Posted by Auguste May 12, 2008 in Asides, Boggles the Mind
Am I behind the curve because I’ve never heard of one of these before?
A consumer report contains information about your personal and credit characteristics, character, general reputation, and lifestyle.
And how does the reporting agency get that information? By that most American of methods:
[I]nterviews with an applicant’s or employee’s friends, neighbors, and associates
I’m not crazy, right? This is a frighteningly invasive technique when it comes to employment, right?
61 Responses to “It’s no longer enough just to pay your bills on time”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This was me again.
Keep in mind that it is legal to hire or a not hire a candidate for ANY reason short of racial, gender, etc. discrimination, and it is also legal to not say anything about why a candidate is or isn’t hired.
I have seen that line before and always wondered about the “character, general reputation, and lifestyle” line. The “interviewing others” thing reminds me of how I was catching up on some One Tree Hill episodes and when Brooke Davis is looking to adopt a child a few weeks ago, many questions came up that indicated that the agency had previously interviewed her mother. It’s usually not that obvious in a real-life hiring process (not to mention that most interviewees are vastly sharper at it than Brooke was.)
Who the fuck would answer these people’s questions? If some consumer report asshat calls me about a friend, Hell an enemy, I would tell them nothing. It ain’t brain surgery that if we say no, then they get no info. Just like not giving your phone number when you buy stuff at Toys R Us (a friend’s child had a bd party -sue me).
Welcome to the Former United States.
A lot of people will do any small thing asked of them, just to be nice. The stalwart will say “no, that’s none of your business. No. No. I said no.” But many will give in so as not to be a bother, and the shitheads out there prey upon this desire to please.
I’m so glad I’m a bitch. I say no and if they don’t take that an answer I get mean. Fuck ‘em.
i don’t even understand why an employer NEEDS a credit history. for instance, i have a bad credit score - a combo of divorce and many many many many many doctor bills. this does not make me irresponsible, financially OR otherwise, and is NO ONE ELSE’S business (with the exception of people who might LOAN me money, because they have to have some history to base their gamble on)
i just don’t get it. its totally irrelevant to most jobs.
i just don’t get it. its totally irrelevant to most jobs.
You mean apart from, you know, being in a debt hole being a serious risk factor for embezzlement or otherwise stealing from the employer?
Why would any of your friends agree to such interviews?
Time to quote Jello Biafra again:
For every spy in government
There’s fifty private eyes
Who round up dirt on you to keep on file
Then sell the file!
[…]
You can’t live here
We won’t hire you
We know all the nasty things you do
Bought a dossier on your whole life
Clear back to the pranks you did in school at age 5
There’s millions on file at the touch of a button
Your boss or your landlord will love our choice cuts of gossip
If it’s lies, what can you do?
‘Cos it costs too much to sue
And the last person who’ll ever see your file is you
Had an unusual job interview one time- the interviewer asked me, from her own handwritten file card:
Did I mention that I am/was neither Fox nor Mulder, just a lab tech looking to work in a hospital??
And to stay on topic- this is nuts. Just nuts.
@Dana: Why would they indeed! If it were a Facebook app, surely it would not be popular!! Srsly, your facebook-myspace-lifestyle score will come standard with the info package for your employer/landlord/etc within three years.
Also, what is this “reputation” crap? Is that as in “”If the neighbors see you making out with your boyfriend, you could get a . . . reputation“?
Or do they mean it in the sense of “Obama is reputed to be a member of Hamas” sort of thing?
Because the say-so of gossips, twits, and the sort of people who can’t process anything more complicated than a sound-bite–now that’s a basis for a credit rating.
At least quote the whole passage:
A consumer report contains information about your personal and credit characteristics, character, general reputation, and lifestyle. To be covered by the FCRA, a report must be prepared by a consumer reporting agency (CRA) — a business that assembles such reports for other businesses.
Employers often do background checks on applicants and get consumer reports during their employment. Some employers only want an applicant’s or employee’s credit payment records; others want driving records and criminal histories. For sensitive positions, it’s not unusual for employers to order investigative consumer reports — reports that include interviews with an applicant’s or employee’s friends, neighbors, and associates. All of these types of reports are consumer reports if they are obtained from a CRA.
Applicants are often asked to give references. Whether verifying such references is covered by the FCRA depends on who does the verification. A reference verified by the employer is not covered by the Act; a reference verified by an employment or reference checking agency (or other CRA) is covered. Section 603(o) provides special procedures for reference checking; otherwise, checking references may constitute an investigative consumer report subject to additional FCRA requirements.
