We are exploring the possibility of giving members after-hours/keyholder access at Link Coworking. We would like to run a background check on new members looking for access during unstaffed hours. Does anyone have a vendor they recommend?
Thanks,
Lindsey
This seems awfully heavy-handed. Have you have had any issues with after-hours access?
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Lindsey Rima [email protected] wrote:
We are exploring the possibility of giving members after-hours/keyholder access at Link Coworking. We would like to run a background check on new members looking for access during unstaffed hours. Does anyone have a vendor they recommend?
Thanks,
Lindsey
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
twb
member, Workantile
@twbrandt
Hi Lindsey,
We’ve had key-holding members at Office Nomads ever since we opened in 2007, and have never had a security problem (knocks on wood). We’ve never run a security check in that time either.
Why are you considering a security check?
I’d point you to one of Alex’s recent posts on security in a coworking space - there’s way more you can do with building trust amongst the community instead of relying on some third-party to make you feel better: http://dangerouslyawesome.com/2014/07/the-neighborhood-watch-method-for-coworking-space-security/
Susan
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Lindsey Rima [email protected] wrote:
We are exploring the possibility of giving members after-hours/keyholder access at Link Coworking. We would like to run a background check on new members looking for access during unstaffed hours. Does anyone have a vendor they recommend?
Thanks,
Lindsey
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I’m going to echo the sentiments of Tom and Susan. The HiVE has been going for years with 24/7 access for the majority of our members and we only ever had one issue with a tenant that was (unknown to us) technically homeless and was kind of living out of the space. We nipped that in the butt and everything was fine. Background checks sounds heavy-handed, not to mention expensive.
Aaron Cruikshank
Principal, CRUIKSHANK
phone: 778.908.4560
e-mail: [email protected]
web: cruikshank.me
twitter: @cruikshank
book a meeting: doodle.com/cruikshank
linkedin: in/cruikshank
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Lindsey Rima [email protected] wrote:
We are exploring the possibility of giving members after-hours/keyholder access at Link Coworking. We would like to run a background check on new members looking for access during unstaffed hours. Does anyone have a vendor they recommend?
Thanks,
Lindsey
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
At Workantile, all members have 24/7 access. We have electronic locks on the doors and all members have an rfid key that lets them in. When members join, they first do a trial membership during which they do not have keys. We ask them to get to know the community, and the community to get to know them, during that trial, and to get the signatures of three members who will vouch for them as good fits for membership. Assuming they do, they get an rfid key like everyone else. Since going to this method of onboarding members, we have had no problems with members using the space after hours. Typically, people who are not good fits will select themselves out, and very occasionally we have asked a trial member to not come back. The last time I did that was last year, when a trial member was watching hard-core porn on his laptop right in the middle of our big open area where everyone could see what he was watching (srsly dude, wtf?).
So rather than doing expensive, intrusive, and frequently unreliable background checks, you might want to try other methods of building trust between your members.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Aaron Cruikshank [email protected] wrote:
I’m going to echo the sentiments of Tom and Susan. The HiVE has been going for years with 24/7 access for the majority of our members and we only ever had one issue with a tenant that was (unknown to us) technically homeless and was kind of living out of the space. We nipped that in the butt and everything was fine. Background checks sounds heavy-handed, not to mention expensive.
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
twb
member, Workantile
@twbrandt
Aaron Cruikshank
Principal, CRUIKSHANK
phone: 778.908.4560
e-mail: [email protected]
web: cruikshank.me
twitter: @cruikshank
book a meeting: doodle.com/cruikshank
linkedin: in/cruikshank
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Lindsey Rima [email protected] wrote:
We are exploring the possibility of giving members after-hours/keyholder access at Link Coworking. We would like to run a background check on new members looking for access during unstaffed hours. Does anyone have a vendor they recommend?
Thanks,
Lindsey
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
… the signatures of three members who will vouch for them as good fits for membership.
Just curious, should the new member mischieve, what would happen to the supporting members.
I worded that poorly. The supporting members are saying that they trust this person to be a member, they are not guaranteeing it. If the new member violates that trust, I am sure the supporting members would feel badly, but nothing would happen to them.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Marius Amado-Alves [email protected] wrote:
… the signatures of three members who will vouch for them as good fits for membership.
Just curious, should the new member mischieve, what would happen to the supporting members.
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
twb
member, Workantile
@twbrandt
It’s a trust network, not a blame network 
More importantly, the signatures themselves aren’t the point. They’re an action that someone has to take to get to know people who already care enough to look after the things worth protecting.
Even a background check company doesn’t have that incentive: the best they can do is tell you about recorded red flags and legal infractions, not that somebody is going to be disrespectful or problematic (which is statistically more likely than having an actual criminal try to JOIN in a long-com operation).
Worth noting: we’ve made tweaks to the signature model since we invented it, the most important being that we make sure that the new keyholder
a) gets signatures from outside of their pre-existing circles. This means that for people who become new full time members as part of an existing team who works at Indy Hall, they need to get their sign off from people NOT on their team. We explain to them why the process is in place and everybody has understood and appreciated it
b) they need to be able to say who signed their sheet after turning it over to us. Some people were just going around and getting signatures without actually getting to know people. If they can’t even remember the name of who signed off on them, the signature doesn’t count because they didn’t hold up their end of the deal that makes the process work.
There’s a recent thread in the google group archives where I explained how little ACTUAL overnight/24 hour use happens, but I can’t seem to copy the link to that thread form mobile if someone else can grab it before I do and post it here that’d be awesome.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Marius Amado-Alves [email protected] wrote:
… the signatures of three members who will vouch for them as good fits for membership.
