|
Chalks posted:is that actually true? because that would render background checks useless which seems like something that wouldn't make it into a law Generally there would not be a problem with most things; checking employments or school history is hardly going to reveal your religion or sexual orientation, nor your medical background. However, communicating a name change (here's the past name of this person) is pretty much guaranteed to reveal their trans status. Trans people are generally a protected group, and even if you went with a super regressive vision where you treat it as a mental illness, you'd still be revealing medical information which would still not be right. If the candidate said "I worked at place X and studied at school Y", you do not need to return back "ah yes they indeed went there, but as someone from another gender with this name instead." You can just confirm that this person did complete the studies they had mentioned. The name does not do anything to answer the questions asked regarding employment or education. It would not render the background check useless to withhold the information in any way, and may rather risk providing information that is usually illegal to consider when hiring someone.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
MononcQc posted:Generally there would not be a problem with most things; checking employments or school history is hardly going to reveal your religion or sexual orientation, nor your medical background. However, communicating a name change (here's the past name of this person) is pretty much guaranteed to reveal their trans status. Trans people are generally a protected group, and even if you went with a super regressive vision where you treat it as a mental illness, you'd still be revealing medical information which would still not be right. so i'm not too sure how all this is meant to work, but i assume at some point here you're going back and contacting every previous employer and institution that your name has changed and they should provide references under that new name. that seems fine and it's not really something i would consider a background check but really just normal checking of references. i'm more interested in something like a criminal records check which will absolutely require you to provide known aliases and previous names because the entire point is that they're looking for things that you want to hide. they're not going to be relying on you having informed everyone you ripped off that your name has changed and therefore if anyone asks if you're a con artist under your new name they should be sure to mention that you are. that's what a "background check" means to me. specifically looking for things that you're trying to hide. which as i mentioned seems completely unreasonable for almost all tech jobs, but i'm sure there are some places where it's a legitimate requirement
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Chalks posted:background checks really have no place in the majority of tech employment unless you're working in a particularly sensitive area. i've never heard of them being done for normal jobs in the UK, so perhaps this is a US thing? at some point US employers discovered this was the easiest (and most legal) way to have a proxy for how 'good' a potential employees behavior is and as a more 'reliable' reference check i'm sure they'll be in heaven once china really solidifies social credit and they'll be able to use that instead -- of course since this will be in the US, it will be executed by one or more private organizations with very little recourse for anyone caught up in it, just like today's background checks and credit rating agencies
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:at some point US employers discovered this was the easiest (and most legal) way to have a proxy for how 'good' a potential employees behavior is and as a more 'reliable' reference check that's pretty lovely, i hope it never becomes a thing over here. does that mean that anyone with a criminal conviction can basically never work again? sounds like a really bad plan
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Chalks posted:does that mean that anyone with a criminal conviction can basically never work again? yes being a felon in the US is basically a life sentence to extra-abusive second-class employment, unless you're a political felon in which case you can score your own TV show
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:being a felon in the US is basically a life sentence to extra-abusive second-class employment, unless you're a political felon in which case you can score your own TV show to be fair, anything said about the US is implicitly followed by “unless you have a shitload of money, then you can do whatever you want”
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Chalks posted:so i'm not too sure how all this is meant to work, but i assume at some point here you're going back and contacting every previous employer and institution that your name has changed and they should provide references under that new name. that seems fine and it's not really something i would consider a background check but really just normal checking of references. I'm not sure why. Half the companies I worked for in the past have shut down, been renamed, bought out and reabsorbed into something else, or nobody who knew me works there anymore. Some people I know worked or lived in cities that don't exist anymore (either shut down, or merged/renamed into broader agglomerations). Employers may also function in a language that is foreign to the company doing the background check. If the background check can survive this, I don't know why it shouldn't survive the name change. Usually a legal name change is done with some kind of registry that someone authorized to consult can validate, get the old name and the new one, and from there they may be able to bridge the gap. I don't know of anyone who changed their name after a marriage and who needed to contact all former employers to let them know about getting married in case a future employer calls. Do you? Chalks posted:i'm more interested in something like a criminal records check which will absolutely require you to provide known aliases and previous names because the entire point is that they're looking for things that you want to hide. they're not going to be relying on you having informed everyone you ripped off that your name has changed and therefore if anyone asks if you're a con artist under your new name they should be sure to mention that you are. that's what a "background check" means to me. specifically looking for things that you're trying to hide. People with criminal records are often prevented from changing their names depending on the jurisdiction. I only know on the canadian side, but BC and AB ask for fingerprints, Ontario residents must pass a police record check, NB does some validation as well. Basically, if your name checks out in these jurisdiction, you are mostly