Ethics Immunity


Author: Jim Goding (Las-Vegas, USA)
Russian translation: Vadym Barsukov (Ukraine)

People who do a good job have ethics protection.
When someone is not doing a good job, is not a valuable asset to the company, supervisors are very interested in every off-color activity, every single transgression of any minor rule.
A person who does a good job is defined as one who handles his responsibilities well, gets things done.  In a Surveillance Room, this person has the games up on the monitors, watches the games, watches the other areas of responsibilities such as Slots, Cage, Count Rooms, and sees the violations of procedures and any illegal activity and reports on it in such a way that action can be taken by the executives who receive the reports.
This also means that the person watching is able to see outpoints where he is looking, and able to write coherent reports that state exactly what happened.  It means that he person knows enough about what he is supposed to be looking at, that he can tell when something is not right.

If he doesn’t know enough about it when he starts working Surveillance, by the time he has been there a few months, he has made the effort and has learned it and has retained the knowledge and applies it.
A person who has “ethics protection” shows major personal responsibility in many ways, and the first of these is that he knows and does his job, and does not let personal concerns distract him from it when he is at work.  And usually, a person who has ethics protection does not need it: A person with that level of responsibility doesn’t normally do things that he can be hit for, because he is ethically and morally above the level of dishonest activity.
However, for a person who does an outstanding job, little things are of no account.  He can eat three meals a day off the company; office supplies can disappear from his desk; he can show up a little late for work, get unauthorized overtime.  Because the bosses know that he is doing his job and the little bits of extra cost are of no account.
There is, though, also a down side to this.  If such a person should take a downturn in his performance, the executives are very interested.  What is happening?  Is he suddenly getting involved in something crooked?  Such an activity would make him tend to lose interest in keeping the company’s interests in mind.
When someone’s performance starts slacking off, his Supervisors should be very interested, no matter the reason.  If he has suddenly started pilfering the till, so to speak, they want to know.  Maybe they can turn him around before this excellent performer passes a point of no return.  Maybe it’s overwhelming personal problems, and sometimes a simple talk with the boss can help him out.
However, if his performance continues to slide, he loses his ethics protection, and the bosses should start looking for major problems in his area of work.  It’s a symptom and should be followed up.
There is one more part of this that should be noted: A report of a transgression against a person who does a good job, who puts his 100% of himself into the job while he is here, should be viewed with suspicion by the Supervisor who receives the report.  Who filed the report?  Is he, himself, doing a good job, or is the person simply trying to get someone in trouble in order to distract attention from his own off-color, out-ethics activity or lack of activity?  Is the report true?  Or is it simply vitriol, vomited out by someone who should himself be under investigation?

This also applies to the work itself.  Are the reports being done merely to keep the attention of the executives off the reporter?  Is that floorman actually doing his job, and the isolated incident just that?  Is the dealer or cashier someone who in fact is a major asset to the company?  Is this dealer one of the ones that brings hundreds of people back to the casino, or is he in fact, as the “report” states, someone who is rude, sloppy, never clears his hands, and actively drives people off his table?  Executives should take these things into consideration, and so should the Surveillance people who observe and report.

Copyright original English version © 1998, 2002 by Jim Goding;
Copyright translated version in Russian © 2003 by Vadym Barsukov.
English version published on this site by permission of Jim Goding. Translated and published by Vadym Barsukov, with permission by the author Jim Goding.
All rights reserved. Duplication in any form, electronic or otherwise, without the express written permission of the author is forbidden, is a violation of the proprietary rights of the author and is actionable under law.