4 ms·

I can't think of any other situation when one person getting a job puts legal obligations on their spouse, but I haven't looked into it.

skizm 3y ago
To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to hand over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? Sarcasm aside: interesting how far they go for a simple copper on the street now. Here in Germany, that level of background checks (Sicherheitsüberprüfung Ü2/Ü3) is only done for higher level (i.e. leadership) cops and IT staff. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfu...
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to [hand] over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it. > What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? How is forcing a friend or family member to surrender their own PII have anything to do about "weed[ing] out the bad apples"? My intuition is that those kinds of background checks have been going on for a long time, and have been focused on stuff like preventing infiltration by organized crime rather than specifically rooting out police brutality.
    - notduncansmith 3y ago
      > preventing infiltration I believe this is correct. > by organized crime I believe this depends on the precinct.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      > preventing infiltration by organized crime Sounds like they're trying to weed out some of the bad apples then, aren't they? Would you rather they not be doing this? It doesn't address all the ways in which a cop might be bad, but you shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.
      - pc86 3y ago
        Nothing they said even remotely suggests they're against this type of background check, just that checking up on your wife's credit and social circle says nothing about whether you are a "bad apple" yourself.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        It's a confusing comment because in one paragraph they say the practice doesn't weed out bad apples, but then in the subsequent paragraph they concede that it probably does. The only way to square these is if cops affiliated with organized crime aren't classified as bad apples, but that makes zero sense.
        tivert 3y ago
        > The only way to square these is if cops affiliated with organized crime aren't classified as bad apples, but that makes zero sense. I see how it was confusing, but what I was thinking was the nature of what is considered a "bad apple" has changed over time. I think police forces have been trying to prevent things like organized crime infiltration and corruption for a long time, while things like excessive use of force and racial bias have only started to be considered serious problem by them much more recently. Acting surprised about background checks seems like it's exclusively referring to the latter, while the process itself (e.g. getting friends' SSNs) seems mostly target at the former.
  - tiltowait 3y ago
    A friend applied for a state police job. They wanted references and interviews not only from immediate family members, but also a number of friends, his adjacent neighbors, multiple current coworkers, his current supervisor, and all past supervisors he was able to get ahold of (with detailed explanations if he was unable to comply with the last). And then, when they interviewed me, they asked me for further references for him.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
My immediate family can't trade Amazon stock even though I am just some random employee in this behemoth. It's relatively minor, but it's still legal repercussions.
- mikestew 3y ago
  ...though I am just some random employee in this behemoth. I'm skeptical of "just some random employee", or a ban on immediate family trading AMZN. Because it's the first I've heard of this for an SDE that doesn't work in finance for Amazon, and I know plenty of folks that work at Amazon and trading AMZN has come up. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd sure double-check on that because it doesn't match my experience with other large companies (for instance, there was a time when my spouse worked in Microsoft finance, and I had to have my MSFT trades approved or something, but not banned from trading).
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    I read it on my contract, but I may be forgetting something. It is possible that this is org wide.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Trading windows are pretty normal but, if there's RSU comp, they have to be able to trade AMZN even if it's just pre-scheduled/approved.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
amalcon 3y ago
Your spouse can definitely affect your ability to get a security clearance. Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. Your spouse being a foreign national can also be significant, depending on which country and their connections there. It's not really a legal obligation as such ("only" putting the job at risk), but it does cover rather a lot of jobs.
- galleywest200 3y ago
  > Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. The process of doing away with this entirely started last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-former-marijuana-users-under-senate-bill-11656008707 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-for...
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    Makes sense now that it's legal and foreign/criminal actors can't extort people any more for being gay or smoking pot.
    - massysett 3y ago
      It is not legal. It is a violation of federal law.
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        Thing is, in a legal state there is no leverage for a bad actor, unless the US federal government changes its policy - but that's very unlikely under a Democrat government given they're pro federal legalization, and even under a hardliner like Trump the Republicans didn't dare touch the issue because it would counteract their entire "states rights" agenda and piss off a sizable amount of their own voters.
    - kevinventullo 3y ago
      Well, a closeted person in a conservative part of the country might still be vulnerable to extortion. Makes me wonder if being openly out actually helps with getting security clearance. I feel like there’s a comedy sketch in here…
dudul 3y ago
Really? I work in the gambling industry and nobody in my household is allowed to gamble/bet online just because of that. When I worked in finance, myself and my wife also had a lot of restrictions in regards to our investments. Anyways, these are just a few examples, but there are a lot of domains of activity where restrictions extend not only to the direct employee but also to their spouse or direct family.
toast0 3y ago
My spouse was an elected official in California, which came with reporting requirements for stock transactions and gifts for both of us[1] But then, in a community property state, we don't have separate stock transactions and gifts, valued economically, aren't usually seperable either (there's exceptions or at least higher gift limits from family gifts, which are likely sources for seperable gifts) For us, it was easier to avoid making stock transactions that triggered reporting and avoid accepting gifts that would trigger reporting, than to fill out the reports. I had equity based compensation that had to be reported, but then everything else went into diversified mutual funds, which is a good idea anyway. [1] See CA form 700. But note, this doesn't apply to federal elected officials from CA, only to state and local officials.
- pc86 3y ago
  I wonder if states can require this type of disclosure from federally elected officials or it violates some other law.
astura 3y ago
You can't?! Just one off the top of my head - my friend works for the lottery so he nor his immediate family can buy lottery tickets.

