This call is being recorded
I don't want to be recorded, and I could simply hang up, but then I'll feel bad, because these former employees will never get their mortgages, other jobs, etc. I've tried before to tell them not to record me, but these are call center employees making $9 an hour, and can't do anything about it.
I guess I should just give up, and know that everything I say and do at all times will be recorded, right?
Any other suggestions?
FWIF, you are smart on this. Give a good referral to someone you fired and they could sue saying they were terminated for no cause. Give a bad referral and it is defimation of charachter.
Quote: FinsRuleI guess I should just give up, and know that everything I say and do at all times will be recorded, right?
In most jurisdictions, the law allows any person to record any conversation he's a party to, regardless of whether other parties are aware of it or not. This means any call you answer could be recorded and no one has to tell you about it.
Quote: NareedIn most jurisdictions, the law allows any person to record any conversation he's a party to, regardless of whether other parties are aware of it or not. This means any call you answer could be recorded and no one has to tell you about it.
Didn't know that. And I don't like it.
It's a particularly tricky situation for employment calls.Quote: AZDuffmanGive a good referral to someone you fired and they could sue saying they were terminated for no cause. Give a bad referral and it is defimation of charachter.
I'm not in H.R., but know that where I'm at and at my last 2 employers, they would never provide info over the phone, and the only thing they would put in writing was the person's name, hire date, hire salary, end date and end salary. Nothing that could be the least bit subjective or selective. If a person was fired because he stole stuff, and he plead guilty in court, meaning the reason for termination is public record, we still won't disclose it.
Quote: NareedIn most jurisdictions, the law allows any person to record any conversation he's a party to, regardless of whether other parties are aware of it or not. This means any call you answer could be recorded and no one has to tell you about it.
What about the case of Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky? She was tried for that, although it gone thrown out because of something to do with Monica's immunity deal.
I also recall a case on the original People's Court, which was based on California law, where Judge Wapner remarked that recorded phone calls, without the permission of both parties, could not be used as evidence.
So, I think I have to throw the challenge flag here. Perhaps teddys can shed some light.
Quote: FinsRule
I guess I should just give up, and know that everything I say and do at all times will be recorded, right?
Not "at all times". It is illegal to record a conversation without your consent in 12 states (including Nevada and California).
But in the case you are describing ...why do you care? So, they want a record of the employment verification they are calling about for future reference. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Why would you object to it?
Nareed is right. Most jurisdictions only require one party to consent to the recording ("one party states"). Normally, the person doing the recording will be the one consenting. Twelve states currently require all parties to consent to the recording. These states are:Quote: WizardWhat about the case of Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky? She was tried for that, although it gone thrown out because of something to do with Monica's immunity deal.
I also recall a case on the original People's Court, which was based on California law, where Judge Wapner remarked that recorded phone calls, without the permission of both parties, could not be used as evidence.
So, I think I have to throw the challenge flag here. Perhaps teddys can shed some light.
- California
- Connecticut
- Florida
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
So, in California, one party recorded calls would be excluded from evidence as illegally gathered. Because Linda Tripp lived in Maryland, they tried to prosecute her for violating their wiretap laws, but if I recall her immunity deal held up, as you said.
Quote: WizardWhat about the case of Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky? She was tried for that, although it gone thrown out because of something to do with Monica's immunity deal.
I also recall a case on the original People's Court, which was based on California law, where Judge Wapner remarked that recorded phone calls, without the permission of both parties, could not be used as evidence.
So, I think I have to throw the challenge flag here. Perhaps teddys can shed some light.
Short post, mobile.
It varies state-to-state. In the State of Ohio, only one party to the conversation has to know it is being recorded...even if that party is the one doing the recording.
A local Mayor actually got into some hot water recently over disparaging comments about African-Americans in a discussion he thought to be private.
It's also admissible, in Ohio. The only out is to challenge on grounds that the person who was allegedly the speaker was not...or that no party knew about it.
I think the law is garbage, especially for phone calls, because you always must assume you are being recorded.
It was immensely satisfying to see a racist Mayor get put in his placem though.
