Slashdot Mirror
How Far Should a Job Screening Go?
SlashSquatch asks: "My sister is getting screened for a programming position with a financial firm. I was alarmed to hear she'll be getting fingerprinted at the Sheriff's Office as part of the screening process. Instantly I conjure up scenes of frame-ups and corporate scandals. I want to know, should this raise a flag? Would you submit to fingerprinting, blood tests and who knows what else (financial, genetic code, and so forth) for a programming position?"
Happy sunshine trusting in the inate good in all people is how we got Active X controls that could format your hard drive from the web. Sometimes, people are douchebags. And while you know your sister, most people in the world don't. With what's at stake, they'd prefer to avoid the scenerio in which they have to explain their lack of due care with respect to retroactively obvious red flags in her background. You could always, out of the kindness of your heart and fraternal love, pay her to sit at home and play Wii.
then that is too far
As someone who has a criminal record, I find these processes way to extreme. Currently with my job working for the NSW Department Of Education, there is routine background checks to check that your not a child sex offender, other offences will affect your employment but not definate.
But its going to far when they require you to have your finger prints recorded, I would personally turn down a job which required my finger prints to be recorded, the only time in this industry you would need your finger print recorded is for access to resources using finger print scanners.
Why on earth would they fingerprint anyone for a programming position? My guess is simply because they can, and that if you don't submit to it you don't get the job.
Taking a gene profile is going waaaaay over the top. They can kiss my lilly-white butt.
I've drawn my line at looking at my financial and even my health records; some people feel these help tell whether you are 'stable' but some of the most creative types in the world are financially incompetent. I myself am bipolar so neither of these records should be a reflection of what kind of person I am as far as I'm concerned especially now that I have found a decent medication and stayed on it continuously for over a year.
I understand that employers feel they need to protect themselves but they shouldn't be so paranoid as to limit their employee pool to only the financially stable, mentally stable and law abiding. They'll never get someone who thinks outside of the box then.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
You make it sound menial. Whether the position with development or support, she'll have access to a lot of sensitive data that if misused could do serious damage. So, no I think the firm is doing its DD.
for a job interview, well, I think it was a job interview, I mean the guy in the alley gave me $50 to watch. That makes it a job interview, right? He wanted to know if I could make smalltalk with a lisp then hack my python till it spewed Java. that sounds like a tech job doesn't it?
Depending on the sensitivity of the position, you *will* have to do things like this. If you're a programmer in a financial services firm, you might be in a position to backdoor systems for financial gain. I can see why they'd want to make sure you're not a known criminal.
SEC Requires it for financial firms. I had to go through this when I did contract work for IBM because they were contracted to do work for a bank. If she has nothing to hide, what's the big deal. I have a record and I fully disclosed it in my application prior to even taking the fingerprints. I still got the contract work although I may be a rare exception. This is a funny stance employers will have to look at in the near (and I mean near future). Here in the US, 1 in every about 50 or so citizens has been either incarcerated or has a record. In 2001 it was 1 in every 87. What will US firms do when this number comes down to 1 in 10. Outsource America entirely...
Infiltrated dot Net
I wouldn't worry about it too much, things like finger printing and a background test are normal, as for the giving a blood sample, that bugs me for now. As of yet there is now law that I know of that stops discrimination based on genetic profile, like if she had a gene that made here more suseptible to a certin disease or condition, that she wouldn't be hired. I doubt that will last long, sonner or later its going to realy get in the news about some one that didn't get hired or got fired because of genetic discrimination, and then some law will be passed banning it. Besides alot of people will do alot of things for money, if your sister doesn't do what that company wants, I bet there are hundred of other in line behind her for that job.
Full Cavity Search
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Indeed. Why do people trust these background checks and pre-employment tests so much? Whatever happened to a good old intesive face to face interview? As an example I took a test to be hired by a armored car company several years ago. It was to be one in a series of tests and background checks (including a polygraph) that a person had to go through to get employement with this company.
To make a long story short I was told that the test said that I was, in this order, too smart and possibly dishonest. Walt helps Locke out of the pit. Charlie drowns when Mikhail blows up the underwater station. Jack attempts to contact Kate in flash-forwards off the island. A short time later one of their own employees, presumably having passed all these tests, stole over $7mil from one of their trucks in broad daylight at a major interstate rest stop and got away with it (caught by his own stupidity several months later).
Just because someone passes these tests and checks doesn't mean that they won't rip you off or comprise your business. It does give a basis but relying on it too heavily is a sure way to get screwed.
They subject you to a full physical test, medical questionnaire and as a bonus a urine drug test. And all that for a job at there helpdesk...
Urine sample (Drugs)
Blood sample (DNA)
Hair sample (Drugs)
Fingerprints (Bank regulation)
Background check (Bank)
Credit (Bank)
Reference check (standard)
I've got a family member who is a Human Resources manager, and, while I've never heard of the whole finger printing thing, background checks with law enforcement are SOP.
I can even understand pulling your credit report as part of the process, someone who is bad with money is probably more likely to steal shit from their employer.
But I don't see what finger printing does that searching their social security number can't do.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I think the WHY behind the need for fingerprints should raise flags, depending on the answer. I worked for a large financial company ten years ago that began fingerprinting all of us after a rash of petty thefts. If a company has had a bad experience with rogue employees, at least it would be understandable. If they dust for fingerprints to determine who didn't refill the coffe jug after taking the last cup, then that's going too far.
I worked for a financial services firm years ago and I too was fingerprinted. Granted, I was assisting several brokers but nonetheless, I was required to be fingerprinted. Three times. If memory serves, one copy went to the FBI, once copy went to the SEC and one copy to the firm I worked for.
If anything, being a programmer for a financial firm is just as sensitive a position as actually having access to client accounts. Programmers have access to all kinds of information that others do not.
Considering what business the firm is involved with, other people's money, it's a good thing she is being fingerprinted.
Of course, now that my fingerprints are on file from my former job, and an interview with another government agency, I have to wear gloves lined with tin foil to keep them guessing.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Getting fingerprinted is typical in the banking industry. Some banks just require this of all employees while others only require it of people who touch money or deal with the financial numbers. If a programmer would be anywhere near the software involved in manipulating the numbers in accounts, they are "touching the money" enough to be fingerprinted.
If you don't want to be fingerprinted, don't apply for a job in banking, or in a few other areas like law enforcement, government intelligence related jobs, education below the college level, etc.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Essentially, it's about the business not the job. Financial companies have access to a lot of inside information, a lot of personal information and a lot of money. As a result, they also have a lot of safety and security regulations. And if they are not stupid, they have their own company policies concerning security above and beyond any regulation.
Anyone working for such a company gets screened, basically for any indications of financial burden or potential blackmail (so they know someone else can't blackmail you into doing something illegal against them.) They look for general signs that you might be a risk for illegal behavior.
These policies cover everyone in the company, even if you are just programming something not related to someone elses money.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Seven million Americans - one in every 32 adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole at the end of 2005, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday. Source
I seriously wonder what these companies will do when just about everyone of legal voting age has had some kind of a run in with the law. Interestingly, in Sweden and some other Euro countries (states whatever they call themselves now), its illegal for an employer to ask these same questions... "Have you ever been convicted of..." buck stops there in Europe. Better would be to ask "Are you qualified for the job... If you've ever been convicted of anything, do you think it will hinder you from the position you are applying for..." Or something carefully worded along those lines.
Infiltrated dot Net
It may be less about taking the taking of fingerprints, but more about seeing if the prospective employee is willing to be subjected to such screening. An employee who is concerned about their rights and what's acceptable for a job interview are less likely to be malleable and "adaptable" to fit the evolving needs of the job.
If its a big company, it would be an administrative and resourse nightmare should a crime be committed in their building working out if its a member of staff... With the fingerprints on file, they can give them all to the police and say "Is it any of these?".
I wouldn't have a problem with just my fingerprints taken, I assume its all 10. In the states immigrants have them all taken, are people not to come to the USA because their fingerprints would be stored in the FBI computers? As time goes on, more detail on a person is going to be stored by various agencies, its the way the world is moving. Sit at home in a foil lined box if you like, or just get on with it and just stand up to more important things.
In short, no I don't think you should worry. If the requirements get more invasive like records from her OB or genetic testing (depending on what they are screening for and should be done by a third unbiased party), as you suggested, then i would think about looking for another job, but fingerprints are not an issue.
I'd be concerned when they ask "Do you think you're special, Mr. Anderson?"
[Insert pithy quote here]
This is standard practice for banks hiring for *any* position.
I was willing to do it to get my current job. Banks usually offer great benefits.
4 weeks of vacation (and I was hired with just 2 years of experience)
100% match on 401k contributions up to 5% of my salary
great medical/dental benefits
employee stock purchase program
just to name a few...
A few years ago the US started fingerprinting pretty well everyone arriving from overseas. Initially it was the people arriving on work visas, then it extended to all tourist visas. I initially got it when on my L-1 visa, and had just index fingers done. Then as part of my green card application I had all 10 fingers done. And that is nothing compared to all the other checks that I have been through.
.. you are just born here. I have had to prove that I deserve to be here (and so far they think I can stay)
You citizens have it so easy
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You shall submit willingly to anything your corporate wranglers require of you! You are after all company livestock and exist solely to produce product for which you are fed and reasonably protected from the wolves. It's this farm or the next one. Any memory of the free range are best forgotten. It is all fenced in now. This way to your cubicle pen...
"I understand that employers feel they need to protect themselves but they shouldn't be so paranoid as to limit their employee pool to only the financially stable, mentally stable and law abiding."
Companies should hire more people who can't handle basic finance, are mentally unstable, and known to break laws. I'd definately like to work at a place like that!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
joking. not as far as that of course.
Read radical news here
Proactive anti-discrimination law only covers six key areas of discrimination (sex, race, age, disability etc), but these laws demand that firms take positive action to prevent the possibility of such discrimination, whether it be deliberate, incidental, cultural, systemic, institutionalised etc. As such the firm must be able to prove that they took every step to prevent discrimination if it ever comes up in court, or they are liable.
However, having such proactive laws in these specific areas is not enough, as discrimination can be exercised in a number of other areas and in subtle ways. Therefore the law makes clear what areas are acceptable for discrimination (in the literal sense) between applicants/candidates for a job. It pretty much boils down to merit: candidates must be selected on the grounds of their ability to do the job, whether that be qualifications, experience, testing or whatever. If an applicant feels that there may have been a discriminatory decision made on any other grounds, the firm has to be able to defend their decisions in court/tribunal/whatever by providing evidence that their decisions were reasonable.
