6 ms·

This goes back to the generally weak worker protections in the US. Background checks are a pretty hostile approach for most jobs, since after all it is assumed

by blub 5y ago

This goes back to the generally weak worker protections in the US. Background checks are a pretty hostile approach for most jobs, since after all it is assumed that the person which was convicted paid their debt to society. Sure, for certain kinds of positions like working as a lawyer or in a bank, or working with kids perhaps it makes sense, but for programmers working on consumer and B2B software it's a stretch. In many countries there has to be a justified reason to request a criminal record certificate. As for the vaccine, the employer has no business knowing or demanding anything related to the health of an employee, unless that thing is directly affecting their performance. Lack of vaccination does no such thing.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago
To be fair: Background checks, in the US, aren't limited to criminal records. First and foremost, sometimes checks include arrests (without conviction, or a not guilty verdict) if the company chooses the wrong background check company. The government doesn't regulate them very well. But it can be things like a google search for you (Which means that a protest you went to could mean you "aren't a good fit for the company."). It can be a credit check: I had to pass a credit check to work at a gas station once. The district manager was convinced that bad credit meant you were more likely to steal. Very, very often - and more often than a criminal background check - is a drug test. I didn't take a job that did pre-employment hair follicle tests, mostly because the person in the room with me explained she had a drug problem in the past. She had been clean for 2-3 years clean and was willing to take regular drug tests. But they said the tests went back further than that, and no job if the hair follicle test wasn't passed (I think there are now laws that would have protected her). Urine tests are more common, though. And a slew of employers do random drug tests - some call centers, for example, might do random hair follicle or urine tests (Student loan collections do this in some places). It doesn't matter if it would affect your job or not. This is all mostly because there is no law protecting it: The behavior would be illegal where I live now. Now, with vaccinations: Employers do have a little bit of business knowing health concerns if it can affect workplace safety in ways that can make other employees or customers fall sick. They already do this to some degree in, say, foodservice. For example, I know a food factory here (That I worked at temporarily) that requires stool sample tests and time off work if you have any sort of vomiting or diarrhea - you know, because it can make others sick.
- blub 5y ago
  These sort of unofficial background checks are unethical IMO, because there's often zero trace of them occurring. That person is essentially blacklisted without any hope of remedy. Unfortunately even where they're illegal they still happen sometimes and the candidates are none the wiser. I agree with you on workplace safety, but in this case it seems like posturing, since the SARS-2 vaccines don't protect from sickness and transmission (any more). Several countries are experimenting with "vaccinated, cured or tested" to enable reasonably fair and safe access to social life. Since tests will no longer be free, this seems to be a very strong incentive to get vaccinated. In countries like the UK, Germany, France, etc they're also pondering making it mandatory for health care professionals to get vaccinated. That probably makes sense, together with e.g. teachers, especially since kids can't get the vaccine. But the government must guarantee that any vaccine side-effects will be made up for. The nasty thing about AZ for example was that you would of course get treated if you got the brain thrombosis, but no compensation was awarded. I indirectly know of someone that had this critical side-effect and they survived but last time I heard they were still half paralysed.
dekhn 5y ago
The Google background check (along with other employers) verify your claimed credentials (sadly people like about phds). The folks doing it aren't particularly capable, though, I've had to correct errors they made in my check (basic stuff like working at a company for two distinct time periods).

by blub 5y ago

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

To be fair: Background checks, in the US, aren't limited to criminal records. First and foremost, sometimes checks include arrests (without conviction, or a not guilty verdict) if the company chooses the wrong background check company. The government doesn't regulate them very well. But it can be things like a google search for you (Which means that a protest you went to could mean you "aren't a good fit for the company."). It can be a credit check: I had to pass a credit check to work at a gas station once. The district manager was convinced that bad credit meant you were more likely to steal. Very, very often - and more often than a criminal background check - is a drug test. I didn't take a job that did pre-employment hair follicle tests, mostly because the person in the room with me explained she had a drug problem in the past. She had been clean for 2-3 years clean and was willing to take regular drug tests. But they said the tests went back further than that, and no job if the hair follicle test wasn't passed (I think there are now laws that would have protected her). Urine tests are more common, though. And a slew of employers do random drug tests - some call centers, for example, might do random hair follicle or urine tests (Student loan collections do this in some places). It doesn't matter if it would affect your job or not. This is all mostly because there is no law protecting it: The behavior would be illegal where I live now. Now, with vaccinations: Employers do have a little bit of business knowing health concerns if it can affect workplace safety in ways that can make other employees or customers fall sick. They already do this to some degree in, say, foodservice. For example, I know a food factory here (That I worked at temporarily) that requires stool sample tests and time off work if you have any sort of vomiting or diarrhea - you know, because it can make others sick.

blub 5y ago
These sort of unofficial background checks are unethical IMO, because there's often zero trace of them occurring. That person is essentially blacklisted without any hope of remedy. Unfortunately even where they're illegal they still happen sometimes and the candidates are none the wiser. I agree with you on workplace safety, but in this case it seems like posturing, since the SARS-2 vaccines don't protect from sickness and transmission (any more). Several countries are experimenting with "vaccinated, cured or tested" to enable reasonably fair and safe access to social life. Since tests will no longer be free, this seems to be a very strong incentive to get vaccinated. In countries like the UK, Germany, France, etc they're also pondering making it mandatory for health care professionals to get vaccinated. That probably makes sense, together with e.g. teachers, especially since kids can't get the vaccine. But the government must guarantee that any vaccine side-effects will be made up for. The nasty thing about AZ for example was that you would of course get treated if you got the brain thrombosis, but no compensation was awarded. I indirectly know of someone that had this critical side-effect and they survived but last time I heard they were still half paralysed.

dekhn 5y ago

The Google background check (along with other employers) verify your claimed credentials (sadly people like about phds). The folks doing it aren't particularly capable, though, I've had to correct errors they made in my check (basic stuff like working at a company for two distinct time periods).