Background Checks

[thefourthwall]

My neighbor mentioned yesterday how her husband had gotten email from his employer's management (everyone there got this email) about background checks.

It seems that everyone will have to consent to a background check as a condition of continued employment, no matter how long people have worked there, and that if it comes back negative it will be grounds for a kick out the door.

That seems pretty ...draconian. Anyone heard of forcing current employees to agree to one of these?

 

[dgillz]

This may be illegal. I would look into it.

Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, eSynergy, and Crystal Reports

http://www.gainfocus.biz

"If you have a big enough dictionary, just about everything is a word"
--Dave Barry

 

[LadySlinger]

Whether or not its illegal varies by state laws. Will it be a credit background check or a criminal background check?

If its a credit check, then laws under the FCRA will help any misunderstanding. If its criminal check with the state.

Perhaps there was something that happened that caused the suddent change in procedures. However, depending on the crime and how it effects the job (i.e. you robbed a bank 6 months ago and now work in the accounting department at XYZ Corp) along with its description can cause for a change in position or a boot if its a conflict of interest, depending on state laws.

 

[lespaul]

I found this information on PrivacyRights.org

6. Background Checks: Not Just for Applicants

Does the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) apply only to people I am considering for a new job?

No. The same law applies to all checks made for employment purposes. It covers a report used “for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.” (15 USC §1681a(h)) The same is true whether you are a California business owner or located in another state in which only the FCRA applies.

Leslie

Anything worth doing is a lot more difficult than it's worth - Unknown Induhvidual

Essential reading for database developers:
The Fundamentals of Relational Database Design
Understanding SQL Joins

 

[stubnski]

I have had to have background checks for my last two jobs. My last job was for a financial institution and I needed a credit check and a criminal background check. Needless to say I passed both, but the background check for my current employer (hospital) came back saying I had committed fraud and identity theft. After giving my finger prints to the police to clear my name I received the job. Sometimes it is better to have the background check.


Stubnski

 

[pinkgecko]

I think it's fine. New employees at the company where I am employed are subject to a background check, but current employees can get away with things that, if they had done before they were hired, would have meant they would not have passed the background check.

I think if the company is doing a check on new hires, current employees need to be held to the same standard. If the company is creating a check when it didn't have one before, both current and future employees also need to be measured by the same standard. It's very rough for the reliable employees who are terminated because of a prior offense even though they've proved themselves since that point, but I would imagine turning down an applicant for something when you are employing someone else with similiar circumstances could lead to a discrimination lawsuit under certain circumstances.

[blue]Never listen to your customers. They were dumb enough to buy your product, so they have no credibility. - Dogbert[/blue]

 

[kmcferrin]

It really depends on so many factors that it's hard to answer. For starters, the laws vary from state to state, country to country, etc. Secondly, the situation can vary depending on what the job is. For example, if the employer is in the fields of law enforcement, finance, defense, government, or even transportation there could be special rules or circumstances.

For example, our city school district outsourced a fair number of positions for school bus drivers. The companies contracted to provide the drivers were supposed to perform background checks. Apparently some of them were missed, or were not as thorough as they needed to be, because one of the contracted drivers was arrested on duty for possession of cocaine and at the time it came to light that the driver had previous DUIs and charges for possession of drugs. After that school was cancelled for several days while background checks were performed on ALL of the bus drivers in the district. Some of them were let go as a result.

I'm sure that some of them thought that it was draconian, but I think that most people would say that not only was it fair, but that the school district had a moral imperative and a legal responsibility to do what they did.

One thing that I can say for sure, it is now pretty much standard practice for any professional position to require drug screening, criminal background checks, and in many cases credit checks as well. That being the case, it's probably not illegal (or even unexpected) that a process that performs ongoing background checks would be used.

That being said, in some states or countries it might be illegal to fire someone for something that wasn't strictly related to job performance (once they already had the job). It might also be of questionable legality if background checks were performed only on select individuals (where their jobs didn't require additional security precautions over those applied to a regular employee).

This particular example could also be a case where background checks were not being performed on new hires, but the company wanted to start doing so and felt like they had to also run checks on existing employees in order to cover themselves from a legal standpoint. As long as they're treating everyone the same, there's probably nothing illegal about it.

 

[traingamer]

It seems that everyone will have to consent to a background check as a condition of continued employment...

I doubt that they would even need your consent. I accept it as a given that my resume will be verified and that a deeper background check may be run.

Greg
"Personally, I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught." - Winston Churchill

 

[Dollie]

While in some states consent may not be needed, it is still better to get that consent before doing something that may place that person's job on the line.

My employer does pre-employment checks, and keeps them up to date by running them every few years. It's not that big of a deal except to people who probably shouldn't be working for the company anyway...