Quote: WizardI also recall a case on the original People's Court, which was based on California law, where Judge Wapner remarked that recorded phone calls, without the permission of both parties, could not be used as evidence.
I will defer to Teddys on thsi matter. But I would point out that "not valid as evidence" does not mean "illegal." Hearsay isn't valid as evidence, but it's not illegal for me to tell you that someone told me something about someone else.
Quote: FinsRuleAny other suggestions?
As was recommended by someone else, tell them that in regards to employee information, you only respond to written requests, and hang up.
For me, the number of employees I have is rather small. Thus, I inform them all that I do not respond to requests for information on them, unless they tell me in advance that it is ok to do. This usually happens when an employee is trying to finance something like a car or house. They come and let me know about. When I receive the call about it, I then respond. However, even so, I only respond verbally over the phone to certain kinds of information. Verify employment. Yes. Verify hire date. Yes. Verify salary. No. Written requests only on something like that. If the employee hasn't previously told me about the call, then I tell the caller that I don't respond to phone calls requesting such information and hang up.
In a larger business, you might not be able to do that, and I understand that.
I'll give date of hire, last date of employment or currently employed freely over the phone. Anything else must be faxed. I don't disclose reason for leaving or eligibility for rehire, period. Too many assumptions can be made with that information.
Even if I terminate someone, it doesn't mean I would like to never see them work again. It just means they weren't right for that specific position at our specific location. That's only the business of two entities, that person and the company.
Unfortunately, I have the opposite problem. None of my employees have ever left voluntarily. If I terminate someone, it's because that person is a waste of space. It also means that person probably can't find another job, and they will end up applying for unemployment. Similarly to you, I don't give out information on why someone was terminated, but I also don't give out last date of employment. Are they employed now? No. When did that change? None of your business. All requests from the unemployment office are answered solely by mail. (I won't even allow them to fax.) I won't answer any questions to the unemployment office over the phone. Mainly because of what you said, assumptions can be made with badly phrased information.Quote: Mission146Even if I terminate someone, it doesn't mean I would like to never see them work again.
Basically, I'm sympathetic to my employees when they are trying to do something for themselves. Like buying a car or house or applying for credit, and things of that nature. I want to answer those kinds of questions. However, for former employees, I only do what is required of me. And I know I can force any of those agencies to submit their requests in writing.
In the first case, the housekeeper left allegedly for medical reasons. I got a letter six months later wanting me to confirm employment up to two weeks before the letter. The housekeeper then called the next day and strongly implied there could be some cash in it for me if I were to do this.
I responded, "No, I'm giving them the correct last date and saying you left voluntarily and must have made a mistake. If you ever contact me directly again, I WILL report you for attempted fraud."
The only other time I dealt with them it was someone who started no-showing. I got the letter a month later. I told unemployment, "I'll take your letter as her voluntary resignation, but she has neither resigned nor been terminated prior."
Most of my requests are from welfare, making sure the person was working when she claimed to be, or landlords verifying no employment gaps. If they cannot verify, then they might not rent and are usually not concerned enough to send a fax when they have fifty other applicants. That's why I give last day worked freely.
Quote: NareedIn most jurisdictions, the law allows any person to record any conversation he's a party to, regardless of whether other parties are aware of it or not. This means any call you answer could be recorded and no one has to tell you about it.
Yes, withing a jurisdiction possibly, but if you are calling from one state to another, you cannot without permission due to federal law. I have always wondered how a cell would play into it. Also wonder whether you can record the conversation yourself, without telling them, if they tell you, they are recording it.
Quote: konceptumUnfortunately, I have the opposite problem. None of my employees have ever left voluntarily. If I terminate someone, it's because that person is a waste of space. It also means that person probably can't find another job, and they will end up applying for unemployment. Similarly to you, I don't give out information on why someone was terminated, but I also don't give out last date of employment. Are they employed now? No. When did that change? None of your business. All requests from the unemployment office are answered solely by mail. (I won't even allow them to fax.) I won't answer any questions to the unemployment office over the phone. Mainly because of what you said, assumptions can be made with badly phrased information.
