background checks

Personally I favor background checks.

Unfortunately, I can see a major problem with them, especially as identity theft gains momentum.

The problem lies with the accuracy of the information in the background checks. If a background check is required as part of the pre-hiring process, a job hunter could unfairly lose out on a lot of prospects if their background data is inaccurate.

Now if there were a process by which the job hunter could review the background check results and have them corrected, I'd feel a little better about them. But, unlike the credit reporting industry, such a process doesn't appear to exist.

'Recommending' background checks?!!!

I'm sorry, but I assumed this was already a matter of fact in ANY work environment, and especially in the USA right now where paranoia is working overtime!!!

I work for the UK Police, military and various other security forces worldwide. I potentially have access to VERY sensitive information, purely because of the locations I have to work...my background is thouroughly vetted every time I go to a new location!

I would also assume that if someone applies for a job, and produces certificates, diplomas, degrees etc, that checks would automatically be done to verify that the paperwork is for real! If you read on an app form that someone attended, say, Southampton University and was awarded a BScin Electronics, one quick phone call to the University should be able to verify that fact!

As far as personal background is concerned, one fax to your local police department should be able to genrate a 'criminal history' if there is one.

Youwouldn't employ a childminder to look after the kids if they weren't registered with the local authority and been vetted by the police! Here in the UK, teachers now have to be PV'd by the police before they can work in schools without supervision.
So 'advising' that companies perform checks seems crazy! I expect that's why there have been so many scandals (Enron, Anderson, MCI etc.)in the USA...perhaps over there pre 11/09/01, no one bothered to check!!!

I’ll get on to addressing the question at hand after I remove my qiviut lined jacket, removing my qintars from the pockets first, of course, and get busy pounding away on my qwerty keyboard. I like to listen to my “best of the qin instrument” CD, so let me put that on. I hope my nonsense, but with real words, won’t escape you like a twig floating through a qanat, or get lost like a pine needle among qats.

What was the question? Oh yea’.

Does the letter U always follow the letter Q?

I’m not sure.

The way you asked the question indicated that it was "...recommended that background investigations should be required for all employees-including system and security administrators-who will have access to sensitive information."

The key words here are "should be required".

I have to wonder, which "big brother" is going to "require" (i.e. force) some autonomous business to do it? And how will that "big brother" enforce such a "requirement"?

And who will define "sensitive" and/or determine those gray areas that may be considered sensitive to some but not to others?

Don't do the crime. Surely the fact that you are going to put a black mark in your history and know that this will affect your future should be enough incentive to not do wrong.

The system in the UK for motoring offences means that penalty pointsstay on your licence for three years. Earn 12 points on your licence and that's it....revoked for 12 months. I could commit 4 speeding offences in the same day at three points each and lose my licence, or I can speed once every 364 days and then lose my licence three years minus one day after my first conviction. The end result is identical....I still lose my licence. Doing it in one day means that 12 months later I get my licence back and three years down the line, it is 'clean'. Doing it the second way means that I will have penalties on my licence for 6 years, and be banned for one year.

Same offences....very different record!

The fairness comes in interpreting the history and making a judgement on whether or not to hire. One bossmight not employ someone because they have offended in the past, but have done their pennance and it was a long time ago, another may say that a few minor offences over a longer period of time is more serious.

Half the battle is not the contents of the report, but how it may be interpreted, and two different employers may have different values!

Most people have no idea what is being looked for with background checks. They assume its a general check on criminal activity which would then make someone unemployable.

In fact, they are looking for vulnerabilities as much as past crimes. Debt problems may make someone vulnerable to selling sensitive information. An old indiscretion may make someone vulnerable to blackmail. It isn't the teenage auto theft, its that this information is being hidden by the now model adult that makes it important.

Advice for this - be open about your past and the background check will not be a threat.

Exceptions are those with adult history of criminal acts. Embezzlement and fraud makes employment in finance unlikely. Child molestors are bad risks for companies dealing with kids.

Also, a past that is embarrasing to the employer is a killer for the applicant.

Background checks are very important. The corporation should notify a individual that a decision was made based upon historical record and should respond to the applicant where the derogatory information was found.

I recently was unemployed for5 months and some corporations where upfront that criminal, credit, employment history and reference information would be used to screen applicants BEFORE a interview even begins. I checked my credit reports on all 3 reporting agencies, plus the local credit bureau to verify accuracy of the information my reports contained. I knew I had no criminal background to worry about. This is a employers market and corporations need to protect themselves in this economy. The investment in hiring a candidate who will benefit your organization is less than the damage which can occur if you hire someone with a dubious background.

I feel a lot of you are missing the point of this question entirely and are concerned about non-exsistant issues.

Although I didn't read the referenced article, I think I understand the gist of it from the question.

This is not about "Big Brother." This is not about any Government body or industry organization needing to enforce any requirements. This is not about invasion of privacy or whether people with previous criminal history have paid their debt and deserve a second chance.

This is solely a question about an Industry Analysis and Research company (Gartner) making a RECOMENDATION that anybody hiring employees with potential access to sensitive information (personal, financial, proprietary, etc.) should require background checks on those employees. The extent of the background check is left solely to the company wanting the background check, based on their security concerns. It is only common sense that any company should conduct "due diligence" to ensure that any potential employee is not a potential danger either to the company or it's employees.