sure not to have to dig into past names to find anything bad, it should be available under the new name. In some cases (as in here in QC), there is no such background check at the time of the name change, but the name change has to be publicly announced in some newspaper or publication for a given period of time during which it can be contested (which is kind of stupid regressive in a trans context, but I'm not aware of a case where it was denied) and then a record in some civil department of the government is kept of the change. For things like a tech job, most of the background checks are farmed out to a third party that specializes in that kind of stuff; if you were to authorize such a party to do a search, there should at least be some expectation of privacy -- is the person who they claim to be? Yes they are. You shouldn't have to return a list of old names, just whether the asserted history checks out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Of course, things like national security or roles with high financial risks (i.e. managing a retirement fund for a fortune 500) are likely to go much deeper into your background; there is an assessment that should come regarding further risks that come with the responsibility you have. A huge debt or obscure past can be compromising for these positions in a way they wouldn't be for a more regular jobs. Though seeing how supreme court judges have been appointed in the US recently, it might make a good case for thinking the whole background check theatre thing is worth rethinking again anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:I don't know of anyone who changed their name after a marriage and who needed to contact all former employers to let them know about getting married in case a future employer calls. Do you? no, but i imagine in that case they simply provide the name that they qualified under. you've honestly got me stumped as to how this can possibly work without knowing the name of the person you're checking the qualifications for. what identifier are you using to ask the university if a specific person qualified if not the name?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Chalks posted:no, but i imagine in that case they simply provide the name that they qualified under. I don't know, that's not my problem. They have me do a lovely whiteboard test anyway so they visibly don't give a poo poo what's my background in the most practical way possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
How about: Make background checks illegal unless 100% necessary for security purposes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:I don't know, that's not my problem. They have me do a lovely whiteboard test anyway so they visibly don't give a poo poo what's my background in the most practical way possible. well i mean i guess it's not immediately your problem, it's the employer's problem which is why they'll request clarification from you as to why the university has no record of you. and then i guess it would become your problem when you tell them you have no idea and they give to job to someone else since it looks like you were lying on your cv assuming the care about your qualifications and actually bother to check them but that's not really the point ratbert90 posted:How about : absolutely this
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
wait you think background checks are where the company that’s going to hire you calls up your listed universities? that is not how it works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:wait you think background checks are where the company that’s going to hire you calls up your listed universities? that is not how it works. there's a pretty big terminology blur here when it comes to background checks vs checking references and i'm just kinda riding the wave
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
background checks in the US are provided by third-party companies whos business is basically collating records about persons so someone like a potential employer (or really anyone) can give them a set of identifying information and they'll pass on the information that they have related to those identifiers as a for-profit business of course it's like doxxing as a business model, and full of the kind of issues one might expect
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
ok background checks are basically a search of court documents for poo poo that comes up, plus employment and university checks. because name changes (trans-related or otherwise) are public, the background check company can trivially see that James Computerman attended university as Jane Computerlady, but there’s no need to divulge that info to the client (that is, to the company that wants to hire James) background checks are done by third parties, so it’d be trivial for the information they give to the company that wants to hire you to be “yup James computerman worked at a, b, and c and has no criminal history, he got a BS from barbados university in 2008”. there’s no reason for them to add “oh also James is trans and used to be called Jane computerlady” reference checks are where hr calls the phone numbers you put on the application, they’re a totally separate thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
like when they have you fill out the identifying information that might be submitted to one of these companies, it might be in your best interest to be as complete and accurate as possible to prevent bob smith the car thief's background from mixing with yourself, bob smith the boring dude
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
sounds creepy as gently caress in the uk, criminal record checks are provided by the government and only certain job roles are eligible for them. it's literally illegal to not employ someone due to their criminal history unless you're interviewing for a job where the checks are mandated besides criminal record checks and job specific medical checks, contacting their references is the only other checks you're allowed to do
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Chalks posted:there's a pretty big terminology blur here when it comes to background checks vs checking references and i'm just kinda riding the wave there is no blur at all, you're the only one who doesn't seem to understand what a background check is. nobody said anything about reference checks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:there is no blur at all, you're the only one who doesn't seem to understand what a background check is. nobody said anything about reference checks. well, i did when i said i considered checking someone's qualifications to be a reference check rather than a background check, in response to someone talking about those things, but who's counting or indeed reading
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
