Danger in Employers' Files

[xoxoxoBruce]

This is something to think about. From Calum Coburn Associates.

Employers pose a bigger threat to your future success than governments when it comes to your personal information. It's interview time - you`re not invited because of a misprint from a database you`ve never heard of before. No-one will call, nobody will write you. Here's what you need to know.

Some of the things that employers check on and put in your file.
Educational Records
Criminal and Incarceration Records.
Arrest records
Litigation and Court Records
Driving and Motor Vehicle Records
Drug Testing
Financial Information
Friends and Neighbors
Insurance Records
License Records
Military Service Records
Social Security Number (or equivalent outside the U.S.)

All this information, or misinformation, in a neat little package that the news has shown us all recently, can be lost or stolen.

There are many background check services that specialize in employment screening. There are several types. These include: private investigators, data brokers, and many thousands of affiliate websites.

Some larger companies contract with background check companies or use an affiliated company. Unfortunately, more often than not, few of these companies have actually collected any of the information they hold on you. Your personal and public records are sold and resold. Employers do not always comply with federal and state laws, especially the provisions that require up to date accuracy, of background check reports.

What can you do?

Do you have a right to know when a background check is requested by an employer?
Luckily the answer is: "Yes". According to the FCRA, (in effect September 30, 1997), employers who use ‘consumer reports' must provide disclosure and have your consent. In order to be covered by the FCRA, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says that a report must be prepared by an outside company -- a "consumer reporting agency". Or a business that "for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in ... assembling ... information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing these reports to third parties."

The employer must obtain your written authorization, before the background check is conducted. Your signature on the job application will usually suffice. Most job applications contain verbiage similar to this:

‘I certify that information contained in this application is true and complete. I understand that false information may be grounds for not hiring me, or for immediate termination of employment at any point in the future, if I am hired. I authorize the verification of any or all information listed above, by whatever means deemed necessary by the employer, including but not limited to, a credit check.'

Might be worth your while to read the whole article.

[Shawnee123]

Dang, I better stay here...I'll never get another job.

It seems wrong. I guess if you're looking for a job in the CIA or something these things would be relevant, but where does it end?

[glatt]

But wouldn't it be even worse to find out that your employer hired a convicted rapist, he's sitting in the cubicle next to you, and you are both planning to stay late that night to get some extra work done?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by glatt

But wouldn't it be even worse to find out that your employer hired a convicted rapist, he's sitting in the cubicle next to you, and you are both planning to stay late that night to get some extra work done?

That's true. It makes me think of another thing, though. What about a person with a not so savory past who is getting on with his or her life and is now a productive member of society? At what point is a person's past no longer a consideration?

Just points to ponder.

[yesman065]

Shawnee - Where did you get MY records????

[Shawnee123]

Bwaaahaaahaaaaaa. I have powers. I have access. I have sources. (I have...nothing. Crap.)

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

That's true. It makes me think of another thing, though. What about a person with a not so savory past who is getting on with his or her life and is now a productive member of society? At what point is a person's past no longer a consideration?

An employer should be able to make the decision to hire while knowing all the pertinent facts. If a bad guy has paid his debt, turned over a new leaf, and now wants to be a productive part of society, then the employer would hopefully see that and hire him anyway.

I don't have any problem with the criminal checks. I'm uneasy about credit checks, but if part of the job is to handle large sums of money and/or have a corporate credit card, then I think it's reasonable for an employer to see if a person is responsible with money.

[yesman065]

Are these checks being done before or after getting hired? If before then the guy might not even get the chance to explain or refute the info, no? I agree with you glatt on the credit checks tho - that should be for specific situations only. Then again it could lend insight to a persons moral or ethical behavior if I guy does or doesn't pay his bills ~~~~

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Are these checks being done before or after getting hired? If before then the guy might not even get the chance to explain or refute the info, no? I agree with you glatt on the credit checks tho - that should be for specific situations only. Then again it could lend insight to a persons moral or ethical behavior if I guy does or doesn't pay his bills ~~~~

I agree, if given the chance to refute. I have a problem with the sneaky "whisper whisper...he's a loser let's not hire him or give him a chance to explain."

Some people don't ask for credit problems. It DOES happen to good, honest people, whether through job loss, family health issues, catastrophe. Hopefully they can explain. If the explanation is "I didn't want to give up my (insert hot car name here)" then that is another story.

Victims of circumstance, or even people who went down a very bad path some time ago, should spend the rest of their lives trying to show the world they deserve a chance? Not in the world I idealistically long for.

Besides, you never know what you're going to get until you hire someone and they start working. In all my institution's extensive wisdom and education, I have seen many a hiring committee hire the guy who answers all the questions correctly, who looks good on paper, and who passes all background checks...only to find they're a raving asshole or incompetent who can't make it in the real world of work. They need a virtual job to go with their virtual identity.

[glatt]

We do a fair amount of hiring each year for my dept., and we use an agency that does a criminal background check. They may also do a credit check. I'm not really sure, since our HR department handles the details.

We don't do any checking unless we have decided we plan to make an offer. Why waste money on an unknown candidate, right? Anyway, almost everyone comes back completely clean. This year, we had someone come back with a problem on her criminal record. After looking at the problem, and thinking about how much we liked her, we decided it was not a big deal, and we hired her anyway.

My point is that we want to hire people to fill our open positions. We look for ways that we can hire them. We don't look for ways to avoid hiring them. The background check is just a tool so we don't get burned.

[yesman065]

Gotcha.

[Shawnee123]

That's the way it should work, Glatt. Good for your hire!

You know, though, you may almost always get clean background checks because the Josie Schmo's of the world wouldn't dare apply there because of their past. They may opt to work at a non-background checked place to avoid embarrassment.

It's not a perfect system, I guess is what I'm saying. But what is?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by glatt

But wouldn't it be even worse to find out that your employer hired a convicted rapist, he's sitting in the cubicle next to you, and you are both planning to stay late that night to get some extra work done?

Oh, heck, you can do that with or without one of those fancy services ...

After all, someone in my chain of command hired an "ex"-junkie, gave him access to patients' medications and money, and put him in an extremely stressful situation. We spent several weeks dancing and making rude gestures in front of the "clock radio" until they finally had enough evidence to file charges that would stick.

[jester]

i work for a "union" mechanical contractor. the reason i note union is because 99.9% of our work is for the government, ie oak ridge (y-12, x-10 etc) a large percentage of the guys who do the work have q-clearances. they go through a serious background investigation, most of the time it takes up to a year to get these clearances. they run a 10 year history initially - your "whole" family, where you lived, people who knew you then, where you worked, what schooling you had/have, military history, credit history, arrest history - anything and everything. after their approval they are reinvestigated every 5 years - same stuff. the paperwork alone is extensive, just because most of the guys travel to where the work is. they sign a release form for the credit, medical and personnel records, so when the p.i.'s show up they show me the form then i tell 'em what i know.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Dang, I better stay here...I'll never get another job.

It seems wrong. I guess if you're looking for a job in the CIA or something these things would be relevant, but where does it end?

Good question.....
I had a boss that wanted to have me bonded, and mentioned that he usually uses a private investigator to do research before doing that. I thought, "no biggy......". Just a data search right...sounds reasonable. And a raise too! That nut-bag had me followed and I quit. WTF?!? He wasn't going to pay me that much....and most of the work he does isn't that secret....it was Real Estate for heaven's sake!
It should end with stalking your employee. Not that it does, but if you are me....that is where it definitely ends (if I'm made aware of it). What a nut-bag...