I am reading this as: an employer can order a standard credit report, or, IN ADDITION to that, they can get additional information — basically a background check. I think that the confusion comes from the implication that it’s the same agency doing the whole damn thing (they must be making a mint!).
I agree that it’s invasive, but let’s not assume that all credit reports necessarily will include interviews with every person you’ve ever slept with.
Incidentally, as a piece of anecdata, an ex of mine briefly worked for the NSA (in a tech capacity, not an agent). I heard through the grapevine that they had to do a pretty thorough background check, and yet no one ever contacted me (and we had been broken up less than a year at the time). I thought that was interesting.
And yes, I agree that it’s irrelevant to most jobs. At the very least, there should be some sort of pre-emptive procedure whereby when you sign the form authorizing the check, where you can explain, “my bad credit is because of x, y, z” and document it somehow. It still puts the employer in the position of deciding whether you’re a “worthy debtor” or not, and that’s gross… but perhaps not as gross as not getting the job because your credit got ruined over something that wasn’t your fault.
PiaToR: You mean apart from, you know, being in a debt hole being a serious risk factor for embezzlement or otherwise stealing from the employer?
Only if you have a job where you handle money with little oversight. I’d be all for applying such checks to CFOs.
I bet there’s some percentage of “friends” (what’s the definition of “friend” anyway?) and “acquaintances” (somebody you shared a bus ride with?) who would be thrilled with the power they would have over somebody’s fate if asked to spill the beans on them.
Police states don’t really have enough law enforcement people to keep them operating successfully. They all depend in large part on getting regular people to watch and inform on each other.
It’s great to see that we’re learning how to become all we could be in America v2.0.
Now if we could just have arbitrary arrests, eliminate habeas, start using torture to get confessions, read all email (and maybe “real” mail too), eliminate constitutional protections, and institute universal phone taps, we could really make something of this place…Oh wait…
MikeEss has a point at 0754h. Think of all the inaccurate, malicious, jaw-dropping* nonsense you hear from people who “know someone well”; think of the vast number of people you’ve met who will say something just to be a dick; think of all the people who aren’t dicks who just misunderstand a situation or don’t have the necesary information to understand it.
.
.
.
* - This was originally typo’d as “draw-jopping”, which is a way cooler word.
Please note that there’s a massive difference between a “credit report” and a “consumer report.” I worked for that industry for a number of years and “consumer reports” are quite rare because of the time and labor intensity required to gather them. Employment reports are far more likely to contain a credit report, verification of past employment and education and not much else. “Consumer reports” have been defined by law since 1971, so they’re nothing new.
A friend of mine was doing his Masters in Canada and needed sensitive computer equiptment (high quality thermal cameras) sent across the border to and from Michigan. To do that he needed clearance from the Canadian government and the US government in various ways. He needed to list at least two persons who had know him for ten years and I was one of the lucky ones… I kept expecting a call from either agency. He had all my work contact details and my home contact info… narry a peep from them.
So it’s possible that information is only used when there is a reason to be suspicious, but it’s also possible that being willing to provide the information at all clears their risk threshold.
In either case, if (as is the example the company gives) you are going to be a cashier at the local grocery store it makes no sense that they will put you through the same hoops someone who deals with sensitive electronics is put through by the government. Honestly, in this case we can say plainly this isn’t rocket science, it’s a company going on a power trip and invading your personal privacy. They don’t need this information, if there is a problem with your work then they can take whatever action is deemed appropriate.
This could easily turn into another tax on the poor. You can’t get a job without good credit and you can’t get good credit without a job, so sorry bub, you’re going to be working at Walmart forever…
It sounds totally crazy, but some employers do them. However, they’re rarely done on your average job. My dad had a similar report done on him when he got his security clearance upped a notch. They don’t waste the time and money unless you’ll be in a position with very sensitive information or lots and lots of cash or something.
These idiots somehow miss that you can usually identify a problem candidate during a day long interview by their responses to a variety of stock questions and sometimes by their voluntary answers!
They also seem to miss that the most dangerous kind of person - the true sociopath - will likely have all of his or her neighbors buying into what a great person they are! Just look at that whole BTK murder situation - only a few people over a very very long span of years had this guy pegged for a psycho.
