Until recently, Bozeman, Montana required jobseekers looking to work for the city to reveal all of their passwords and logins to social media networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube – and to email accounts such as Google and Yahoo – during background checks. News of the requirement created such a controversy over privacy rights that the city’s practice of reviewing information found on password-protected sites has since been suspended pending “a more comprehensive evaluation.”
According to reports, a news station in Montana was informed about Bozeman's background check policies from an anonymous individual. Jobseekers for Bozeman city posts were required to sign a background check waiver requiring applicants – in addition to undergoing usual criminal records search and past employment reviews – to list their involvement with online websites “to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.” The city form then offered three lines for applicants to list websites, their user names and login information, and their passwords.
Not surprisingly, the requirement raised questions concerning the privacy rights of applicants. Bozeman officials were receiving an e-mail a minute about the background check policy while an online poll tallying more than 5,000 votes found 98 percent of the respondents thought the policy was an invasion of privacy. In addition, Article 2, Section 10 of the Montana Constitution reads “the right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.”
Initially, the Bozeman City Attorney was quoted as defending the background check policy: “We have positions ranging from fire and police, which require people of high integrity for those positions, all the way down to the lifeguards and the folks that work in city hall here. So we do those types of investigations to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the city.” The city has since ended the policy which “appears to have exceeded that which is acceptable to our community.”
Regarding the city's former background check requirement, officials from online social networking website Facebook.com – which currently has more than 200 million active users worldwide – were quoted as saying the Bozeman policy “is a violation of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which received feedback from users and was ultimately approved in a site-wide vote.” This proves once again that while some employers favor using social media sites for employment background checks, the process does come with certain risks and liabilities.
Whatever their opinion on privacy issues, jobseekers in today’s job market should expect a thorough background check that could include a criminal record search, resume validation, and even a credit report. While social networking sites probably should stay off limits, employers will have plenty of information left in the background check to ponder. Jobseekers should do their best to make sure that the information found in background check reports is current, accurate, and secure from identity theft.
One way to accomplish this goal is with a Self Background Check – a background check that is ordered by an individual and for the individual. Self background checks help jobseekers keep the information that will be viewed by potential employers mistake-proof and error-free. While most background check companies only service employers, MyBackgroundCheck.com specializes in personal background checks for individuals to use as jobseekers, tenants, students, volunteers, and everyday consumers. For more information on self background checks, please visit www.mybackgroundcheck.com, email info@mybackgroundcheck.com, or call 1-800-503-2364.
Contact Us @ MyBackgroundCheck.com
tahearn@mybackgroundcheck.com
Follow MyBackgroundCheck.com on Twitter
*We welcome relevant comments and questions from consumers, experts, and human resources professionals. Please do not submit comments with advertisements as they will not be posted publicly. Thanks for visiting our blog!
According to a recent LA Times story, some of the 14 million unemployed jobseekers currently looking for work are caught in a vicious cycle of being behind on bills after losing a job and then having the bad credit created by the job loss spoil any chances of finding new employment. The story outlined cases of recruiters rescinding job offers after performing background checks and finding credit histories marred by overdue credit card payments, impending home foreclosures, or bankruptcy protection filings. A credit report review done during a background check has become a high hurdle for jobseekers to jump in a terrible job market.
To avoid future trouble, companies are using proactive background checks to gain insight into how jobseekers conduct their personal lives, since many believe that is how they will also conduct business. For these employers, examining credit reports during background checks helps them hire the best employees. Some staffing experts claim that money problems uncovered durnig background checks can be a sign of bad work habits in a jobseeker, while a good credit history means a worker is more likely to be trustworthy and reliable, two important traits for U.S. companies that lose billions – with a median loss of $150,000 – to employee theft annually.
Even if a background check shows a clean criminal record, many employers still aren't willing to take a chance on a jobseeker with bad credit. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, U.S. companies lose in average 5 percent of their annual revenue to employee fraud, 90 percent of which is from misappropriations like pilfering. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) estimates that up to 50 percent of employers, including the U.S. government, run jobseeker credit checks. For example, applicants for security officer positions at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will be refused if a background check turns up more than $7,500 in past-due debt, delinquent taxes, or late child-support payments.
