Home About The Codist RSS Feed

How Much Privacy Are You Willing To Give Up For A Job?
Sep 10, 2007 12:51 perm link Readers: 1681

I just turned down being interviewed for a contract position due to the client's demands for an invasive examination of my life which even exceeded what I had to do for a Secret security clearance.

Here's what they wanted me to fill out before a phone screen was even done:

  • The usual employment stuff
  • Detailed job history
  • Authorization for investigative consumer report (salaries, lifestyle, friends, etc)
  • Authorization for credit check
  • Authorization for drug testing
  • Authorization for fingerprint and criminal background check

Every form had my address/social security number/birth date on it and would likely be faxed to some subcontractor. There were no assurances of protecting my privacy on any form. Faxing these forms to the recruiter would open me to all sorts of identity theft since I have no way to measure the honesty of everyone in the chain (or even know who they might be).

I can understand an employer/contractee's need to verify that I am not a crook or likely to steal something after making a tentative agreement to hire me, and then where I have at least some idea of who is in charge of the information (like an HR department).

In the early 80's I qualified for a Secret Security Clearance from the DOD, and it actually had less requirements than this simple contract (which is not a defense company, just a financial services company like ones I have worked for in the past). In that defense job I was hired and then began the clearance process (although I had the clearance I never actually needed it). The FBI did all the work; whatever you might think of the government, at least they already had all the info I gave them.

So I've said no to this one, unless they decide to change their tune (sometimes people make demands they are willing to negotiate on), I will continue to work with other contract options that are less invasive.

I have nothing to hide that would concern anyone, but defending your privacy and personal information is all about avoiding giving others the opportunity to rip you off. You have to balance giving out enough to satisfy a reasonable request to the risk of losing your identity.

I'm not willing to risk all for a chance at a job.

My Tags:

  • Riccardo: Sep 11, 2007 07:51

    You're absolutely right!

    Those requests were simply put INSANE! No way I'm gonna give all this info to one I don't even know before (!) having even a phone screen!

    Regards,

    Riccardo

  • Jason: Sep 11, 2007 07:58

    Good for you for sticking to your guns.

    I had a similar experience recently with a large financial institution. The worst part was that it was only for a two-week contract engagement. It would have taken longer to get the results back than to complete the work! But they were unwilling to budge and I walked away the same as you did.

  • NoLiveTv: Sep 11, 2007 08:33

    Invasive? Insane? You can't know. It is the company's choice to ask for it and it is your choice to refuse to submit it. The reason why they have the policy is unkonwn to you, but may be very reasonable from thier perspective. For instance, the company I work for once hired a subcontractor who had 7 outstanding warrants for his arrest. When he was fired for blatantly violating software license in a way that would have exposed the company to nasty lawsuits, he social-engineered his way back into the office after hours and stole a bunch of company and personal property. My company successfully sued the subcontracting company for damages+. So I imagine the subcontractor now does background checks on whomever it hires.

    They are probably willing to lose a few potential employees to it. I would expect that if so many interviewees refused like you did, then they might change their policy, or even change their salaries so that the trepidation over potential identity theft is overcome by the actual rewards of submitting oneself to that potential. That's how the market works.

  • codist: Sep 11, 2007 09:28

    I do understand why they do this for hiring, the objection is having to give out this information before any contact is made. Once a contract is in place you at least have some fallback if they screw up.

  • Danno Ferrin: Sep 11, 2007 11:10

    Secret clearance is nothing. They basically check to see that you are not a paroled felon and do a credit check to see that you don't have crushing debt that can be used to blackmail you. And secret basically gets you on base and allows you to clean the toilets.

    To do most anything worth getting cleared for requires Top Secret, and at the lowest background check levels they ask for more than you listed, such as medical histories (for mental illness) and such.

  • Stephen: Sep 11, 2007 13:02

    Does that mean there's still an opening?

  • JGM: Sep 11, 2007 14:05

    Good for you. I can see that portions of this would be fine in and of themselves once you were hired, but just to do a phone interview? I'd hate to think about what it would be like actually working for them. Daily frisking and body cavity searches? Unfortunately for many of us, there is no real incentive for companies to be realistic about their expectations in situations like this. There is always someone who is desperate enough to just submit.

    @Danno Ferin - I dont know about what kind of bases you've been on that need a secret clearance to clean the toilets, but as someone who at different times has held confidential through top secret clearances, there is a lot going on even at the confidential and secret levels, and the background wasn't nearly as invasive as described in this article.

  • Add Comment

Name:


Optional URL:


Comment:


Save Cancel

Copyright © 2007 By Andrew Wulf