Mixing
Building access controls removed for leavers
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
My workplace recently updated the access control system so now you need to swipe in and out and if the system thinks you're inside already, it won't let you come in again (say you forgot to swipe out and simply followed someone else out).
My question relates to something that I overheard one of the managers talking about a couple of times (I think they are probably just joking), but they implied that they could stop someone in the office from being able to sign out if they had just resigned or were going to be fired to stop them leaving the building until after management had spoken to them. I don't think they would actually do that, but if they did would this be an acceptable business practice? To the knowledge of the people here would this even be legal?
The doors open automatically in the event of a fire alarm. We are based in the UK.
Thanks.
resignation employer-relations termination
edited Sep 23 '14 at 7:37
yochannah
4,21462747
asked Sep 22 '14 at 9:24
Paul Brindley
82
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
My workplace recently updated the access control system so now you need to swipe in and out and if the system thinks you're inside already, it won't let you come in again (say you forgot to swipe out and simply followed someone else out).
My question relates to something that I overheard one of the managers talking about a couple of times (I think they are probably just joking), but they implied that they could stop someone in the office from being able to sign out if they had just resigned or were going to be fired to stop them leaving the building until after management had spoken to them. I don't think they would actually do that, but if they did would this be an acceptable business practice? To the knowledge of the people here would this even be legal?
The doors open automatically in the event of a fire alarm. We are based in the UK.
Thanks.
resignation employer-relations termination
edited Sep 23 '14 at 7:37
yochannah
4,21462747
asked Sep 22 '14 at 9:24
Paul Brindley
82
1
Keeping someone in the building against their will could probably lead to criminal charges. If you tried to hold me, it would lead to a 999 call (and preventing me from calling the police would most definitely lead to criminal charges) and the police arriving. So I suppose it's not an acceptable business practice.
– gnasher729
Sep 22 '14 at 9:33
This is verging into legal territory and therefore off-topic, but that sounds like false imprisonment. IANAL.
– Philip Kendall
Sep 22 '14 at 9:37
That was my thinking as well (hence why I'm assuming that this is supposed to be a joke from an otherwise sensible manager, but it got me thinking).
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 9:38
meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/a/2694
– gnat
Sep 22 '14 at 11:04
@gnat, you think that this is an issue that cannot happen anywhere else?
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 11:11
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
My workplace recently updated the access control system so now you need to swipe in and out and if the system thinks you're inside already, it won't let you come in again (say you forgot to swipe out and simply followed someone else out).
My question relates to something that I overheard one of the managers talking about a couple of times (I think they are probably just joking), but they implied that they could stop someone in the office from being able to sign out if they had just resigned or were going to be fired to stop them leaving the building until after management had spoken to them. I don't think they would actually do that, but if they did would this be an acceptable business practice? To the knowledge of the people here would this even be legal?
The doors open automatically in the event of a fire alarm. We are based in the UK.
Thanks.
resignation employer-relations termination
edited Sep 23 '14 at 7:37
yochannah
4,21462747
asked Sep 22 '14 at 9:24
Paul Brindley
82
My workplace recently updated the access control system so now you need to swipe in and out and if the system thinks you're inside already, it won't let you come in again (say you forgot to swipe out and simply followed someone else out).
My question relates to something that I overheard one of the managers talking about a couple of times (I think they are probably just joking), but they implied that they could stop someone in the office from being able to sign out if they had just resigned or were going to be fired to stop them leaving the building until after management had spoken to them. I don't think they would actually do that, but if they did would this be an acceptable business practice? To the knowledge of the people here would this even be legal?
The doors open automatically in the event of a fire alarm. We are based in the UK.
