How Far Should a Job Screening Go? 675
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?"
It's a financial institution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a financial institution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a financial institution (Score:4, Insightful)
then I think that a fingerprint check is totally justified.
And what happens to them after the 'check' is over? They doubtless sit on file somewhere.
The Gov't can't force you to turn over fingerprints or DNA without probable cause but your employer can force you to do it to get a job and then let it sit in a Gov't database for the rest of your life? And people meekly surrender to this!
Freedom is dead.
Re:It's a financial institution (Score:5, Insightful)
First, if you don't have the job yet, they're not your employer. Second, I don't think you have a very clear idea of what force is. Third, if you don't like the requirements of the job, go work for a dot-com. Nobody is forcing you to work for a bank.
Re:It's a financial institution (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you Score - don't like it, drop out of the running for the job. There are a ton of jobs that don't require this.
RonB
People working with fingerprint DB screened? (Score:4, Insightful)
You are assuming that the programmers, admins, etc working with the fingerprint database have been screened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a screening. This is so they have your fingerprints on file. It's an SEC regulation and, if I remember correctly, the Broker/Dealer is who keeps it on file, not the government or police. I worked for a financial institution and had to get this done.
The purpose of this is to keep them on file in-case. This way they can check fingerprints on files, cash, etc if something happens. You get a card from the B/D, you take it to the loca
Re:It's a financial institution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like it or not, drugs are the boogeyman to lots of people. And drug use correlates to other behaviors generally considered undesirable in an employee. Thus it is sensible and economical to use drug screening in the hiring process. Still, not all companies do so. So if you choose to do drugs, or don't want anyone to know if you do or not, work for a company that doesn't require it. Or do you propose that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I think every company has the right to ensure that employees do not consume drugs while at work, I cannot possibly see why they should even be allowed to dictate your behaviour when you are not at work.
There is an element of double standards here too - boozy working lunches are ok, a spliff to relax after work is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like a genetic profile that could be used for other stuff, it's just fingerprints...
"It's just [fill in the blank]" is how it starts. Did anybody seriously think that the SSN would become the universal identifier for Americans that it now is? Ever hear of functionality creep?
Are you telling me that's a bad thing?
It's a bad thing that in order to have a livelihood that people are forced to turn over biometrics that will sit (indefinitely) in a database somewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So is it justified there? To force me to submit to fingerprinting just to exercise my civil right to self defense under the second amendment?
What, they need to make sure criminals dont have access to a concealed weapon permit (legally)?
Normally I am against statist things like this, but in the instance of critical positons, an NCIC and fingerprint check are reasonable precautions. And unlike your suppositions, the prints are NOT retained after checking.
By
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't just ask; a criminal won't care about lying. (It's like anti-gun laws... the only people they hurt are people who don't break the law. If a guy wants a gun to hold up a convenience store, he won't care whether the gun is legal or not.) They have to check against something.
So they're doing exactly what you want them to do - except you haven't realized that in order to do so, they have to verify you have not lost this rig
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 Con
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Promote legislation to expire screening data ... (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am quite comfortable with an institution retaining fingerprints of anyone who handles "my" money.
"Your" money isn't directly at risk. Ever hear of the FDIC or NCUA?
Sorry if you don't like it, but some jobs necessitate this level of scrunity, as others have mentioned.
There are ways to check to see if somebody has a criminal past without retaining their fingerprints indefinitely.
With all due respect to your "freedom is dead" stance
It is dead. Moving past this issue why are drug tests allowed?
Re:It's a financial institution (Score:4, Insightful)
This entire point is moot anyway - please reference the following:
What is the Purpose of FDIC Deposit Insurance?
The FDIC protects depositors' funds in the unlikely event of the financial failure of their bank or institution.
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/deposit/faqs
which has nothing to do with inside bank fraud.
Likewise, the NCUA also has insurance to ward off the possibility of branch failure, not inside jobs.
While it can be assumed that the banks/credit unions would attempt to make good on any funds stolen, this is not a guarantee, and the money to replenish the missing funds would come from somewhere, correct?
