Read the forum code of contact
By: 15th November 2011 at 23:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Legally there is nothing wrong with it
Morally it is pretty repugnant
Moggy
By: 15th November 2011 at 23:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If said staff had been stealing, fighting or a multitude of other crimes I would have little sympathy. They were chatting to each other. Hardly crime of the year.
Whilst not condoning their behaviour it is making me think do I wish to work for a company with these morals.
Thank you Moggy. I sadly thought what you have said would be the case.
By: 16th November 2011 at 06:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-So for all the management exercises and training they do, they still don't seem to grasp the importance of staff happiness to a job well done. Let them chat, its an effective team building exercise which you don't have to pay some pointless external company for.
By: 16th November 2011 at 09:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I've run small companies of my own. It is hard when you are struggling with the end-of-month accounts and worrying about cashflow and VAT to see the people you pass significant chunks of money too each month chatting and laughing away as if they didn't have a care in the world.
But far better that than gloomy and depressed.
As long as customer service never suffers let them enjoy themselves
Moggy
By: 16th November 2011 at 11:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'd be pretty happy if someone thought that my ugly puss was worth a photo or two. Doubt that I'd get 2.7 mill. though !
John Green
By: 16th November 2011 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-...............eh?
By: 16th November 2011 at 15:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If it was taken to highlight a point and not just for sake of it then there might be some jusification.
I once had staff turning off the sites electricity overnight to reset my cctv settings so I couldn't see what they had and had not been doing. I'd been told by a customer what was going on but had no further evidence.
I had to resort to hiding in unknown vehicles with binoculars at 2am to get evidence I needed! A mystery shopper with a camera would have saved me alot of aggravation.
By: 16th November 2011 at 23:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'd be pretty happy if someone thought that my ugly puss was worth a photo or two. Doubt that I'd get 2.7 mill. though !John Green
Wrong thread. And, not art.
By: 16th November 2011 at 23:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A quick question for those more legal minded than I.I work in retail and are aware that my company sends mystery shoppers in. Tonight I am greeted by an email where it appears we have had a new form of mystery shopper come onto site and mark the staff on differant criteria. I have no problem with that. What does worry me is that the mystery shopper has taken photographs of my staff working (or not in this case)
Whilst not trying to cover any wrong doings by my staff is it right that staff can be photographed unaware ? Personally whilst agreeing with cctv this is a whole differant kettle of fish.
Any thoughts ?
If members of the public are in the shots, that's not allowed. On privacy rights and also, there is some by-law about photographing people in shops.
I think your staff should have been made aware that the mystery shopper was changing tactics. I am assuming they were all told that the Mystery shopper was always able to come in, randomly etc.
By: 17th November 2011 at 17:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-PeeDee.
No it was the right thread - trust me.
What makes you think that photography in private or in public is illegal? That it is a breach of privacy laws? That's a new one on me. My copy of the fourth edition of "Guide to the Law" gives no ruling or interpretation that I can see.
This is the most CCTV infested country in the world and each one of us going about out daily routine is almost routinely photographed a dozen or more times per day. If it was illegal, the CCTV operators would by now have been challenged.
I guess that if Olympus made further enquiries, some member of the public has perhaps made some complaint on more than one occasion about in-attentive staff. Staff talking to each other or, in other ways totally ignoring the customer in front of them. I had it myself just the other day. I said to the woman who belatedly came to serve me after she had served another bloke who came to the small queue after me:
" Thank God ! You can see me, I thought I'd gone invisible". As it happens, a fairly trite comment and wasted. But this is nothing unusual. Poor service by staff in shops is endemic. The normal greeting is a grunt followed by:
"Yes mate, can I help? "
I become all overwhelmingly grateful if I'm greeted with a smile and: "Good morning/good afternoon Sir". So, unless it is a routine matter to photgraph staff at work, I would comment that the event was linked to some complaint or another or, just a surprise check on staff performance.
John Green
By: 17th November 2011 at 22:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-CCTV and big brother observation has nothing to do with upholding the privacy laws.
