I feel weird about this employment background check form they want me to sign...
February 6, 2008 7:14 PM Subscribe
Employment Background Check question: Is it a good idea to provide this release?
I recently received a job offer and received a ton of documents, one of which is a waiver for the company to conduct a background check on me. It says that I authorize all my former employers to release information about me and that I release all parties involved from any and all liability for any and all damage that may result from providing such information.
At the company I was previously at, I filed a complaint against my manager before I resigned. I have paid two employment checking agencies to conduct interviews of him to see if he says anything defamatory about me or lies about my job performance. With the first one, conducted a month after I left the company, he didn't say anything negative, but with the most recent one I had conducted, a week ago, he refused to answer any questions beyond the verification of my employment.
My question is this: Will the company that offered me a job learn that I filed a complaint against my former manager? Or is this standard and they just verify employment?
I recently received a job offer and received a ton of documents, one of which is a waiver for the company to conduct a background check on me. It says that I authorize all my former employers to release information about me and that I release all parties involved from any and all liability for any and all damage that may result from providing such information.
At the company I was previously at, I filed a complaint against my manager before I resigned. I have paid two employment checking agencies to conduct interviews of him to see if he says anything defamatory about me or lies about my job performance. With the first one, conducted a month after I left the company, he didn't say anything negative, but with the most recent one I had conducted, a week ago, he refused to answer any questions beyond the verification of my employment.
My question is this: Will the company that offered me a job learn that I filed a complaint against my former manager? Or is this standard and they just verify employment?
That sounds like pretty odd terminology for a "background check". Normally they just involve looking up court records to see if you've ever been convicted of anything. So it sounds weird to me.
posted by delmoi at 7:21 PM on February 6, 2008
posted by delmoi at 7:21 PM on February 6, 2008
Is the background check that your new employer wants to perform an employment history check, or the kind where they want to determine if you have a criminal record? I was asked to sign similar paperwork when I accepted a position with my current employer, and it was a criminal record check, as well as the permission to pull a credit report.
posted by pixelbaby at 7:22 PM on February 6, 2008
posted by pixelbaby at 7:22 PM on February 6, 2008
Say no, see what happens. Negotiation is normal.
My current employer went waaay beyond checking my references. It was creepy. You should assume that they're going to do everything they say they might.
posted by popechunk at 7:30 PM on February 6, 2008
My current employer went waaay beyond checking my references. It was creepy. You should assume that they're going to do everything they say they might.
posted by popechunk at 7:30 PM on February 6, 2008
Did you just file a complaint within the company, or did it involve an outside agency? If it was strictly internal, I don't think you have anything to worry about really. You have a job offer on the table so you'll pretty much know something unfavorable may have been said if the offer is retracted. However, if it was an outside agency it is possible your complaint is floating out there in Google-land as a public record of some sort. Also, if you filed a complaint, that is a fact--if they disclose the fact that you filed a complaint, I don't think you have grounds for a lawsuit. It is when they get in to the subjective commentary about the fact that gets companies sued, so most of them have a name/rank/serial number policy about only verifying dates of employment and salary. Congrats on the new job!
posted by 45moore45 at 7:34 PM on February 6, 2008
posted by 45moore45 at 7:34 PM on February 6, 2008
Doesn't that implicitly say "and even if my scumbag former manager wants to tell them I smoked crack / drank human blood / listend to Celine Dion on my lunch break, I can't sue him"? As in, you're waiving your right to sue former employers, no matter how malicious and untrue the things they might say about you?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 7:40 PM on February 6, 2008
posted by AmbroseChapel at 7:40 PM on February 6, 2008
AmbroseChapel: "Doesn't that implicitly say "and even if my scumbag former manager wants to tell them I smoked crack / drank human blood / listend to Celine Dion on my lunch break, I can't sue him"? As in, you're waiving your right to sue former employers, no matter how malicious and untrue the things they might say about you?"
Obviously it depends on the language of the agreement, but the ones I've signed don't (at least to my layman's reading) provide any indemnification against former employers for libel or slander. It basically gives them a license to speak freely about your past performance but not much more than that.
I'd say this is getting deep into consult-a-lawyer territory. If the document gives former employers a license to lie, you probably don't want to touch it -- if it just protects them so long as they're truthful, it may not be so bad (alternate way to look at it: it may be a lot harder to argue against signing it without looking like you have something to hide).
Given the total value of the money you expect to earn at your new job, a one-hour consultation with an employment lawyer may be a good use of money.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:47 PM on February 6, 2008
Obviously it depends on the language of the agreement, but the ones I've signed don't (at least to my layman's reading) provide any indemnification against former employers for libel or slander. It basically gives them a license to speak freely about your past performance but not much more than that.
I'd say this is getting deep into consult-a-lawyer territory. If the document gives former employers a license to lie, you probably don't want to touch it -- if it just protects them so long as they're truthful, it may not be so bad (alternate way to look at it: it may be a lot harder to argue against signing it without looking like you have something to hide).
Given the total value of the money you expect to earn at your new job, a one-hour consultation with an employment lawyer may be a good use of money.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:47 PM on February 6, 2008
but with the most recent one I had conducted, a week ago, he refused to answer any questions beyond the verification of my employment.
That's pretty much all recent employers typically give- just that you worked there. It is understood that many employers are not happy when they lose employees if either (a) it was a good employee that left unexpectedly, or (b) it was a bad employee that was fired/let go. However, if they even say that they fired you and and you disagree with the reason for the firing (and might sue them for slander/libel), it's not worth their while. So most former employers simply verify that you worked there for X period of time and that's it. Prospective employers understand this.
As to your background check form, that has nothing to do with former employers; that's a court/police check to verify that you're not lying about any past convictions you may have revealed. The employers has to do this check to protect themselves (they don't want to unwittingly hire a convicted killer to drive a school bus and stuff like that).
posted by Doohickie at 8:03 PM on February 6, 2008
That's pretty much all recent employers typically give- just that you worked there. It is understood that many employers are not happy when they lose employees if either (a) it was a good employee that left unexpectedly, or (b) it was a bad employee that was fired/let go. However, if they even say that they fired you and and you disagree with the reason for the firing (and might sue them for slander/libel), it's not worth their while. So most former employers simply verify that you worked there for X period of time and that's it. Prospective employers understand this.
As to your background check form, that has nothing to do with former employers; that's a court/police check to verify that you're not lying about any past convictions you may have revealed. The employers has to do this check to protect themselves (they don't want to unwittingly hire a convicted killer to drive a school bus and stuff like that).
posted by Doohickie at 8:03 PM on February 6, 2008
A ton of documents? I might just happen to "lose" that particular one, returning all the paperwork signed (except that one), and see if they notice. Chances are they won't notice they don't have it. If they notice one document is missing and specifically ask about it, then it's more likely to be something important to them. At which point, you could say "oh - yes, I meant to ask you about that - it seemed a bit strange compared to my previous employers requirements. Is there a reason for wanting such an unusually wide-ranging waiver?", thus putting the onus on them to explain, without being (too much of) an ass about it.
The downside to this approach is that they might assume they have the waiver when they don't, and go ahead and conduct whatever dodgy background check they might have been going to, so it might not stop a background check going further than it ought.
Or it might just be ass-covering paperwork after a bad experience hiring some asshole, and they stick to the usual unwritten rules when asking about potential employees.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:16 PM on February 6, 2008
The downside to this approach is that they might assume they have the waiver when they don't, and go ahead and conduct whatever dodgy background check they might have been going to, so it might not stop a background check going further than it ought.
Or it might just be ass-covering paperwork after a bad experience hiring some asshole, and they stick to the usual unwritten rules when asking about potential employees.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:16 PM on February 6, 2008
Best answer: This does not sound like a company you want to work for. That is pretty non-standard and over the top language. I would feel uncomfortable giving someone a release if it included the unfettered right to tell lies about me. I know where your potential employer is coming from though. Most companies have adopted policies which essentially negate the checking of references from prior employers. In an effort to avoid lawsuits from former employees, many companies have rigid policies which prevent the company from saying any more than a simple verification of employment dates, job description etc. Your potential new employer wants more.
posted by caddis at 8:32 PM on February 6, 2008
posted by caddis at 8:32 PM on February 6, 2008
Response by poster: Doohickie - the paperwork says, "I hereby authorize any and all schools, former and current employers, courts and any others who have information about me to provide such information to XYZ Corp. and/or any of its representatives, agents or vendors and I release all parties involved from any and all liability for any and all damage that may result from providing such information."
(They also want me to provide them with a drug test which I sort of find demeaning. I wouldn't be working with children or people. I will likely withdraw my acceptance of their offer because I'm just uncomfortable with all of this. It's a good company and all, but I wasn't thrilled about the actual job, other than it is a good salary and provides nice perks.)
I guess this sort of thing isn't normal?
posted by onepapertiger at 8:42 PM on February 6, 2008
(They also want me to provide them with a drug test which I sort of find demeaning. I wouldn't be working with children or people. I will likely withdraw my acceptance of their offer because I'm just uncomfortable with all of this. It's a good company and all, but I wasn't thrilled about the actual job, other than it is a good salary and provides nice perks.)
I guess this sort of thing isn't normal?
posted by onepapertiger at 8:42 PM on February 6, 2008
That sounds to me like standard corporate HR boilerplate. They probably just cribbed it from some other HR department's boilerplate. Note that the quote you post immediately above authorized them to "provide information". I expect if that the information provided was provably untruthful, and you're let go because of it, you can still take everyone concerned to the cleaners in court.
Look, they've already made you an offer, which was decided by a hiring manager and not the HR drone checking your references. Unless you straight up lied on your resume or application, you're in the clear.
(I just signed a non-compete this morning that was utterly absurd and completely unenforceable. Apparently, if I have ideas in the next year or so, any at all, they're property of my employer...)
posted by a young man in spats at 9:32 PM on February 6, 2008
Look, they've already made you an offer, which was decided by a hiring manager and not the HR drone checking your references. Unless you straight up lied on your resume or application, you're in the clear.
(I just signed a non-compete this morning that was utterly absurd and completely unenforceable. Apparently, if I have ideas in the next year or so, any at all, they're property of my employer...)
posted by a young man in spats at 9:32 PM on February 6, 2008
Note that in some cases, the employer may be required by law to perform a background check. Summary of Minnesota regulations, as an example. While many of these situations typically involve working with children or vulnerable adults, which it sounds like wouldn't apply to you, it's also not unusual for a larger company to have a "one size fits all" policy. My current employer does this: probably 2/3 of staff would require a background check by legislation, my position did not, but I still had to have one in order to be hired, because they just require one for everyone regardless.
Those criminal background checks are done electronically, through big vendors--to the company doing the hiring the process isn't that different from getting credit reports on people. My impression is that nobody puts any more time and effort into it than they have to. Actually schlepping somebody down to the courthouse to paw through physical public records seems pretty unlikely.
posted by gimonca at 9:33 PM on February 6, 2008
Those criminal background checks are done electronically, through big vendors--to the company doing the hiring the process isn't that different from getting credit reports on people. My impression is that nobody puts any more time and effort into it than they have to. Actually schlepping somebody down to the courthouse to paw through physical public records seems pretty unlikely.
posted by gimonca at 9:33 PM on February 6, 2008
This sounds rather similar to the process for a background check with a law enforcement agency. I've only had one done so far, but the wording sounds just about identical. In CA I believe agencies are required by law to dig at this depth. I don't know that there is any requirement for previous employers to divulge any information that they don't want to.
posted by ericales at 1:52 AM on February 7, 2008
posted by ericales at 1:52 AM on February 7, 2008
"I hereby authorize any and all schools, former and current employers, courts and any others who have information about me to provide such information to XYZ Corp. and/or any of its representatives, agents or vendors and I release all parties involved from any and all liability for any and all damage that may result from providing such information."
They also want me to provide them with a drug test ...
I am pretty sure I signed something like this, or very similar. I think it's all fine, except for the line of: " I release all parties involved from any and all liability for any and all damage that may result from providing such information."
If you can negotiate that out, I'd go ahead with it.
From here, it seems that they want to verify the information on your resume is correct (i.e. you went to ABC University and graduated with the degree & GPA that you said you had), they want to make sure you had the jobs you said you did, and they want to make sure you don't have a criminal record. I also had a credit check run - I've been told the reason but can't recall at the moment. I think it had something to do with responsibility and likelihood of criminal activity (particularly if you have access to money, systems, databases, etc). I didn't have to take a drug test but other employees do - this comes from a situation where we were "burned" by a drug-using employee and it caused trouble for the company and its reputation.
There's a lot of ways an employee can screw over a company - they're just trying to make sure you're not going to be a bad apple.
FWIW, I've filed a complaint against a manager and it has never been an issue in my career. It wouldn't really make sense if it did - it's a liability for the manager more than the employee. Now if the complaint had been against you, it would be a different story.
posted by ml98tu at 6:02 AM on February 7, 2008
They also want me to provide them with a drug test ...
I am pretty sure I signed something like this, or very similar. I think it's all fine, except for the line of: " I release all parties involved from any and all liability for any and all damage that may result from providing such information."
If you can negotiate that out, I'd go ahead with it.
From here, it seems that they want to verify the information on your resume is correct (i.e. you went to ABC University and graduated with the degree & GPA that you said you had), they want to make sure you had the jobs you said you did, and they want to make sure you don't have a criminal record. I also had a credit check run - I've been told the reason but can't recall at the moment. I think it had something to do with responsibility and likelihood of criminal activity (particularly if you have access to money, systems, databases, etc). I didn't have to take a drug test but other employees do - this comes from a situation where we were "burned" by a drug-using employee and it caused trouble for the company and its reputation.
There's a lot of ways an employee can screw over a company - they're just trying to make sure you're not going to be a bad apple.
FWIW, I've filed a complaint against a manager and it has never been an issue in my career. It wouldn't really make sense if it did - it's a liability for the manager more than the employee. Now if the complaint had been against you, it would be a different story.
posted by ml98tu at 6:02 AM on February 7, 2008
Strike out "and I release all parties involved from any and all liability for any and all damage that may result from providing such information.", and initial and date the change.
Sign it, take a copy and return it. If the HR drone actually reads through it and it actually matters rather than just being over-ambitious legal boilerplate, they can negotiate the point with you. And then it's up to you how much you want the job.
posted by ArkhanJG at 8:23 AM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
Sign it, take a copy and return it. If the HR drone actually reads through it and it actually matters rather than just being over-ambitious legal boilerplate, they can negotiate the point with you. And then it's up to you how much you want the job.
posted by ArkhanJG at 8:23 AM on February 7, 2008 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:19 PM on February 6, 2008