There are indeed ways to check criminal backgrounds without fingerprints. For some sensitive jobs, this is an added step in the verification process, and rightly so IMO. Do you have a problem with police officers or teachers being subjected to this as well? All of these positions have a grave responsibility with the potential for ripe abuse that can harm others. While fingerprinting and the matching of such against the NCIC does not guard against the possibility of future crimes, it does aid in an informed decision of whether the job applicant is of good enough character to hold the sensitive position in question (forgive the run on sentence).
Why you brought drugs into this discussion is beyond me. Perhaps you should stop taking them before you post again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me it's a great way to weed out good people in favor of people who can't get any other job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They get you the chance to see if she embezzled at her last job. Somebody with a conviction for any white-collar crime shouldn't work as a programmer for a financial institution. Checking fingerprints is the most reliable way of performing a criminal background check.
if it requires latex gloves (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, I have no objection to a criminal background check. I'd argue that if someone is a drug addict and is smart enough to have avoided conviction, then that person is smart enough to do the job I'm hiring them for. (The odds of someone having a drug problem to the point where it would affect their job performance withou
Re:if it requires latex gloves (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:if it requires latex gloves (Score:5, Interesting)
When I took a position that required a military security clearance, I was fingerprinted AFTER I'd already accepted the position. It wasn't done as a screening process during the interview/consideration stage. I wonder how far along in the process this sister is? If she knows she gets the job once she passes the screening, it seems reasonable to me that a financial firm knows whether its employees have a criminal record, beyond expecting the applicant to be truthful on the application.
I really don't see why the story submitter is conjuring up fears of frame-ups and scandals. Should it raise a flag? A flag signifying what? That the sister will be employed and soon after will have to use the one-armed man excuse as she runs for her life?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doing work for any financial institution will require a background check. Just to access some data centers I have been fingerprinted. The fingerprinting generally seems to be more regional, being more prevalent in the northeast US and less on the west coast.
Way to extreme (Score:2, Insightful)
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 r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, fingerprint recognition would be a way to verify that applicants are not using an alias/fake ID with a criminal rec
Ummmm.... No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Taking a gene profile is going waaaaay over the top. They can kiss my lilly-white butt.
Re:Ummmm.... No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummmm.... No. (Score:5, Insightful)
The first poster (Anonymous Coward) stated it very well, she is working in a Financial Institution. I think the security on those is similar if not better (or worst? depending on POV) than the goverment agencies (CIA, FBI, DOD, ETC) because the information being played with there is *very* sensitive.
Also, I do not know what is so fucking outrageous about finger prints, my father has a ranch, and when I was younger we went every saturday to pay the pawns theyr week salary, and my dad kept a book for the payments (ala spreadsheet). Some of the pawns didn't know how to read/write, hence my father used their fingerprint as a signature to acknowledge payment. That is a common practice to autenticate people in poor countries. And it is way better thana lousy signature.
Again agreeing with the AC, I think that, if she does not want to be deeply screened then Finance is not an industry where she should get a job. She might preffer going to Google, Amazon or any standard software shop...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
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.
There are Always Checks (Score:3, Informative)
Simply put, there are jobs that, for various reasons, have requirements above and beyond working at a Quick-E-Mart. Drug tests, background checks (
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ummmm.... No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ummmm.... No. (Score:5, Insightful)
With great power comes great responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
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 pat
Re:Ummmm.... No. (Score:5, Funny)
Forensic lab tech1: 'We've got the results analysed...
Forensic lab tech2 '...and it's definately Mountain Dew, Cum Stains, Red Bull, and...
Forensic lab tech1:
Forensic lab tech2:
Forensic lab tech1: 'Basically, we need more data to pin this down...'
Forensic lab tech2: 'Ah, yeah...Hmmm?...which server had that pr0n directory on it?
Forensic lab tech1: 'Sounds like a plan...you grab the Mountain Dew, and I'll grab the cheezy poofs!
Bipolar in Seattle (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've never seen this be a disqualifier for getting hired as a police officer. Murder, yes. Beating people up? No.