Basically, I'm sympathetic to my employees when they are trying to do something for themselves. Like buying a car or house or applying for credit, and things of that nature. I want to answer those kinds of questions. However, for former employees, I only do what is required of me. And I know I can force any of those agencies to submit their requests in writing.
well it's nice you are doing your part to delay the legitimate payment of unemployment benefits the separated employee had already paid into, at a time when he just lost his job, and probably desperately needs the income.
Quote: sodawaterwell it's nice you are doing your part to delay the legitimate payment of unemployment benefits the separated employee had already paid into, at a time when he just lost his job, and probably desperately needs the income.
When it comes to unemployment (UI) . Employees may or may not be paying for UI as it depends on state laws if you want to check your state:
http://www.adp.com/tools-and-resources/compliance-connection/~/~/media/Compliance/2012FastWageTaxFacts/2012FastFactsALL060712/2012FastFactsALL060712b.ashx
As for delaying payments BS.
First you usually wait 2 weeks before you collect.
Second they pay whether they get the forms back, as it only matters if employer is claiming person has no right to collect.
Quote: WizardWhat about the case of Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky? She was tried for that, although it gone thrown out because of something to do with Monica's immunity deal.
I also recall a case on the original People's Court, which was based on California law, where Judge Wapner remarked that recorded phone calls, without the permission of both parties, could not be used as evidence.
So, I think I have to throw the challenge flag here. Perhaps teddys can shed some light.
As Teddy notes, most jurisdictions only require one party's knowledge to record conversations. Which is the way it should be. Two party states are a license to lie.
Quote: sodawaterwell it's nice you are doing your part to delay the legitimate payment of unemployment benefits the separated employee had already paid into, at a time when he just lost his job, and probably desperately needs the income.
In Arizona, employees don't have any deductions from their pay for unemployment insurance. That money comes solely from the employer.
In addition, the state automatically "approves" payments for Unemployment. They then go through a screening process on whether or not the person "deserves" unemployment. If I was truly interested in delaying payment to a terminated employee, which I'm not even capable of doing, then I would counterfile against the unemployment. However, again, none of this actually delays the person receiving payment for unemployment.
The main issue is that, if I receive a phone call, from someone claiming to be from the Unemployment Office wanting personal information on a former employee of mine, answering those personal questions can put me in a lot of trouble if that person is NOT from the Unemployment Office. And the only way to make sure the information is going to where it is supposed to go, is to do things by mail.
Yeah, like the employer never figures that into the compensation he pays the employee. Get real !
Not sure what your getting at here buzzard. In my state(ohio)the employee has no funds withheld from their checks nor did I ever pay them less knowing they were going to receive benefits. As an owner of a concrete constr. co. I knew we would draw 3-8 weeks each winter(co. dissolved in 08). In 13 yrs. in bussiness not once( that I can recall) did I ever receive a call from unempl. office to verify employment or lack of work. It was always thru the mail. BTW I always paid into it for me also so I could draw in the winter. Only 2 winters since late 70s did I not draw compensation. Always looked forward to the break(Wife has always worked).Quote: Buzzard" In Arizona, employees don't have any deductions from their pay for unemployment insurance. That money comes solely from the employer. "
Yeah, like the employer never figures that into the compensation he pays the employee. Get real !
Quote: NareedIn most jurisdictions, the law allows any person to record any conversation he's a party to, regardless of whether other parties are aware of it or not. This means any call you answer could be recorded and no one has to tell you about it.
In MD (my jurisdiction) this is not true. Both parties of a recorded conversation have to be informed the call is recorded and accept those terms. Or it's technically illegal. Not that the phone cops (WKRP reference) are going to play hard ball with you or anything...but it wouldn't hold up in court for example.
Quote: Buzzard" In Arizona, employees don't have any deductions from their pay for unemployment insurance. That money comes solely from the employer. "
Yeah, like the employer never figures that into the compensation he pays the employee. Get real !
