Employer Saying They Need Background Checks for All Employees Hired Before 2018

John Kimble on 16/02/2023 - 14:43
Last edited 16/02/2023 - 14:47

I work for an American company with offices in a number of countries globally. Recently got an email from HR saying they did a global audit where they discovered many employees hired before 2018 did not have background checks completed when they were first hired, and that they need this completed now for compliance purposes. The company will pay for them, so no employee needs to pay.

I've been at this company between 5-10 years, so it seems a bit illogical to get his done now.

Seems like a waste of time and money, I feel like refusing on principle (nothing to hide), but I probably will just consent to avoid the hassle and so I can get a copy.

I asked what happens if I don't consent, they responded it will be noted on my file as "non compliance", also a list of any employees that do not comply this time will be sent to the Risk and Compliance team, and will likely be asked to consent to a background check regularly going forward.

Any HR or experts in this area know if this the norm or have any insight on what impact this could possibly have on my employment (if any) if I do not consent?

Thoughts or feedback from everyone else? What would you do in this situation?

TIA

Poll Options

  • 76
    Yes, I would consent
  • 38
    No, I would not consent
Education & Work

Comments

  • GG57 on 16/02/2023 - 14:48
    +4

    …They Need Background Checks for All Employees Hired after 2018

    …many employees hired before 2018 did not have background checks

    I found this confusing.

    • John Kimble on 16/02/2023 - 14:49
      +1

      Oops, typo. Will fix. Cheers

  • Settero on 16/02/2023 - 14:49
    +14

    Many industries require background checks and they can lose contracts/insurance if they do not have these.

    • boomramada on 16/02/2023 - 14:51
      +4

      Specially been a American company, Imagine you fired someone and worker return with a gun.

      • EightImmortals on 16/02/2023 - 16:53
        +5

        And being forced to submit a background check after the start of employment will stop that how exactly?
        Is it because only people with some kind of 'criminal' history are at risk of going postal?
        What if someone does go postal but they passed the background check?
        What if someone who did have a criminal history stopped someone else from going postal?

        Clownworld.

        • boomramada on 16/02/2023 - 21:00

          You can put the risky workers in the departure lounge to reduce future risk ?

        • terrys on 17/02/2023 - 09:15

          "Is it because only people with some kind of 'criminal' history"

          There is also the check for working with vulnerable, aged and children as nurses, teachers, community volunteers and many others regularly undergo.

          The "criminal" side checks for violence, fraud or theft convictions.

    • John Kimble on 16/02/2023 - 14:52

      Good to know. HR did not mention this was the/a reason for this happening in my company. They just said it was so everyone's employment record is compliant.

      • MrBear on 17/02/2023 - 12:42

        It may well be that they now have a government contract (or are trying to get one) and this is part of the requirement.

        They don't really have to give you a reason unfortunately, however, there may be differences in the laws for this ability to get a background check in the US compared with Australia and if you are in Australia working for them, you fall under AU (and even state, eg NSW) law, not US.

      • Icecold5000 on 17/02/2023 - 12:42
        -1

        Just quit your job if it’s an issue. Problem solved

      • jrvb42 on 17/02/2023 - 18:21
        +1

        This is typical of the lack of communication present in management ranks. If the reasons for such things were clearly explained, there would likely be far fewer objections, but a least no need for speculation. All Dr Who types, keeping their rationale secret. Very annoying and unproductive.

  • GG57 on 16/02/2023 - 14:51
    +2

    What is meant by "background checks"? Is this a police check?

    • John Kimble on 16/02/2023 - 14:56
      +2

      Yes, that is one of them

      The rest are apparently:
      - Global Sanctions and Enforcement
      - Education
      - Employment
      - Credit (apparently just to check bankruptcy, which I don't think is their business, I can understand if I was employed at an executive level or was in a role that dealt with large sums of money/client money)
      - Right to work AU and NZ

      I'm not sure eif I can opt out of specific ones, like credit check I probably don't want them doing.

