The following appeared in a memorandum from the director of a security and safety consulting service:
Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been out clients. In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies, we have further learned that each of them required its employees to wear photo identification badge while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.
My response:
The author claims that there were no incidents of employee theft reported in past six years because the companies required their employees to wear photo identification badge at work. Then, he or she went on further recommending the use of such identification badges to all his clients. This analysis seriously lacks the evidences supporting such claim and fails to address other possible security measures.
First of all, it is unclear that exactly when the requirement of the use of identification badge started. The memorandum does not indicate whether the employees always have had the photo identification badge or the employees has started using the badge six years ago. While the using photo identification badge might be useful to identify the employees, it hardly supports the claim. In fact, the incidents of employee thefts are reported only as the employers discover the action of the employee. If you catch someone red-handed, there is a very little difference in whether the person has a photo ID or not.
Secondly, the claim does not consider the possibility of a number of security measures - the installation of security cameras and various internal policies and procedures. Installing security cameras covering all areas of premises could be a single most effective step to prevent the theft and monitor activities on the premises. The companies also implement internal policies and procedures that require the employees to follow certain steps. For example, the employees of cash vault operation follow a strict procedure. Before the employees enter the vault, they leave their personal belongings in a locker, walk through a metal detector, and enter the secured vaults. Such preventive procedures would reduce the risk of employee theft.
In sum, it is nearly impossible to claim that the use of photo identification badge will reduce the number of employee theft. If the director wants to convince his clients, he should have provided a timeframe on the use of photo id. Addition to the timeframe, the director needs to provide proof that he or she had reviewed and analyzed all other variables to come up with such claim.
Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been out clients. In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies, we have further learned that each of them required its employees to wear photo identification badge while at work. In the future, therefore, we should recommend the use of such identification badges to all of our clients.
My response:
The author claims that there were no incidents of employee theft reported in past six years because the companies required their employees to wear photo identification badge at work. Then, he or she went on further recommending the use of such identification badges to all his clients. This analysis seriously lacks the evidences supporting such claim and fails to address other possible security measures.
First of all, it is unclear that exactly when the requirement of the use of identification badge started. The memorandum does not indicate whether the employees always have had the photo identification badge or the employees has started using the badge six years ago. While the using photo identification badge might be useful to identify the employees, it hardly supports the claim. In fact, the incidents of employee thefts are reported only as the employers discover the action of the employee. If you catch someone red-handed, there is a very little difference in whether the person has a photo ID or not.
Secondly, the claim does not consider the possibility of a number of security measures - the installation of security cameras and various internal policies and procedures. Installing security cameras covering all areas of premises could be a single most effective step to prevent the theft and monitor activities on the premises. The companies also implement internal policies and procedures that require the employees to follow certain steps. For example, the employees of cash vault operation follow a strict procedure. Before the employees enter the vault, they leave their personal belongings in a locker, walk through a metal detector, and enter the secured vaults. Such preventive procedures would reduce the risk of employee theft.
In sum, it is nearly impossible to claim that the use of photo identification badge will reduce the number of employee theft. If the director wants to convince his clients, he should have provided a timeframe on the use of photo id. Addition to the timeframe, the director needs to provide proof that he or she had reviewed and analyzed all other variables to come up with such claim.
