January 18, 2008 at 9:43 am
There are several things to bear in mind when you consider a topic like this.
First off, an agreement to form an employment relationship is just that - a relationship. For both parties to understand where they stand is reasonable. As long as your testing expectations are stated clearly upfront, I'm not sure that any test is a real problem, since you would have the opportunity to reject the relationship before it starts.
The only time I'd have a problem is if the employer felt it was their right to pop-quiz you with tests after they get you to agree you want to form that relationship. In that way, they've already started out with a violated trust.
To say that someone else has no rights to want to test you for honesty, capacity, sobriety, or lawfulness is quite honestly, hypocritical. You want to come into a job knowing the job requirements, salary, benefits, and promotion opportunities, but you don't want the employer to know about your fitness for what they feel would be a baseline for a good relationship with them?
The way I see it any test within the law is fine as long as they present those tests upfront.
Just my two cents,
John
January 18, 2008 at 11:12 am
I'm all for the majority of checks that companies will use. However, I feel that there are some that can be misleading or unfair to the potential employment candidate.
An example would be a credit check. I believe that if you are interviewing for a high-profile company that deals with billions of financial transactions (like a bank) then a credit check could be warranted. But, if you are interviewing for a position as a DBA for a vet-clinic then your credit probably shouldn't be as much of a factor.
No matter what position you are in; at some point you will have access to private sensitive information. I believe that just because you may have poor credit doesn't make you any more likely to embezzle than someone that has perfect credit. It all comes down to the person; and, I won't get started on the unfair treatment of credit scores, I believe that credit scores should not contain items such as hospital bills and child support (these are things that you didn't necessarily volunteer to have 'credit' for). A credit score should be based on what you 'asked' to have credit for!
Sorry for that rant. I think background checks and illegal drug tests are very proper, and more and more common to see. Other tests should be based on security requirements of the position, and I would probably like to see some sort of a standard by the (uggg, gonna say it) government on what is acceptable to test for. A lie detector test for bartending isn't acceptable in my view; I am sure that the bar's cash and liquor is important to the owner; but, is it so important that they should be allowed to delve deeply into your past and 'make' you prove you're honest!?
That's my 2 cents...plus more.
Happy weekend to all!
James
~ Without obstacles, you cannot progress ~
http://sqln.blogspot.com/
January 18, 2008 at 11:25 am
With the volume of sensitive projects (even Market Surveillance) going to Bangalore, where they are effectively out of control, I find this debate to be not one of who has the right to do what to whom. It's unimportant when the vital data are offshored anyway. Testing has nothing to do with security, as offshoring proves. It is all about discrimination.
For me, it underscores a radical shift in the IT profession from a hotbed of libertarianism, to a hotbed of apathy and blind trust of authority... 'it doesn't matter if they came for the others, they didn't come for me'. Sick, sick sick.
Wouldn't be surprised if it later comes out that some terrorist used the millions that he got from the CIA and the drug trade during the Reagan years to start an outsourcing firm in Bangalore... no worries about credit checks over there.
January 18, 2008 at 11:31 am
Interesting comments especially from the other side of the pond where life is different. As the global economy grows together, I would think that US practices, right or wrong will become more common in the industrialized nations.
My college daughter works part time in a collection agency. They take the samples and send them off for testing. It is interesting seeing what types of business sends its employees for testing either in the office or onsite. These include government agencies, airlines, oil companies and a whole lot of smaller business you might not ever consider. Part of this stems from our legal system and the prosecution of those for little errors that become big dollar machines in jury awards. Employers cannot afford to hire someone without proper screening for almost everything just to protect themselves from anything. It's also interesting to here about the attempts to fool the testing. Guess what, they pretty much know the tricks and have standards that make it nearly impossible to fake a test.
Do you want to hire someone who tried to fake a test?
A friend of mine was hiring mechanics for his business. On the application, it ask about drug use and states that they must pass a mandatory urine test before hire. $100 later, the applicant fails the test. It got so expensive for all these failed tests that he changed the policy to one that reimburses the applicant if they pass the test and then are hired. That cut down on false applicants.
Their are positives to the testing. And by the way, Mythbusters proved that you would have to eat a whole lot of poppy seeds in order to fail the drug test. A whole lot.
