Are Background Checks Necessary For IT Workers?

4foot10 writes "UBS PaineWebber learned a hard lesson after hiring an IT systems admin without conducting a background check. Now its ex-employee is slated to be sentenced for launching a 'logic bomb' in UBS' computer systems that crashed 2,000 of the company's servers and left 17,000 brokers unable to make trades."

Comments

Been there, done that

[k4]

Yes, of course admins with the ability to wreak major havoc at an organization should have to undergo background checks. Several years ago I worked at a Fortune 500 company, and there were no background checks done at all for IT staff. Turns out we hired a guy who used a fake name and someone else's social security number, and he worked as one of our main sysadmins for over a year, with privileges on probably 100 servers and full privileges on the email servers, before he was caught. I thought background checks were a waste of time until that...scared me half to death because no one had any idea what he'd done in all that time, and worse, no idea who he actually was.

Little/no reward

[mungtor]

The way that I look at it is this:

Your IS/IT people are less likely to do Bad Things(tm) since there is little or no reward in it for them. Upper levels of managment can embezzel funds, so can lowly finance interns. For them, there is the possibility of stealing millons of dollars over time.

For IS/IT people, what have you really done? It's a larger scale equivalent of breaking a window. You've caused trouble for other people, but there is no benefit to you.

Besides, IS/IT people are easy to keep happy for the most part. Let them have ownership of the network, don't micro-manage them, and buy them the occasional cool gadget. Want a 20" LCD? If the $300 is costs keeps you happy for 6 months, you can have 4. Want the most kick-ass computer in the company? For the $1000 difference it would take, no problem.

IS/IT people are important. They are the ones who know where your data is, how it's organized, and where it's backed up. Their needs are simple too. They mostly do IS/IT work because they like new stuff and gadgets. Throw them a new piece of tech every other month and keep their salaries at least comparable and you won't have to worry.

Disclaimer: I say these things about IS/IT people because I was one, then I managed them, and now I'm happy to just be one again.

Re:Background Checks and Credit Checks for IT

[mythosaz]

I hate to burst your bubble, but here's the reality. You, at 24, probably have a similar knowledgebase and skillset as other applicants for my positions. Since I run a background and credit check against my future employees, I get to pick between someone with the same skills as you and a "clean" record, or you with bad credit, a divorce and and a criminal record. Guess who I'm hiring.

Unfair? No. You're not the sort of person I want working for me. You don't have a stable family life. As such you're more likely to quit/move and give shorter notice when you do. You have bad credit. You haven't demonstrated (regardless of good or bad reasons) to large financial institutions that you're worth loaning money to. I'm less likely to want to give you access to mine. Finally, you're a criminal. Sure, you were a criminal when you were a kid, but, on paper, you're more likely to be a criminal in the future, and that's nothing my company wants anything to do with.

On the other hand, if you've got a great resume, and you stand out, and it's not a tiebreak, we might overlook SOME of those problems.

I sympathize. I have a divorce. Until recently I had bad credit. I got in trouble as a young adult and have a misdemeanor record (reduced felony). I know if I didn't have the skills I do in my special niche of the IT world, I'd be passed over in favor of others. Thems the breaks. It's the price I pay for the mistakes in my youth.

Re: Ask yourself this question

[gidds]

Those figures mean absolutely nothing without corresponding figures from good employees.

If exactly 0% of good employees have arrest records, then an arrest record would be a pretty good indicator of malicious intent; while it wouldn't allow you to catch the other 70% of baddies, it would give you pretty conclusive evidence against that 30%.

If, on the other hand, the records for good employees were the same (which I suspect is closer to the truth), then an arrest record (or lack of one) would tell you absolutely nothing about an employee's trustworthiness.

And if the records for good employees were generally higher than for bad ones, then an arrest record would be an indicator in FAVOUR of hiring, not against!

So, worrying as those numbers might sound, they're utterly meaningless here without some context and background!