SO, if the goal is to not hire a Ted Bundy or an embezzler, this is really going to fall short of the mark.
It is also creepy and invasive, in addition to being stupid and useless.
Ah, but if you don’t have anything to hide, what’s the problem? Hmmmm???
I think it should be bloody illegal. Your credit report should be incredibly difficult to get a hold of due to the personal info and potential for identity theft.
Why should your ability to get a job be harmed by a divorce or medical problems or youthful stupidity? How are you ever supposed to get yourself out of debt and be responsible if no one will hire you?
More than that, once a credit card company has offered you credit, they should have absolutely no right to look at your credit report again.
They have a relationship with you. If you are paying them on time, that’s all they need to know. These bastards look up your credit rating and if you have a problem with some other card, they will raise your rates, even if you have been a perfect customer to them.
Again, if you have a problem in one place, how are you ever supposed to dig yourself out if you can’t get a job and if every other debt you have suddenly starts charging you 30% interest not because you missed a payment to them or were late to them, but b/c of a dispute with an unrelated third party?
My parents had to declare bankruptcy (brought about due to the fact my dad ran his own company and suffered a heart attack and triple bypass). They had leased Hondas from the same company for over 20 years—they didn’t have to put anything down anymore b/c they were considered such loyal customers. During the bankruptcy, they did NOT put the Honda in the action, but continued to make payments as scheduled.
Always before, Honda called and wrote them when the lease was nearing completion and asked if they wanted to trade it in or buy it and arranged a time for them to come in. This time, they repo’d it in the middle of the night as if my parents were deadbeats. Honda had to refund the last payment my folks made b/c even though they’d cashed the check, they still came and took the car.
Why did they take it? Not b/c my parents had been deadbeats. On the contrary, they had been excellent and loyal customers. But the customers don’t matter anymore. Someone ran a credit check on them automatically, saw the pending bankruptcy and repo’d the car without consulting them. They had a 20 year relationship, but that doesn’t matter anymore and it should.
These fucking corporations have absolutely no business running credit reports on established customers. What? Piotr thinks that it might increase the risk to the corporations?
TOO FUCKING BAD. That’s the risk of doing business. Does it take more time than having an outsourced minimum wage Indian running a credit check? Sure. But THAT’S DOING BUSINESS.
I firmly believe the law should be on the side of individuals. Giving corporations any excuse to raise rates or screw over the little guy should be illegal.
Fix the damn bankruptcy lawcredit card companies should not be exempt—they already charge 30% and more (which should also be illegal. Whatever happened to usury laws?) that’s their ‘insurance’ against default.
I worked in a lower-mid-management level for an insurance company for a couple of years. We did “background checks” for secretarial positions and for lawyer positions. One of my colleagues at the same level in another state hired a secretary for whom the background check did not reveal a murder indictment from a neighboring state. Once the information became known in the office it was a bit difficult to figure out what to do with her pending trial. She was convicted.
Query, if information is available which might avoid hiring a “dangerous” person, will a company which does not check it be liable to another employee who is hurt by that “dangerous” new hire?
I have had several FBI guys ask me about neighbors who have security clearance renewal requirements. The questions are pretty innocuous: drinking problems, any reason to doubt loyalty to country, etc. Sometimes the subjects tell me someone may come by, but when they don’t I tell the subject someone did come by. I always look carefully at the credentials, but they could be forged, I suppose. I haven’t had any commercial inquiries about neighbors and would decline to answer if I did.
I don’t fill out those lists of personal preferences which come attached to appliance warranty registration cards. Research capablity (buying trends) is a privacy problem. The only way I can think to combat it is to minimize my presence on the net.
I second that rage Caren. Now how do we make it happen? We must find a way to diminish the complete power and control of corporations in this country (the world?).
Related story: they can electronically get into your bank account if you send them a check. They don’t want to wait to process the check, so they create an ACH transaction. I called my bank and told them I wanted to block unauthorized ACH, and they said neither they (nor I) had authority to do so. THat’s right. I have no authority to block corporations from electronically accessing MY bank account without my permission. What does that say about rights in this country?
You’re not. You’re supposed to work low-wage jobs for the rest of your life like a good little serf and leave credit to the honest, upstanding people like Bernard Ebbers and Jeffrey Skilling.