 

[aarenot]

They will have to run these on all levels of management, etc., as well as for the board, or they can be challenged, or considered discriminatory.

 

[Dollie]

It all depends on how the policy is written as to whether or not all personnel are tested. If the policy says "All employees", that means subcontractors may not be subject to it. If it says "All personnel hired after today", then everyone hired before today are exempt (unless there is no date specified). If the policy states that testing is random (with or without cause) or is incident related (you crash the company truck for instance), then there is really no recourse.

If it is done indiscriminately with no warning, and excludes specific personnel, I would develop a severe phobia of peeing in cups because then they're just digging for dirt.

 

[gbaughma]

Where I work, they do a criminal background check when you're hired, and one annually to look for any arrests.

Where my wife works, since she's at a bank in the loan department, they do a credit check on her yearly.

I guess a crimback isn't a big deal to me; it's accepted. Plus, if you look at it this way, would you want to work with someone who had warrants for manslaughter or something? It works for everyone.



Just my 2¢
-Cole's Law: Shredded cabbage

--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[aarenot]

If all levels of management are not subject to the same policy as everyone else, it may cause possible claims of discriminatory actions. The CFO might also reasonably be expected to submit to the same checks as a bank teller.

 

[sleipnir214]

The CFO might also reasonably be expected to submit to the same checks as a bank teller.

Although in terms of legal actions you are probably correct, in terms of practicality I would think the roles of the two are sufficiently different, and thus the potential security risks they represent to the bank are sufficiently different, to justify differing levels security checks. The amount of cash a teller will have access to is very different than the funds shifting an executive can do.

I do know it is the law in Louisiana (and this may be U.S. national law, I don't know) that bank executives above a certain level are required to take off an entire 7 days' vaction at a time, once a year. That way, audits can be performed while the bank executive isn't there to cover up any illegal activity. This is not required for tellers, etc.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions! TANSTAAFL!

 

[Dollie]

If they do background checks at Mickey D's, it's reasonable to assume that most employers should, or actually do, run background checks. Some companies that didn't have the policies in place now do, and they're trying to figure out how to accommodate everyone.

You shouldn't be worried, unless you have something to worry about

 

[flapeyre]

I'm changing jobs next week, and I had to sign a background check waiver. I had no problem with that.

You can't discriminate against someone because of their race, creed, color, national origin, etc., but you can discriminate on the basis of past bad behavior.

For example: the NFL is not legally required to reinstate Michael Vick at any time after he serves his sentence. If Roger Goodell wants to permanently ban him form the NFL, then he most certainly can. And he doesn't even have to perform a background check (this having been done by the US Attorney).

Solum potestis prohibere ignes silvarum.

 

[jeffwest1]

Here in the UK, the company I work for, becuase we mainly deal with young people, (i.e under 16's), as part of your employment a CRB (Criminal records bureau) check is done, with you filling in a form with relevant details.

This is then silently done every 2-3 years, I have no problem with this as it protects me and my colleagues, but also gives us a better postion in the community. A lot of companies in the UK are now doing this, financial companies have been doing credit checks for years, and nobody as far as i am aware has ever complained.

Not sure how the culture is in the US, but at the end of the day, if it meant that I could trust who I worked with, then all the better.

 

[kmcferrin]

Not sure how the culture is in the US, but at the end of the day, if it meant that I could trust who I worked with, then all the better.

It doesn't mean that you can trust who you work with, it just means that they haven't been convicted of anything. If they are charged and acquitted it won't show up on their background check. If they're a serial killer and they haven't been caught yet it won't show up.

Or they could have done something in a previous job that was illegal but worked out a deal to not get charged. This happens a lot at hospitals where they catch nurses or doctors stealing drugs. Rather than have the ugly PR situation of having the person arrested and fired (or de-credentialled), followed by a court case that may not result in a conviction, followed by a potential wrongful termination/libel/slander suit, they will usually agree to not prosecute in exchange for a resignation and a promise to never set foot on the property again. That's unfortunate too, because those are EXACTLY the type of people that background checks should be weeding out.

 

[jeffwest1]

As far as criminal convictions are concerned I agree, if they have never been caught, then this will never show up.

However, as far as child protection goes, almost anything you do wrong involving children gets you in the list and that is what the CRB check looks for, that is what I mean by knowning the person that you work with is ok.

I have a daughter who is just 2, I want to know that the person that looks after her during the day is ok.

 

[zeitghost]

Makes one wonder how the unqualified doctors that are exposed every now & again get away with it...

The favourite prescription of one such was a tablespoon of shampoo...

Still I suppose it did less harm prescribing shampoo rather than some of the other drugs available...)