Here's an interesting topic that came up today: Security in home service industries. You know house cleaning services, home healthcare, and all the other services that involve someone being sent to a home to assist the homeowner.
Here are a couple of quick resources on the topic: book, article, article, article, article, government publication, another government publication, and there are more available on the web.
As far as security goes on these topics it's just a tad more complicated than usual. Not only is it important to vet your own employees so that they (hopefully) will not victimize your clients, but it's also important to vet your clients. Oh yah, that's right - the client should be checked. Why? Well it's like this. You are sending an employee to a "work site" and if that site is not safe then you have sent your employee into an unsafe environment... Potentially this could be construed to mean that - assuming the employer made no effort to determine the site's level of danger - the employer is responsible for placing the employee in harm's way. And what a costly oversight it could be and not just in dollars. Employee mistrust of management, lowered morale, uncertainty, and all those emotions that come when one feels that they have been betrayed by a superior. Enough doom and gloom!
What are some steps that can get in front of this potential problem? First, make sure your employees know that a site could include danger. Now we all know that danger could be around the next corner, but simply reminding someone that it could be there does two things. One, it means that you, the employer, has acknowledged the problem and want your employee to be safe, and two it puts the employee on guard - even just a little - which actually makes them better able to avoid the danger. Hand-in-hand with that is to develop organizational procedures for dealing with the issue. What does an employee have to do to refuse service? If the client has immediate medical needs then how will these be met so as not to endanger them, and possibly breach the contract. This might be referring the issue to emergency services personnel (calling an ambulance), sending an extra employee, maintaining phone contact throughout the visit, or whatever is most appropriate. Having a range of choices or escalating options is very appropriate for managing risks - it also lends itself better to profitability than a one-size fits all system.
It should be a given that an interview is conducted to determine the needs of the client, but consider including questions that answer to the needs of the caregiver. Who else has a key to the residence? Who else might be present when care is provided? Are there firearms or hazardous materials in the residence? Sound silly or unnecessary? Heck these are the types of questions asked by Executive Protection (see this, and this) details when they conduct an advance. Why? To manage risks simple as that. Now you have better idea of the physical environment the caregiver will be in, and you've only added what, a warning, a set of procedures and a couple of questions to your client interview.
Next consider the human factor. Determine whether a sex offender is registered to the client site or a nearby residence (available on state and often county/city register websites). Should this preclude service? No, but it should move the risk level up a notch. Follow this with other research, like a criminal background or maybe a civil record search for battery lawsuits. How far should you go? Only so far as a crime is foreseeable. foreseeability is one factor used during civil litigation to determine and employer's liability (please discuss this more closely with your counsel). On another note, you did this to your employee so that the client would feel safe; doesn't your employee deserve the same consideration? (See this on background research)
A couple of quick notes on background research. First it's always best to get consent up front; however public records are public so consent is not needed - credit reports are a different issue. Beware of databases - that would be the extremely cheap searches that are generally advertised online (something like this; however I have no direct experience with this example). If you find the right vendor they will send a researcher into the courthouse to look for records - the right vendor does such bulk that it's still pretty inexpensive. Databases can be outdated or simply not updated frequently enough. Enough said there.
No comments:
Post a Comment