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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It really depends on the job though, doesn't it? I agree if you are hiring someone for a creative position (like programming) it is probably best to accept that the good people might not be perfectly "normal" (in a general society sense).
However, if you are hiring a teacher, or day care worker, or nurse, or anyone who needs to interact with people as a primary job function (especially vulnerable people) then you better damn well make sure they are mentally stable and law abiding.
Finkployd
Employers look at your financial stability for TWO reasons, one is what you list, it basically shows their fiscal responsibility and can be very related or not related at all to the position (personally, I wouldn't want to hire a corporate tax accountant that can't keep himself out of debt...web design specialist, not too worried about it). The second reason though is important for an entirely different reason, it also shows at least a little bit of how motivated someone will be to steal from you. I wouldn't hire an employee that had $50,000 in credit card debt to work a $30,000 per year job without some other extenuating circumstances. Also, remember employees that never see cash at a job can still steal or black mail you.
As to mental stability, you are in a special circumstance here, but most employers aren't going out of their way to hire people who are very likely going to just go missing for weeks at a time. You state you have been on your meds continually for one year but don't state how old you are. If you are 18-20 or so, then good for you, keep it up. If you are 40 then that means half your life you have bounced off and on them and will likely continue to do so, at least from an employer's perspective.
Oh, and not many employers will go out of their way to hire a law breaking employee, of course that depends on the job and the law, but I personally wouldn't want my grandma at a nursing home where a nurse had a long history of substance abuse arrests, have my taxes done by someone who was guilty of tax evasion, or hire a policeman guilty of battery in the past.
Based on the rest of your post, you have probably reinforced the idea that those tests are the greatest thing since sliced bread. A bipolar who goes on spending binges and gulps drugs like water? Yeah, that's someone I'd take a gander on for a financial programming job.
If you hiring process can't screen out addicts, fire HR, don't treat your employees like cattle.
It's called politics. Try running for office some time. Of course, it helps if you already happen to be privileged to begin with.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I've drawn my line at looking at my financial and even my health records;
no you haven't. Most employers right now pull a credit report on you before they interview. you can not stop that from happening. I personally think it is wrong, but 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.
I am not joking, Management position applications at the last corperation I was at were ordered by credit score not by experience or education.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The most stupid thing is, hard drugs leave the body completely after a couple of days. Cannabis stays in the fat tissues for 1 month. So, you can be a cocaine junkie, you only need to refrain for a couple of days to get your job, but if you smoke a single joint at a party or something, you're junkie considered for 1 month, even if you behave like a monk afterwards.
...except the addicts I've known in my life were extremely good at social engineering. Hence they were able to 'legitimately' acquire their poison of choice. One guy I knew in high school fooled multiple doctors (medical & psychiatric) into believing he had BPD to get a big Rx for Xanax. Something tells me he's going to be able to fool your average HR employee.
I can't believe I'm arguing in favor (obliquely) of invasive screening, but IMHO if you rely on HR for anything more complicated than displacing air, you're asking for trouble.
That being said, I have no objection to a criminal background check. I'd argue that if someone is a drug addict and is smart enough to have avoided conviction, then that person is smart enough to do the job I'm hiring them for. (The odds of someone having a drug problem to the point where it would affect their job performance without having run into trouble with the law at some point are pretty low, as far as I know.) I object to drug testing as a screening method for potential hires, as I'm ostensibly being hired for the product of my brain and my hands, not the product of my kidneys, and therefore said product is none of their business. If there's a problem with performance or security, then you could argue for a test if it's warranted (read: there's some legal due process before the request for a sample can be made.)
Personally, if a drug test is part of the hiring requirements, at the very least it's going to cost my potential employer more to hire me (since they're buying the right to invade my privacy.)
As much as I hate to bring the law into this, IMHO there should be SOME sort of regulation regarding who can and can't be legally required to provide a sample for a drug test. I mean seriously, do we care if the guy who stocks the shelves at CVS likes to smoke a joint once in a while? (That shows up for up to 30 days.)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
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.
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.
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.
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
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")