Note: I'm not talking about whether it should be a disqualifier or not, but rather if it is currently used that way. As to my background, I was an EMT for several years in a lot of different mid-sized cities. So I was around cops a lot. And there were always a few who had a past history of fighting. Hell, in Rapid City, I knew a cop who was a for
Great point! (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your error is believing that they want someone who can think "outside the box". That is not always a desired trait for management. In fact, I find very few job postings where there is an indicator that they want that, and when they say it, watch out, they may not mean it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked in a controlled environment with people who have significant behavioral problems, are under severe financial strain, have known criminal records, etc. But it is not an experience I would recommend for the unprepared or understaffed. There wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
no you haven't. Most employers right now pull a credit report on you before they interview. you can not stop that from happening. I personally think it is wrong, but companies have evolved to the point that they treat all employees and potential employees like slaves and feel justified to not even interview you because you were 4 days late paying your electric bill last month.
I am not joking, Management position applications at the l
Re:Bipolar in Seattle (Score:4, Informative)
"programming position" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I once had to ejaculate in a cup (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes,yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes,yes (Score:5, Funny)
...and if they just went by name, they might hire the wrong Michael Bolton!
Part of the TERRORtory (Score:3, Informative)
retraction... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a bit hazy on the details, but I think it's something along the lines of "after a certain amount of time post-punishment, you're not obliged to reveal a criminal past to an employer, even if they ask". There are other details - it doesn't apply for some types of job, such as national security, and the length of time may vary depending on the crime/punishment. Some crimes you have to reveal for life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Long Answer: We seem to like our 'criminals' to suffer for life for their crimes... A Pardon can however fix that, but only Governors and the pres can do those, so those don't happen all that often...
After all you can't leave little Sally with a convicted drug dealer (from 20 years ago) at a day care... Think of the children!
Re: (Score:2)
Three words (Score:2)
Human Resources.. (Score:2)
I can even understand pulling your credit report as part of the process, someone who is bad with money is probably more likely to steal shit from their employer.
But I don't see what finger printing does that searching their social security number can't do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Lisa, a guy who's got lots of ivory is _less_ likely to hurt Stampy than a guy whose ivory supplies are low."
Re: (Score:2)
Example:
John Smith commits aggrevated assault with a deadly weapon (a rabid badger in this case) and leaves a whole mess of fingerprints behind and does time. They are now "in the system" and associated with him and his SSN. He now has a new alias "Jim Jones" and he applies for a job at a local financial services company with a new SSN. How is the SSN search going to find him to be a convicted felon?
--Mike
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, dude? If you've go
It depends... (Score:3, Informative)
SOP (Score:2)
If anything, being a programmer for a financial firm is just as sensitive a position as actually having access to client accounts. Programmers have access to all kinds of information that others do not.
Considering w
Typical in banking industry (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
How far? (Score:5, Funny)
I get fingerprinted just for being here (Score:2)
You citizens have it so easy
Re: (Score:2)
Waaah...you were born somewhere too, I'm sure. Something tells me Americans wouldn't have the easiest time packing up and reporting for work, wherever that is...
Anal cavity search (Score:2)
Travesty (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 peop
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said, the CRB disclosures are about safety - specifically child-safety - which I believe is fair enough in principle. They really only check criminal convictions and police records of repeated allegations etc in the districts of which you've been a resident, and I thi
Guess I wouldn't get a job (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Based on the rest of your post, you have probably reinforced the idea that those tests are the greatest thing since sliced bread. A bipolar who goes on spending binges and gulps drugs like water? Yeah, that's someone I'd take a gander on for a financial programming job.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trying to find a good hire (Score:2)
ever seen Superman 3 or Office Space?? (Score:2)
My wife had to get fingerprinted to work at a non-financial institution that was owned by a bank. One day another girl was o
Common for a position of public trust (Score:3, Informative)
Try Working in the Morphine-making Drug Industry! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Worry more about the employment contract (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Gotta stand up for your ideals or nobody will (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
Don't Panic... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit (Score:2)
I was hired/worked as a Mac Genius in 2002 (flown to Cupertino for two weeks of training), and there was only a background check. No drug test, no physical, no medical questionnaire.
I doubt things have changed much since then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
- 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 rea