Profit Recovery Plan

[sherlockholmes]

I am putting together a Profit Recovery Plan which will be instigated upon a poor stock take result by stores.

The Plan will include:

Within 7 days of the result, a schedule of security checks must be produced to cover all staff.

All employee references must be double checked within one month of a poor result.

Within two weeks of a poor result, a meeting must be held between the Store Manager and Security Manager to discuss remedial action, location of stock, housekeeping etc.

A store specific programme of product stock checks must be set and adhered to.

If deemed necessary cover must be increased during early and late shift.

Can anyone add anything else that I may consider as part of this Plan.

[NRM_Oz]

I would ensure that there is a scheduled meeting at least every week as I have had SM's who have promised me the world but delivered nothing OR have had their Regional Mgr's override my directions.

I would make it all into a risk action plan and make sure it is well documented and to ensure EVERY party knows what they are responsible and has a reasonable time period, but if 1 area is ahead of schedule they should be able to assist a group who is struggling due to poor planning.

Like the title .............. sounds better than what most of us call them.

[SecTrainer]

First, what is a "poor result"?

Second, you're instituting a bunch of remedial actions while also stating that a meeting will be held to discuss remedial actions. I suggest that there be no "prescribed" actions. The only mandate should be that a meeting will be held within one week rather than two, and that remedial actions will be discussed and implemented, "including any or all of the following: (list of your proposed actions)". In other words, don't mandate anything except the planning meeting, and just list the actions that will be considered in that meeting. Don't lock yourself into taking actions that might not be applicable to the situation.

Third, I think rechecking all employee backgrounds is the very worst idea on your list and I'd recommend you drop it as it is inappropriate. Not only is this shooting in the dark and very unlikely to tell you anything meaningful about who is stealing from you, but it will also be expensive and will be highly resented by your honest employees, who undoubtedly comprise the majority of the staff. You can expect some of these people to quit - and not because they were stealing but because they weren't stealing. Nothing good can ever come from taking actions that paint all employees with implications of distrust and suspicion. One or more might very well sue you for something like "harrassment", "constructive termination" or some other legal theory of damages. Fear not, their attorney will think of something!

Instead, do a proper investigation to determine the means and likely suspects for the loss, and do repeat backgrounds ONLY on those for whom you have a reasonable basis for suspicion. Rather than a criminal background investigation, a financial asset investigation of key suspects could be useful in certain cases of significant losses; however, these require a fair amount of investigative sophistication and experience in order to be done right.

If you do repeat criminal backgrounds on suspected employees, you will need to have some policies about discoveries that are irrelevant to your problem from a LEGAL standpoint. For instance, suppose you find that an employee has been arrested for drunk in public, soliciting a prostitute or shooting a firearm in the city limits - so what? Unless you find an arrest (AND A CONVICTION) for a crime that relates directly to the question of loss, you probably don't have anything useful absent a general "moral turpitude", "good character" or other such policy for hiring or retention. You need legal counsel on this matter or else face the prospect of lawsuits for bad faith discipline, bad faith termination, etc.

My overall impression of this "plan" is that it betrays or presumes utter ignorance on your part of how the losses are occurring. Every action proposed is a "blind" action or a "scattergun" approach. Some will adversely impact the smooth operation of the store, as well. I'd frankly go back to the drawing board on this one and whatever you do, get the approval of corporate counsel or you'll very likely wind up in legal hot water.

[sherlockholmes]

First, what is a "poor result"?

Second, you're instituting a bunch of remedial actions while also stating that a meeting will be held to discuss remedial actions. I suggest that there be no "prescribed" actions. The only mandate should be that a meeting will be held within one week rather than two, and that remedial actions will be discussed and implemented, "including any or all of the following: (list of your proposed actions)". In other words, don't mandate anything except the planning meeting, and just list the actions that will be considered in that meeting. Don't lock yourself into taking actions that might not be applicable to the situation.

Third, I think rechecking all employee backgrounds is the very worst idea on your list and I'd recommend you drop it as it is inappropriate. Not only is this shooting in the dark and very unlikely to tell you anything meaningful about who is stealing from you, but it will also be expensive and will be highly resented by your honest employees, who undoubtedly comprise the majority of the staff. You can expect some of these people to quit - and not because they were stealing but because they weren't stealing. Nothing good can ever come from taking actions that paint all employees with implications of distrust and suspicion. One or more might very well sue you for something like "harrassment", "constructive termination" or some other legal theory of damages. Fear not, their attorney will think of something!

Instead, do a proper investigation to determine the means and likely suspects for the loss, and do repeat backgrounds ONLY on those for whom you have a reasonable basis for suspicion. Rather than a criminal background investigation, a financial asset investigation of key suspects could be useful in certain cases of significant losses; however, these require a fair amount of investigative sophistication and experience in order to be done right.

If you do repeat criminal backgrounds on suspected employees, you will need to have some policies about discoveries that are irrelevant to your problem from a LEGAL standpoint. For instance, suppose you find that an employee has been arrested for drunk in public, soliciting a prostitute or shooting a firearm in the city limits - so what? Unless you find an arrest (AND A CONVICTION) for a crime that relates directly to the question of loss, you probably don't have anything useful absent a general "moral turpitude", "good character" or other such policy for hiring or retention. You need legal counsel on this matter or else face the prospect of lawsuits for bad faith discipline, bad faith termination, etc.

My overall impression of this "plan" is that it betrays or presumes utter ignorance on your part of how the losses are occurring. Every action proposed is a "blind" action or a "scattergun" approach. Some will adversely impact the smooth operation of the store, as well. I'd frankly go back to the drawing board on this one and whatever you do, get the approval of corporate counsel or you'll very likely wind up in legal hot water.

I didn't explain myself fully in the above plan, when I referred to the point of background checks I actually mean't that double checks should be undertaken to ensure references have been obtained, more so for those colleagues who have joined between stocktake periods.

In respect of your comment. "My overall impression of this "plan" is that it betrays or presumes utter ignorance on your part of how the losses are occurring." This is where assistance is sought. Our Audit Department will attended the store and investigated the paperwork as far as store credits, delivery notes, inter store transfers, etc are concerned. As far as we can tell this is unknown loss. To say that I am utterly ignorant of the losses is whoilly unfair, if I knew where the losses were caused they wouldn't be unknown.

In affect I have a store that is not performing as well as expected, the paperwork is accurate, this would suggest to me that losses are attributed to customers or colleagues. You say I need to go back to the drawing board, where would you start?

[NRM_Oz]

I would bet a body part that 90% of businesses have a very weak HR managment plan for background checks and this is globally too. I have interviewed staff who they have admitted they had a criminal record that was current when they applied for their positions and current cases were pending when they commenced dutie but did not disclose any part of this. IR laws PROTECT people from privacy except for areas like high risk, secret clearance, security, law enforcement, corrections, certain goverment jobs (airports, customs, immigration) and designated public roles.

IR laws now say I can ask you if you have anything in your past history that may affect your application for employment in regards to spent or current criminal convictions ? You DON'T have to say YES OR NO unless it is compulsory to conduct a criminal records check or working with children check as well. Once a person is employed, it is going to be alot harder to get rid of them if you have ALLOWED them to be employed for some time.