Alright, did some research... First off, I am no lawyer and these are but personal musings, but in case you are interested I also compiled a bit of internet info- on background checks and the companies that offer them here int the US...
Currently they are legal (in most case you sign the form granting your employer the authority). In many cases they can give you a date to sign or find yourself unemployed... An expiration date if you will... This document to be signed can be handed to you as a condition of employment or after some time working there.
Currently they are legal (in most case you sign the form granting your employer the authority). In many cases they can give you a date to sign or find yourself unemployed... An expiration date if you will... This document to be signed can be handed to you as a condition of employment or after some time working there.
I had no idea how thorough background checks were- or can be... What the hell ever happened to civil liberties, personal privacy? In the digital age it seems nearly everything can be tracked and dug up, or you can pay someone to do it for you to sidestep responsibility for potentially erroneous results... A phone call to BOLI (Bureau of Labor and Industries) confirmed that companies have a legal right to require this and that as far as the BOLI rep knew the companies doing the checking had no federal oversight.
They also use background to screen prospective hires as well and there are of course horror stories of guys who couldn't get hired for years because of mis-information on a report - or imagine the hypothetical case above - Your odds of getting hired go way down if you are challenged financially...
They also use background to screen prospective hires as well and there are of course horror stories of guys who couldn't get hired for years because of mis-information on a report - or imagine the hypothetical case above - Your odds of getting hired go way down if you are challenged financially...
So there are levels of background checks... Some companies are very aggressive... They need your permission in writing to conduct these balls to the wall gonzo searches... One in this situation might find themselves asking... "Am I dealing with top secret government documents and didn't even know it?" When they could be doing something as benign as washing cars...
Associated concepts: civil liberties, genetic privacy, internet privacy, medical privacy, political privacy, privacy from governmental interference
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse offers general info on checks and what they do/look for... Apparently they can interview your neighbors, check out Facebook accounts and read personal blogs, see if you pay your bills regularly - because you will pose a risk if bills aren't paid on time... This makes it rough for many people in this country...
A quick hypothetical... You are divorced a few years and find you are drowning in inherited credit card debt from the failed marriage... More than half the $ of the Ccards are paid off but because of the economy, a gap in employment, your current wage, you feel that Chapter 7 is the best way. Filing takes $ ($350 minimum with a paralegal, over $1000 with a lawyer) and a minimum of three months for the process, not to mention all the time getting tax records, taking an online bankruptcy courses etc...
Most of the info from background checks is public record anyway - but the scores of companies that have cropped up to do this work need no licensing nor do they have federal oversight... These companies rake in millions yearly... These companies often make mistakes, use hearsay, unverified info...
As a teacher/tutor of kids I would get fingerprinted all the time- but that was through the state/federal agencies so it made sense to me... Also upon hiring I give employers my written consent to check references, criminal records and have even given the right to look at my credit history... Why do they need so much more reach? To protect themselves and their assets?
The National Consumer Law Center filed an extensive report on this new industry of background check agencies offers checks and some of the inherent flaws. It reflects some the same wording/concern that I was feeling - that you are not innocent until proven guilty in this paradigm of checks and that it allows for a lack of accountability of the employer because they can say the outside agency is at fault for faulty info... This report via NCLC states that the info gathered is often incorrect, mismatched, pulled from outdated data bases etc... "Criminal background checking is big business, and ensuring accurate and complete information reduces profits."
Anyway it is standard practice and no matter how shocking it may be to me - it is what it is... and it is legal... And dammit, I haven't voted for a few years and as the adage goes - if you don't vote you can't complain- I guess I have no one to blame but myself...
I am considering signing because I am told I will have access to the file once I do... Curious what they would have in it...
The process for refuting info contained in a person file appears to be a bit arduous... a whole different beast. My personal opinion is that the way the info is gathered and the level to which they can dig is questionable and the way it is applied could easily be contsrued as discriminatory and profiling... but this is just me ranting and rambling... Now I have to just figure out what state I am registered to vote in and get that back online...
I am considering signing because I am told I will have access to the file once I do... Curious what they would have in it...
The process for refuting info contained in a person file appears to be a bit arduous... a whole different beast. My personal opinion is that the way the info is gathered and the level to which they can dig is questionable and the way it is applied could easily be contsrued as discriminatory and profiling... but this is just me ranting and rambling... Now I have to just figure out what state I am registered to vote in and get that back online...
Since September 11, 2001, there's been an explosion in criminal background checks for job applicants by employers, yet many reports are riddled with errors. An industry-wide lack of accountability and incentives to cut corners mean that tens of millions of workers may pay for these third-party errors with their jobs while employers waste money and miss out on hiring qualified employees.
This report investigates common poor practices and mistakes with recommendations for solutions and the role of federal agencies and state government in holding background screening companies accountable for accurate work. It is essential that the Wild West of employment screening be reined in so consumers are not guilty until proven innocent.
This report investigates common poor practices and mistakes with recommendations for solutions and the role of federal agencies and state government in holding background screening companies accountable for accurate work. It is essential that the Wild West of employment screening be reined in so consumers are not guilty until proven innocent.
A high percentage of adults living in the United States are affected.
About 93% of employers conduct criminal background checks on some applicants, while 73% of employers conduct checks on all applicants, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. Nearly 1 in 4 adults (an estimated 65 million people) in the U.S. have a criminal record. Many additional people without a criminal record are wrongly tagged as having a recordA high percentage of adults living in the United States are affected.
