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 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.
"Completely sober?! Can't be having with that..."
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
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.
Putting aside how disturbing that sounds out of context, that is not always the case. You generally have more bargaining power at this stage than you think. Consider that that the company just went through a process of posting a position, narrowing down the field to the few they want to interview, then choosing one and making the job offer. They may be able to just drop you and move to their second choice but then they may be excited about obtaining you as an employee and want to do whatever necessary to get you. They certainly do not want to go through that whole process again if there were no other viable candidates and they can avoid it.
Or look at it this way, if they can easily dump you without a second thought the moment you wish to discuss opting out of personally invasive investigations, or altering an overreaching IP agreement then they could easily dump you at any time and do not consider you all that valuable. Do you really want to work there?
If you are desperate and will do anything for money then suck it up and deal with whatever they want to do to you. If you are looking for a place to have a career then it might be worth not settling and continuing to look for employment elsewhere.
I'd be concerned when they ask "Do you think you're special, Mr. Anderson?"
[Insert pithy quote here]
"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
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.
"Lisa, a guy who's got lots of ivory is _less_ likely to hurt Stampy than a guy whose ivory supplies are low."
I am not a crackpot.
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.
They let her go but everyone was thinking "what is she trying to hide?"
Wow. She was lucky to get out of there at the start. I bet she'd have hated to find out she was working for a company staffed entirely by judgemental jerks after she'd been there long enough to find out.
Yeah, for nearly all jobs in health care you're required to do:
- Fingerprinting (criminal background check)
- Urine sample (check for drugs/drug metabolites)
- Credit check
- Reference check
Urine samples are usually done at random. So if you've taken a tablet of someone else's vicodin within the past week or so (and you have no proof of a script stored at a pharmacy), then you're in trouble if you happen to be selected. Most likely, you'd be fired. HR can also force you to submit urine for any reason and at any time. I've had few jobs outside of health care so I'm not sure if all employers are like this now.
Whether or not I agree with it, they say that the fingerprints (and urine samples) are done for the safety of the patients. If they're already looking through your urine, I don't understand the big deal about running your fingerprints, especially since fingerprints are usually not kept on file. I haven't been asked to submit a blood sample for DNA, but to me that seems a little over the top for a programming or finance job. Then again, you can't exactly argue with them - if you refuse, you simply don't get the job. Complaints to people in government probably won't do much at all - hell, our social security numbers weren't supposed to be used for anything else except, well, social security. But now they're used for everything. Imagine, your life and identity stored in a simple, non-secure 9 digit code. But I digress..
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
Uh dude, are you a clueless manager? Because you sure sound like one. It is like you don't even think about the decisions you make. Unless the position you are trying to fill has the person working with money then a credit check is completely unneccessary and if any possible employer of mine were to ask for one I would tell them no thanks and I would find someplace else to work. It is NONE of your damn business what my financial situation is. You are part of the problem my friend.
Uh, dude? If you've got 10 maxed out credit cards, I don't want you working in my company. Not knowing how to manage your money, and needing money, are two good reasons for it. Being irresponsible means you may show up late or not at all, needing money means that when you show up,
Yeah, because the only way to end up in debt is by being irresponsible, there is no other way right? How about freak medical bills or having your home burn down? I could list quite a few more but instead I will give you the story of a guy I know:
About 2 years ago this mans wife found out she had cancer and only had about 1 year to live. She decided to spend that year doing drugs and drinking heavily and ended up spending nearly all of their money as well as maxing some joint credit cards. She died in a car wreck not too much longer than 6 months after this started. He was stuck with all the debt she left behind as well as having to pay burial costs and pay to move himself and his 2 small children over 2000 miles away to a state his family lived in so he could be closer to them as well as try to leave his wife in the past. He is now at least ~$50,000 in debt and it wouldn't suprise me if a lot of it was credit cards. This man would never even THINK about stealing, he just wants to work and pay off his debt and support his family. Guess what? He has had a hell of a time finding a job and has spent the last half of a year working at a restaurant and part of the reason he has been turned down for other jobs is because of credit checks. How is this fair? You seem to think "oh, he is irresponsible and can't manage money since his credit is bad. I wouldn't want to give him a chance to turn his life around and pay off those bills. I mean obviously he would try to steal shit from my company."
Something is just not right in your head if you honestly think that way, open up your mind a little bit.
As far as responsibility and wanting to know if the applicant will show up to work why don't you do something that makes sense like call some of his former places of employment and ask them if they would hire him again and if they had any problems with him while he worked there? That at least makes sense instead of just assuming they are irresponsible and will steal shit from you since their credit is bad.
What company do you work for? I want to make sure I never apply for a job there.
Good day.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
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")