In today's news here, an assistant vice-principle at a local school was caught this week doing cocaine on school grounds including his office. The same office where he disciplined kids for illegal drug use. Time and disclosure will tell what the school district knew about him and any recent drug tests. Shouldn't his next employer be informed of his past habits and activity? And I'm not talking about events 20 years ago as a dumb kid. We probably all did something that we would not want to publicly reveal.
"When was the last time you beat your wife in public?" the lie detector technician asked.
January 18, 2008 at 11:41 am
Right on ... fantastic answer.
January 18, 2008 at 12:00 pm
For all the years these different types of testing have been going on, these are still very debatable issues. So, no diatribe, just quick answers from a personal view.
Drug Testing: Pre-hire would depend on the job, level of harm type issues, post_employment testing would also depend on the level of harm that may be inflicted, but also taking into consideration events, and trained observations.
Criminal Check: I think this is pretty valuable and for a lot of jobs, a must. But the results should be tempered by a reasonable "second interview".
Financial background: Useful for a lot more jobs than people think. Someone with a high debt load may be looking to continue to try to move for the bigger salary, or maybe take a second job that impacts their performance, or opens the door to temptations that might not have considered except for their situation.
Skill Tests: I love these. But please let existing technical staff help generate the technical questions. I was in an interview recently where they wanted advanced technical knowledge, but only asked 4 or 5 basic questions that enable me to answer without proving any knowledge. I think there are some skill tests that can be applied to managerial positions that can help identify if they have the skills to actually manage people and effort.
Personality tests: Well, if they claim to be an engineer and they end up showing they have a personality, that should be a failure. Just kidding. The best way to perform a personality test, in my opinion, is to allow the peer group of the vacant position to have some participation in the interview process to talk with candidates. There are also some very basic listening skills that can be applied to determine a persons base personality type.
January 18, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Wow. I am truly saddened by how many of you are willing to "bend over and take it".
The only thing that is an employer's business is your skill set and your job performance. Test the employee's skills before hire and monitor the employee's performance after hire.
It's that simple. Anything else is unconstitutional. Again I ask - what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
January 18, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I don't agree with the financial background being indicative of someone's willingness to perform a criminal activity. I've been in financial debt to the point of considering bankruptcy, and at the same time in a position that had access to 100,000's of personal data; I never once thought about mis-using that responsibility. Think about it...why would I (or anyone for that matter) be willing to take a small (or medium) monetary gain, while risking the position that was currently paying the bills I could pay?
If you think about it further; have you every known a co-worker, friend, or family member that actually had sold (or attempted to sell) private information just so they could get out of some sort of financial debt?
I think the movies, books, and other sources of information (real or not) have conditioned us to think that people would do these things because of a gambling problem or drug use problem (seen the movie firewall? do you think the chances of that happening is likely?); even if that were true I don't think that would show up in anyone's financial background check.
I still can't see a reason (other than someone having access to millions of dollars worth of information) that a financial background check would be required, and the only reason I would agree that it is ok to do a financial background check is because you only need to see if the person is living a lifestyle that exceeds their income (real or potential)...that person may be a likely candidate to attempt embezzlement. I don't think rather you are rich, middle-income, or near bankruptcy would have an indication of if you would do something illegal at the job. I think that we hear more of embezzlement by high-level execs than the blue-collar worker; and I'd guess that those execs probably are passing financial background checks because they have the income, or haven't been caught yet.
Ask yourself this to put things more into perspective. What if you found out that the person in the office (or cubicle) next to you owes $150,000 in medical bills, car payments, etc...And they are currently being foreclosed on… And is divorced and paying child-support for 2 children. Now, knowing this (remember it is hypothetical) do you think that person is likely to steal from the company now? What if you've known that person for the past 10 years, hang out with them sometimes? I tell you that 9 out of 10 times, that a financial background check on that person would result in them being turned down for the job...is that fair?
Thanks,
James
~ Without obstacles, you cannot progress ~
http://sqln.blogspot.com/
January 18, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Sing4you:
Does this mean you've never had a potential employer require a background check or that whenever you have you've turned the position down? Or is it that when asked you've said "NO" and you were hired anyway?
I ask because virtually every job I've had or applied to in the last 20 years has asked for some type of release to check my background in one form or another.
