3 ms·

I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago with a large company. They wanted 1099's as I had been an independent contractor for years -- I refused to pr

I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago with a large company. They wanted 1099's as I had been an independent contractor for years -- I refused to provide any tax info on principle; however, my skill-set is in high demand, and I had other competing offers. The hiring manager really wanted me, so he argued with HR until they waived the requirement for me. I think it was kind of a pain in the ass for him, so I think it comes down to how much the manager is willing to fight for you. Edit: I always refuse to allow employers: - financial/credit checks - drug testing / medical information - salary verification I always explain this to recruiters - I can pass any of these checks, but I think they are immoral; since my skills are in high demand, I try to fight the battle for those who don't have as much negotiation strength. I don't believe that any of this information is relevant for employment, and these types of checks tend to hold back people who are already struggling.

cr0sh 9y ago
> financial/credit checks, drug testing There are sound reasons for these kinds of checks; you may not entirely agree with them, but they do exist. For certain industries, it is almost mandatory to use them. They all basically exist as proxies for determining how honest or trustworthy a person is. Can the person being hired be trusted to keep our proprietary information confidential? Can they be trusted not to pawn their laptop? Can they be trusted not to sell company secrets to someone they owe a favor to? Questions like that can be somewhat answered by the results of such tests. If, for instance, they have a bad credit score, it may mean that they run up high bills on their credit cards, and don't pay off the balance in time, or miss payments. Why would that be, if they are being payed a decent salary? Could they be coerced by someone to lend them money in exchange for say - a list of passwords to some servers? Or a dump of the database? Drug testing is the same way; if they test positive for an illegal drug, that right there is a huge red flag that says to the employer "this person is in contact with people doing illegal things" - and again, coercion or extortion are possible here. Depending on the employer, these proxies may or may not be overkill. As I noted above, you can make valid justifications for them even in a white-collar software engineering role. It should go without saying that for certain roles (financial, medical, heavy equipment) that having a trustworthy employee can mean the difference between "life or death" of the company, liability risks, or injury/death of the employee or fellow employees.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  One interesting side effect someone was postulating w.r.t. the Equifax leak was that it may provide bad actors a handy list of "people with credit issues that may be more amenable to blackmail and/or bribery".
- jdenning 9y ago
  >There are sound reasons for these kinds of checks; you may not entirely agree with them, but they do exist. Well, I understand their reasons, but I dispute that the logic behind this reasoning is sound. The best overall argument I have ever heard is that for security clearance, a company might want to evaluate how susceptible a candidate would be to blackmail; however, at that level of background check, a candidate would typically be given a chance to explain any issues. If I were seeking a high security clearance, government role, I think I could understand the justification. However, this type of invasive background check is frequently used for jobs that have no need for security clearance, in which case it seems like an automated "purity test", which is automatically waived for higher-level hires (e.g. do CEO's have to piss in a cup before being hired?) Re: Drug Tests -- Easy to beat if you've got the $. I also dispute that drug use is a valid measure of morality. If someone is intoxicated on the job, that should be obvious. I find drug tests particularly hypocritical at companies that have weekly happy hour gatherings, or other job-related consumption of alcohol. Re: Credit/financial checks -- Likewise, I think this is a poor measure of morality or future performance. Lots of people have had financial trouble; it doesn't mean they're going to steal, or be unable to do their job. Again, if they are stealing, or unable to do their job, they should be fired, regardless of any past credit history. I think that these checks/tests are inaccurate predictors, and are generally used only in situations where there there is a great power asymmetry between the employer and the employee. I understand there are exceptions where they might be more justifiable, but in general, I feel they're an invasion of privacy.
- rl3 9y ago
  >Questions like that can be somewhat answered by the results of such tests. Not really. Credit checks and drug tests are worthless for determining the trustworthiness of employees beyond serving as filters so basic that they border on being comical. For example: a clean drug test and perfect credit score wouldn't save a company from a sociopath that grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth, and gets blackout drunk every other night. Moreover, I'm willing to bet Snowden had quite excellent credit and finances prior to taking off with the sum total of the intelligence community's PowerPoint files. In fact, I bet his drug tests were spotless too. Real trust is far more complicated. On the bright side, at least credit and drug tests do screw the companies that use them out of otherwise excellent candidates on a regular basis. It also saves their apathetic HR departments from having to solve the mystery of why a candidate's affinity for the number 300 stems from the fact it's both their credit score and the number of times they've taken PCP. I'm sure someone of that caliber would've otherwise just slipped right past and landed a cushy software development job.