There are legal exceptions to this, but they are quite specific and usually down to health & safety or security, or sometimes public reputation in certain high-level positions. In truth, the practices become more discriminatory the higher-up you go, where laws seem to be more flexible (the very epitome of "privilege"), but for 99% of the population there is no way such "checking" as fingerprinting, financial records, blood samples or anything else would ever be used, nor even contemplated, in case somebody decided to question the practices in court.
One final point on that note, though. A friend of mine applied to work for the Civil Service (powerful, unelected working body of Central Government). She got through all the main tests and interviews, and her final interview was quite invasive. One thing she was asked, which always stuck in my mind, was something along the lines of "Do you feel that you participate in any activities which might leave you open to blackmail to any degree?". I think sexual practices and drug-taking were mentioned as possibilities. I've never heard of anyone being asked that kind of question in an interview before. I can say from experience that she's a massive sexual deviant, and none of her friends or family know, but she felt that she was okay-enough with them finding out to answer "No".
She got the job, anyway.
Disclaimer: I work for local government, where they tend to be more careful about obeying the law and not getting sued...
Meta will eat itself
As someone who has had mental problems leading to debit (and loosing my job) and taking vast quantities of drugs to cope I guess I wouldn't be able to get a job.
Even though I've been put on medication that works really well (after a lot of trial and error) and I've been doing very well in my current position (I got a job in the UK) for over a year.
Those tests are intrusive and don't prove anything, I'd have the option of taking them and not getting a job or refusing and still not getting the job so I think it's better to refuse and let the company know what you think of their tests.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
I call bullshit.
I was hired/worked as a Mac Genius in 2002 (flown to Cupertino for two weeks of training), and there was only a background check. No drug test, no physical, no medical questionnaire.
I doubt things have changed much since then.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Trying to find a good hire is hard. There are a lot of applicants to sort through. How can you tell who's gonna work out who's not gonna fit in? Because there is no really effective way to determine the best person for the job, HR comes up with "surrogate" tests for what they'd really like to know. You can't expect an accurate answer if you ask "Are you honest and ethical at all times?". Who's gonna say no to that? So, you do a criminal background check (all the dishonest people must have already been caught at least once, right?). Really all that does is remove some high risk people from the pool of applicants, but it's nothing close to a guarantee for the company.
Managers can't figure out how to measure an existing employee's actual productivity (so they use something they can measure to represent productivity, like hours worked or lines of code), how can they possibly measure the productivity or effectiveness of a potential employee?
Your sister is being scrutinized in the only ways they can think to do it (legally). She might as well submit to this if she wants the job. If she doesn't really want the job, she could act like she does, but refuse the fingerprinting, leading to a standoff where the company might rethink it's policy if they think it's costing them in the hiring market. She should be prepared to loose the opportunity, however, because it's unlikely HR will budge for her in time to get an offer.
So if it was me, I'd find out why they're so insistent that I give them my fingerprints. If it's just company policy rather than a legal requirement I'll turn them down and work for a company that doesn't assume that I'm going to committ a crime. Same goes for any other samples.
Of course some people might go for a less serious response, and simply ask that their immediate manager and the company directors provide the same samples that they ask for.
I have to wonder why people are so desperate for a job that they submit to this humiliation.
Obviously you've never seen Superman 3 of Office Space. Anyone who works at a financial institution has to be fingerprinted no matter what the position. This ensures they aren't hiring a known criminal and makes it easier to track them down if they do end up embezzling or stealing. This should go DOUBLE for computer programmers who can write code to slide money into a secret account...
My wife had to get fingerprinted to work at a non-financial institution that was owned by a bank. One day another girl was offered a job and refused to be fingerprinted. They let her go but everyone was thinking "what is she trying to hide?"
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
Back in '99 when I got a System Admin position, I had a background check as well as fingerprinting. I don't see what the big deal is, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? You don't want felons handling sensitive information.
What will they do with the data?
How long will the data be retained?
Who will have access to it?
They may have a legitimate reason for it (financial company), or they may just be nosy. You should draw up a contract which specifies the answers to the above questions. In addition, if you give them permission to have access to third party data (your credit report, etc), that should specify when it expires. "This permission shall expire after 6 months". If you leave the company, they should destroy their copy of the data.
They shouldn't object to signing an agreement, because they should already have policies in place. If they don't have policies, that's a problem right there.
Fingerprinting is very common for applicants for a job involving the public trust. For example, try getting a job for the Federal government without first getting fingerprinted. Its so common, in fact, that many jurisdictions have a specific police station designated as the place to go to get your fingerprints done.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
A standard background check (as done by law enforcement/FBI/Miliatary) for things such as security clearence or unescorted access to facilities (like police station) requires fingerprints and a whole lot more.
As a sysadmin I got the background check because my employer had a few machines at a police station.
By the time the ratio is 1 in 10 they'll be worried about the impending revolution, not outsourcing.
... that it makes it easier for them get Federal info by submitting fingerprints. I've had to go to my local sheriff for fingerprints during the process of getting my concealed carry license, and the purpose was to have it run against a Fed database. It would be so much easier if that pesky Constitution didn't forbid things like a United States Police Force. And yes, that last bit was sarcasm.
v.m
I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.
*/
The fingerprinting is only the first step.
When I started here (a brokerage) I was fingerprinted, criminal background check, a financial background check/credit report, etc. Be thankful if all she gets is fingerprinted - there are more intrusive things they will want to know down the road.
It's part of working in the financial world. Everybody gets pissy when it comes to money, and the company needs to protect itself. Before you get bent out of shape about the company wanting to cover its ass, how would you feel if you were the head of compliance - the one that would end up in a orange jump suit if these things weren't done and something evil did happen?
Its unfortunate, but if she is working at a bank, then it might be required by law. Some institutions must perform background checks on their employees similar to those done for security clearances. These include the taking of fingerprints. If she is really that worried about it, then she should look for a job elsewhere.
I worked customer service for E*TRADE at a third party call center and the first thing we had to do was get fingerprinted and certified.
I used to work in security at a company that handled tax information. All employees were fingerprinted as required for an FBI background check. I think they way they handled it was smarter than the way the company your sister is dealing with does. They'd hire people, and start training them, but wouldn't print them 'till their first day. They wouldn't give them access to anything sensitive until their backgrounds came back.
I see where you're coming from on the privacy questions, but a background check against a name doesn't give you any assurance that the person you're hiring goes with that name.
-Peter
...or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act! They may not discriminate on the basis of genetic information. Interestingly enough, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tried to do just that by attempting to establish a genetic basis for carpal tunnel syndrome so that they could avoid payment on claims.
I might have thought it was strange if I was asked to submit fingerprints for my first job in the automotive industry. But when I finished graduate school I went to work for the federal government. I had a low level job at a science-oriented agency. It wasn't an intelligence agency and I wasn't going to have access to any sort of sensitive information. But I still had to file a background report for the FBI and get fingerprinted on my first day.
Now I just lump in fingerprinting with other identification checks like requiring a passport or birth certificate to finalize your hiring. In the case of a government job I guess it's largely to protect the agency from the embarassment of ever discovering that they were unknowingly employing a convicted felon. And also some employees do move into more sensitive positions so it makes some sense to have every new employee submit enough background information to be investigated more deeply as needed.
I have never been subjected to anything like drug testing; I'd like to think I would refuse but that'd be difficult if it meant losing a job. I would definitely draw the line at genetic profiling.
I started my position with a bank back in 1997 as a Systems Engineer. A policeman was hired by the bank to take my fingerprints. I'm guessing they use a policeman because they have a bit more expertise on taking fingerprints.
Well, since you stated that you're in the UK and have medical problems that would be adverse to your maintaining of steady employment, you don't need a job really. You can just live off the dole.
I work for the Florida Dept of Law Enforcement as a programmer and I was fingerprinted and had an extensive background check done. I had to list out any immediate family members that might show up as a flag before hand as well.
And you will be perfectly screwed. Background checks are only as useful as the veracity of the information they bring back and sadly that's not that good.
As someone who's name closely matches one famous white collar criminal and one famous serial killer I can't tell you how many times people who were super interested suddenly stopped even returning phone calls mid-process. Seriously I can't tell you, it's a big mystery but I'm sure the number is more than a few.
Also, and you can take this for what it's worth, there are lots of states who turn a more or less blind eye to even more extensive checks on your family members as well. Ever had a brother or child arrested? Yeah we're not going to hire you.
I think the surveillance society is going to eventually break down the economic incentive for there to be employers and employees. I can see a day where the vast majority of people are self employed or contractors just out of desperation that the ninny nanner world of employers has the set the bar so high that no one can work for them.
This is standard practice if your company does work with any part of the Federal Government as well in the US. Especially if you'll have any sort of contact with potentially sensitive data. I can see how this would be similar to a financial corporation. Not saying that standard practice makes it alright though.
I've been in one of these situations. My response was the polite version of 'fuck you'. They then came back and said 'We can offer you the job anyway'. My answer was No. I seriously did NOT want to be around these people.
One of my friends works at this place (it is why I applied for the job). He tells me that yes, people are now fingerprinted (and this is NOT finance) - but some people have taken to putting superglue (or similar, gloves, etc) on their hands. Guess what management can do about that? You guessed it - nothing.
I'd like to know exactly what they think it solves. Your ID / Birth cert / whatever should be able to uniquely identify you. If this keeps up then *everyone* will have a 'spare pair of latex prints' just for this kind of occasion.
It's required of nearly all financial institutions and even in most medical positions (think nursing).
No, this should not raise a red flag.
I work in the lottery industry and we have similar practices for all new employees. Even existing employees need to have a criminal background check every 2 years.
These, among many other seemingly-overboard measures, are to protect our business, our clients, and to maintain our ISO standardization.
Understanding what a person's mental state is from their subtle eye movements are and what they look at might be more important, and invasive, and ... undetectable by the interviewee.
I work in a financial instituation ( mainframe operator ) we have access to a huge amount of information. However noone gets fingerprinted, im sure they do background checks but fingerprinting would be a step too far, Im sure plenty of people would just flat out refuse and they would loose too mnay candidates. I think there is just a different attitude to privacy concerns between the US and EU. I travelled to the US just before they started fingerprinting people, but now find myself reluctant to visit again as the whole fingerprinting thing appears so invasive.
I am on a temporary contract at a financial company, I let them check my credit report. Drug tests are common too. On many others, they check your driver's records, and make you sign where they ask if you have a criminal record. Every different recruiter will insist on meeting you personally.