Thanks.
resignation employer-relations termination
edited Sep 23 '14 at 7:37
yochannah
4,21462747
asked Sep 22 '14 at 9:24
Paul Brindley
82
edited Sep 23 '14 at 7:37
yochannah
4,21462747
edited Sep 23 '14 at 7:37
yochannah
4,21462747
edited Sep 23 '14 at 7:37
yochannah
4,21462747
4,21462747
asked Sep 22 '14 at 9:24
Paul Brindley
82
asked Sep 22 '14 at 9:24
Paul Brindley
82
asked Sep 22 '14 at 9:24
Paul Brindley
82
82
1
Keeping someone in the building against their will could probably lead to criminal charges. If you tried to hold me, it would lead to a 999 call (and preventing me from calling the police would most definitely lead to criminal charges) and the police arriving. So I suppose it's not an acceptable business practice.
– gnasher729
Sep 22 '14 at 9:33
This is verging into legal territory and therefore off-topic, but that sounds like false imprisonment. IANAL.
– Philip Kendall
Sep 22 '14 at 9:37
That was my thinking as well (hence why I'm assuming that this is supposed to be a joke from an otherwise sensible manager, but it got me thinking).
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 9:38
meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/a/2694
– gnat
Sep 22 '14 at 11:04
@gnat, you think that this is an issue that cannot happen anywhere else?
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 11:11
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1
Keeping someone in the building against their will could probably lead to criminal charges. If you tried to hold me, it would lead to a 999 call (and preventing me from calling the police would most definitely lead to criminal charges) and the police arriving. So I suppose it's not an acceptable business practice.
– gnasher729
Sep 22 '14 at 9:33
This is verging into legal territory and therefore off-topic, but that sounds like false imprisonment. IANAL.
– Philip Kendall
Sep 22 '14 at 9:37
That was my thinking as well (hence why I'm assuming that this is supposed to be a joke from an otherwise sensible manager, but it got me thinking).
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 9:38
meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/a/2694
– gnat
Sep 22 '14 at 11:04
@gnat, you think that this is an issue that cannot happen anywhere else?
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 11:11
1
1
Keeping someone in the building against their will could probably lead to criminal charges. If you tried to hold me, it would lead to a 999 call (and preventing me from calling the police would most definitely lead to criminal charges) and the police arriving. So I suppose it's not an acceptable business practice.
– gnasher729
Sep 22 '14 at 9:33
Keeping someone in the building against their will could probably lead to criminal charges. If you tried to hold me, it would lead to a 999 call (and preventing me from calling the police would most definitely lead to criminal charges) and the police arriving. So I suppose it's not an acceptable business practice.
– gnasher729
Sep 22 '14 at 9:33
This is verging into legal territory and therefore off-topic, but that sounds like false imprisonment. IANAL.
– Philip Kendall
Sep 22 '14 at 9:37
This is verging into legal territory and therefore off-topic, but that sounds like false imprisonment. IANAL.
– Philip Kendall
Sep 22 '14 at 9:37
That was my thinking as well (hence why I'm assuming that this is supposed to be a joke from an otherwise sensible manager, but it got me thinking).
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 9:38
That was my thinking as well (hence why I'm assuming that this is supposed to be a joke from an otherwise sensible manager, but it got me thinking).
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 9:38
meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/a/2694
– gnat
Sep 22 '14 at 11:04
meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/a/2694
– gnat
Sep 22 '14 at 11:04
@gnat, you think that this is an issue that cannot happen anywhere else?
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 11:11
@gnat, you think that this is an issue that cannot happen anywhere else?
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 11:11
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
As noted in the comments, fire doors should never be locked against egress, though there may sometimes be a brief delay before opening (typically 30 seconds). Note "should" -- violations do sometimes occur, but that can get a company in a mega-buttload of trouble in any country that actively enforces fire codes.
There are some security systems where, short of that kind of emergency, employees are supposed to badge out as well as badge in. Pulling the badge before they've left could be a nuisance. On the other hand, that would be assumed to be an error, and Security should treat it as a lost badge and deal appropriately.
So, yeah, this is almost certainly a joke. Or a misunderstanding. (I have seen a situation where someone was fired on the spot, had their badge confiscated, and were escorted off the property. I would presume that if they weren't already on the property, the badge would have been cancelled from the permissions list just as quickly. But that's a different question.)
