Rejected for failure to supply SSNHello all. I have posted on these boards previously about the sorry state of affairs when it comes to privacy and protection of personal information and job applications - especially online applications. I just applied for a job at Carmax and was rejected because I wouldn't provided my SSN up front. It's the first piece of information they mandate! I got a message stating "you do not meet minimum job requirements." In addition, they require you to agree to arbitration of all employment-related claims, whether or not you are hired! And, they get to pick the arbitrator! Talked about a stacked deck. Not only does this company not provide any assurances or explanation of how your private information is kept secure and not used or provided to anyone unless needed for hiring purposes, or even elaborate on what that hiring process looks like - they don't allow you to apply for a job unless you fork over your SSN. I'm so disillusioned by the ever-changing job application process and the reams of completely irrelevant information demanded by these companies. When did hiring decisions for positions like Sales or Car Detailer have anything to do with your credit? I have to add, I'm not just looking for a job, I'm looking for a car and Carmax just lost my business.
My last employer also wanted me to sign a statement acknowledging they could check my credit at anytime - basically giving them unlimited access to my private information. I find this odd because I worked in Legal and my position had absolutely nothing to do with money, credit, access to financial records, or anything remotely connected to finances or financial decisions. When I refused, they said they couldn't extend an offer without it. What's going on in the U.S.? This is intrusive, irrelevant and should be prohibited. "I just applied for a job at Carmax and was rejected because I wouldn't provided my SSN up front" and "I got a message stating 'you do not meet minimum job requirements'" seem to contradict each other. Did you supply your SSN or not? While their choosing an arbitrator may be somewhat one sided, I don't think there's anything wrong with arbitration and making you agree with it. We all complain about lawyers going overboard and people suing for little or no reason and this is a way to cut down on that. As for supplying your SSN, I think there will eventually be enough backlash that the practice will stop. I'm not saying that credit and background checks will stop, but the use of your SSN will cease to be the way they do it. It is possible that one of the minimum job requirements is providing a SS#, therefore, it screened him out.
Tess Here's at least part of the reason why prospective employers ask for social security numbers - First, when doing a background check, it's almost impossible to verify that a candidate worked where he/she said they did without the SSN. Second, you obviously can't do a social security trace without the number - a social security trace will allow a prospective employer to determine where, most productively, to do a court check or sex-offender registry check. Third, you can't - obviously, again, do most types of court checks without that SSN. Fourth, most colleges and universities require a SSN to verify any academic credentials claimed. Fifth, you can't conduct a credit check either without a SSN. I would agree with you, however, that doing a credit check for positions that won't involve the use of company funds or access to the vault is probably a waste of time, but there are employers who believe that, by inference, you can predict some aspects of job performance based on how responsible people are in terms of avoiding debt, managing credit, and how promptly their bills are paid - I don't subscribe to that theory, but many employers do, hence the credit check, which can't be done without a SSN. As long as you're interviewing with a real company that's been in business longer than ten minutes, background checks are becoming more and more a part of the hiring process and, as noted, you can't do a lot of the checking unless you have a SSN. If you've done your homework and know that the company is legitimate and the reason for the request if genuinely part of the candidate screening process, I don't think there's any risk in providing a SSN. Or you can refuse to provide and screen yourself out. That's just the way the hiring process is evolving. With no disrespect intended, not many employers are all that thrilled about hiring liars - and, believe me, there are lots of people out there who lie on their job applications and resumes. Some loss of privacy is the cost the rest of us pay because there really are liars out there - and worse. Paul W. Barada The Negotiation Expert The first piece of information on the online job application is - SSN. I just put in random numbers and they came back with a message that because I wouldn't supply SSN and agree to the arbitration terms I didn't meet "minimum requirements". They didn't even ask for other contact information or employment history? I'm offended by that. By the way, I have sterling credit but that's not the issue here. Paul, with all due respect to you, possession of someone else's SSN in and of itself doesn't allow you to do anything. Legally, that is, but clearly less of a concern to you. You need authorization and a release. That is how most educational credentials, and other background information is obtained. I have never worked for a company that would even begin a background check without an original signed authorization. So Carmax also failed on that point- they never asked for an electronic release. No employer who "infers" qualities such as responsibility, reliability, etc.. from credit report which is not based on objective, empirically sound and repeatable studies offering a nexus between said credit score and job performance has any business saying they base hiring decisions on qualifications. I have submitted to many background checks when there was an offer on the table contingent on successful completion of one: not when someone is fishing for personal information without a legimate basis for the request. In this day and age of very public security breaches, why would any company want to subject themselves to additional security measures or unlimited liability for the misuse of such information? My opinion of HR people is not high at all, but now they're becoming completely lazy and overreaching. Of course a signed release, in writing, is required to do a background check under the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I was simply telling you WHY employers ask for a SSN, not the process by which that number is obtained to lawfully DO a background check! I would never give my social security number out without knowing the company was legitimate and without having signed a release. Furthermore, you will get no argument from me that using a credit report as a way to screen job applicants is a lousy way to make a hiring decision. It's the lazy employer's cheap way to be able to claim they "checked" something. Paul W. Barada The Negotiation Expert | |
|
Career Tips
|