For permanent jobs, some employers will want to get a psychological profile. Some disguise it as a personality test to identify your abilities. It's a great tool for supervisors, they can preemptively know if an employee have the skills to overtake them. They want to know your potential. I had one of these, in 1995. For example, the interviewer began to smoke, then asked "do you mind if I smoke?". Now they use web-based questions, similar of the ones at personals/dating sites.
And that's only discrimination of your life and physical appearance. Racial discrimination in the US is VERY common. (I am Hispanic, my name is Italian, still have a strong accent - not as bad as tech support people from India). Unfortunately, I can "sense" rejection during interviews. I have even seen how people's expressions change when I greet them and find out I am Hispanic.
There are infinite ways to get some of your information. Property information and tax returns are public records. Googling is great too. Few employers actually call references, but they will ask for them. I absolutely hate having my public information in resume sites, but, I have no choice.
I wonder when we'll begin to things like in the movie Gattaca, where a company could have DNA records of every employee. I remember a documentary of the Soviet side of Germany, they kept in storage personal items from spies so they could identify them by smell (this was before DNA tests were reliable).
I recently applied for an MBA and at the GMAT examination the took my finger print, did an eye scan and took an electronic signature sample. All this info will be shared with the MBA organisation in the States (I'm Irish going to an Irish school, this exam was in Ireland) who will no doubt share the information with US governmental organisations. Isn't this a bit extreme?
... just wait a few years until they require an RFID implant before they'll interview you. :-).
I've worked a lot in the financial services industry. Any company that is involved in buying, selling, trading securities is regulated by the SEC and all employees have to have a background check and get fingerprinted.
Oddly enough, some of the companies I've worked for that required fingerprinting, didn't require drug screening. (American Express, for example). The company I'm now with is big on the drug checking, but no fingerprinting (they are a retailer).
The weirdest one I ever had was when I worked for the Toro company (lawnmowers, snowthrowers) and they made me go through a psychological evaluation. It was a great company to work for. Maybe that was why!
Read any good sonnets lately?
I love how you said 'would be'.
The answer to this is: EXACTLY. would be until some bright spark comes up with the idea of using gummies / latex to get yourself a brand new set of fingerprints - and then where are you? Ok. Right back where we started from with the whole 'are you really who you say you are?' security problem.
Let's try this.
A local supermarket (part of a large chain) requires their employees to clock in and out with their fingerprint. Strangely enough, several employees clock in 'earlier than usual' and 'can't be found in the store'. Apparently the gummi bears work quite well. These days (yes, a friend of mine still works there), a manager (sub/whomever is available) has to stand at the door from 10 mins before to 10 mins after people are supposed to clock in or out to ensure people use their own fingers. No, apparently video camera isn't currently an option. Go figure.
Captcha: Outcomes
In this day and age of prenuptials and mistrust you can't fault the tactics only the rationale. If they pay for all background checks and as far as you can tell are only motivated by covering their collective arses then you have to decide if you want the job or not. It really comes down to wanting the job and wanting to work there.
Even without full cavity body searches I have worked for employers that I've regreted. Security checks, preferably based on some law on the books or if they are not unusual for that sector of the work force then it's pretty hard to fight it. You just have to judge their motives. If they are doing it in the best interest of the company or for a good reason, then I'd say let it slide and but perhaps look at them a little closer to make sure that's what you really want to get involved with. If you think it's bogus and they are just going through the motions, then in my opinion it's not a good place to work except for short term (1-2yrs).
If a company, or more accurately those who work for it, aren't introspective and rational about what they do then you are in trouble. It would only be a matter of time that they intrepret a policy or misintrepret something you do for their own ends. Rationality is not about "my way" or "your way" its about common ground and communication. If a company isn't "rational" about what they make their workers go through to satisfy their own ends no one will do well working there.
To quote one of my bosses when my sister's wedding and Burningman coincided with 4 months notice.
"No one takes 2 weeks vacation!!!!"
Make your bargains where you must...
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
In order to volunteer at my son's elementary school in Virginia I was required to submit fingerprints and consent to a background check by the local sheriff's department. I have heard people complain about these measures as being invasive but I think they are warranted. I know that I would not want someone with a serious criminal record being left alone with my son. My wife runs a pet sitting company and she requires her employees to submit fingerprints, consent to a criminal background check and a credit check. She would not, nor do I think she could, hire someone with a criminal history or poor credit because of insurance and bonding requirements. I do not blame a company hiring for sensitive positions for taking every precaution in the hiring process. While we may see it as invasive they are not performing these checks in order to 'do evil' later on. They are trying to prevent exactly that and you can just about bet that the people with access to your records have gone through the same checks. It is all about minimizing risk.
Hi. Imagine that you're recovering from a divorce. You have no money, and bad credit. This kind of invasive hiring practices mean that your qualifications, experience, and ability to do the job are now irrelevant because you have bad credit, and the HR lady checking off her boxes of requirements then tosses your application and resume in the trash. Now how do you feel after your second interview, when everyone you've spoken to was excited that you were still interested in the position and moving forward?
Now your resume is lumped together with the undesirablie, filthy liars, and convicted felons. They don't want people like you handling sensitive information.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I'm a programmer for a Community College. Before I was hired, I was told I would be going through a fingerprint screening should I take the position. It's part of working for a place that deals with the government quite a bit and has to cover its arse as much as possible. It just wouldn't do to hire a sexual predator for a counseling position at a high school, now, would it? Like someone said earlier, if it requires latex gloves, then the screening went way too far. But unless your sister has something to hide, then there should be no problem with a fingerprint screening.
If they treat you like this now just imagine what it's like to actually work there.
My wife is a school administrator. When she began teaching some years ago, getting fingerprinted was part of the hiring process. Unfortunately, we live in a world with some pretty sick people and weeding them out from contact with children is one of the protections I expect governments to undertake. The chances of my wife being a child molester are pretty slim, since most of those clowns tend to be male. However, consider the number of female teachers arrested recently for having sexual relations with teenage boys. I'm not sure most of the communities in America want someone with that in the background working in their schools. They also look for records of other anti-social behavior: alcohol or drug-related crimes, theft, assault, etc.
I'm a programmer on a federal project and worked for the DOD for 21 years before that. I have a TS/SCI clearance. What do you think she'd have to submit to if a TS or secret clearance was a requirement of the job? Fingerprints are the least of it -- you have to agree to potential random drug screening, your financial background is closely scrutinized, your friends and neighbors are often interviewed. Hell, at the site I'm working at now, I have to report any out-of-the-ordinary legal or financial event to the security folks...even a speeding ticket. Anything that could be construed as "suspicious" or could possibly cause me to be induced into being bribed for information is supposed to be reported.
Luckily, I'm a pretty boring guy.
Stop being so paranoid. You're sister has it pretty easy. You can complain about it to someone...and she'll wind up losing the job.
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
I too work for a major investment bank. It was part of the hiring process that I get fingerprinted (SEC requirement). I didn't think of it as a big deal - just a condition of employment.
My work does not involve any contact with money. However I do have access to a lot of IT/Data Center related detail.
Large Institution - No negotiation re this.
Small Company - Perhaps it can be negotiated.
You are correct. It is an SEC requirement.
When I was working in Chicago, I was fingerprinted by each of the three exchanges where we had computer equipment, booths, and traders working in the pits. This was in order to get a clerk's badge, to facilitate quick access to the floors and interstitial spaces should equipment issues arise. It wasn't the firm that did the fingerprinting in my case (it was a privately held fund--no customers, in other words), but SEC requirements meant that my fingerprints would be on file, and all of my banking and private investment details disclosed to ensure I wasn't engaged in insider trading or what have you.
Many of the SEC requirements are big-brotherish and Orwellian (e.g. keeping logs of all electronic chats, keeping two archives of all incoming and outgoing emails going back years, etc.), but the blame needs to be placed where it belongs: on the SEC, and the crooks that have made such a hash of the markets at times that such draconian measures are thought to be unavoidable if the financial integrity and viability of the markets is to be protected.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Other than that and the financial sector, there's no reason for an employer to have your fingerprints.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
The company I work for, a physical was part of the application.
I work in manufacturing. Though I do networking, I still went through a physical to make sure I was able to do my job (everyone does) and to screen for drugs. It is a drug-free workplace. There are random drug screens about once a month. We were told that up front and given the opportunity to decline employment on that fact. Some people balk at the fact that we have random screening, but it doesn't bother me.
Blood tests are also common. We screen certain areas of manufacturing to check for poisoning from some of the chemicals we use. A blood test was given during the physical to test some of these things. (I was not fingerprinted, however)
The company should have no problem telling you why certain tests are being done. You might be working for them so they should at least let you know what you are getting into. Afterall, with urine tests, blood tests, and fingerprinting, they surely know alot about you.
if you want federal employment, fingerprinting is standard, has been for decades. "pee in a bottle" is required practically anyplace they pay more than minimum wage, and you do anything more than dot the burgers with ketchup and place three pickle chips.
with all the hue and cry about sex criminals, fingerprinting will be standard pretty much across the board, and I expect that DNA checks will become common as there are more labs established and state registries of criminals get pieced together.
deal, it's the world now.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Some jobs pose more of a risk if they are compromised than others.
The investigation level should equate to that threat level.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
About 10 years ago I spent some time working for a defence contractor. My work didn't involve any classified material, but they did a pretty thorough background check anyway, including an investigation by the BVD (Dutch secret service). But they didn't fingerprint me!
Is the fingerprinting required by SEC regulations?
Requires fingerprinting. Just FYI.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
From the summary:
My sister is getting screened for a programming position with a financial firm. I was alarmed to hear she'll be getting fingerprinted at the Sheriff's Office as part of the screening process. Instantly I conjure up scenes of frame-ups and corporate scandals.
Tinfoil-hat scenario perhaps, but I think this was SlashSquatch's actual question. What do they plan to do with the fingerprints? Use them for nefarious purposes in the future if it suits their business plans? Sure, there may be laws that require the employer to collect fingerprints -- and SlashSquatch's sister should damn well ask the prospective employer if there are any -- but in any case the employer should tell her in writing how they plan to use this information and/or why the're required to collect it.
Ah, the penny drops: she was asked to get her fingerprints taken at the Sherrif's office. So doesn't that mean it's the Sherrif's Office that has a record of her prints, not the company? If so, this looks a bit more benign. It sounds like the company wants her prints on file somewhere, not necessarily with them. And the Sherrif's Office is a convenient place to "pretend" to get arrested and get your prints recorded. Not to mention seeing whether your prints match with any anonymous ones connected with unsolved crimes.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I'm real glad I have a rare enough name.