In most of the U.S., screening jobseekers with credit reports during background checks is legal as long as it is disclosed to applicants, who must give permission for a credit check to be run. Even with bad credit, most jobseekers agree to a background check since they believe any job offer would be lost if they refused. Most companies use reports produced for them by major credit bureaus. Federal law permits employers to see if jobseekers are paying their mortgages, credit cards, and bills on time, but does not allow them to see overall credit scores and they must notify candidates if they are rejected because of credit.
While no clear connection between credit history and job performance has been found yet, evidence exists that some information used by employers contains errors. In 2004, over one-third of companies surveyed by SHRM said they found inaccuracies in the credit histories they pulled on jobseekers. For that reason alone, jobseekers need to be aware what information will be contained in background checks performed on them, including criminal histories and credit reports. Since today’s bad job market can be even worse for those with bad credit, jobseekers are advised to run a “self background check” to see what information employers will see – before they see it – to help them find work.
While most background check companies only service employers, MyBackgroundCheck.com – a leading provider of consumer-requested background check services – has performed background checks on over one million individuals, including jobseekers, in the past year. For more information about our Jobseeker Background Check package, visit www.mybackgroundcheck.com, email info@mybackgroundcheck.com, or call 1-800-503-2364.
Contact Us @ MyBackgroundCheck.com
tahearn@mybackgroundcheck.com
Follow MyBackgroundCheck.com on Twitter
*We welcome relevant comments and questions from consumers, experts, and human resources professionals. Please do not submit comments with advertisements as they will not be posted publicly. Thanks for visiting our blog!
Today, the CEO of our company received an email from the Arrested Development Foundation (ADF) publicizing their “Project New Vote.” He thought it was a joke (maybe because its name parodies the band Arrested Development), but, with further research , found it was an organization that assists criminal offenders in expunging criminal records, finding employment , and exercising their rights to vote under certain state laws.
I’m not so sure I want any major criminals choosing my next president or voting on propositions that could sway toward lenient criminal laws, but apparently the legislators in 39 states believe they should be given that right after serving their time. ADF has a portal where ex-offenders can find out if they are eligible to vote in their state, which depends on the crime, the time served, and the extent of their criminal records.
I checked out the website at http://www.arrestfoundation.org/index.htm , which argues that there is a great deal of nonviolent offenders or people who have had a run in with the law at some point, but have been rehabilitated. They also state that the way hiring managers deal with background checks is discriminatory to those with criminal records, reporting that most employers make their hiring decision based on the background check before the applicant has a chance to explain the crime or make the case that they have been rehabilitated. ADF also believes that hiring ex-offenders will decrease the rate of recidivism and reduce the overall crime rate.
Here’s my take on ADF’s position…
People who make mistakes pay for them in one way or another and those who truly want to change their lives after crime naturally must try harder than law abiding citizens to get a job. But that is the additional price they pay for the crimes they committed, whether it’s right or wrong. Those of us who have never broken the law should be given preference above those who have. Why should an employer simply trust every applicant with a criminal record and give ex-offenders a chance? It must be on a case-by-case basis and depending on the position in relation to the crime. I wouldn’t hire a two-time thief to run a cash register, for instance.
If you have a criminal record you know is going to show up on a background check, you will have to go the extra mile in contacting the hiring manager and convincing him or her that you are a changed person and deserve a chance at a job or career, but you can feel confident that you have the right to vote (if allowed in your state).
I would advise those with criminal records to go to our MyBackgroundCheck.com newsroom where there are two helpful articles on how background checks affect job seekers and explore other resources throughout the site.
Industry experts, ex-offenders, concerned citizens, and HR people are welcome to post comments to this with thoughts on these issues.
*We welcome relevant comments and questions from consumers, experts, and human resources professionals. Please do not submit comments with advertisements as they will not be posted publicly. Thanks for visiting our blog!