# segurança patrimonial



## William Stein

Can anybody explain "segurança patrimonial" here?

É atribuição do operador de checkout a verificação das mercadorias apresentadas, sendo-lhe vedada qualquer tarefa de segurança patrimonial.

(Supermarket) checkout operators are entitled to inspect the goods presented but it is prohibited for them to act as security guards? to play sheriff?


----------



## anaczz

Yes, they only do the checkout and they can't be responsable for looking after the facilities, furniture, etc.


----------



## William Stein

It doesn't have anything to do with resisting in a robbery, then, it just means they don't have to watch over the assets of the store?


----------



## Archimec

retail security?


----------



## anaczz

William Stein said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with resisting in a robbery, then, it just means they don't have to watch over the assets of the store?


I think that the meaning is :
They don't have to prevent stealing or watch over the assets of the store.


----------



## William Stein

Okay, thanks, that makes sense because "patrimonial" usually refers to assets. The use of "siendo lhe vedada" is weird. It would make more sense to say that it is prohibited for the employer to make them watch over the assets of the store or to hold them responsible if something is stolen.


----------



## Carfer

William Stein said:


> The use of "siendo lhe vedada" is weird. It would make more sense to say that it is prohibited for the employer to make them watch over the assets of the store or to hold them responsible if something is stolen.


 
Why, William? _'Ser vedado a alguém fazer...' _is synonymous with '_estar proibido/interdito de fazer'__._ This verb has other meanings (to enclose, to fence, to staunch) but it also means to forbid, to prohibit.
Anyway, as I read that sentence (which I also find a little weird), it means that the employee is not allowed to perform any task related to security (watch over the assets, stop shoplifters and so on) even if he/she accepts to do that. In labour law these kind of prohibitions are not uncommon, they are intended to protect the weaker part. Otherwise, the worker could be persuaded to accept clauses/orders that are against his/her own interests, out of fear that the displeased employer may lay/her him off.


----------



## William Stein

"Anyway, as I read that sentence (which I also find a little weird), it means that the employee is not allowed to perform any task related to security (watch over the assets, stop shoplifters and so on) even if he/she accepts to do that"

Exactly, that's why I find it weird. It would make sense if the employer were prohibited from forcing employees to act as security agents and holding them liable if anything were stolen, but not if the employees themselves are prohibited from doing that job even if they want to.
That's also why I thought it might have something to do with resisting in a robbery, because it would be logical to prohibit employees from "playing the hero" to protect the owner's assets.


----------



## Carfer

William Stein said:


> It would make sense if the employer were prohibited from forcing employees to act as security agents and holding them liable if anything were stolen, but not if the employees themselves are prohibited from doing that job even if they want to.


 
I see your point. It would make sense if both parts were in a even situation, but they are not (at least, in the eyes of the law). The employee is almost always the weaker part (he/she needs the job, has a family to feed, a rent to pay and so on), so the employer may take advantage of that situation to exploit the worker. That's why labour laws in most countries (at least in Europe) have protection clauses that are enforced even against the will of the worker.
That's the segment _'tarefas de segurança patrimonial'_ that I find weird, or, rather, a little unusual. That's not an expression we use often this side of the pond.


----------



## uchi.m

Segurança patrimonial, para uma pessoa que recebe mercadorias, inclui:

Vistoriar o entregador da mercadoria
Vistoriar o veículo de entrega da carga
Receber a carga e vigiá-la
Quando da transferência da carga, escoltá-la
Usar coerção física quando necessária


----------



## William Stein

Thanks for the detailed explanation! I'm still not very clear about "siendo lhe vedada toda tarefa"... Would you translate that as:
a) It is prohibited for checkout operators to perform any security guard functions (even if they want to)
or  
b) It is prohibited to assign any security guard functions to the checkout operators.

Option b makes more sense to me, but I don't know whether "siendo lhe vedada" can have that meaning in Portuguese.


----------



## Carfer

William Stein said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation! I'm still not very clear about "siendo lhe vedada toda tarefa"... Would you translate that as:
> a) It is prohibited for checkout operators to perform any security guard functions (even if they want to)
> or
> b) It is prohibited to assign any security guard functions to the checkout operators.
> 
> Option b makes more sense to me, but I don't know whether "siendo lhe vedada" can have that meaning in Portuguese.


 
Actually, both ideas are conveyed by _'sendo-lhe vedada'_ in this sentence.


----------



## William Stein

In English,
"Check out operators are strictly prohibited from..." 
would clearly mean (a), but
"It is prohibited for checkout operators to perform any security guard functions "
is ambiguous (a or b)


----------



## Ana ElSy

William Stein said:


> É atribuição do operador de checkout a verificação das mercadorias apresentadas, sendo-lhe vedada qualquer tarefa de segurança patrimonial.


 
Creio que o que acontece aqui é semelhante ao princípio da legalidade, contido na Constituição Federal brasileira, aplicada aos que trabalham na Administração Pública.
Art. 5º Todos (_ particulares, cidadãos comuns)_ são iguais perante a lei, _...etc ..._ nos termos seguintes:
...
II - ninguém será obrigado a fazer ou deixar de fazer alguma coisa senão em virtude de lei;
...
Art. 37. A administração pública _...etc... _obedecerá aos princípios de legalidade, impessoalidade, moralidade, _...etc_

A lei diz que todo cidadão pode fazer qualquer coisa que a lei não proíbe, e está baseada na autonomia de vontade, prescrita na Declaração dos Direitos do Homem e do Cidadão. 
Por outro lado, o art 37 diz que aqueles que trabalham na Administração Pública só podem fazer o que está previsto na lei, ou seja, eles são expressamente proibidos de fazer qualquer coisa que não esteja previsto em lei. O art 37 foi redigido desta maneira com a intenção de proteger o subordinado contra abusos de poder por parte de seu superior.
Esta é a explicação do que disse o Caarfer, anteriormente .

