segurança patrimonial

William Stein

Senior Member
American English
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?
 
  • William Stein

    Senior Member
    American English
    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

    Senior Member
    Portuguese - Portugal
    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

    Senior Member
    American English
    "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

    Senior Member
    Portuguese - Portugal
    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

    Banned
    Brazil, Portuguese
    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
     
    Last edited:

    William Stein

    Senior Member
    American English
    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

    Senior Member
    Portuguese - Portugal
    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

    Senior Member
    American English
    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

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    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 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.

    :)
     
    Last edited:

    William Stein

    Senior Member
    American English
    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

    Senior Member
    Brazilian Portuguese
    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

    Senior Member
    Portuguese - Portugal
    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.
     
    Last edited:

    William Stein

    Senior Member
    American English
    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

    Banned
    Brazil, Portuguese
    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?
     
    Last edited:

    William Stein

    Senior Member
    American English
    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!
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top