I'd hate to have the same name as a crook.
Yeah, I'm a hard-ass but I'm law-abiding and ethical. And that seems to be good enough (plus my old Canadian security clearance.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
> SEC Requires [link] it for financial firms
You link to a simple form requiring a list of financial instruments held in custody by a firm - nothing to do with fingerprints.
I work in finance and I've never heard of fingerprints - criminal and credit checks yes, but not fingerprints.
Financial institutions are required by the Securities Exchange Commission to keep a record of finger prints for all employees. This goes for the traders, the programmers and even the cleaning staff. It is not that the institution is doing this because they want to, they are required to do so or pay heavy fines.
Yes. I'm paranoid. Why do you ask?
I've been compared against it (and NOT matched) plenty of times.:-)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I think that was Spider Man. Anyways if you are in a position of power, you need to be held accountable. Fingerprinting is not intended to be a pre-accusation of future crime but rather a method to hold you accountable for your actions.
Both 'real' jobs that I've had (ie, since college) have required fingerprinting. (One for a secret security clearance, the other to work at NASA on sensitive-but-unclassified projects). I have no fear because I am an ethical individual and my prints will never cross their paths again.
much!?
This is common practice for any position which requires one to access/work with sensitive or classified information. I was a post-doc at Los Alamos Nat'l Lab from 2002 to 2004 and when I underwent my security clearance background investigation, they also fingerprinted me. They do this to run your prints against fingerprint databases to make sure you're not lying about your criminal history. This actually IS a good thing (and I'm about as anti-government as you can get).
My job fell apart on me recently and to pay the bills, I jumped into my wife's line of work - conducting these very background investigations (for people getting security clearances). About 90% of applicants are good, decent people with some blemishes in their background. The other 10% tend to be dishonest scumbags with very interesting backgrounds. The fingerprints as well as the rest of the investigation is to keep these 10% out of the position. Believe me, its a good thing.
Financial firms need to fingerprint all employees to be in compliance with the federal regulators. This has nothing to do with screening and all to do with regulation.
Believe me this is hardly the strangest request that the markets make of firms, but it's a major one for all employees.
Definitely standard in finance. My father was a stock broker, and had to provide fingerprints for every state he was licensed in. If a client moved to a new state but wanted to keep him as their broker (and why not--he was quite good), he would have to go to the police station to get fingerprinted, and those would be sent along to the licensing board in question.
Simply put, there are jobs that, for various reasons, have requirements above and beyond working at a Quick-E-Mart. Drug tests, background checks (criminal and financial) and fingerprints are not uncommon. Tests are given to ensure you can physically do the job you are asked (medical evaluations for airline pilots for instance). IF you claim you can do something, is it unreasonable to have to show your certification (pilot's license, SAG card, etc.)? What about proof of citizenship or legal right to work somewhere. It may seem invasive, but it is the trade-off for what may be seen as the benefits of the job.
I probably wouldn't get worked up about genetic testing (unless it clearly fell into the scope of the job). The Americans with Disabilities Act and similar legislation would probably prevent that from happening.
Fingerprint checks, etc, only show that your extremely smart or lucky and have never been caught. If you need a good lawyer, you can find one at http://www.swattorney.com/
While I am not a fan of our increasing general surveillance society, if I am just walking around you don't need to know who I am unless I am breaking a law. I do understand the need for background checks for some positions. I work two tech jobs, one for a university, low/no security, and some occasional contracting work, confidential information etc. For the contracting work I went through the same business as other people have described, fingerprints, background checks, financial review etc. It's a pain, but I think about the information my employers handle. If it was my data, wouldn't I want them to be that careful about the people they hire? To me this is true for health, financial child care/education. Some employers use this as a sheep test to see how far they can bend you, crappy but true. Sometimes though it makes sense for them to be careful. I guess my thought is, does it seem the employers might really need to be this careful? Is the job worth it?
and the politicians don't want direct competition from a convict.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It makes me happy to know that the programmers at financial institutions are being finger printed to make sure they aren't criminals prior to getting their job. Plus, I would hope that would help make them a little less likely to consider doing something illegal with all the mountains of money that go through those types of places.
I'm a programmer at a manufacturing company. And the kind of access and abilities I have to do nefarious things in the system is astounding. So when I think of the kinds of potential she would have? If she doesn't submit to fingerprints I sure as heck hope they don't hire her.
I'm all for privacy. But I'm also all for the hundreds of thousands of people in the world whose money is invested through the many financial institutions in the states being able to retire.
I was shocked, shocked to be told that a condition of APPLICATION was drug testing at a job interview three years ago. It was for a pharmaceutical company that probably makes the tests, so they likely get them cheaply enough to make it pay off versus only screening after extending a job offer.
I've had a couple of potential employers do credit checks, but IIRC they had to ask permission for that. That might be a local regulation (Illinois) so your mileage may vary.
Design for Use, not Construction!
I was screened by the security police for a job a couple of years back. This being Sweden it means that they look you up in their databases and if they find anything relevant for the position you applied for (exactly what that is nobody could tell me), they call you and tell you what they found. If you still want the job, they will tell the presumptive employer. If you withdraw your application, no one gets to know.
Or at least that is what they told me. They never called.
I really don't have any problems with the security police, if they could only put things back where they found them.
As much as I believe we should have our information kept private, some people who deal with other people's info and could potentially create havoc for a lot of people, etc., they have to be checked. It sucks, I don't like it, but I would like it even less if someone got in to the job and then screwed up my credit or something. I am a victim of ID theft and it was actually my own father that was doing it. I didn't even know until they mailed an unpaid bill to my address instead of his. I am still cleaning up that mess from over 8 years ago. Most of the creditors didn't even believe me. Try telling someone your dad is using your SS number and we have the same name but I knew nothing. Truth is I didn't. We weren't speaking, I was in college headed to grad school and bam I got hit with this. Plus on top of his stuff. I actually had a mortgage that would have been approved when I was 2 years old. I had a Sears card at 5. These were things I know he didn't do because we rented when I was 2 so we didn't have a mortgage plus it was from like Illinois. But back to the subject, if you want a job with enormour access to people's lives that you could ruin with the push of a button then you need to be checked. If you don't like it take another job. I know for most jobs now they check your credit, background, all kinds of stuff. I work as a senior chemist and they did no check at all(whew:-]) but they have the job you want and you have to jump through their hoops to get it. It does suck though that a credit screwup or a crime from when you were a dumb 18yr. old or whatever can stop you because neither will most likely effect your performance but they made the rules. They have all the money so we do what they say. Misfits138nj
I was chatting him up in a lab, as a couple of DEA agents watched every move I made. I was handling not just milligrams, but KILOGRAMS of morphine and raw opium gum, filling sample containers and feeding them into the analyser they were thinking of buying. Every paper towel I wiped a spatula with went into their special trash bag, and they even brought pocket-less lab coats to keep me from stealing sample! They even flinched if I used a tissue - clearly they thought I was going to snort some.
BTW: opium gum looks like road tar and gives you a headache from the fumes (not high, just a hang-over kind of throbbing) ... and every time I left the building to get some fresh air they checked my jeans pockets. I would breathe a while, wave cheerfully to the SWAT teams guarding the building, and go back inside. Street value of what that armed caravan brought to our offices to use as test samples was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I'm not sure the distinction is as straightforward as you indicate.
In the original question, the poster asked if a background check including fingerprints was "over the top" for his sister who is seeking a programming job in the financial sector. The answer might well be: it depends. If the sister is going to be programming systems that handle financial transactions, and there's the possibility that she might have the opportunity to set the system up to benefit her personally (think Richard Prior's character in Superman III --I think it was-- who reprogrammed the system to credit his personal account with all the fractional cents left over from transactions) then I don't see this as going too far.
In the "good old days" a store keeper could give credit based on his personal experience or knowledge of the customer. Farmer Jones owns a working farm, buys from me regularly, and has always been honest with me. Farmer Smith is a sharecropper, comes in once every four months, and has told a whopper or two in my hearing. These days, when most of our business relationships are with people we have no personal experience with or knowledge of, a background check is a reasonable hurdle for financially responsible jobs, or those dealing with children.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a company to do a thorough body cavity search as well. Yeah, and monkeys might fly out my butt.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Ever seen CSI? Ever seen episodes where they have IDs (possibly even multiple sets with different names) but the fingerprints they have don't match to the IDs?
And its not just TV, there have been cases in the past where people apply for jobs under fake names (to avoid criminal records and other "shady" stuff that would show up under a background check). Checking fingerprints against a database is the best way to be sure that you have found all the records on this person (under whatever name(s) they use now or have used in the past) as fingerprints can't be faked.
Honest... The laminator was dirty when they did my card.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
IANAL, but unless you agree to let someone check your credit, it is actionable. Now, most job applications have on there somewhere "by applying you agree to a credit and criminal background check" or words to that effect, but somehow you signed a document that let thme do that.
I was hired ten years ago at a financial services corporation. After they interviewed me and made me an offer, it was clear that mutual acceptance of the offer hinged on my passing a criminal background check and a drug test. I was fingerprinted and sent to a lab for the urine test. Having never tried illegal drugs nor been charged with anything more than a speeding ticket, everything went fine. As a client of the company and as an employee, this was important protection against "bad guys" infiltrating the company.
What is curious to me about your story is that you say she was fingerprinted "while being screened." They may just be front-loading the process so as to not make offers to people with criminal histories, but taking fingerprints DOES provide a couple of things down the road:
1) The fingerprints are now on file so that the company can check for matching prints during a forensics investigation (never done in my time at the company, we were told several times when high-priced items were stolen from the office that the time and expense was too great to justify lifting and matching prints, and conducting follow-up interviews.)
2) More sketchy: Any time you submit prints for background check, to my knowledge, they are sent through the FBI. Even if the FBI has nothing on you, they now have your name, social security number, and a set of prints on file. So you apply for a job at age 22 in 2007, and in 2050 some guy at a bar is killed and they find your prints on a glass at the bar (maybe because it wasn't washed well enough the night before, who knows what else)... you get the picture. So not only are they taking your prints and checking your prints, someone is filing your prints.
Not necessarily anything devious about this and (with proper protections, LOL ha, right) it could be a useful law-enforcement tool. On the flipside, it could be used to identify you in any number of potentially screwed-up situations in the future, even if you have nothign to do with them. Double-edged sword.