      • GG57 on 16/02/2023 - 15:02
        +2

        Police check - ok, reasonably standard requirement
        Global sanctions - seems reasonable, assuming you can prove who you really are
        Education - I don't see the need, unless there is a specific qualification that was required for you to start the job
        Employment - If you've been there since pre-2018, it is probably irrelevant
        Credit - bankruptcy can exclude you from some roles, but not many
        Right to work - should be easy to prove

        TBH, this is a problem of their own making. If you weren't required to do this at the time of employment, you shouldn't have to now (unless you want a promotion or whatever).
        If you were required and they 'forgot', too bad.

      • AndyC1 on 16/02/2023 - 17:00
        +2

        Sounds like they are wanting the info so they can in the future reduce their workforce based on the results as some of them are NOT needed for a background check.

        • Police check - okay
        • Global Sanctions and Enforcement - yes (this is for checking you are not laundering money in OZ).
        • Education - not needed
        • Employment - not needed as you have worked for them for years.
        • Credit - not needed as bankruptcy checking in OZ is different to a credit check.
        • Right to work AU and NZ. They already have your TFN and have worked for them for 5+ years….

        Some of this is NOT required for OZ. I got re-hired at a company that has strict compliance rules for all countries and states that they work in and they needed the police check, some money laundering/terrorist check, either a birth certificate or some other proof you can work in OZ. The education and credit check were not required. They did a usual reference check, which was for previous employment.

        • freefall101 on 16/02/2023 - 20:16
          +1

          Education - not needed

          Depends if it includes licensing as well as education. Depending on the role that can be very important (legal, heavy machinery, etc)

          Employment - not needed as you have worked for them for years.

          Yeah, this one is weird. It's not like there's even a body that records this, unless they're going to redo reference checks or something?

          Credit - not needed as bankruptcy checking in OZ is different to a credit check.

          I had to do this while working in Canada as an auditor, it's to make sure you don't potentially have debt with one of their clients. You can be excluded from doing the audit.

          I wasn't allowed to gamble because I was a regular auditor at a casino. Weird rules sometimes (not as weird as the "Jimmy Hoffa" rules I had to work with doing a Teamsters union pension)

          Right to work AU and NZ. They already have your TFN and have worked for them for 5+ years….

          I've seen this turn into a shitshow - people are on working visas that expire and no one at the company follows up on it. The ATO doesn't keep track of whether you have the right to work in a country once you have a TFN, they just keep taking tax like nothing is going on, tax resident is different to citizen. A company can wind up in a lot of crap by not checking visa rights of their employees.

      • SF3 on 16/02/2023 - 19:58

        Education

        I think you could get caught on this one Mr John Kimble.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/02/2023 - 14:51
    +7

    What if you're actually a sleeper agent and you didnt even know it?

    What if to others you're a computer salesman but you're actually really running a double life as a secret agent for Omega Sector, a top-secret U.S. counterterrorism agency?

    (I woulda just consented just so they could waste their money finding out indeed there was nothing to hide)

    • BewareOfThe Dog on 16/02/2023 - 15:01

      Maybe all employees have to pay out of their own wages(instead of the Company)?

      • Jimothy Wongingtons on 16/02/2023 - 15:11

        The company will pay for them, so no employee needs to pay.

        nah he said company will pay. If employee had to pay I would say tell them to f off.

  • djsweet on 16/02/2023 - 15:02
    +9

    Seems a bit much to ask for it in retrospect. If you agreed to it as a condition of employment then that is different. If you didn't agree to it as a condition of employment then its an overreach of authority and an invasion of privacy. You shouldn't need to provide any grounds for refusal, and they probably can't legally fire you for refusing since your employment is not predicated on passing a background check. Doesn't mean they won't fire you though.

  • MrHyde on 16/02/2023 - 15:02

    I guess it depends on industry and customers. In our company; almost all our customers ask that the company attests they have undertaken background checks on all employees that would be working on that customer's account. Non-compliance (if auditted by customer) could mean loss of contract with the customer.

    • John Kimble on 16/02/2023 - 15:09

      Makes sense. They did say certain people/roles in the company need them done every 5 years! I'm not one of them.

  • Lunarboogie on 16/02/2023 - 15:05

    It would depend on the line of work and how sensitive it is which the OP does not dwell on. There's a huge difference between Aussie Joe working at the Champion retail outlet in Melbourne CBD and another working for Boeing on the Joint Strike Fighter program.