This is a frighteningly invasive technique, period. It’s also a very effective technique, as the Communists have shown us, if your goal is to, you know, control the population.
mnemosyne, don’t forget Ken Lay who somehow faked his own death and is sipping Mai Tai’s on the beach somewhere tropical (and expensive)…
I’m teasing.
We know he’s really dead.
I mean, nobody could pull that off, right?
I’m sure being a friend of the president and VP who enabled your crimes wouldn’t matter. How could it? It’s not like they could do a whole bunch of nasty stuff in secret and make every effort to keep it hidden…right?…
A friend of mine is in the application process for a job with a major defense contractor (icky, I know…), and she is having to go through this level of background checking. We were hanging out recently and someone called her trying to get the contact info of people she’d lived with out in Portland several years ago. Of course, for this job she also has to have a psychological profile, polygraph test, and all kinds of other ridiculous stuff related to high security clearances.
It’s also important to know that a garden-variety background check may or may not involve much real digging — usually the info is gleaned from publicly available information (were you interviewed on the local news? been involved in litigation?). Interviewing people is a little above and beyond. The average individual has every bit as much a right to engage in this sort of background check as corporations do, by the way. It’s the same idea as checking out your myspace page or googling you.
I have had several FBI guys ask me about neighbors who have security clearance renewal requirements. The questions are pretty innocuous: drinking problems, any reason to doubt loyalty to country, etc. Sometimes the subjects tell me someone may come by, but when they don’t I tell the subject someone did come by. I always look carefully at the credentials, but they could be forged, I suppose.
When we first moved to [the undisclosed location in the US Southwest where we live], it was a little freaky. I work from home and I’ve never had neighbors ask so few questions about what I do all day.
Then the security clearance inquiries started coming around and we figured out that we were the only family in the neighborhood without an adult employed by the federal security-industrial complex.
Our retired neighbors can’t or won’t say what they did when they were working.
Our policy is to answer the questions about observed behavior–Does she appear to drink a lot? Is that her only car?–and refuse to speculate. How the hell should I know whether my neighbor is loyal to the ideals of the US government? The first time my response to that was unprintable and covered the concept ‘Aren’t you two supposed to be the experts in that spy stuff?, and then I got prepared: If she’s putting up with this crap to keep her job, my guess is that she thinks her job is important.
Because they want to help you get a job? Not that I like this sort of thing at all, but let’s not be so hard on the friends, they may be trying to be helpful. I work for the federal government - Veterans Affairs - and I have access to patient medical information. So I had to fill out major background check paperwork, and for everything I listed as a place I worked/lived/went to school/etc, they wanted someone who could verify. And they did indeed call the friends & family I had listed.
Of course, I had given all these people the heads-up, and they all told me about their calls, which primarily did focus on verifying jobs and residences and such. As deep as it went into personal stuff was questions along the lines of “do you know anything about this person’s character or background that would suggest they should not be given access to sensitive information?”
So it wasn’t really too invasive, and the Fed is not legally allowed to share the results of this with anyone (like these credit reporting bureaus). But my point is that I had told my friends & family about this job, they knew I really needed the job, and so they wanted to cooperate for my sake. If they had been asked more private, invasive questions, I’m not sure what they would have done, because they’d be trying to balance a feeling of “wow that’s none of their damn business” with “I want to do what I can to help her get this good job.”
You mean apart from, you know, being in a debt hole being a serious risk factor for embezzlement or otherwise stealing from the employer?
You mean apart from, you know, how everyone’s in debt these days?
“How the hell should I know whether my neighbor is loyal to the ideals of the US government?”
Well, how dark is their skin? Are they Christians or not (REAL Christians, not Mormons or Catholics)? Do they vote the straight Republican ticket? Do they advocate war with other random nations, after avoiding the draft by having anal cysts?
There’s lots of good ways to tell whether they are good Americans or not…
That’s why I specified that it was “consumer reports” that I’d never heard of before.
What ginmar said on this, and also fuck that. An embezzler with bad credit isn’t much of an embezzler, and given that half of all bankruptcies are from medical bills, you’re implying a correlation of serious illness to criminality.
Oh, I forgot. That correlation also drives our health care system. Never mind, you’re right in the mainstream.
I consider my life a work of performance art. These credit companies are infringing on my copyright.
That’s why I specified that it was “consumer reports” that I’d never heard of before.
It sounds to me like they’ve come up with a new fancy term for “background checks” than anything else–nothing described there is outside the realm of a detailed background check.