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
But not in a Programming firm, I'd imagine. My fiancé has to have her entire hand print scanned to clock in and out everyday. It's a long-term care facility though, so they take the stuff rather seriously. Of course, just because someone doesn't have a record certainly does not excuse them from being lazy, worthless, trouble-making employees like most of them are. I'd never submit to a drug test, let alone fingerprinting and blood work. But, a lot of people aren't as comfortable as I am with not being so deeply embedded within the rat race...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Health checks in particular.
A couple of years ago I started a contract, not a permanent position, with a Fortune 100 company who requested a health examination which I refused.
When they asked why I explained in the following terms:-
* like many people I have health problems, but they do not affect my work, and I manage them in conjunction with my own doctor. That's as far as their legitimate interests should extend.
* their nominated doctor was not my doctor and did not and would not offer any treatment to me that I was not already receiving,
* their doctor was also unlikely to be a specialist in the required area and would be unlikely to be able to offer a opinion one way or another on my condition, the adequacy of the treatment, or the effect of the condition on my ability to do the job,
* in any case I suspected that they would be unwilling to pay for their doctor to repeat the extensive diagnosis I'd already undergone,
* further I was unwilling to repeat some of those tests simply to satisfy them. In addition to being unnecessary, some were uncomfortable and one or two carried small but finite risks to my health. (I slipped in that no reasonable appreciation of the condition was possible without such tests and that it would probably be unethical to repeat them)
They asked what the condition was. I refused to tell them and repeated that a.) it didn't affect my performance, b.) the medical examination proposed by them was too superficial for them to decide one way or the other, c.) they couldn't afford an exam that would be able to tell and d.) I wasn't going to repeat uncomfortable and risky tests.
Given all that, their desire to know was purely prurient and the whole thing was none of their business.
They hired me anyway. Your friend mightn't be so lucky
As has been said, there are jobs that require background checks.
Worry more about what the employment contract says. Some of them are feudal slavery. If the employer is going to own everything that you code at any time of the day or night, whether at the office or at home, you won't be doing any open-source contributing and any personal projects that you create might not be yours without a fight involving lawyers.
You should be aware of what you are signing away when you accept a job.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Yep, what the above poster said.
You're going to work in a financial firm. As a programmer, you're high enough on the food chain that you, potentially, have access to the actual financial systems. This has been SOP for...hell, almost a decade, since i got my first job as a sysadmin at a bank.
She's going to have her prints run through CODIS, and a pretty signifigant background check run on her. They may also check her financial records, to see if she is in such bad financial shape that she shouldn't be given access to systems that control money. None of this is new, it's not because of the War on Terror. It's simply the banks limiting the damage any one person can do to them.
As an aside, in 1997, when I got my first bank job, I had pretty crap financial history (just a year out of college, no real work history), but no flags were thrown. I'd imagine you have to be pretty screwed up to trip flags on the background or financials searches.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
So that there are some questions that employers can't ask a genetic lab to answer. (The employer can ask and be told to fuck off with impunity.)
Of course if there is collusion between the two, you're doubly screwed.
Not only do you not get the job, but you die prematurely of some horrible genetic disorder.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I wasn't fingerprinted that I recall (although I might have just forgotten) but they paid to have an FBI background check on me. And of course they did a piss test. I had to fill out a ~20 page packet for the background check. But now I work here, so they must have liked what they saw. I wasn't very happy about it, but it makes me more happy than commuting for an hour and a half plus.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And yet, an ampule of pure morphine costs to produce along with profit about 50 cents.
At least thats what my good friend and anesthesiologist said.
I had the good fortune to work on the FBI AFIS project. They did a little more than fingerprint us. I got phone calls from people I hadn't seen in years asking me why the FBI was investigating me. The work was great, I helped catch over 100 criminals during development cycles BEFORE the system even went live. I have worked on other government projects as well. I have been a soldier, an anti-terrorist and a crime fighter due to my work at various jobs, all this from my keyboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_N ondiscrimination_Act
Whether or not a felon can vote again depends on the individual state.
The last I knew, only two states (Kentucky and Virginia) permanently disenfranchised all felons; others including Tennessee do for certain categories of offences, and Arizona does so only after a second conviction. New Mexico's lifetime ban was repealed in 2001.
In most states, voting rights are restored automatically or by application after release from parole. In sixteen states, you can vote while still on parole; in two (Maine and Vermont) you can vote while still incarcerated.
Of course, many ex-felons, and even many election officials, don't know what the laws really say.
Wait until you see the fullscope polygraph! zing!
I wor`k in the financial industry, and fingerprinting is pretty common. If you deal with customers, legally you have to pass the NASD / NYSE Series 6 or Series 7, and the FBI has to run a background check called a U4. Then you have to get Livescan fingerprinted. So fingerprinting is not just part of a specific firms process, but part of the law.
I live in Las Vegas, NV and worked for many years in the casinos. Things are changing now, but for many years you had to obtain a sheriff's card to work in any capacity in a casino. Getting the sheriff's card involved paying the county to fingerprint you and place your picture and prints on file. A few years ago they changed the law so that only the gaming employees needed the card. The law changed not because people objected to being printed and cataloged. They just didn't want to pay that $20+ and wait in line at the sheriff's office every few years.
What's a "criminal"? Pot smokers? Drug dealers -- would they exist if you didn't make the drugs illegal in the first place? "Terrorists"? We haven't caught a single "terrorist" since the Total American Meltdown began in 2001. For one thing, the "terrorists" were in the planes, and they are dead, dead, dead. Everyone else you "caught" accused of being terrorists were either guilty by association with someone else who was guilty by association, or were fingered by some murdering thugs in Afghanistan as a "terrorist" for a fifty grand bounty. Show me one damn "terrorist" you've all found. What the hell is a "terrorist"? All we've sucked down for over six years was to protect us from the mighty hidden army of "terrorists" that you've all insisted were all around us, ready to kill in God's name. And there are none.
You catch a murderer, fine. But we've killed over 60,000 innocents to punish 19 dead men. Who catches us? We've created a massive opium market in Afghanistan which the Taliban had previously wiped out, because we installed organized crime, the "Warlords", as the government. Who arrests us for this? Caught a thief? We've literally emptied twenty billion in cash from the Iraqi treasury, loaded it onto pallets in a warehouse, and handed it out in paper bags to American-only contractors. Who's going down for that? Caught a torturer? Ditto us. Pedophile? We've stood by while kids were raped in Iraqi jails by guards.
What the supersecret American Spy System has probably found were poor people who did stupid things for money. The big criminals stole hundreds of billions from pension funds and through kickbacks and understandings from deals to downsize and outsource. But rich people never commit crimes. Only poor, insane, or stupid people do.
For the Feds? Maybe. For the private sector? Hell, no!
"Courage is being afraid to do the Right Thing, and doing it anyway."
You could always, out of the kindness of your heart and fraternal love, pay her to sit at home and play Wii.
:-)
I would suggest that the GP have her play World of Warcraft; that way the GP can sell her items and gold. That is if the GP trusts her not to sell things herself behind the GP's back.
It's for the purpose of bonding, and I've allowed myself to be printed, because I understand the nature of the game, and I still would now. I sure would not give McDonalds, or say, a media production house or a newspaper(unless I was a heavy equipment operator) a sample for drug testing. In those cases, they have no business meddling in my personal life. And I would place strict controls on landlords who want personal financial information. The system is way too abusive in those cases of housing, where everybody needs a place to live. The landlords can work with month to month rentals with a pay as you go system. They should not be allowed to demand a year long lease with the unstable market we have now. I decide how intrusive people can be by choosing the type of work I take. I would hope that people would stand together to keep it under control. But usually that's not the case.
What?
If you dissagree, your most likely a comformist. Unfortunately, I dissagree, I may not take this job but I would definately look for an alternative then make the best choice! David
And let's also add to this, they are doing a SCREENING. They are probably looking up her fingerprints against known criminals. I am sure they are doing this to make sure she hasn't done masterful job of identity theft. You can change IDs, not fingerprints.
:-)
You are assuming that the programmers, admins, etc working with the fingerprint database have been screened.
This response isn't for subby, it's for the readers, I already know that subby is over-comfortable with facism.
We here in the United States have created a culture of butting our noses into everybody else's business. This busybody nation of ours just can't seem to keep its hands to itself. We see all this slippery slope bullshit everywhere...what if, what if, what if? Well, what if you just left it well enough alone and punish criminals rather than trying to punish *everyone* ahead of time.
Everyone has a "it's not my fault" complex going on here. Life sucks, so you someone...criminality happens, blame their boss, so you sue them too. You people have to learn to understand that life *does* in fact suck, and there's not a damned thing you can do about that. Suing somebody, changing the rules to big brother supreme is NOT going to change that. It's not your fault, it's not their fault, it just is.
So do everyone a favour, and just knock this crap off right now. We've lived many, many decades in a modern society where behavior like this was not only not tolerated, but not necessary. Why is it necessary now? The interwebs? I call shenanigans.
When the revolution comes busybodies...it's not coming for the government...it's coming for you. Subby, YOU and all the other people here that agree with you have done your best to turn this into the Fascist States of America. Americans dying in Iraq for your "freedom" is truly tragic, because you're just not worth it.
Driving a company car does not make the company liable for what the employee does in the car, that is why you buy insurance yah douche.
Not true, the company also carries insurance because they are liable. In short, the driver AND the owner of the vehicle are both at risk.
I had a consulting role for a state office. It was within the public safety sector. I had physical access to the entire state's main datacenter. To get that level of unescorted access, I had to submit to no less than three (FBI, State, and BCI) fingerprint screenings and other background checks.
I also worked for a major bank. Fingerprint screening (FBI only there).
Now working for a financial services org, I submit to recurring background checks (every x years) and agree to surrender my post if I become ineligible for employemnt.
But being in a position of trust requires me to give up some rights in exchange for this position.
Would I trust a bank or another institution controlling my money that I knew didn't perform due diligence and screen its employees?
DHS took fingerprints at JFK, plus photographed me when I arrived for a short holiday in US. And they required my passport to be a machine readable model with the bio-chip. No latex gloves though.
Well, after 9/11/01, I'd say everyone (except for the federal government) is paranoid. I'm subjected to a Livescan check every time I get promoted or transferred. They take my fingerprints and do a background check. I've had at least four in the past five years.
Not a big deal.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
And what happens to them after the 'check' is over? They doubtless sit on file somewhere.
At least different fingerprint cards are used for screening and arrests, so there is context as to why your prints are in the system. Also, there is the potential to expire the screening prints (pre-job), as opposed to sensitive employee prints (you accepted the job). Promote legislation to do so if you care.
If you drive that company car into a pedestrian or another vehicle, and kill someone, then yes that company is liable and will get sued. Its just like if you were to hit someone with your own personal vehicle. You have insurance, yes, but you can still be sued by the family if you kill or seriously injure someone. Insurance does not cover this.
As an employee, you are a representative of the company and everything you do on company time with company resources is on behalf of said company.
I got nothin'
I seriously doubt that fingerprinting is going on as part of pre-employment screening. As a contractor to financial institutions, I've been fingerprinted by the employer. This has sometimes been performed by licensed contractors who also work for the sheriff's department.
That is, I don't buy for a second that anyone, anywhere in these United States has to register with local law enforcement before s/he can go to work. If this has really happened, Slashdot isn't the appropriate forum for discussion. Notify your state and Federal representatives, and the MSM while you're at it.
I completely agree that pre-employment screens are complete and utter bull$#!+. I don't do them. I ask about them up front, and I turn the tables: If you want me to do this work for you, don't subject me to meaningless invasions of my privacy. Find a waiver for me, or find someone else.
IMHO, it's another matter completely once they're paying me. I don't do drug tests, but I'll yield my fingerprints IFF I get assurance that I get to take any and all records when I leave.
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
at anal probes. I leave that to the aliens!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
One of them seemed to understand when I explained that I felt the measure was a severe violation of my personal privacy and decided to wave the need for the finger printing.
Sometimes I wonder if a company will mention fingerprinting, but never actually carry it out, just to get people with certain backgrounds or tendencies to be difficult to work with to exit the interview process. In the latter case they just want to see if and how a person protests. Are they excessively paranoid, do they have an overly-simple black-and-white perspective, are they easily agitated, etc.
I understand that employers feel they need to protect themselves but they shouldn't be so paranoid as to limit their employee pool to only the financially stable, mentally stable and law abiding. They'll never get someone who thinks outside of the box then.
I've known many people who can think "outside the box" and don't need to live in chaos to do so. Keep in mind that some people were able to become financially stable because they could "think outside the box" and were reliable enough to follow through on that idea.
Iam cook at a casino hotel and had to produce a birth certifcate and a background check and piss in a bottle. If I have to handle money i have to get finger printed.
I interviewed for and was offered a no-benefits contract IT job with our local Sheriffs department. I expected a background check where they'd look through my criminal history, credit score, etc. After I was offered the job, I was told to fill out a 35 page background check form as a condition of employment.
I was NOT applying to be a cop, nor was I being qualified to carry a gun. They wanted contact info for everyone in my family, TEN character witnesses who I had never worked with, whether I had ever done an illegal drug, when and how many times, whether I had ever been arrested for any reason (even if found innocent or arrested by mistake) among many, many other things.
I understand that working in IT is a sensitive position, and maybe I'm a bit naive, but I didn't expect the same level of background check for a no-benefits contract job as I would get for applying to be a cop. I refused.
And also, I should have said prescription, not OTC. I really am useless before my first cup of coffee.
Worked at a major hospital in columbus for a year and a half, i got fingerprinted, urine sampled, and blood sampled.
I went to sign up with a temp agency several years ago and they asked me to sign a release stating that I would submit to a drug test. I flat out refused (politely) because I don't use drugs and never have. If my word (and behavior) wasn't good enough, I don't need to work for them. I place my civil liberties as a much higher importance than working 3 days for some company I've never heard of. And unless they want me operating heavy machinery, there is no need for drug testing for brainless data entry.
The woman at the temp agency was floored. And the guy sitting across from me, who had just signed the form, was also stunned. It was as if they'd never seen anyone stand up for their civil rights before.
Needless to say, I never got any calls from this agency. And I was never disappointed about it. Another temp agency called me repeatedly, though. (They didn't require any ridiculous civil rights violations.)
Jory
I have worked for myself for over a dozen years, and have spoken with clients about internal positions, the jumping through hoops is increasingly not worth the effort. Even when they do pay six-figures, though they often don't want to, I can make that sitting around on my ass for three months out of the year. I have a blog, which is easily Google-able, and I'm pretty certain that this has affected one such discussion. But, why exactly do I not want to be myself? Why subjugate my entire life to an employer? What do I get out of this besides a paycheck?
There are plenty of meaningful positions outside of the financial sector. And, given the population dynamics, and the number of people in the high-end who no longer wish to be somebodies "stepford" employee, employers will increasingly have to deal with less than HR standards. I still work for the same people, and they pay me more than if I were an employee. I often do their managers jobs so that they can leave at 5:00. But, I'm for all practical purposes unemployable given my opinionated (yet political) nature.
Time to start another business!
... companies have evolved to the point that they treat all employees and potential employees like slaves and feel justified to not even interview you because you were 4 days late paying your electric bill last month.
They are treating you as an unknown risk, which you are, not a slave.
Management position applications at the last corperation I was at were ordered by credit score not by experience or education
For some management positions that makes sense. If you are financially unreliable in your own life why would you be any different with company finances? I'm not necessarily talking about people who work with money either. Consider a manager who schedules truck drivers and their deliveries. Say you need to schedule a delivery of goods to WalMart, they will provide a time window to deliver in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossdocking) and if you miss that window you are responsive for the cost of goods, it is contractually considered lost sales and WalMart deducts that cost from what they owe you for goods previously delivered. So reliability may be more important than a Harvard MBA. I'm not saying you don't have a point, just that things are not as black-and-white as you seem to portray.
Insurance has limits. Juries filled with Jerry Springer Show audience members routinely listen to the flowery lies of piratical trial lawyer filth like John Edwards, and bring back verdicts for much more money than insurance policies cover.
Even if an award is within policy limits, the next thing that normally happens is that the insurance policy is revoked, or becomes vastly more expensive.
These costs can bankrupt companies who did no wrong except let their employees drive a company car. When that happens, people lose their jobs, retirees lose their pensions and retirement savings, governments receive less tax money, and the employees and stockholders of companies that do business with the bankrupt company suffer.
People who say "that is why you buy insurance" are patsies for the rapacious trial lawyer scum, who steal billions of dollars from real people.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
First off, a bank deals with sensitive information (like your account information, transactions, etc.). They have a legal responsibility to verify as reasonably as possible that a person they want to hire doesn't have a criminal record that would impact the bank adversely if they hired them. Normally, that means any fraud, check-kiting, embezzlement, ...financial stuff. Of course, some places are very conservative and want to see if there is a criminal record (beyond old speeding/traffic tickets).
I have seen places do fingerprinting (some in-house, some through the local police nearby), background checks (ranging from very limited to-for clearances-all out), drug tests (use the cup). I used to work in government security and they were really concerned about blackmail, bankruptcy, debts, gambling, infidelity/homosexuality, etc.--they didn't want employees to be blackmailed into doing nasty things.
I've recently done some work for a big multinational bank and had to do the fingerprinting (they did it in-house), and take the drug test (outsourced to a lab). I kidded with the person lining up the work that "I'm glad I studied hard for the drug test" (;-).
Typically, access to sensitive information requires more than a simple check of references. But if you are doing straight programming for a dot.com and they want to do stuff that doesn't make sense, don't bother applying.
In this case, the banks have a standard of background/fingerprint checks and drug testing as per Federal Law (US). It also limits their liability a bit if it turns out the employee does something bad. And with the Patriot Act and other laws recently enacted, banks have to screen employees a bit more thoroughly than McDonald's...
Think of it this way: what kind of person do you want handling your accounts? For other lines of work, you can ask a similar question.
I shudder to think about pilots, bus drivers, train operators, etc. operating equipment that I ride in without having drug testing. I'll exclude NYC cabbies because you first have to be crazy to drive in NYC, and you probably need strong medication (licit or otherwise) to do it.
Supreme Granter of Doctor of Obviology Letters ("A FIRM Command of the Obvious")
When a company hires you, they put a certain degree of trust in you. If you develop software for a financial firm, that's a LOT of trust and a HUGE amount of risk. A basic background/financial/fingerprint is not unreasonable is they are the mechanisms by which an institution can quickly and relatively effectively determine if a person is trustworthy. People like to cite countermeasures for each case, but the existence of a countermeasure does not completely nullify the usefulness of a tool. The existence of locksmiths and lockpicks has not caused all homes and businesses to stop using locks. Likewise, the fact that someone could effectively circumvent the background check does not mean the that background check cannot be used to good effect to prevent undesirables from being hired. We are granted a certain degree of freedom. By law, no one can force me to get up before noon if I want to sleep in. If I want a job, however, I have to get up earlier. Could I work at home during off hours instead. Sure, if I don't mind quitting my current job and getting one where the boss likes that sorta thing. Ditto for this. Some part of privacy does have to be given up to make this employer happy. I also don't like the comparison of genetic tests to fingerprints. They key difference is that you seem to be implying that genetic tests would be used to detect what a person WOULD do where as fingerprints are mainly used to detect what a person HAS ALREADY done.
There are a number of rules which cover who is responsible for what--sometimes it's as you describe, and sometimes it's not. There's a difference between using a company car for your own purposes as a perk; using a company-provided rental car while on business travel, and operating a vehicle (like a delivery truck) in the execution of your job.
demi
Does she have to be "Bonded" ?
That would be finger prints and a background check.
Fingerprinting is equivalent to calling someone a criminal (or checking to see if they already are one). There's nothing wrong with making sure you're not hiring a criminal, but there's no justification for keeping them on record after that check. But even assuming there is, what will they do with the records when she no longer works there? These are the more important questions to ask.
Informing people about the scams, shams, and bunk that assault them on a daily basis. http://www.jeremyduffy.com
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is standard practice to fingerprint for any job in a Financial institution, or any job for that matter where the information is highly sensitive. When you work for a Financial institution, you have access to people's private info. Names, SSN, Finances.
...
Financeial Institutions include some of the following:
Credit Card Companies
Mortgage Brokers
Stock Market Firms
Anywhere on Wall Street
Banks
Casinos
Govt jobs
Think of it from the consumer side, would you want your private data trusted to someone with a criminal record or an Identity thief? NO. So to ensure the consumer that their data is safe and not be sued by consumers, Companies must check out their potential employees.
I read in this thread, when did we lose our FREEDOM? Well honestly, we are losing freedoms every day. How many of us who bitch "When did we lose our Freedom?" stop to fight for keeping said freedoms? People don't fight for rights they way they were fought for from 1776 through the early 20th century. Our citizens have lost that will to secure their civil liberties.
You want freedoms, help stop theft, go march in DC, work for your freedoms... don't just sit on the sideline looking all confused. If your smart enough to realize you've lost a freedom, then you were smart enough to fight to keep it. Why didn't you?
-Silly
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
While most of us here can understand and sympathize with your situation, some folks first thought is that you "could be" another Mucko:
s .html
http://www.courttv.com/trials/mcdermott/keyplayer
While I doubt that's the case with you, some of the items you have mentioned could fit that profile in some folks mind. Since the we US folks are a-scared bunch, you probably wouldn't get a job. The number of publicized incidences of Mucko-style office carnage, or even what happened at Virginia tech, does have a lot of people on edge.
...just like I won't apply for work at the insurance company in town that requires white shirt and tie in the IT department. I understand they always have openings, not hard to see why. Dress codes work both ways: management sees it as a sign of professionalism, the worker sees it as the type of management they're going to have to put up with.
I'm interviewing for a job with the city. They require fingerprinting *and a polygraph* to be hired.
If the company isn't liable, why is insurance necessary? Here if an employee forgets something in the car and you tell them to "run out to the car to get it" your liable because you said "run" instead of "walk quickly but carefully"
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
If you do not agree with their screeningpractices, just refuse, yep even that means not getting the job.. I can imagine that such a screening takes place when you go work for a classified government job, but not for a programmersjob at any financial firm.. It still your decision to go along with it or not... I wouldn't...
They don't use cards any more. Fingerprinting is done on a scanner with a green backlight, and you can see your fingerprints come up on the attached computer screen in real time. So yes the fingerprints are in some networked database available to anyone who want them.
Once you've transferrred the money, there is always the battery acid ;-)
I could start a new life with that kind of cash, perhaps even run for office (not like there aren't precedents anyway). If she's any good then she won't get caught anyway.
As far as I can tell, the law is there to separate the proficient criminals from the incompetent criminals. Only the incompetent end up doing time (for no profit). The good ones run the country.
Would you do 2 years in a low category prison for $5M ? Could you earn that much legally in that time ?
Reminds me of the old saw, if you owe the bank $50,000 you are in trouble, if you owe them $50,000,000 then they are in trouble.
Entering employment with a company (just like getting a Green Card) is essentially based on mutual consent. If you don't like the screening practices of an employer, you can just walk away and not apply for the job. In none of my software development jobs in Europe or in the US did I ever have to undergo any sort of background check, drug testing, or fingerprinting. If I were to apply for a job that required any of these, I'd probably decide it on a case-by-case basis. If the position was critical to safety/security, I'd probably see the necessity and go along with it. If it was not really critical, I'd probably do my part in discouraging overly intrusive and paranoid screening practices and walk away from the job. Of course, it would also depend on how badly I want the job...
just respond, "My name is NEO!"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=17f-2+fingerp rinting/ ...every member of a national securities exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent and registered clearing agency shall require that each of its partners, directors, officers and employees ...
Here's something that may encourage safer drugs of abuse. It's easier to beat the drug tests after marijuana than after cocaine.
(Doctors told me that it's safe for a healthy person to drink a gallon of water, but maybe not if they have kidney disease. Ironically, one of the cases in the medical literature of someone being injured from water intoxication was a woman who was forced by her employer to drink water in order to give a urine sample for a drug test.)
Here's a report from the Schaffer Drug Library http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/drinkwate r.htm
SIMPLE WAY TO BEAT URINE TESTS -- JUST DRINK WATER
Report from American Academy of Forensic Sciences
Forensic Drug Abuse Advisor, Vol. 6, Issue 3, March 1994
Workplace drug testing programs can be foiled by adulterating the specimen, and the adulterants can be added inside or outside of the body. Last summer it became apparent that many peole were cheating by adding solutions of concentrated glutaraldehyde (Urinaid) to their voided sample. New data, presented in February at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), suggests that there is a simpler way to foil urine screening tests: drink lots of water.
Dr. Edward Cone of the Addiction Research Center (ARC) in Baltimore, described the results of a study he had undertaken at the request of Donna Smith, Acting Director of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Drug Enforcement. Smith was concerned that advertising claims for some herbal teas and "internal cleansing" agents might actually be true. Cone was at first skeptical, but, as he reported at the AAFS meeting, the study was a "sleeper."
Cone set up a series of experiments designed to assess the effect of various measures on "in vivo adulteration." Two of the most popular "teas" were chosen for study; Naturally Klean Herbal Tea" and "Golden Seal" root capsules. Healthy drug-free volunteers with a history of recent drug use were recruited for the study. They were housed in a closed ward for six weeks. The participants were tested under a number of different protocols during that six week period.
At 9:00 AM on the morning of Day One the study subjects smoked a standardized marijuana cigarette (3.58% THC). On Day Three they snorted 40 mg of cocaine. Twenty three hours after each drug was given, they drank one of the following combinations: (1) "Naturally Klean Herbal Tea" in one gallon of water, (2) one gallon of water without any "cleansing agent" (3) one gallon of water with 50 mg of hydrochlorothiadize (a diuretic), (4) four "Golden Seal" capsules and one gallon of water, or (5) twelve ounces of water. Each participant was tested under each protocol and all of the urine was collected.
The urine specimens were then tested by EMIT II assay for cannabinoids at a 50 ng / ml cutoff, and cocaine at a 300 ng / ml cutoff. Specific gravity and creatinine content was measured for each sample, and the two indicators were found to co-vary almost identically. Just drinking 12 ounces of water was enough to cause a significant decrease in both specific gravity and creatinine, but not enough to cause a negative test response. For example, urine cannabinoids levels which were higher than 10,000 ng / ml dropped to the low 100's after drinking 12 ounces of water. After drinking a gallon of water, with or without one of the "cleansing agents" added, it only took an hour for the specific gravity to drop to less than 1.005.
When one gallon of water was drunk, not only did specific gravity fall to very low levels (creatinine20, and specific gravity 1.003), but the marijuana assay turned negative and stayed that way, even after specific gravity levels had returned to normal! The cocaine tests turned negative for a few hours, but then turned positive again. The same results were observed whether or not tea was used, however, when diuretics were given, the test for both cannabinoids a
All financial firms require a full criminal background check that includes fingerprinting for any and all positions that may see any confidential financial data or write code that will deal with said finaicial data. The fingerprints will be run against all state and Federal databases for any convictions ever. A standard background check only goes back 5 years and does not include all offences.
The company is not doing this for a programming position, they are doing it because the code will eventually be used to handle extremely sensitive data. When a financial firm is moving billions of dollars around on any given day, the precautions necessary are naturally very tight.
Hey I got news for you. Buy a house in the state of California, and you get finger printed. Get a job with the Military, Financial institution, Law enforcement, you get finger printed. Get a payday loan, get finger printed. so what...
As someone in the Security Industry - I believe that any programmer has the firm responsibilty to themselves and their employers to have Security Clearances of some form or another since a lot of the work we deal with can gain access to extremely sensitive information and/or systems that control that information. We should have recognized Clearances which yes initially start with Fingerprinting as a "Background check" to clear your history then is "flagged" which means if you do commit a crime and are convicted then your Employer or the Clearance holder is notified of that violation. This means that while yes what you do is subject being passed on to your Employer, Coworkers etc it should be your responsibilty to ensure that you don't commit those crimes in the first place. Just "act like you normally would" and don't go out of your way to commit any crime. It's simple. This way both you are trusted and you can trust those you work with to an extent, you know if they get caught for something they won't be around much longer either.
"the problem with common sense is that its not that common"
One place I've worked at (an avionics company), had a drug-free policy, and giving blood was even part of the interview process.
It was a great place to work.
So, based on that experience, I would prefer a place that has such checks in place.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
It might be required for a financial company to screen their employees, and it is understandable, considering the nature of the job. Nevertheless, there's no guarantee that dishonest employees got caught for their previous crimes, or that honest employees won't one day decide to commit crimes and hide their fingerprints.
The fact that a larger percentage of people are criminals only makes those of us that choose to obey the law more valuable. Thank you for that...
> The Gov't can't force you to turn over fingerprints or DNA without probable cause
The HELL they can't. They do it to millions of people a year! They can force you to give fingerprint and dna samples without even charging you for a crime. Hell, it happened to me. So don't give me any shit about they can't do it.
Just applied for a DOD/TS; they required three fingerprint cards, old school ink and all.
I drank what? -- Socrates
I am completely open to being screened for everything. I'll gladly submit to every kind of [non-invasize] test in the world. I have no problem with anyone wanting to know that I'm a nice guy.
BUT
I will not submit to those tests becoming part of future tests. That is to say, you can take my fingerprints and compare them to every known criminal. But if I truly am a nice guy, you can't keep my fingerprints on file in case I become criminal. If I'm innocent, I shouldn't be a suspected criminal in every future search forever.
I don't think there's anything wrong with an institution wanting to fingerprint you. Personally, however, I wouldn't work at a place that wanted to fingerprint me. The red flag that goes up when they ask for fingerprints isn't the "The GOVERNMENT IS WATCHING!! OH NOES!" flag, rather, it's the "this place treats its employees like numbers" flag.
I've worked at big companies that treat employees like numbers. I won't do it again.
burrocrisy
and that would be what? Ruling by jackasses? Never has a slashdot misspelling been more apropos
I am in final negotiations with a MSP Company based in Callifonia. During my interview they told me that they run background checks on all employees and require all new hires to submit to a drug test, fingerprinting and also require a basic credit report to be pulled. I don't have a problem with the Drug Screening, Background Check and fingerprinting as my current Job required it as well. Neither of these companies work with financial or government entities but this new job does work with with allot of schools and colleges. I have never really had an issue with any pre-screening a company wants to do before bringing on new employee, I did however have an issue with them running a Credit Check as I did not see the point. I won't get into their explanation but I do understand their point for wanting to do it. This company does give you the option to decline any of the required pre-screening, but will not hire you if you do not take a drug Test and get finger printed.
When the FBI conducts a background check, as opposed to some private company, this is a requirement they have. They will check it against their existing database. This is commonplace for security clearance processing and certain types of permits and licenses. Not too surprising that a financial institution would check into it as well.
What happened to the days where you could just give a little head and start work on monday?
So, I got pulled into America's frightening evil so-called "legal" so-called "system" using an (I thought) innocuous photo. When they came looking for my fingerprints all I could think of is the FBI computers constantly running matches for wanted people and figured that if I could wind up getting sweated by the cops using just a photo of me, I thought the chances of getting enough fingerprint point matches to wind up getting arrested for murder, rape, tax evasion, whatever they got with a death penalty attached. Yeah, maybe the system would work and kick me. But then again, I might be one of those elderly felons that were proved innocent and released after twenty five years on death row. I don't need that kind of malarky. Go find a place that's just a little bit more reasonable.