About 93% of employers conduct criminal background checks on some applicants, while 73% of employers conduct checks on all applicants, according to a 2010 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. Nearly 1 in 4 adults (an estimated 65 million people) in the U.S. have a criminal record. Many additional people without a criminal record are wrongly tagged as having a record.The problems are industry-wide.
There are no licensing requirements for criminal background agencies. Anyone with a computer and access to records can start a business; the total number of companies is unknown.
There is no central system for registration for background checking companies. A consumer can't regularly order his or her own report to review for errors as there is no central source to find and request a copy.
Many companies attempt to skirt the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by subcontracting work to other vendors or disclaiming responsibility.
Many companies attempt to skirt the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by subcontracting work to other vendors or disclaiming responsibility.
Employers often fail to comply with the FCRA. This makes it difficult to know whether consumers were denied employment due to a background check report.
Executive Summary of report...
EXECutiVE summAry
Since 2007, the United States has experienced the worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression. Adding to this job crisis, criminal background checking companies are making it even more difficult for workers to obtain employment. Approximately ninety-three percent of employers conduct criminal background checks for some poten- tial applicants, and seventy-three percent of employers conduct criminal background checks for all potential applicants. The widespread dissemination of criminal record his- tories limits employment opportunities for an estimated sixty-five million adults (nearly one in four adults) in the United States who have some sort of criminal record.
Moreover, criminal background checks often contain incorrect information or sealed information. Samuel M. Jackson was allegedly denied employment after a prospective employer ran an InfoTrack background check. InfoTrack reported a rape conviction from 1987—when Mr. Jackson was four years old. The rape conviction actually belonged to fifty-eight-year-old male named Samuel L. Jackson from Virginia, who was convicted of rape in November 18, 1987. That Samuel Jackson was incarcerated at the time the InfoTrack report was run.
Whether these checks should be used for employment screening is a matter of public debate. However, there is little debate that if these records are to be used, they must be accurate.
Despite its promotion as a public safety service, the sale of criminal background reports has become a big business generating billions of dollars in revenue. The Internet has facilitated the emergence of scores of online background screening companies, with many claiming instant access to millions of databases.
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), background checking agencies are required to maintain procedures to ensure the accuracy of information they report about consumer. Unfortunately, the FCRA, as currently interpreted and enforced, fails to adequately protect consumers when it comes to employment screening. Even applicants who successfully remove errors from their background check are frequently denied employment.
Despite the importance of the accuracy of criminal background reports, evidence indi- cates that professional background screening companies routinely make mistakes with grave consequences for job seekers.
This report describes a number of ways in which background screening companies make mistakes that greatly affect a consumer’s ability to find employment. Although the mistakes discussed in this report are not inclusive of all errors found on background checks, attorneys and community organizations that work with consumers with faulty background reports state that they repeatedly see background reports that:
• Mismatch the subject of the report with another person; • Reveal sealed or expunged information;
©2012 national Consumer law Center www.nclc.org broken records 5 3• Omit information about how the case was disposed or resolved; • Contain misleading information; and • Mischaracterize the seriousness of the offense reported.
Many of these errors can be attributed to common practices by background screening companies, such as:
• Obtaining information through purchase of bulk records, but then failing to rou- tinely update the database;
• Failing to verify information obtained through subcontractors and other faulty sources;
• Utilizing unsophisticated matching criteria; • Failing to utilize all available information to prevent a false positive match; and • Lack of understanding about state specific criminal justice procedures.
Even the National Association of Professional Background Screeners agrees there are some simple procedures that background checking companies can take to enhance the quality of their information. Unfortunately, few companies actually are willing to commit to even the limited recommendations of their own trade association. Criminal background checking is big business, and ensuring accurate and complete information reduces profits.
Based upon the issues identified in this report, we recommend that the Consumer Finan- cial Protection Bureau (CFPB) use its rulemaking authority under the Fair Credit Report- ing Act to:
• Require mandatory measures to ensure greater accuracy.
• Define how long an employer has to wait in between sending an initial notice and taking an adverse action, i.e., rejecting an applicant or terminating an employee.
• Require registration of consumer reporting agencies. The Federal Trade Commission should use its FCRA enforcement authority to:
• Investigate major commercial background screening companies for common FCRA violations.
• Investigate major, nationwide employers for compliance with FCRA requirements imposed on users of consumer reports for employment purposes.
Finally, as the source of most of the data reported by background screening agencies, states have a huge role to play in ensuring the accuracy of criminal background checks. States should that ensure that state repositories, counties, and other public records sources:
• Require companies that have subscriptions to receive information by bulk dissem- ination from court databases to have some procedure for ensuring that sealed and expunged records are promptly deleted and ensure that dispositions are promptly reported.
• Audit companies that purchase bulk data to ensure that they are removing sealed and expunged data and, if a company fails such an audit, revoke its privilege to receive bulk data.
With the explosive growth of this industry, it is essential that the “Wild West” of employment screening be reined in so that consumers are not guilty until proven inno- cent. Currently, lack of accountability and incentives to cut corners to save money mean that consumers pay for inaccurate information with their jobs and, thus, their families’ livelihood.
No comments:
Post a Comment