Maybe it’s just been my exposure to various professions, but reports like this have been around for years. Generally in the past you saw them done for teachers, government employees at most levels (maybe not entry-level/internship/temp grunts but starting just above that), and high-level corporate employees. I’ve had interviews done for several friends applying to be teachers, a “pencil-and-paper” interview for friend applying to be a daycare worker, and a friend applying to become a cop.
But they’ve expanded in the past decade or so outside of those “public safety” realms.
Every job I’ve been at since the late 1990s has made me sign a form stating that they CAN chose to have a report like this done. I don’t think any of my jobs have actually had one done on me (the reports can get pretty costly).
And that’s not even talking about security clearance investigations, which are a whole other kettle of fish. I’ve had a couple of those go on “around” me.
I’ve served as a reference for friends at State and DOJ. The questions were funny:
DOJ: How does your friend get along with his co-workers?
Me: Well, I mean, we’re friends.
DOJ: Does he have a good work ethic?
Me: Yes, as far as I can tell.
DOJ: Does he advocate the overthrow of the government by violence or force?
Me: Um, no.
DOJ: Does he seem to like his job?
Me: Yes.
DOJ: Does he hang out with a good crowd?
Me: Yeah, I guess so.
DOJ: Does he love America?
Me: Umm, yes.
The whole thing was bizarre. State less so, but both of the interviews were weird.
Where are these competent HR departments who have the time, resources, and give-a-shit to perform such detailed interviews? The primary function of any HR department I’ve had to go through is adding another level in which your resume can get lost under a filing cabinet.
“Where are these competent HR departments who have the time, resources, and give-a-shit to perform such detailed interviews?”
The better question to ask is: In this age of Islamofascism and the Reconquista, what HR department can afford NOT to thoroughly investigate every employee, starting with housekeeping staff and moving up the food chain - stopping, of course, before you get to the department head level. After all, there’s no reason to get carried away…
It sounds to me like they’ve come up with a new fancy term for “background checks” than anything else–nothing described there is outside the realm of a detailed background check.
Actually, the exact opposite is true. The “consumer report” has been around as described in legislation since 1971. “Background check” is not a legally defined term within the confines of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
These categories definitely fall outside of the realm of traits that qualify “consumer” differences. They should have no place on a “consumer report”.
I’m just wondering how many private companies have information about me now. Apart from data mining, though I’m sure my friends/family would have informed me if someone was calling them asking questions about me, what kind of information do these companies have? And is it just one company that’s keeping tabs on me, or five.. or ten?
Just because an employer is required to disclose to me which CRM gave them info about me, doesn’t mean there aren’t another 20 I don’t know about also monitoring my behavior. And do they share information?
Shit like this is exactly why I support a (randomly titled) Federal Privacy Act. Companies should *not* be able to access your private records and should also not be allowed to maintain that data for other corporations to access.
I once answered some background check questions for a college buddy who was getting hired by Lawrence Livermore labs (nuclear? weapons? I’m too lazy to look it up). They asked about his “character,” and specifically, drug use. I vouched for his upstanding moral nature and sober lifestyle.
The reality was that in 4 years of college I don’t think I had ever seen him without a bong in his hand. But, he was a friend, and he wanted a good job. He had to stay sober to pass the drug test, I figured, so who was I to stand in the way of his future?
So, in summation, these kinds of investigations are probably pretty fucking worthless.
Mr Ess tried to be sarcastic:
If you hire someone, you have to complete an ICE Form I-9, confirming eligibility to work in the United States. For the I-9, a valid US passport is sufficient, or a combination of a birth certificate or Social Security card and a state-issued photo ID (normally a driver’s license). But D/Ls and SS cards are among the most forged documents in this country, and while it happens only rarely, an employer could he held liable if he hired an illegal.
Thus, it is in the employer’s interest to do some sort of check, to make sure that yes, the person who presented the documents to you really is a citizen or legal resident. There are companies which specialize in just this sort of work, and advertise in business and HR journals.
As it happens, the housekeeping personnel are the one’s most likely to need such checking; look at the trouble WalMart has gotten in for using subcontract cleaning crews employing illegal immigrants. Once you get up to the management levels, the probabilities of forged documents to get through the Form I-9 becomes very low.
That passage is, in a very slight way, a sign of good things. What it says is that only a a certified consumer reporting agency can do background checks like this. That means you’re much less likely to have somebody in a dirty raincoat asking you for a quick fifty to tell your prospective employer you have a clean record, and otherwise they’ll make something up.