skizm 3y ago

To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to hand over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it.

mschuster91 3y ago
What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? Sarcasm aside: interesting how far they go for a simple copper on the street now. Here in Germany, that level of background checks (Sicherheitsüberprüfung Ü2/Ü3) is only done for higher level (i.e. leadership) cops and IT staff. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfu...
- tivert 3y ago
  >> To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to [hand] over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it. > What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? How is forcing a friend or family member to surrender their own PII have anything to do about "weed[ing] out the bad apples"? My intuition is that those kinds of background checks have been going on for a long time, and have been focused on stuff like preventing infiltration by organized crime rather than specifically rooting out police brutality.
  - notduncansmith 3y ago
    > preventing infiltration I believe this is correct. > by organized crime I believe this depends on the precinct.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > preventing infiltration by organized crime Sounds like they're trying to weed out some of the bad apples then, aren't they? Would you rather they not be doing this? It doesn't address all the ways in which a cop might be bad, but you shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.
    - pc86 3y ago
      Nothing they said even remotely suggests they're against this type of background check, just that checking up on your wife's credit and social circle says nothing about whether you are a "bad apple" yourself.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        It's a confusing comment because in one paragraph they say the practice doesn't weed out bad apples, but then in the subsequent paragraph they concede that it probably does. The only way to square these is if cops affiliated with organized crime aren't classified as bad apples, but that makes zero sense.
        tivert 3y ago
        > The only way to square these is if cops affiliated with organized crime aren't classified as bad apples, but that makes zero sense. I see how it was confusing, but what I was thinking was the nature of what is considered a "bad apple" has changed over time. I think police forces have been trying to prevent things like organized crime infiltration and corruption for a long time, while things like excessive use of force and racial bias have only started to be considered serious problem by them much more recently. Acting surprised about background checks seems like it's exclusively referring to the latter, while the process itself (e.g. getting friends' SSNs) seems mostly target at the former.
- tiltowait 3y ago
  A friend applied for a state police job. They wanted references and interviews not only from immediate family members, but also a number of friends, his adjacent neighbors, multiple current coworkers, his current supervisor, and all past supervisors he was able to get ahold of (with detailed explanations if he was unable to comply with the last). And then, when they interviewed me, they asked me for further references for him.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

My immediate family can't trade Amazon stock even though I am just some random employee in this behemoth. It's relatively minor, but it's still legal repercussions.

mikestew 3y ago
...though I am just some random employee in this behemoth. I'm skeptical of "just some random employee", or a ban on immediate family trading AMZN. Because it's the first I've heard of this for an SDE that doesn't work in finance for Amazon, and I know plenty of folks that work at Amazon and trading AMZN has come up. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd sure double-check on that because it doesn't match my experience with other large companies (for instance, there was a time when my spouse worked in Microsoft finance, and I had to have my MSFT trades approved or something, but not banned from trading).
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  I read it on my contract, but I may be forgetting something. It is possible that this is org wide.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Trading windows are pretty normal but, if there's RSU comp, they have to be able to trade AMZN even if it's just pre-scheduled/approved.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

amalcon 3y ago

Your spouse can definitely affect your ability to get a security clearance. Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. Your spouse being a foreign national can also be significant, depending on which country and their connections there. It's not really a legal obligation as such ("only" putting the job at risk), but it does cover rather a lot of jobs.

galleywest200 3y ago
> Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. The process of doing away with this entirely started last year: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-former-marijuana-users-under-senate-bill-11656008707 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-spy-agencies-could-hire-for...
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Makes sense now that it's legal and foreign/criminal actors can't extort people any more for being gay or smoking pot.
  - massysett 3y ago
    It is not legal. It is a violation of federal law.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      Thing is, in a legal state there is no leverage for a bad actor, unless the US federal government changes its policy - but that's very unlikely under a Democrat government given they're pro federal legalization, and even under a hardliner like Trump the Republicans didn't dare touch the issue because it would counteract their entire "states rights" agenda and piss off a sizable amount of their own voters.
  - kevinventullo 3y ago
    Well, a closeted person in a conservative part of the country might still be vulnerable to extortion. Makes me wonder if being openly out actually helps with getting security clearance. I feel like there’s a comedy sketch in here…

dudul 3y ago

Really? I work in the gambling industry and nobody in my household is allowed to gamble/bet online just because of that. When I worked in finance, myself and my wife also had a lot of restrictions in regards to our investments. Anyways, these are just a few examples, but there are a lot of domains of activity where restrictions extend not only to the direct employee but also to their spouse or direct family.

toast0 3y ago

My spouse was an elected official in California, which came with reporting requirements for stock transactions and gifts for both of us[1] But then, in a community property state, we don't have separate stock transactions and gifts, valued economically, aren't usually seperable either (there's exceptions or at least higher gift limits from family gifts, which are likely sources for seperable gifts) For us, it was easier to avoid making stock transactions that triggered reporting and avoid accepting gifts that would trigger reporting, than to fill out the reports. I had equity based compensation that had to be reported, but then everything else went into diversified mutual funds, which is a good idea anyway. [1] See CA form 700. But note, this doesn't apply to federal elected officials from CA, only to state and local officials.

pc86 3y ago
I wonder if states can require this type of disclosure from federally elected officials or it violates some other law.

astura 3y ago

You can't?! Just one off the top of my head - my friend works for the lottery so he nor his immediate family can buy lottery tickets.