Carfer disse:
'_In labour law these kind of prohibitions are not uncommon, they are intended to protect the weaker part.'_
_'That's why labour laws in most countries (at least in Europe) have protection clauses that are enforced even against the will of the worker.'_


Ambas as opções, a) e b), estão corretas; no meu entender, a diferença é que uma mostra os direitos reservados ao operador, e a outra mostra as obrigações do patrão.


----------



## William Stein

Hi Ana,

You can write in Portuguese, no problem, I'm a translator, if you haven't noticed 
It's really a question of language because the Portuguese construction implies both options a and b. That kind of ambiguity is possible in English the construction "it is prohibited for..." but nobody would ever use that kind of vague language in a law. If they meant option a, they would say: "Workers are prohibited from" and if they meant option b they would say "It is prohibited to make workers perform security guard functions..".
I've noticed that kind of vagueness in Spanish with the causative. In English you either say "I'm building a house" (which means you physically are building the house) or "I'm having a house built" (which means you are causing somebody else to build the house). In Spanish, though, "Estoy construyendo una casa" is ambiguous.
Is Portuguese like that, too?


----------



## Ana ElSy

Ana ElSy said:


> eles são expressamente proibidos de fazer qualquer coisa que não esteja prevista em lei.


iN English:
_They are strictly prohibited from doing anything that is not predicted under law_

I would translate your sentence as:

_It is prohibited for checkout operators to perform any security guard functions _

Checkout operators are prohibited from performing any security guard functions


And, yes, I do think that also happens in Portuguese Language


----------



## Carfer

William Stein said:


> Hi Ana,
> 
> You can write in Portuguese, no problem, I'm a translator, if you haven't noticed
> It's really a question of language because the Portuguese construction implies both options a and b. That kind of ambiguity is possible in English the construction "it is prohibited for..." but nobody would ever use that kind of vague language in a law. If they meant option a, they would say: "Workers are prohibited from" and if they meant option b they would say "It is prohibited to make workers perform security guard functions..".
> I've noticed that kind of vagueness in Spanish with the causative. In English you either say "I'm building a house" (which means you physically are building the house) or "I'm having a house built" (which means you are causing somebody else to build the house). In Spanish, though, "Estoy construyendo una casa" is ambiguous.
> Is Portuguese like that, too?


 
Também, podemos dizer exactamente igual. Mas não creio que essa ambiguidade exista na frase de que nos ocupamos. A frase só seria ambígua se o leitor ficasse na dúvida sobre o alcance da proibição. Ora, ao dizer que ao operador de caixa está vedado desempenhar funções de segurança, a única interpretação possível é que não as pode desempenhar nem de livre vontade nem por imposição do empregador. É como se o empregado sofresse duma incapacidade que o impede de desempenhar a tarefa voluntariamente ou de alguém o forçar a tal (é evidente, no entanto, que se trata duma _'incapacidade_' normativa, sujeita, portanto, a ser violada no plano dos factos). Na realidade, o emprego da expressão '_ser vedado'_ sintetiza, de forma inteiramente satisfatória e sem ser vaga, o alcance do preceito que, pelos vistos, necessitaria, em inglês, duma muito mais larga e detalhada explicitação. Embora me pareça que não cabe aqui alargar-nos muito sobre isso, não deixa de ser curioso notar que a generalidade dos documentos jurídicos provenientes de países da 'common law' são, em regra, muito mais extensos e pormenorizados do que os nossos. Em larga medida isso deve-se ao facto de o nosso direito ser codificado ou vertido em textos escritos que contêm o quadro normativo aplicável a cada tipo legal, pelo que não existe a mesma necessidade de, em cada contrato, prever todas as eventualidades, já que a solução a dar-lhes está na lei. Mas também se poderá dever, coisa em que nunca tinha pensado, ao facto de alguns termos que expressam conceitos legais em inglês serem menos abrangentes. Não sei se será verdade, mas vou estar atento.


----------



## William Stein

That is a very interesting analysis. Unfortunately I don't know enough about Portuguese law to give a good answer, but I just encountered a Spanish sentence with exactly the same issues in a gambling law I'm translating that shows that the English translation doesn't necessarily have to be longer than the original:

(The following people are prohibited from gambling):
a) Las personas que voluntariamente hubieren solicitado que les sea prohibido el acceso al juego o que lo tengan prohibido por resolución judicial.

a) Persons who have voluntarily requested to be denied access to gambling or who are prohibited from gambling by court ruling.


----------



## uchi.m

William, acho que, como se trata de um documento que rege as atribuições do funcionário, ele deve definir os deveres e os direitos do funcionário. Deve ser um direito do funcionário to not play sheriff, porque isso poria sua vida em risco. Portanto, o documento nega ao empregador atribuir essa tarefa ao encarregado. Será que estou correto no meu pensamento?


----------



## William Stein

I think you're definitely right, especially since you said that one of the functions of segurança patrimonial is "Usar coerção física quando necessária", but Carfer is also right when he says that the Portuguese covers all the possibilities, because if the "employees are prohibited from acting as security guards" then the employer can't force them to do it.
I decided to translate it as:
"It is prohibited for employees to perform the function of securities guards" because that covers all the possibilities, too.
Anyway thanks a lot to everbody for all the help!


----------

