper and all we did was access the Quickbooks every quarter to clean the books up and do the financials, sales and payroll returns, etc.  We started noticing funny stuff, mentioned it to the client, and the bookkeeper quit shortly after being questioned.

 

We had another attorney office partnership where essentially the same thing happened.  Turned out the bookkeeper (a different one from the first client) had been stealing from them for a couple of years.  Then it turned out she had worked for four or five attorneys over the years and had been let go for the same reason.

 

Common thread is that none of the business owners ever pressed charges. The bookkeepers just applied for other jobs and were hired because there were no black marks on their records.  They were "clean" to apply for other jobs and keep up the thefts.

 

We have hired a few people in our CPA firm who turned out not to be good workers (not thieves though).  We never checked their references because we liked them and knew that in today's litigious society no former employer would ever say anything bad about them anyway.

 

What is America coming to? People are not accountable anymore because no one will go through the trouble of having them make good for their misdeeds or dare say they're not model employees?  Everyone gets a gold star.

[Catherine]

Am working now (post-trauma clean up only) with one firm that had the bookkeeper - who had a hidden drug problem - steal from them for several years.  They let the person go and will not press charges because of concerns that *their* reputation will suffer for being known to have been stolen from.  It is a concern, too!  Rock.  Hard place.  Where does one stand?

 

Lots of companies have rules - because of fear of litigation - where the ONLY reference they give is confirmation of dates of employment.  They don't want to hire a slacker, fire them, tell a reference check they were let go for non-performance of duties - then end up being sued by the slacker as preventing them from getting a new job.  Good employees lose, too, because if the only references given out are good ones, lack of a good one is tantamount to a bad reference.  So they won't give any.