Just curious, should the new member mischieve, what would happen to the supporting members.
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
twb
member, Workantile
@twbrandt
Exactly!
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Alex Hillman <[email protected]> wrote:
More importantly, the signatures themselves aren't the point. They're an
action that someone has to take to get to know people who already care
enough to look after the things worth protecting.
--
twb
member, Workantile <http://workantile.com/>
@twbrandt
Back at my computer, here’s that recent thread I mentioned:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/coworking/IHgBU9UpCDo/Maw_ilGMzqgJ
Especially, this post about ACTUAL liability concerns: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/coworking/IHgBU9UpCDo/uCmegDpZhesJ
-Alex
Gotta follow-up on what Alex has added here. After a member gets his/her three signatures, we don’t just turn over and key and be done with it. There’s actually a really important step beyond getting those signatures, and that’s the key-holder tour.
“With great power comes great responsibility” (shout out to Spider-Man’s uncle). It’s on me, the person who’s running Indy Hall on a daily basis, to show the new key-holding member not just how to be a key-holding member, but why it’s so so so significant. It’s a huge gesture to offer 24/7 access to anyone, and on my side, it’s a major assist to me doing my job well. If someone’s earned the trust of three other key-holders here, I’m adding another set of eyes and ears to my network of people who care just as much as I do, people who can help me take care of this place and the people here. Before beginning a tour of Indy Hall, I make sure that person knows this. Offering praise and thanks for taking the time to earn trust from the people that I trust is a big deal, and the person you’re reporting this too ought to know that.
The key-holder tour is a lot like the first tour that member had when s/he first visited, but it’s through the lens of a person who’s been asked to take extra care of this place. Getting a key doesn’t cost more money, but it absolutely asks for even more responsibility. “Treat this place like you would your own home, because it is your home. You can open up in the morning, lock it down at night, host events and meetings over the weekend, etc. Close the windows, mind the lights, let someone know if the kitchen is a total mess, make sure the turtle isn’t dead (this is important). More importantly than anything else, members who are not key-holders are looking to you now to set a serious example of what it takes to look after this place. Set the standard for every future member, key-holding or not.”
It’s like that. And that second tour serves as both a reminder of things they may have forgotten over time and also as a realization that they’re now being asked to be in this coworking space with a new, leveled-up perspective. It’s a very. Big. Deal. Someone who’s had that tour vs. someone who has a key but DIDN’T get that tour shows a huuuuge difference in the way a key-holder acts.
On Thursday, September 11, 2014 9:38:16 AM UTC-4, Alex Hillman wrote:
It’s a trust network, not a blame network
More importantly, the signatures themselves aren’t the point. They’re an action that someone has to take to get to know people who already care enough to look after the things worth protecting.
Even a background check company doesn’t have that incentive: the best they can do is tell you about recorded red flags and legal infractions, not that somebody is going to be disrespectful or problematic (which is statistically more likely than having an actual criminal try to JOIN in a long-com operation).
Worth noting: we’ve made tweaks to the signature model since we invented it, the most important being that we make sure that the new keyholder
a) gets signatures from outside of their pre-existing circles. This means that for people who become new full time members as part of an existing team who works at Indy Hall, they need to get their sign off from people NOT on their team. We explain to them why the process is in place and everybody has understood and appreciated it
b) they need to be able to say who signed their sheet after turning it over to us. Some people were just going around and getting signatures without actually getting to know people. If they can’t even remember the name of who signed off on them, the signature doesn’t count because they didn’t hold up their end of the deal that makes the process work.
There’s a recent thread in the google group archives where I explained how little ACTUAL overnight/24 hour use happens, but I can’t seem to copy the link to that thread form mobile
–
/ah
indyhall.org
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Tom Brandt [email protected] wrote:
I worded that poorly. The supporting members are saying that they trust this person to be a member, they are not guaranteeing it. If the new member violates that trust, I am sure the supporting members would feel badly, but nothing would happen to them.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Marius Amado-Alves [email protected] wrote:
… the signatures of three members who will vouch for them as good fits for membership.
Just curious, should the new member mischieve, what would happen to the supporting members.
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
–
twb
member, Workantile
@twbrandt
–
Visit this forum on the web at http://discuss.coworking.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Coworking” group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Hey Lindsey we do background checks at our space. We use http://www.e-renter.com. They are inexpensive (I think $28 per check), which we have the member cover in a sign up fee.
At this point we have only had 1 member who did not want to have checks performed. They were a big company that rents more than the usual amount of space from us and they do their own background checks on employees. The did not want their employees having to be checked twice. We agreed for this reason.
I find that people new to coworking have a very difficult time understanding the community security aspect. This often leads to them not signing up at all. After they become a member they pick it up quickly. However in order for them to take that first step they need some reassurance that they and their things will be protected. For this reason we have 24/7 keycard access, name badges, background checks, video surveillance on the exterior doors, and an intro period. This is a very low cost to us, however provides the reassurance new members need to take the perceived risk of working in an open space with strangers.
With that said we have never had an issue we theft. The sole reason for these measure is to help people feel comfortable working in a open environment. I’ll also add that our members actually like the process. Not only is there is less worry about items being stolen, but they are more comfortable with new members who have gone through the same process.
Hope this helps.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:46:30 PM UTC-7, Lindsey Rima wrote:
We are exploring the possibility of giving members after-hours/keyholder access at Link Coworking. We would like to run a background check on new members looking for access during unstaffed hours. Does anyone have a vendor they recommend?
Thanks,
Lindsey