It's one of the reasons I gave up flying. I hated feeling all my civil rights evaporate as I entered an airport...
If you have a history of fraud, you shouldn't work in a bank.
If you have a history of drug abuse, you shouldn't work in a pharmacy.
If you have a history of child abuse, you shouldn't work in a daycare.
Disclosures of criminal history to an employer should be limited to relevant items only.
If sold as illegal drugs, we had 500g and 1k containers of the stuff stacked all over the lab for most of the day, enough to make piles of pure heroin.
If we don't want criminals holding positions of security, or even to hold a job, how do you explain the reluctance to discuss George Bush Jr.'s DUI arrest, cocaine and drug use, or desertion in time of war? If we can't get a job without FBI checks and anal cavity searches, how does Fortunate Son get away with it?
After a certain income is achieved, do we get to forgo background checks? Seems like it.
I'd like anyone who's not living in the US, US citizen or not, to answer questions I don't see asked often:
How does it work in your country? Worse? Better? Is it legal to require background checks, political tests, Google searches, drug screening, the Infamous Anal Cavity Search to get a job in your country? I'd guess positions of security would require some of those, of course, but how about you folk who just want a Plain Job? And how about you US types working and living abroad: do you have to put up with all this where you are parked, if you don't work for a US corporation?
1 - not really, I guarantee you have at least 10 unauthorized credit report requests on your report. Go ahead and check, we will wait for you. Are you shocked yet?
2 - I can get your SSN easily. in fact it's incredibly easy to get from the info you provided on your resume. a $15.00 first level background check(Cost drops to almost free with most corporate volume subscriptions) with places like Nexus-Lexis gives you that information for dirt. If you pass level 2 on your resume you get a check ran and a credit report pulled from that info. Oh, btw, by submitting your resume you give us the right to do this, hope you did not put in a real application with the resume as that gives us legal right to do almost anything.
3 - Please tell me how you will prove this? you will simply not be called. and when asked a "better qualified candidate" was picked. Nobody will tell you this, are you nuts to think this is any way possible to fight?
This is SOP at many corporations and actually cuts costs for HR. It's how they cut down tons of applicants that make it past the text filters to sort out the top desirable, they use credit as one of those qualifications.
Finally, that corporation can outspend you in court so hard your head will spin, I dare you to convince a judge that you did not authorize them to run your credit when you submitted a resume for consideration. The parent post is 100% correct, you are simply unfamiliar with how things really work.
Blame the credit companies and scumbag companies like lexis-nexis. They enable this kind of corporate behavior.
I once was fingerprinted for a software job at a major US financial institution. Recently, I was fingerprinted for a job teaching in the public school system. IMHO, both were justified.
Sorry, I though you had that heads up .. :-)
Insert
Wow, interesting to see everyone getting hot and bothered about a private company laying out conditions for employment and getting into a tizzy that those requirements infringe
Let's be clear here: the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (those freedoms on which our country is founded to quote one poster) was designed to protect the citizens and States from the Federal Government. It enumerated a list of rights which were expressly delegated to the Federal Government by the People and the States as well as a set of rights which were unalienable.
The US Constitution isn't about protecting me from someone else. Yes, the 14th and 15th Amendment and the "appropriate legislation" clauses allows the creation of the various Civil Rights Legislation, but at the end of the day there exist things it is perfectly legal (though maybe not fair, nice, or polite), which it would be illegal for the Federal Government to do.
I just love folks that are all for Libertarian Ideals for themselves, but when others exercise their Libertarian Ideals (freedom to contract) get all hot and bothered. You can't have it both ways. Chose which one you want.
Yours,
Jordan
Do you really think you're obeying the law? I'll bet you've broken laws that you don't even know exist. Just hope you don't run into a cop on a day when the donut shop was out of his favorite kind...
Every school district I have ever worked for required fingerprinting, not because of interaction with children, but because I would have access to everyones personal data (social security number, birth certificates, etc...). It's perfectly normal for any place that cares about the security of customer data to request fingerprints be on record with the local sheriff's office, and a thorough background check be done.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
...to those of us in the defense industry.
And as far as having to give fingerprints, big deal! I've had lots of jobs that required that, even before I ever worked in defense.
I once had a job as a security guard making $5.25 an hour, and they required me to give my fingerprints. All I had to do was sit in front of a big warehouse in my car all night. I didn't even have access to get in the front door.
Compare that with your sister, who will (presumably) have direct access to lots and lots of private financial data, and you think being asked to give fingerprints is some Draconian measure? Get real. There's nothing Orwellian going on here. Nothing's being "forced" on your sister. If she doesn't want to provide fingerprints, all she has to do is say "No, thanks", and walk away.
Wait till she gets hired and tells you about all the fun Corporate brainwas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htraining she'll get in her E-Mail with the requisite survey to confirm you received the email. :) Very political, lots of CYA etc.. weeee!
But I think the OP misunderstood their sister, she probably accepted the position and are commencing standard background checks. Very normal and expected for a financial institution. (I'm contracting for one of the top 3 financial institutions right now so am pretty familiar with the process)
Just thought I would break the old tinfoil hat, and remind you that someone could scan those and put them into a networked computer.
P.S.,
This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
You're wrong. Any hits that I would not previously be aware of are "soft hits." When a lender pulls your credit report these "soft hits" aren't shown - only the consumer sees this info. The most common soft hit is for pre-approved offers. In this case the credit offerer ordered x1,000 consumers that met specific criteria. This does not reveal any credit data about the consumer. "Hard" hits are what we're concerned with and do reveal credit data. This is what the potential employer would want to see and would legally need an authorization from the consumer under the FCRA.
Oh, btw, by submitting your resume you give us the right to do this, hope you did not put in a real application with the resume as that gives us legal right to do almost anything.This is also wrong. An applicant has to give explicit approval under FCRA. If you know of employers that are pulling credit reports based on resume submission alone you should inform your state attorney general.
...you are simply unfamiliar with how things really work.Again you are wrong. I have been through lending school, been a retail bank manager, consulted for both subprime and "standard" credit card companies and managed online credit decisioning projects working directly with Equifax, TransUnion and Experian.
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
1990 Trespassing Federal Property, Langley, Virginia
1992 Impersonating a Federal Agent, Washington, DC
1993 Installation of Automated Record Cleanser, Buffalo, New York
1993 Unauthorized Deployment of Federal Agents, Waco, Texas.
Then they pull up a blank record, proof of working code.. Profit
Storm
Being a former big box mainframe programmer with a financial company, I was subjected to a preemployment drug screen urine test, a police report background check, and a credit report review. They didn't request blood, or fingerprints however. I would have to tell you, these types of screenings are getting more common, especially in the financial sector since SarbOX. I see no red flags, with the company requesting the screening. I will offer one caveat to my opinion. I would not want to have a gene sequencing of my DNA. To me, that spells profiling, and that is not a good thing. zippy
My guess is that the fingerprint thing is mostly just the employer trying to cover its behind. While the fingerprint/background check can help with screening, I would be more concerned with what was being done to prevent a security issue once the person became an employee. Though it's probably small, I'd wager that there's a greater risk that your sister's personal info could be compromised by a government agency (a la: V.A. laptop), than used for nefarious purposes by the employer.
Oh certainly, that's what's done. Hell, even the small college I worked at had a document control system like that. Was just replying to poster saying Feds scanners directly to capture fingerprint data. After a stint in the military and various governmental related jobs, they have me patterned down to my underwear size.
If someone did get hold of my prints, for ID theft and committed a crime, would be no problem on my part to show it wasn't me. Have Good Egg stamped right on my file folder.
I drank what? -- Socrates
There are many, many industries that require fingerprinting as part of a job application in order to facilitate a background check and FBI criminal history check. I served for 22 years in the nuclear navy submarine force, followed by 24 years in the public commercial nuclear power industry, and during those 46 years I submitted fingerprints dozens of times---and, donated dozens of gallons of urine for required drug screens. Welcome sis to the real world.
so what's a 2%er ? Someone living on 2% fat milk ?
.. or for the Bohavians among us)
ITCOB must be sure "I Tame Cops On Breakfast" because, milk.. just belongs to breakfast...
I Tend Crunchy Obscure Bohavians could also be it
Frankly I still don't know what they mean; without offense to any cops (on milk
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Aren't there already laws for that to sue the freak out of any disgruntled employees?
In Europe (specifically Belgium) we only have to go to the local police station, we ask a "getuigschrift van goed gedrag en zeden" (translated: Will of good vice and behavior) which would be given to the employer. If you are clear of any crimes or jailtime you will get such paper without any problems or costs involved.
I would feel enraged, untrusted, violated and owned whenever a company would ask me to piss in a cup BEFORE I'd have the job position. I would need to give my "private" data, my fingerprints, my urine (which could contain ones private life, medication etc, the proof is in the puddi..err.. urine); But still, you get the point I guess; that for a programmers position; To me it's an outrage and I'd not take the position because I would feel quite stepped on my person and civil rights. Yet, if they would check on me they would get exactly the same data as without the check, because I know moral, ethics and values in life; I do not harm and know my job and position damn well without such paranoia on my behalf. I don't need drugs to be happy and am sure not an alcoholic and I don't need such checks on *my* life either.
What else do they want? Screen where I go to dinner? Where I go out in the weekends? where does it end ? And where does all that data go ? The FBI, the company, maybe a disgruntled employee at one of those companies who likes to collect his next targets and still got through the screening; because they look like any of us, for as far as you could tell your neighbour could be a serial killer and have a high-ranking position in any company. Go hide those knives hurry hurry!
If any employee would do something wrong, the company can still sue for damages/loss, if the cost of the project(s) are higher than the court costs; because we just do not sue everyone for the most pathetic reasons in Europe; I see no need in such background checks for a programmers position; your life is your damn life and no-one has any business with it -outside- business hours; for as far as I can tell credit checks are already too much information for any headhunter or company.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
'nuff said.
Thanks for telling me where I have to shave; I totally lost that sense of reality ....
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Oh, that's right, application development for a financial instituion. Why would they want to make sure that the person being hired is not a criminal? Well, how about integrity and responsibility?
As a stock holder, or investor I would demand a through background check including finger prints, urine analysis, and a credit report.
As the financial institution it would be irresponsibe to do any less.
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! I know the answer to this one!
It's a plot of the Illuminati to get everyone fingerprinted and tagged at birth, then they track where we end up working using companies like this one.
Jeez I'm good. Well so long, now that I've posted this I've got only a few days left till they get me.
The fingerprinting *is* being required by the government. It's a standard part of local [area] background checks - which are typically conducted by the State Patrol.