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
suggest improvements |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
As noted in the comments, fire doors should never be locked against egress, though there may sometimes be a brief delay before opening (typically 30 seconds). Note "should" -- violations do sometimes occur, but that can get a company in a mega-buttload of trouble in any country that actively enforces fire codes.
There are some security systems where, short of that kind of emergency, employees are supposed to badge out as well as badge in. Pulling the badge before they've left could be a nuisance. On the other hand, that would be assumed to be an error, and Security should treat it as a lost badge and deal appropriately.
So, yeah, this is almost certainly a joke. Or a misunderstanding. (I have seen a situation where someone was fired on the spot, had their badge confiscated, and were escorted off the property. I would presume that if they weren't already on the property, the badge would have been cancelled from the permissions list just as quickly. But that's a different question.)
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
As noted in the comments, fire doors should never be locked against egress, though there may sometimes be a brief delay before opening (typically 30 seconds). Note "should" -- violations do sometimes occur, but that can get a company in a mega-buttload of trouble in any country that actively enforces fire codes.
There are some security systems where, short of that kind of emergency, employees are supposed to badge out as well as badge in. Pulling the badge before they've left could be a nuisance. On the other hand, that would be assumed to be an error, and Security should treat it as a lost badge and deal appropriately.
So, yeah, this is almost certainly a joke. Or a misunderstanding. (I have seen a situation where someone was fired on the spot, had their badge confiscated, and were escorted off the property. I would presume that if they weren't already on the property, the badge would have been cancelled from the permissions list just as quickly. But that's a different question.)
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
As noted in the comments, fire doors should never be locked against egress, though there may sometimes be a brief delay before opening (typically 30 seconds). Note "should" -- violations do sometimes occur, but that can get a company in a mega-buttload of trouble in any country that actively enforces fire codes.
There are some security systems where, short of that kind of emergency, employees are supposed to badge out as well as badge in. Pulling the badge before they've left could be a nuisance. On the other hand, that would be assumed to be an error, and Security should treat it as a lost badge and deal appropriately.
So, yeah, this is almost certainly a joke. Or a misunderstanding. (I have seen a situation where someone was fired on the spot, had their badge confiscated, and were escorted off the property. I would presume that if they weren't already on the property, the badge would have been cancelled from the permissions list just as quickly. But that's a different question.)
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
As noted in the comments, fire doors should never be locked against egress, though there may sometimes be a brief delay before opening (typically 30 seconds). Note "should" -- violations do sometimes occur, but that can get a company in a mega-buttload of trouble in any country that actively enforces fire codes.
There are some security systems where, short of that kind of emergency, employees are supposed to badge out as well as badge in. Pulling the badge before they've left could be a nuisance. On the other hand, that would be assumed to be an error, and Security should treat it as a lost badge and deal appropriately.
So, yeah, this is almost certainly a joke. Or a misunderstanding. (I have seen a situation where someone was fired on the spot, had their badge confiscated, and were escorted off the property. I would presume that if they weren't already on the property, the badge would have been cancelled from the permissions list just as quickly. But that's a different question.)
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
answered Sep 22 '14 at 12:21
keshlam
41.5k1267144
41.5k1267144
suggest improvements |Â
suggest improvements |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34039%2fbuilding-access-controls-removed-for-leavers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Keeping someone in the building against their will could probably lead to criminal charges. If you tried to hold me, it would lead to a 999 call (and preventing me from calling the police would most definitely lead to criminal charges) and the police arriving. So I suppose it's not an acceptable business practice.
– gnasher729
Sep 22 '14 at 9:33
This is verging into legal territory and therefore off-topic, but that sounds like false imprisonment. IANAL.
– Philip Kendall
Sep 22 '14 at 9:37
That was my thinking as well (hence why I'm assuming that this is supposed to be a joke from an otherwise sensible manager, but it got me thinking).
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 9:38
meta.workplace.stackexchange.com/a/2694
– gnat
Sep 22 '14 at 11:04
@gnat, you think that this is an issue that cannot happen anywhere else?
– Paul Brindley
Sep 22 '14 at 11:11