And yeah, in general, it’s just part of the pervasive class warfare that keeps employees scared and submissive and employers in a position to be bullies. But there are certain classes of jobs for which you really kinda would like background checks at least for the legal stuff. And of course the employees at HR have been so cowed by their bosses that they have to outsource the generalized judgements about people, because they no longer trust their own perceptions…
The other thing about background checks, at least for a security clearance, which my husband is trying to get right now, is that they only go with the references *you* give them. They don’t randomly buttonhole your neighbors and ask intrusive questions; you provide friends and family who will be okay with being contacted, and those are the people they contact.
And, after all this investigation we get headlines like these.
Sigh.
what kind of information do these companies have?
In general, they really only have direct easy access to information that is already publicly accessible anyway. Your birth certificate, education records, litigation history (including divorce and bankruptcy, obviously), driving records, criminal record, things like that. They also have access to information obtained via the courts (e.g. things you said in depositions), as well as other kinds of information that is generally available to the public, like references to you in the media. I think they might also be able to uncover old addresses and certain kinds of employment information.
The only nominally private area they tend to have access to is your financial information. Which is the only part that really squicks me out.
I had a State background check done when I interned in the Munich consulate in college. The greatest part? They sent an ex-DEA agent of some kind over to interview me and, since I lived with 5 guys, this retirement age guy had to figure out a way to delicately ask me if I was sleeping with ALL of them.
I kid you not. I had the hardest time ever keeping a straight face for that one. I was 19 years old, 20 tops, and you think I’m running a live-in brothel, dude? Seriously?
Oh, and regarding questions of character, lifestyle, and integrity, I’m pretty sure that unless they actually do the work of calling up people you know, they glean that sort of thing from publicly available information. A potential employee who was once a guest on Jerry Springer looks a lot less savory than someone quoted in a local newspaper article as president of the PTA.
It’s kind of the same thing as when I google someone before going out on a date with them. If I discover that they post to Free Republic under their own name, the date is probably off. If I find a really good review of their band’s EP, they are much more likely to get laid.
You mean apart from, you know, how everyone’s in debt these days?
That’s too friggin’ true.
I do recall the issue of police background checks coming up in a workplace when we started a service where our librarians had to work with schoolchildren on a homework help service. As the union rep, I saw staid elderly female librarians absolutely *outraged* at the whole idea. You have no idea how much resentment s.e.f. librarians can hold for what they see as bureaucratic nonsense.
An engineer buddy of mine once used me as a reference for a background check. I answered questions about his drug use, good personal habits, and lack of trouble with the law. Then the interviewer asked “Does he have any disreputable associates?”
I thought to myself, “Other than me, no.”
(And my peccadillo-rating puts me pretty far down on the disreputable scale. )
You mean apart from, you know, how everyone’s in debt these days?
Besides, I said “debt hole”. Everybody’s floundering - it’s the people who are spluttering and going down for the third time who are the most likely to look to desperate means to deal with the problem - and you have to have sympathy for them.
There’s always honesty. When I got my clearance, I was asked if I could be blackmailed, and I said, “Dude, there are nude pictures of me floating around out there. The next time I get my hands on one of them, it’s going to be my next Christmas card. Does that tell you anything?!”
Besides, I said “debt hole”. Everybody’s floundering - it’s the people who are spluttering and going down for the third time who are the most likely to look to desperate means to deal with the problem - and you have to have sympathy for them.
Nit picking. What do you call a debt hole? A few grand? Several? A bankruptcy? I paid off all my fucking debts and I took a hit on my credit for it.
Going anon here, out of respect for a third party’s privacy.
Some years ago I opened my door one hot summer day to find two Federal Persons on my door step. They really are kind of easy to spot even before they show their IDs.
“Background check?” I said by way of greeting.
They looked at each other warily and pulled out their IDs.
“Given the three letter anacronym on those cards, I’m guessing my ex-husband is looking at a new assignment. Come on in.”
One of them admitted this was a really good guess.
“I grew up military, I was a military wife. I was *his* wife and I know what his field of expertise is and what his career arc looks like. Give him his clearance.”
By now they weren’t even bothering not to stare at me.
“Ma’am, this is a very serious matter. Security clearances-”
“I know about security clearances, my father did your job for the *branch of service redacted*. What I’m saying is give him the clearance.”