i'm not even trying to be a dick, i'm gonna lay it out: a reference check is often, but not always, part of a background check other things that may be part of a background check: * employment history * financial/credit information * academic records * military records * criminal records * arrest records * sex offender status * citizenship/immigration status * driving records * medical records * character reference checks and probably more i am forgetting not all of these can be legally requested for all types of jobs, but it all falls under the umbrella of "background checks"
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Chalks posted:well, i did when i said i considered checking someone's qualifications to be a reference check rather than a background check, in response to someone talking about those things, but who's counting or indeed reading ok then, everyone but you, the person that said we were wrong because you didn't understand what background checks are feel better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
background checks are pretty dumb which isnt suprising because interviewing and recruiting is pretty dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Mao Zedong Thot posted:background checks are pretty dumb agreedo
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:i'm not even trying to be a dick, i'm gonna lay it out: a reference check is often, but not always, part of a background check yeah, i think i'm clearer on this now. it's a US/UK confusion thing, where in the UK all of that is illegal unless you're mandated by law to do a criminal records check. here, if you were an employer trying to find out about someone's qualifications it would be because those qualifications were on their CV and you were doing a reference check so when someone talked about the employer doing it without knowing the name of the person they were checking i was confused. the whole idea of these background check companies in the US sounds pretty horrible and i'm sorry for anyone who has to deal with this level of bullshit when getting a job
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Chalks posted:sounds creepy as gently caress us delenda est
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Chalks posted:yeah, i think i'm clearer on this now. it's a US/UK confusion thing, where in the UK all of that is illegal unless you're mandated by law to do a criminal records check. it's hella hosed up and i'm honestly surprised the uk hasn't managed to make it a thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
also background checks pretty much only apply to the work peons; executives tend to be excluded, which is why its so easy to have scandals later about an SVP not even having an undergraduate degree much less the MBA or other graduate degree they claimed -- things that they would require of any work peon trying to move up into this position that kind of situation is also funny when stuff like that tends to end up in SEC filings, and the companies still just kind of take the persons word for it when they're high-ranking
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:it's hella hosed up and i'm honestly surprised the uk hasn't managed to make it a thing we still have a comparatively healthy view of criminal rehabilitation here, which i don't think has a whole lot to do with the eu so hopefully it'll survive the upcoming apocalypse
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
lancemantis posted:also background checks pretty much only apply to the work peons; executives tend to be excluded, which is why its so easy to have scandals later about an SVP not even having an undergraduate degree much less the MBA or other graduate degree they claimed -- things that they would require of any work peon trying to move up into this position
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Chalks posted:sounds creepy as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
a
Progressive JPEG fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Mar 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:in the us this is handled by the fbi but in practice you pay some private third party company their pound of flesh (around $50) to take your fingerprints and submit the application for you. some of these companies will have kiosks in e.g. ups stores so you could just use one of those. oh and as a bonus the application process had some questions which implied that job applicants might be doing this as well (and presumably paying for it out of pocket of course)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 01:05
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Don't be an idiot then. You gain nothing from this. thanks for the advice, i will ask them about this definitely and let’s see how it goes the reason i am reluctant to pick a fight on this thing is that i am not an expert on Japanese law and there may be something in there which will side with the employer in your regular professional business none of this stuff would be a surprise, but unfortunately my current job is a clown shoes operation run by dunning kruger phds who simply do not know anything about professional courtesy and everything that goes with it. japanese work culture is basically “make boss feel good” so they have had years to simmer in their own poo poo and the possibility that they may be doing things wrong is just inconceivable so when i say i refuse the non compete i honestly believe they may get a lawyer or something and instead of just quitting a lovely job i have to spend my time money and energy dealing with this poo poo on and on and on and just as a remark it’s not even a 100% Japanese company as 2/3 of the founders are foreign and so is half the workforce. i find myself often thinking that it can’t be real and i must be explaining it wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
i know nothing about japanese law at all but i would be astonished if they could force you to sign a contract
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Chalks posted:i know nothing about japanese law at all but i would be astonished if they could force you to sign a contract didn’t you just have an adventure in this thread where you didn’t know what you were talking about but kept talking
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
just wanted to say that i have signed the docs for my new job that both tacks on more figgies and gets me out of my current toxic one what a nice belated christmas present 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:background checks violate nondiscrimination acts when they have the potential to reveal trans status Where is trans status protected in the us outside of MA
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Flaming June posted:just wanted to say that i have signed the docs for my new job that both tacks on more figgies and gets me out of my current toxic one hell yeah, here's a seasonal way to celebrate
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
MononcQc posted:Some people I know worked or lived in cities that don't exist anymore 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2018 03:03
|
|