If there was a way for that to happen, I'm sure an employer would do so. But considering that the Arizona minimum wage is higher than the Federal minimum wage, and increases every year, the employers so far have been very unlucky in doing so.
Quote: renoAn article from the Wall St Journal noted that when a company informs you that "This call may be recorded for quality assurance" keep in mind that even if you are placed on hold, the call will continue to be recorded while you're on hold. So don't curse out the company unless you don't mind them hearing it!
I used to work in a call center where they recorded calls (makes you wonder how prison might be relaxing once you get used to it.)
If the phones dies, which they sometimes did, we could talk to each other a little bit. One guy I worked with never put his mic away from his mouth. I always, always raised mine. And when he would be saying something negative I would always remind him to raise his. He said the phone was shut off and I would say, "you want to take the chance?"
Maybe I've spent too much time watching mafia movies, but I always assumed someone was listening all the time.
It is possible that there are systems that worked differently than the one we had when I was a supervisor, but when we would monitor a TSR's calls, you could only hear them if they were actually on a call. If your system was one in which you would just hear a beep in your ear and be on the line with the person, though, you were still giving him great advice because someone monitoring might catch something said mid-sentence. We had mute buttons on the boxes, though, so an agent cross-talking being heard (whether positive or negative) was completely unacceptable.
Quote: NareedIn most jurisdictions, the law allows any person to record any conversation he's a party to, regardless of whether other parties are aware of it or not. This means any call you answer could be recorded and no one has to tell you about it.
Not in California. If your soon-to-be ex-wife threatens to kill you because you are not giving-in to her alimony demands, and you didn't tell her that you recorded her making the threat, you can't even use it in court to have her alimony denied.
(You might be wondering why I know this strange little fact?)
Quote: mdhNot sure what your getting at here buzzard. In my state(ohio)the employee has no funds withheld from their checks nor did I ever pay them less knowing they were going to receive benefits. As an owner of a concrete constr. co. I knew we would draw 3-8 weeks each winter(co. dissolved in 08). In 13 yrs. in bussiness not once( that I can recall) did I ever receive a call from unempl. office to verify employment or lack of work. It was always thru the mail. BTW I always paid into it for me also so I could draw in the winter. Only 2 winters since late 70s did I not draw compensation. Always looked forward to the break(Wife has always worked).
In my humble opinion, this is an abuse of the unemployment system. I'm not accusing you of anything, as I would do the same thing in your position since everyone else was and it is expected. But it seems like unemployment should really be for someone who lost their job permanently, not due to lack of seasonal work. I know, I know, cue shitstorm debate.
Between my first and second years of college I was unable to get an internship in my field and spent the summer mowing lawns during the week and testing printers at Hewlett-Packard on the weekend swing shift. Sometimes we would run out of paper to run through the printers, and would get sent home due to no work...apparently you could file for unemployment for that shift and get some kind of compensation. This only happened once during my summer so I never did it, but I found it hilarious but also annoying that unemployment could be used for such circumstances.
I value your opinion and everybody elses opinion on this forum. If there was work to be had me and my kind would have been right there having at it. Most winters the ground would just get too frozen to prep or pour unless the G.C was willing to pay for winter protection. I didnt mean to say I was looking for a extended vacation at you or any other taxpayers expense. I meant to say I always looked forward to the break so I could heal my back, rest my feet, ice my knee, leave my arms down for a few weeks so I could eventually pick up a newspaper and read it without too much pain due to carpal tunnel or have one of the aformentioned items operated on before conditions were right to go back. Not looking for cheese and crackers for this wine....just sayin. BTW you have to have so many weeks worked before you can receive unempl. benefits.Quote: AcesAndEightsIn my humble opinion, this is an abuse of the unemployment system. I'm not accusing you of anything, as I would do the same thing in your position since everyone else was and it is expected. But it seems like unemployment should really be for someone who lost their job permanently, not due to lack of seasonal work. I know, I know, cue shitstorm debate.