cr0sh 9y ago

> financial/credit checks, drug testing There are sound reasons for these kinds of checks; you may not entirely agree with them, but they do exist. For certain industries, it is almost mandatory to use them. They all basically exist as proxies for determining how honest or trustworthy a person is. Can the person being hired be trusted to keep our proprietary information confidential? Can they be trusted not to pawn their laptop? Can they be trusted not to sell company secrets to someone they owe a favor to? Questions like that can be somewhat answered by the results of such tests. If, for instance, they have a bad credit score, it may mean that they run up high bills on their credit cards, and don't pay off the balance in time, or miss payments. Why would that be, if they are being payed a decent salary? Could they be coerced by someone to lend them money in exchange for say - a list of passwords to some servers? Or a dump of the database? Drug testing is the same way; if they test positive for an illegal drug, that right there is a huge red flag that says to the employer "this person is in contact with people doing illegal things" - and again, coercion or extortion are possible here. Depending on the employer, these proxies may or may not be overkill. As I noted above, you can make valid justifications for them even in a white-collar software engineering role. It should go without saying that for certain roles (financial, medical, heavy equipment) that having a trustworthy employee can mean the difference between "life or death" of the company, liability risks, or injury/death of the employee or fellow employees.

mfoy_ 9y ago
One interesting side effect someone was postulating w.r.t. the Equifax leak was that it may provide bad actors a handy list of "people with credit issues that may be more amenable to blackmail and/or bribery".
jdenning 9y ago
>There are sound reasons for these kinds of checks; you may not entirely agree with them, but they do exist. Well, I understand their reasons, but I dispute that the logic behind this reasoning is sound. The best overall argument I have ever heard is that for security clearance, a company might want to evaluate how susceptible a candidate would be to blackmail; however, at that level of background check, a candidate would typically be given a chance to explain any issues. If I were seeking a high security clearance, government role, I think I could understand the justification. However, this type of invasive background check is frequently used for jobs that have no need for security clearance, in which case it seems like an automated "purity test", which is automatically waived for higher-level hires (e.g. do CEO's have to piss in a cup before being hired?) Re: Drug Tests -- Easy to beat if you've got the $. I also dispute that drug use is a valid measure of morality. If someone is intoxicated on the job, that should be obvious. I find drug tests particularly hypocritical at companies that have weekly happy hour gatherings, or other job-related consumption of alcohol. Re: Credit/financial checks -- Likewise, I think this is a poor measure of morality or future performance. Lots of people have had financial trouble; it doesn't mean they're going to steal, or be unable to do their job. Again, if they are stealing, or unable to do their job, they should be fired, regardless of any past credit history. I think that these checks/tests are inaccurate predictors, and are generally used only in situations where there there is a great power asymmetry between the employer and the employee. I understand there are exceptions where they might be more justifiable, but in general, I feel they're an invasion of privacy.
rl3 9y ago
>Questions like that can be somewhat answered by the results of such tests. Not really. Credit checks and drug tests are worthless for determining the trustworthiness of employees beyond serving as filters so basic that they border on being comical. For example: a clean drug test and perfect credit score wouldn't save a company from a sociopath that grew up with a silver spoon in their mouth, and gets blackout drunk every other night. Moreover, I'm willing to bet Snowden had quite excellent credit and finances prior to taking off with the sum total of the intelligence community's PowerPoint files. In fact, I bet his drug tests were spotless too. Real trust is far more complicated. On the bright side, at least credit and drug tests do screw the companies that use them out of otherwise excellent candidates on a regular basis. It also saves their apathetic HR departments from having to solve the mystery of why a candidate's affinity for the number 300 stems from the fact it's both their credit score and the number of times they've taken PCP. I'm sure someone of that caliber would've otherwise just slipped right past and landed a cushy software development job.