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?"

Part of the TERRORtory

[packetmon]

SEC Requires it [sec.gov] 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...

It depends...

[Randomish]

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.

Typical in banking industry

[Skapare]

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.

It's financial, not programming.

[IPFreely]

I went through this many years ago.

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.

Common for a position of public trust

[Spazmania]

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.

Re:Travesty

[VJ42]

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.

Whilst this is mostly true, try getting a job in which you might come into contact with children or vunerable adults without submitting to a CRB check. You can't, to be blunt, the law requires that you have one. I know, I've had two within a few years of each other, and all they were for was working 1) in a library (admittedly primeraly as a children's library assistant) 2) in a college "Learning centre"; as they had some under 16s enrolled at the college, again an enhanced CRB check was needed.

Most people think CRB checks are a good thing, personally I think a clean CRB means that you just havn't been caught ;p .

Re:I once had to ejaculate in a cup

[Anonymous Coward]

$50 for a few minutes of unsteady work sounds more like a consulting job to me.

Re:Ummmm.... No.

[BrewedInTexas]

I work for a company doing that's writing all of *State's Name Withheld( It's not the one my ID would indicate)* Dept. of Revenue software.


This would seem to be fairly sensitive information.
( I have tax records, account numbers and the ability to transfer funds for multi-million dollar companies sitting on my desk. )

I would completely understand if the finger printing was a requirement but, alas, it was not.

Re:retraction...

[sauge]

Oh please.

You are talking about a country with people on nationwide web based sex offender lists for leaving a drunken public piss or for yelling at 14 year old girls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law#Criticism [wikipedia.org]

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/aug/27/critics_c all_registry_sex_offenders_vague_unfair/?state_reg ional [ljworld.com]

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/sex_offen ders_101205.htm [rawstory.com]

We are quickly creating a nation of criminals and when we finally achieve it -- we should not be surprised we are a nation of criminals. Then we will REALLY know what "chaos" looks like.

Exactly

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:if it requires latex gloves

[Chutzpah]

Up here in Canada, it's illegal for employers to do drug screening, criminal background checks or credit checks unless there is a good reason for it. For example background checks are legal for child care workers, I would imagine credit checks are legal for accountants.

In regards to your privacy claim

[Anonymous Coward]

Financial institutions are required by the Securities Exchange Commission to keep a record of finger prints for all employees. This goes for the traders, the programmers and even the cleaning staff. It is not that the institution is doing this because they want to, they are required to do so or pay heavy fines.

Fingerprints are normal for certain jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

This is common practice for any position which requires one to access/work with sensitive or classified information. I was a post-doc at Los Alamos Nat'l Lab from 2002 to 2004 and when I underwent my security clearance background investigation, they also fingerprinted me. They do this to run your prints against fingerprint databases to make sure you're not lying about your criminal history. This actually IS a good thing (and I'm about as anti-government as you can get).

My job fell apart on me recently and to pay the bills, I jumped into my wife's line of work - conducting these very background investigations (for people getting security clearances). About 90% of applicants are good, decent people with some blemishes in their background. The other 10% tend to be dishonest scumbags with very interesting backgrounds. The fingerprints as well as the rest of the investigation is to keep these 10% out of the position. Believe me, its a good thing.

There are Always Checks

[iCharles]

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.

Re:Bipolar in Seattle

[CByrd17]

Most employers right now pull a credit report on you before they interview.

IANAL, but I believe that this is illegal without your consent. That, of course, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but if it does...hello liability.

Re:Bipolar in Seattle

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unlikely that your credit report is pulled prior to an interview for most jobs.

1) You would have to give permission to have your credit report pulled under the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) and that permission (if granted) would likely be on the job application. Written disclosure and authorization are legally required. Generally the application is filled out at the same time as an interview or after-the-fact as a formality. If you see a "hard inquiry" on your credit report from a company that you haven't given't permission to you have the right to file suit under section 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a) of the FCRA. The employer may also face criminal penalties.

2) You would need to supply your SSN for a credit report to be pulled (a name and address would suffice but the third party broker that is pulling the credit report should be requiring the SSN to verify the right credit report is pulled).

3) If the info in the credit report results in an adverse action, the employer has the same reporting requirements as a creditor. They need to inform you who supplied the credit report, your ability to review the credit report, etc.

Pretty Standard for Financial Industry

[owen.brown]

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.

Promote legislation to expire screening data ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Re:You filthy Liar!

[StarvingSE]

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.

Re:People working with fingerprint DB screened?

[kosanovich]

The people working with the fingerprints have actually been screened. I work for a company that does pre-employment background screening and anyone who ever has access to the prints has to submit to an FBI background check. Also it's not like it's some programmer matching the prints to a criminal database. We simply collect the prints and send them to the FBI where they match them to any records they have and send the rap sheet back. So the people actually matching the prints are FBI agents who have also undergone background checks as part of their job. So yeah it's not some kid in his moms basement making up criminal records and attaching them to job applicants willy-nilly.

Re:It's a financial institution

[djh101010]

If you don't want to piss in a cup to get a job, feel free not to. Just realize that that decision (a) raises doubts about either your drug use or your judgement, and (b) makes you less marketable.

I don't think presumption of guilt is what the bill of rights was all about....

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with conditions of employment. It enumerates what the government can or cannot do. A private employer can refuse to hire you because they don't like your shoes, or any other arbitrary reason. If pissing in a cup is a reason they choose, that is fully up to them.

Further, people who invoke Constitutional protections in situations like this where they are clearly not applicable, quite frankly, hurt their argument by both showing blatant ignorance, _and_ cheapen the Constitutional protections by doing so. Sorry, but you not wanting to take a drug test doesn't raise to the level of a Constitutional issue. Not even a little. It's the company's choice to require it, it's your choice to refuse it. (shrug) I choose not to worry about it, and if that means that my employer is hiring from a smaller pool of workers, then I am making more because of your decision. I'm fully in support of that, I just think it's a silly thing to get all worked up about. Especially compared with all of the actual Constitutional protections which really _are_ being eroded.

Re:It's a financial institution

[rben]

I went to work for a fortune 100 company many years ago, and I was forced to undergo drug testing in order to get the job. I didn't like it, but I did it. Why? Because I had health problems that meant I needed good health insurance. Had I gone to any other company with similar health insurance, I still would have been forced to get drug testing.

If such testing were 100% error free, it might not bother me so much. (Although, I think what you do on your time off, provided it doesn't mess with your ability to work, is your business.) But the consequences of a false positive are pretty harsh. Not only do you lose the job, but who knows what else is going to happen before you can get it straightened out?

While I support the fingerprinting in this particular case. (Let's face it, it's a bank, they have to be careful.) I think there should be some kind of ethical guidelines for all companies on how far they can go in digging through someone's life while determining suitability for hire. These days, everything you say on the web stays around forever. I wonder how many kids are going to be penalized for rash remarks said in the heat of argument thirty years from now.