>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 th

>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.