    At the end of the day, the company is doing this for a reason and if it raises your hackles that much, OP can conscientiously object with a new company.

    • djsweet on 16/02/2023 - 15:10

      Wouldn't be surprised if Aussie Joe from Melbourne had to pass a background check these days. Don't want delinquents sneaking off with bum bags to impress their homies at the end of their shift.

    • ColtNoir on 17/02/2023 - 10:16

      JSF would need security clearance and you couldn’t just miss that. Security clearances also let you know in advance they require updates.

      Without knowing the industry in question, it seems they want to impose americas stupid rules here. I’d refuse on principle.

  • Seraphin7 on 16/02/2023 - 15:21
    +1

    I asked what happens if I don't consent, they responded it will be noted on my file as "non compliance"

    Beyond anything else, I would be challenging this point. The employee is not in a state of non-compliance … the business/person who did the hiring is.

    • JumperC on 16/02/2023 - 22:51

      I think you’re tripping over semantics here. They likely need to know this employee doesn’t comply with the requirements certain clients have for them to work on their account.

      It’s irrelevant whose fault it was that it wasn’t done, if the employee doesn’t comply with the request going forward they’re the one not in compliance. They could just as easily write ‘unable to use this employee on accounts that require background checks’ and if that’s all accounts your best outcome is redundancy, but likely outcome is dismissal for not following a lawful request required by the job. It’s irrelevant if it wasn’t required when hired if it now is and is reasonable.

      I’ve watched people take a stand on this, and eventually cave when they were passed over for certain work because the client required it. And that was the best case, we had other clients they could work for in the meantime.

      Just because you don’t comply doesn’t mean you can be fired, but it could if there’s no longer work you’re able to do because you refused a reasonable request. What happened at hiring time is irrelevant. It matters if the company has work for someone who doesn’t meet a business requirement, even if that business requirement is new (providing it’s reasonable).

      On the other hand even a criminal conviction doesn’t automatically mean someone can be dismissed.

      Who decides what’s reasonable? That’s where lawyers make their money arguing. And they’ll generally need specifics to comment on something like this, and a good idea to obtain proper legal advice if insisting on not complying with the request.

  • AustriaBargain on 16/02/2023 - 15:47
    +1

    Just do it. their insurance maybe wants it done

  • OpticalCog on 16/02/2023 - 18:47

    Unsure what relevance the amount of time you have been working at the firm has. In my field (whilst in University + Work force) we are required to undertake similar checks and keep them up to date (i.e. submit new up-to-date ones every 3-5 years). I have no issue with this and tbh I would prefer it if my employer was taking measures to know if my coworkers had been convicted of a charge such as sexual assault, irrelevant of whether they have been working in the same place for 5, 10 or 40 years.

    The only thing I find odd about this is that they are requesting a single standalone check and not that you submit a new one every 5 years or so. Noting that it's 2018 so maybe they will be requesting re-checks every 5 years and this is just the first time they've run a compliance check. IMO you'd look a bit foolish refusing to provide employment checks from a 'confidentiality' perspective as these are quite literally meant to be provided to employers. The only one that is somewhat questionable would be your credit report, but this is likely due to the different nature of US vs AUS credit checks.

    P.s. the employment check may be referring to the DHS screening titled 'Vulnerable person / working with children / aged care employment screening'. Think some people in this thread think the employment check is looking at which companies you were previously/are employed at, so the amount of time at a company is irrelevant to these checks IMO.

    • John Kimble on 16/02/2023 - 19:10
      +2

      It's relevant because the background check is only for the hiring process. Which has already been completed. It's basically closing the gate after the horse has bolted.

      My role doesn't require me to have one every 5 years, it's them (I assume to) just trying to cover their butts for not doing one in the first place?

      I understand where you're coming from though.

      • JumperC on 16/02/2023 - 22:28

        Ultimately whether you think the check is only relevant for hiring is immaterial. What matters is why they need it. Many companies have in their contracts that they have verified X Y and Z about their staff.

        If it’s only some clients that have this in their contract than what will happen is you won’t be able to work for those clients specifically. If all clients require this or have new contracts requiring this you will be unable to work for any of them and will be able to be dismissed for not complying with the request.