There are allowances on home based security systems. IIRC a home camera which faces a street has to be a fixed type, and pointing at your own property with as little of the public area as possible. These things are only investigated upon complaint, they are not Policed. Security cameras at a workplace must try and avoid the public rights of way too.
I'm sure (From one of my old Camera clubs I've got an A4 booklet about the laws of photography but it is in my UK house and I'm not!) that you are not allowed to take pictures of people in the street without permission. If you take an innocent but candid shot and say put it on FlickR, you must remove it if a person objects (The chances of them seeing it are pretty slim though eh).
And, I'm also sure there is a seperate set of rules about taking pictures of people in shops. You certainly cannot take photographs in the London Underground (A by-Law) but plenty of people do and put them on the net. Not Policed until a complaint, again.
By: 19th November 2011 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-100% legal the owners own the property therefore if they have given permision for it to be done etc
fail to see the difrence between cctv and a photo
from what i get regularly in shops that passes for service a lot of staff are long overdue a shake up
at the end of the day the company pays for work not a social club
there are plenty around that would be glad of a job and work to stay in them at present
unfair probably but if there's knowledge that mystery shoppers go in the person caught only has themselves to blame
i have been in shops where an alleged sales person has been chatting away to a friend and has served me as a customer as an inconvenience to her planning her evening out !!
By: 19th November 2011 at 00:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm sure (From one of my old Camera clubs I've got an A4 booklet about the laws of photography but it is in my UK house and I'm not!) that you are not allowed to take pictures of people in the street without permission. If you take an innocent but candid shot and say put it on FlickR, you must remove it if a person objects (The chances of them seeing it are pretty slim though eh).
And, I'm also sure there is a seperate set of rules about taking pictures of people in shops. You certainly cannot take photographs in the London Underground (A by-Law) but plenty of people do and put them on the net. Not Policed until a complaint, again.
there is no law saying you cannot take candid photo's in the street ,
laws on shops vary as it comes down to permission and usualy shopping centres no longer allow it , docklands around canary wharfe are usualy sharp at stopping you too as it is private land where photography is frowned on
it is also vague on cameras pointing from peoples gardens realy as there is a video of two police officers arguing with a house owner that photographed them from his own garden they had to radio someone in charge at the local station to enquire ( the police lost and had to walk off red faced )as again it is not against the law to photograph people in public places
By: 19th November 2011 at 00:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm sure (From one of my old Camera clubs I've got an A4 booklet about the laws of photography but it is in my UK house and I'm not!) that you are not allowed to take pictures of people in the street without permission. If you take an innocent but candid shot and say put it on FlickR, you must remove it if a person objects (The chances of them seeing it are pretty slim though eh).
And, I'm also sure there is a seperate set of rules about taking pictures of people in shops. You certainly cannot take photographs in the London Underground (A by-Law) but plenty of people do and put them on the net. Not Policed until a complaint, again.
there is no law saying you cannot take candid photo's in the street ,
laws on shops vary as it comes down to permission and usualy shopping centres no longer allow it , docklands around canary wharfe are usualy sharp at stopping you too as it is private land where photography is frowned on
it is also vague on cameras pointing from peoples gardens realy as there is a video of two police officers arguing with a house owner that photographed them from his own garden they had to radio someone in charge at the local station to enquire ( the police lost and had to walk off red faced )as again it is not against the law to photograph people in public places
Posts: 143
By: Olympus - 15th November 2011 at 23:08
A quick question for those more legal minded than I.
I work in retail and are aware that my company sends mystery shoppers in. Tonight I am greeted by an email where it appears we have had a new form of mystery shopper come onto site and mark the staff on differant criteria. I have no problem with that. What does worry me is that the mystery shopper has taken photographs of my staff working (or not in this case)
Whilst not trying to cover any wrong doings by my staff is it right that staff can be photographed unaware ? Personally whilst agreeing with cctv this is a whole differant kettle of fish.
Any thoughts ?