“It’s been our experience that ex-spouses often have a particular insight into a subject’s possible… issues.”
“You mean, is he doing anything that he could be blackmailed into spying over?”
Solemn nods.
“Not a chance. Oh, he’s by no means a poster boy for conformity but he’d spit in the eye of anyone who tried blackmail. Give him his clearance.”
They tried asking more questions. I kept telling them that he was good at his job, couldn’t be blackmailed and wouldn’t sell secrets. They even told me that one of the reasons the interview was going on so long was that in their experience ex-wives always knew *something*.
“Guys, I know plenty about him, it’s just none of it is relevant to the question of whether or not he’s good at his job. Our marriage failed. I’m pretty mad at him about some of it, and he’s not any happier with me. But the fate of the free world does not hinge on that.”
They finally left, completely weirded out by the idea that someone would decline to trash their ex when invited to do so by persons with government ID.
e.g. things you said in depositions
Not so fast:
(1) in most places, depositions are not filed with the Court. The transcripts are sent to the parties; there’s no database for them. They can be subpoenaed in litigation, or requested from a party, but that’s only in litigation and it’s subject to court oversight.
(2) in many cases, discovery is taken under a stipulation or order protecting some or all of the information. I’ve marked personal stuff in depositions “highly confidential” and “attorneys’ eyes only,” and I’ve seen cases where virtually every document is marked “confidential.” Even when that stuff gets filed in motion practice, it all gets sealed.
Affidavits filed in cases with electronic filing are pretty easy to get. Depositions, however? Not so much.
Nit picking. What do you call a debt hole? A few grand? Several? A bankruptcy?
It’s not a number, Ginmar. It’s a situation - you’re in debt, it’s getting worse despite you cutting back to your minimum, and there’s no way out. The key point is that you can slowly see yourself slipping further down despite your best efforts - that’s something that would drive most people to consider stealing, I think.
As it happens, the housekeeping personnel are the one’s most likely to need such checking; look at the trouble WalMart has gotten in for using subcontract cleaning crews employing illegal immigrants. Once you get up to the management levels, the probabilities of forged documents to get through the Form I-9 becomes very low.
Heh. The best manager I’ve had tells a tale about spending a holiday in the US where he was asked by a friend to set up a textile factory. He hired a lot of Central American immigrant women, and made certain they were all fully documented, helping them out every time Immigration came around.
Apparently, the Immigration people never stopped to ask if the white middle-aged guy wearing the suit was, in fact, legal…
Gee, I worked in government and asking a few questions might have revealed my supes need to ‘rent’ the services of local illegals. Since they were all below the age of consent, I expect that someday he’ll be a guest of the Commonwealth.
Another co-worker showed up for work totally zonked. Pot, pills, coke, meth, whatever.
They are expensive to keep, fire or discipline. Any business looks to reduce costs. Not hiring is best because there is no lawsuit.
If that hadn’t such a potential for tragedy, it would be ROTFL funny.
The things your neighbors, co-workers and families believe about you range from the merely untrue to the completely fantastic. My grandmother was convinced that the girl next door was an IRA terrorist because said girl was from Manchester. (My grandmother believed Manchester to be in Ireland). One of my neighbors claimed that “a teenager on rollerskates” had damaged the hall door. Said “teenager” was 35, if extremely skinny, and the guy who had damaged the hall door (I was there) was 45 and 300 lbs.
The gullibility people show on the internet is only the more visible version of the enthusiasm they show towards neighborhood or water cooler gossip. And that’s before malice even enters the equation.
Years ago I applied for a temp job at a large tax counseling firm. They demanded a background check, in the form of a letter from the police that I had never been convicted of any crime after I turned 18.
Of course, it took some time for the letter to arrive and I had forgotten that I had requested it, so I nearly got a heart attack finding a letter from the police in my mailbox…
look at the trouble WalMart has gotten in for using subcontract cleaning crews employing illegal immigrants.
I wasn’t aware that you needed a full consumer report, reference check, and credit history in order to establish whether someone was legal to work in the US or not. Usually the ID required on your start paperwork (SSN, copy of driver’s license, passport, green card, etc) covers it.
Regarding the possibility of forgeries, it still doesn’t seem like a full background check would shed much light on that. Not to mention how do you determine whose documents are likely to be forged? Should all non-whites or people with foreign accents have their rights to privacy routinely violated “just in case”, while white people who sound American are home free?