Only 1 position in the last 10 years has required drug testing - because this particular company sourced auto parts to the federal government where such testing is manditory. I took the test and got the job.
Though several had financial checks as a requirement, only 1 actually did pull a credit report - it was for a job at a bank (I saw the hit on my credit report). And I didn't get the job because of past poor credit history.
All the jobs I've directly applied for or gone through a headhunter service, they've all asked for a release to check my background, prior employment history, education history, etc., etc., etc.
Do I like it? I never have liked it. Have I ever said no? Yes, and in both instances I was no longer considered for employment. I don't think any of us like the idea of being examined like that, some feel there is justification but bending over and taking it? I'd be afraid to guess where I'd be now if I didn't grab my ankles....
January 18, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Certainly, employers have checked my job history and education history and references. I have never had to take a drug test and would not. I've not had my financial background checked, either, as far as I know. ( I guess that's a big if.) I believe I have had a criminal background check.
And I'm 55 so I've been around awhile.
January 18, 2008 at 3:30 pm
My comment on the Financial check is more intent on, how long might this person be around if someone offers them more money, or will they potentially take a second job that may impact their performance in the job I am filling.
It was only an associated thought that someone may do something criminal if they are in financial straights. However, I have had co-workers lose their jobs for reasons ranging from trying to double bill a Health Care reimbursement, to stealing equipment and software for resale. The folks who did these deeds were in financial straights. Now, I have worked with a lot of folks, and this is definitely the minority. But it does occur. One thing to note, these employees were a bit longer term employees. They were not new hires.
On a side note
The term "innocent until proven guilty" relates to the judicial process. It means very little in the business environment. And with some of the changes in the law and interpretations by the courts in more recent years and the continuing trends, it will mean even less in the business environment in the future.
January 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Well, You've been in the workin world longer than I have (I'm 46), and if you haven't had to compromise to get the job, that's awsome.
Maybe I have been too easy at giving in, but getting married (I got married later in life @36), having kids - a mortgage and all that. When I made the decision to sign the paperwork for the first job and to OK the background check, I actually figured there are those that can afford to stand on principal and I was no longer one of them. Someone earlier commented about the crack of a whip, I just wanted to make sure my Wife had the nicest home I could get for her - and the kids (she has 2 from her first marriage).
Call me a wimp I guess...
Ah - Whatever, I like my job, I enjoy what I do, my bills are paid up to date, the wife is expecting (child #2), the dog is ... chewing on the boy's BRAND NEW SHOES!!! *stupid mutt*
For the most part, life is good and I guess I'm ok with compromising my principals as it's allowed me to provide a better life for the family...
January 18, 2008 at 3:45 pm
You're not a wimp at all. I don't know what I would have done if I coudn't have found jobs that were in line with my values.
Also, I have no children, so that makes a big difference.
I did, however, get married for the first time at age 50, and I have a mortgage and am the primary breadwinner so they might get me yet.
January 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Just a thought on a comment I once heard about pre-employment financial checks. It wasn't to pry but to find out if the person was responsible or not with their own money. Why trust someone with yours if they can't manage their own?
The assumption being that if their financial life was in order, then it might indicate that they were "smart" enough to handle the required job responsibilities.
Is that valuable information for use in judging a candidates potential? Maybe. Maybe not.
January 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm
After a brief discussion with the Wife about the topic, and she's a stay at home Mom (don't ever say a stay at home Mom doesn't work!!) and her opinion was the same as others here. The background check should match the requirements of the job. You don't want a convicted child molester working in a day care center. You don't want a habitual drug abuser driving a bus - or flying a plane. You don't want someone that has been convicted of bank fraud working at a bank.
Most of the releases I've signed don't limit the search or define an expiration. They usually say something like a background check can include a criminal check, credit history, and more I'm sure. None of them had an expiration date, which I interpret as meaning an employer could use that document at any time in the future to do a random check of anything they want.
One more comment... My oldest step daughter works at a fast food restaurant and she came in the other day saying she was offered a manager job, but she has to fill a cup - drug test - to take the job. She didn't even hesitate to agree - managers make more money and usually have better hours. I'm not sure she even sees it as an invasion, it's become such a part of the working world these days the the kids expect it. There maybe something profound in this...
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 44 (of 44 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply