The Perception of the Invasion of Privacy
Background checks, the phrase brings with it a connotation of mystery. Many people aren’t even aware of what a background check entails. Many people are worried, wrongly I might add, about an invasion of privacy. Why do I, as an employer, get to know about your background? Well, there are many reasons but I would say that the most compelling among them is because I do not want to lose my business! Is it fair to judge someone based on their past performance? In many instances I would say yes! How come I get to pick and choose who works for my company? Because, it is my business! I owe my employees a safe workplace. I owe my family a secure future.
The perception of the invasion of privacy, what do I mean by that phrase? It means that people perceive a problem where there is none. Now, don’t get me wrong; I don’t believe in just randomly running checks on people. But, I do believe that if I have a legitimate reason, I should and will run a background check on you. If you are working for my company I want to know what kind of a person you are. Many people mistakenly think that background checks are a new phenomenon brought about by 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The fact is; companies have been doing background checks on employees for ages. Crimcheck.com has been in business since 1991 and our main focus has always been background employment screening. Background checks are nothing new, but the perception that we are invading people’s privacy is relatively new.
Some of the arguments I hear against background checks on a regular basis are: “Background checks aren’t 100% effective, you can not catch everything”. While this is true, you will not catch every crime or every criminal that works for you and there certainly are people that have serious issues that will not be able to be detected, does this mean that we shouldn’t conduct them at all? The fact is, background checks are effective. Employers end up with fewer turnovers, less theft, and less violence; they also end up with an overall better class (grade) of employees. Another argument is: “It is none of my employer’s business what I do with my own time”. Really? With negligent hiring lawsuits at an all time high and the general litigiousness of today’s society it most certainly is your employer’s business. It is his business to protect his employees and his customers. The most umbrageous among the people that cry foul at background checks will usually be the first to file a lawsuit when Carl from accounting shoots up the place for some perceived slight.
Why is there all this outrage now aimed at background checks? One of the main reasons I believe is that people do not want to be held accountable for their actions. When you commit a crime and are convicted of it, it then becomes public record. Public record is just that, public! If you are convicted of theft, I am sorry but I don’t want you working with my assets. If you are a violent person, you are not going to be working with my customers. If you drive drunk, you are not getting behind the wheel of one of my vehicles. Should people who commit a crime and then serve their sentence be punished forever? No, absolutely not, I do believe that people can change; you have to admit though, if it came down to a choice of hiring someone with a criminal record and one without, most people would choose the person without a record.
Sometimes you just have to take personal responsibility. Yes people mess up, we are all human, but why blame society for a mistake that you made. Some people claim discrimination. Discrimination is based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, marital status, national origin or even age. If I don’t give you a job because you stole a car, that is not discrimination, that is good judgment on my part. Life in general has worked this way for a long time, even before computers. In the old west, if you came into my establishment and wanted a job working for me, that is just fine. But, let’s say that I knew you were a bank robber and that you had stolen from your last two employers, there is no way in heck that I am going to hire you and for good reason.
Let me get back to the idea of invasion of privacy. Here is my logic and what I believe to be the government’s logic as well. If you commit a crime and then go to court and get convicted; those charges are brought against you by “the people”. The people in this case being the general public. You are being convicted and punished by society in general for not following OUR laws. This crime that you committed and then were convicted of is then put into the court records. The same records that are paid for and maintained by the people’s tax money. In essence, you committed a crime against society (me) so therefore I have a right to know about it. It has been this way ever since we have had a court system. Contrary to popular belief you do not have a constitutional right to privacy. You can read an excellent article on the subject written here by Ted L. Moss.
Background checks are not an invasion of an individual’s privacy, but they are a way to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They do this by helping to protect our employees, families and business. According to another famous document, that particular right is unalienable.
January 24th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
What is they are used by an individual without permission say; a disgruntled neighbor who is looking for a way to make others side with them in a dispute concerning the use of a common clubhouse? Or what about an ex wife looking to dig up dirt on her ex husbands current fiancee? What if they are without the knowledge or permission of one of these individuals? What if they are used to gather information and then sent to the employer of someone you just don’t like?
I have no issue with legitimate organizations that you give your signature and consent to performing a background check but there are other instances that are not addressed. I had a roomate who has access to this run one on me and tell me some months later that she did. I was horrified…
What concerned me even more was that she got someone in law enforcement a friend of hers to do it. You don’t think there is something wrong with abusing or infringing upon a persons privacy this way?
January 29th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Having a police officer run one for a friend is wrong but otherwise I think public records are just that, public.
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Well what happens to the person who commits a economic crime a 10 years ago but has lived a decent life since then. should he or she not be allowed to work anymore since background checks at every employer insures that people who made mistakes are not allowed to reenter society as functional working adults (1st and 2nd degree murder and rape/molestation aside). part of the reason why there is a high return rate for prisons, or should they just be executed because they’re a drain on society?
November 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I believe there is a line that is being overstepped. There is an invasion of personal privacy when undergoing certain types of background checks.
I was recently hired, as a teacher, for a public school (prior to becoming a teacher I worked as a probation officer). I had to have a criminal background check (which includes fingerprinting), before I would even be allowed to go to graduate school to teach. I don’t have a problem with criminal background checks, especially when working with kids. This also goes for drug screens.
Along with already having a criminal background check done, I filled out the necessary paperwork for the application, that allowed the school to talk to my past employers (supervisors). I am fine with that. In fact, my past supervisors are my references as well.
This is where I draw the line, two months into employment, at a staff meeting, they passed out forms for a more extensive background check. These checks basically said that we give our employer permission to talk to ANYONE in our past, including family and friends, to gather information about our character and general reputation, our mode of living and (of course) our credit worthiness, and anything else they want (but said with a little more legality). I find all of that to be out of line for my job. I am good at what I do. I have worked with kids for 15 years. The school is not at risk for anything, by hiring me (which they have already done).
Your comment about the first person to cry foul is the person who is going to be the one to go in and shoot your employees is way out of line. I am crying foul, but it is obvious that I would never do such a heinous act! Most of what you say is professional, until you start using tactics like that (shaming and blaming). It is an invasion of my privacy. There is no way I am going to give ANYONE blanket permission to go rooting around in my past life. Give me a break. If someone is going to base their decision to hire a teacher, based on whether or not they agree with their mode of living, that is pure and simple, discrimination. No one has the right to look at my finances except me. NO ONE, unless I am trying to borrow money or am using a government entity to work with my money (or private). This is no one’s business but my own, unless I want them to look at it.
I could go on about all of the ways this is clearly an invasion of privacy. You’ve got to come up with a more legal and better answer as to why it isn’t, other than, because I disagree I might shoot people.
I believe that if employers are requiring employees to open up their entire lives (to essentially strip naked in front of their supervisors for ridicule time), then people who want to work for someone should have the same rights. I don’t want to end up working for someone who has the potential to do me harm or put me at risk because if his or her past indiscretions, or worse cause me to be cast as a criminal when I find myself locked (having to be investigated) in their financial illegalities, just because I am their employee. Therefore, potential employers should also have to bare it all.
It should go both ways. If one is legal then other should be too, but I don’t agree with most of it to begin with.
November 20th, 2009 at 11:30 am
I personally believe that background checks and the scrutiny therin only lies within the job and the applicant. Obviously the proprietor of a gun store would not want a violent criminal working there. A day care wouldnt want someone convicted of a sex crime working there. So there are obvious arguments on who should be allowed to work where. However, I maintain that people who have had infidelities with the law should be able to be granted second chances. Not half-hearted second chances like the bottom of the barrel jobs. Some one has to fill them but the only way these people can make any progress and any positive impact on society again is by getting at least a half decent job. The only reason why “Carl from accounting” shot up the place is because he was probably experiencing extemporaneous issues including family problems or mental health issues, or burgeoning job commands. I hardly think that a man who had a criminal history of any kind would get so bent out of shape with a good paying job like accounting. Let’s be serious here. Carl would be more likely to shoot up the thankless factory that barely pays him enough money to keep food on his table.
The thought that background checks are an invasion is only so true. It helps some companies stay safe, but many times your crazed gunman has only a mental health record, if that; and good luck trying to attain that before you hire him. So how safe are you? Enron had top men working for them with no criminal records but that didn’t stop them from raping the company and the public for untold amounts of money. Most people with convictions are not hardcore recidivists who will constantly commit the same acts. Most of them either fight their inner demons or have concluded that the life they once lived and how they conducted themselves is not conducive to their current environment. You always have that unknown percentage who return to their old ways or never left their old ways. Most people that are still in jail or that have been recently released are terrified that they wont be able to find work, and therefore it gives them little to no motivation to strrive for better.
Your’e an asshole for posting this article. You have virtually no soul and you are a linear minded pompous douchebag for attacking and over-criticizing your fellow citizens. Criminal record or not, everyone in this country needs and deserves a job. Unfortunately you must have forgotten that George W Bush sent us all to hell in a handbasket when he sold out the small banks and sent all of the jobs that these (you might as well have called them “throwaways”) people need to Mexico and China. People that share your tunnel vision mindset and crooked politicians that are worse than people in maximum security prisons are the reason that this economy is in an ever revolving shitstorm and it will not change until all of you are locked away in a vault and replaced or punished for your mere bastardizations and convilusions on empathy, understanding of human condition, logic, and ethics.
Thanks! Youre screwing it up for everyone.
There are no jobs out there for me.
November 20th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Might I make an addition to my last comment. You mentioned life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are rights for EVERYONE…not just you and your “law abiding” citizen friends that are probably plotting to get a prostitute for the night or score some blow. People in this country kill me with their stupid emphasis on image. Take your background checks and shove em’! I need a job and angencies like yours are ruining it for me. Maybe youre causing impedance with my pursuit of happiness which currently is finding a good job. Oh and credit scoring is just another means by which the federal government can screw over the little people. Kudos to you Crimcheck…Kick em’ while their down!
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 am
hey…I posted a comment…and then you erased it. I dont give a crap about terms and conditions. I am an american citizen and through the erasure of my comment you have shown your true selves as you are. Impeding on my first amendment rights?
December 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I have to agree with the idea that conducting background checks on people is fine. However, the extent to which companies need to know your personal business leaves me very shocked. Credit Reports, criminal backgrounds, talking to peoples family and friends. Essentially, big and small business are now dictating how the citizens of this country are being treated. We are being held up against a wall by signing on that line to authorize background checks. If you do not agree, you do not eat, or take care of your family. It is fine to say that if you do not agree with doing the background check then go somewhere else and work, but everyone is doing the same thing. I feel that violent/sex crimes should have it’s own database. If you have anything that is over 7-10 years old (if it not violent/sex crime), should not be looked at or considered. People are not perfect. I read on a blog, that a woman (who was asking advice), who was head of human resources had been arrested and convicted of 3 felony charges. Because she was head of human resources she was able to keep that information about herself from the company, but was routinely turning away applicants with criminal backgrounds. How many people higher up are doing the same thing. What’s good for one has to be good for all. We can not call ourselves christians and say things like oh “yes we forgive”, (as along as they arent working for us). What about those who have paid their debt to society and now as older, mature individuals understand that what they did was wrong and would not more do something illegal now then your most upstanding citzen. I feel that this is blocking a persons “right to the pursuit of happiness”. It makes absolutely no sense to prevent people from working and making a living when they have served their debt to society. I guess it makes more sense to have homeless people and children (when their parents cant get jobs), or even better, have the parents resort back to crime to feed and clothe their children. What about when the parents are caught, more children in the care of government. Then you have people who go on and on, about not taking their tax money for social programs and funding, however, these are the same people who don’t want to hire someone who has a background. You can not have it both ways. Allow people to redeem themselves. Having children can change everything for the majority of people. When you hold down the parents you hold down the next generation, and the next, and the next.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:41 pm
I just read this. But What does everyone think about Immigrants. Everyone hires immigrants and theres no way of getting a background on them. They could of been to prision 10 times in Mexico, or killed or even raped someone in there last country. So if you hold backgrounds against a citizens then you should not hire immigrants.
March 8th, 2010 at 11:20 am
@Carly. I never said the person crying foul would shoot up the place, I made a general comment that they would probably be the one crying foul on why we didn’t screen our employees better. It seems that employers are damned if they do and damned if the don’t.
March 8th, 2010 at 11:26 am
@Chuck. If we erased your comment it was probably by mistake. Besides that, we are not the government, we have no bearing on your first amendment rights., only the government has to abide by the first amendment. This is my website, I can put whatever I like on it. If I think your comment is inappropriate I can yank it. That probably was not the case though and probably just a glitch in the software or human error.
March 8th, 2010 at 11:35 am
@Sharon. I can appreciate what you are saying but it still comes down to do I want someone with a criminal record working for me when there is a choice? Just so some of you know we usually don’t recommend our clients run credit reports on potential employees unless they are going to be handling a lot of money or they will be upper management/executives.
March 8th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Last time I checked this is still a free market economy and people are still allowed to do what they want. If I own a business I am going to hire whom I want as long as I follow the boundries of the FCRA and do not discriminate based on a persons skin color, religion, etc. I don’t really much care that you paid your debt to society. I hope you do well, and I am even willing to give you a chance along with hundreds of thousand of other employers. Just remember, if I have someone with just as good qualifications and they have no record they will most likely get the job.