Between my first and second years of college I was unable to get an internship in my field and spent the summer mowing lawns during the week and testing printers at Hewlett-Packard on the weekend swing shift. Sometimes we would run out of paper to run through the printers, and would get sent home due to no work...apparently you could file for unemployment for that shift and get some kind of compensation. This only happened once during my summer so I never did it, but I found it hilarious but also annoying that unemployment could be used for such circumstances.
Quote: AcesAndEightsIn my humble opinion, this is an abuse of the unemployment system. I'm not accusing you of anything, as I would do the same thing in your position since everyone else was and it is expected. But it seems like unemployment should really be for someone who lost their job permanently, not due to lack of seasonal work. I know, I know, cue shitstorm debate.
I'm not sure I like the word 'abuse', since it is something allowed by the unemployment system. (Although I have heard of states trying to eliminate unemployment for seasonal work.) Outside the word 'abuse', the idea might be that you dislike someone getting unemployment for being a seasonal worker. I don't agree with you on that. Mainly because I think that if seasonal workers are barred from receiving unemployment during the time when they are told they won't get paid by their job, then why would anybody take seasonal work? Now, it could be argued that an employer should build into their cost structure the ability to pay someone for the full year, despite the fact that there is no work for them, similar to how professors are paid an annual salary which covers even the time when they are off for summer break. But, if a position pays hourly, and the employee is told they won't be needed for several months, but come back when we need you, I think it's valid for that person to want to get unemployment pay. Otherwise, the employee would be better off just finding a job that kept him busy and working for all the months, and again, why would then anybody take seasonal work? It might be argued that a person couldn't find a year-long job due to the the bad work economy, but along the lines of that argument, there are many more people on full unemployment rather than seasonal unemployment.
In addition, at least in the state of Arizona, a person can file for unemployment if they are working less than 40 hours a week, for the difference in time. Again, I wouldn't call it 'abuse', because it is allowed by the system. The amount that unemployment pays is so minor compared to actually receive a wage, even minimum wage, that it's less than ideal to intentionally work less than 40 hours a week just for unemployment. But, if a person can only find a job that needs him half time, and thus supplements the other half with unemployment, I can't say I disagree with that either.
In the state of Pennsylvania, if I have recorded a person-to-person (not over the phone) conversation, and the other party was not aware of it, is is admissible in court?
Basically, I turned on the video part of my camera phone during a conversation, and put it in my front pocket. The other party was not told of this.
It is also pretty much the only proof I have that I am right in a business disagreement.
I am also from Ohio, but the other party lives in PA, and the conversation was recorded in PA.
Just wanting to know if I have a potential leg to stand on if I try to go to court.
Quote: Maverick17In the state of Pennsylvania, if I have recorded a person-to-person (not over the phone) conversation, and the other party was not aware of it, is is admissible in court?
see ... discussion
Quote: Maverick17Am I a felon?
The conduct would seem felonious, but they have to catch and convict you before you can call yourself a felon.
Weird, how each state approaches the issue of consent differently.
For example, in Oregon you can record the other's conversation secretly without their knowledge ("one party consent"), and in the adjoining state of Washington it is prohibited.
I guess I should say that this question was asked for a friend of mine, before everyone here lumps me in with OJ and Madoff.
Quote: Maverick17I remembered reading this post last year and wanted to see if any of the attorneys who posted based on the original intent of the thread (recording calls) can comment.
In the state of Pennsylvania, if I have recorded a person-to-person (not over the phone) conversation, and the other party was not aware of it, is is admissible in court?
Basically, I turned on the video part of my camera phone during a conversation, and put it in my front pocket. The other party was not told of this.
It is also pretty much the only proof I have that I am right in a business disagreement.
I am also from Ohio, but the other party lives in PA, and the conversation was recorded in PA.
Just wanting to know if I have a potential leg to stand on if I try to go to court.
I am not an attorney but have been involved with one in the past. Based on my situation I would ask where you were when you recorded the conversation. If you were alone with the other person there is probably a higher chance it will not be allowed. But if you had a meeting at say the local coffeehouse and others were around there would be no expectation of privacy and a better chance.
Again, this is just on personal experience and what I have seen of our legal system.