        Note that the likely negative consequences for not complying are likely higher than anything they might find. As you point out a lot (but not all) of the things they could find aren’t dismissible for most roles, even if they might not have hired you had they known. But not doing checks that are required (even if newly) for your role….

        It really depend on your role what the risk is of not complying, but a belief that all checks must be done before hiring you is mistaken. Unlike the comment you’re replying to, they are very unlikely to be able to be able to fire you or possibly even find out about things like sexual assault. They’re actually more interested in things like credit checks because they think people with lots of unsecured debt are more likely to steal.

        Personally I not only had to do checks when getting hired but in 6 months I’ve done checks 3 times total to satisfy new clients I’ve been subbed out to. If you have to find a new job you’re unlikely to avoid it there either, they’re pretty automatic these days.

        It very very much won’t be to cover their butts for something in the past, it will be to comply with a regulation or customer contract/assurance the company is making. If they make that to all customers, you’re potentially out of a job, legally. If they only make it to some they have to see if they can have your work limited to those, but it’s a career limiting move to not comply.

        As someone pointed out you won’t get a copy most likely. Often the company you’re working for doesn’t even see it, they just get indications of which check didn’t pass or gives a warning. At that point you might be able to get a copy. But a bog standard ‘all ok’ is all most people ever hear back.

        Big companies are full of things like this, it’s just reality in basically any medium or larger company that has a regular relationship with customers. You almost need to start your own business to avoid and even then….

        If you think there’s something that will come up that will affect your employment speak with a union or lawyer. Otherwise I’d suggest playing their game regardless of how silly it feels if you want to keep working in white collar industries.

      • JumperC on 16/02/2023 - 22:59
        +1

        Oh also annoying HR types using generic reasons like ‘compliance purposes’ see if someone can explain what they’re ‘complying with’ it usually sounds a lot more reasonable once explained. The bigger the company the more generic they get.

        They can’t just do it because ‘they feel like it’ but it’s really unusual for it to not be a reasonable requirement when you have client contracts.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 16/02/2023 - 20:29
    +1

    If a background check is a reasonable request, then yes, they can performance manage you out, i.e work towards firing you based on non-compliance with a reasonable request.

    This happened to me when I refused to take the Covid vaccine - and they said it was a reasonable request. Sad but true even though I had an exemplary workplace record for >10 years & it was WFH as well. *shakes head or shakes fist *

    • [Deactivated] on 16/02/2023 - 23:01

      You were let go because you wouldn't get jabbed?

      What industry did you work in?

  • Downvoter on 16/02/2023 - 21:55
    +2

    You won’t get a copy

  • John Kimble on 17/02/2023 - 09:18

    A colleague has a theory this has come about because the company could be in negotiations to be bought/or looking to be bought, so need to get the house in order.

    It's possible, but there have been rumours for years that we would be bought and nothing has happened…yet.

    • jonkvh on 17/02/2023 - 17:41

      The buyout theory was mine as well.

  • 2esc on 17/02/2023 - 10:03

    Not really related but my wife has just gone back to work and has found the amount of information the potential employer wants even before any interview is no longer just a resume.

    Multiple uploads of paperwork software not recognising some certificates, wanting ban details of where the pay will go as well as your super company before even getting a interview.

    The jobs she were applying for were in aged care and disability the field she had worked in previously she ended up declining to give some information and ended up getting a government job data entry working from home.

  • ColtNoir on 17/02/2023 - 10:22

    Sounds to me that they’re on a witch hunt to reduce costs by finding reasons to sack people. Classic American company.

    I’d refuse and start looking for a new role. At least you know why they want to do a check. You’ll probably come out on more coin if you haven’t moved companies in 5-10 years.

  • mdang1 on 17/02/2023 - 12:08

    I wonder if the background checks come back with something that happened between then and now, what would be the impact to the currently employed, does anyone know or have similar experience?

  • nswnotill on 17/02/2023 - 13:39

    Ironically, the USA Congress in 2022 when vetting candidates for the House, did not do a proper background check on George Santos! It took the NY Times to find out how shonky he was/is.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join