This is topic Curious policy question regarding background checks in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001205

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-15-2004, 11:05 PM:
 
Out of sheer curiosity,

You have worked for a company for xx years (10+).
A new policy is created requiring background checks, including financial records checks.

1) Do you question why you're being asked to sign a disclosure form and suffer the consequences?

2) Seek a legal opinion indicating to the attorney why you feel like it is unwarranted and unnecessary to authorize the disclosure, primarily into your financial records after xx (10+) years of service within the company?

3) Fill it out and not think twice about it?

My question to you all:

What would YOU do and why, briefly stated?
 

---

Posted by Andrew Shingleton (Member # 2257) on 07-15-2004, 11:32 PM:
 
I'd do some sniffing around and try to find out what kind of information they're actually trying to discover about people. What or who are they planning to catch from these checks? Then do more sniffing and find out what the consequences of not signing would be, and don't sign if the consequences are insignificant. I think it's quite rude to demand that sort of info about any current employees at all - they've already hired you so why suddenly check now? And it's even more rude after 10 years.

Perhaps if you've got nothing to hide you should refuse to sign the form, but say you'll be more than happy to volunteer any info which they require if you deem it to be reasonable. That way they're still doing the checks or whatever, but you maintain some form of control and make a stance that you think they're policy of checking is a bit wrong.

A legal opinion would be good too if you have access to one without spending a fortune.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-16-2004, 01:44 AM:
 
I don't see any reason why they should want this information once someone has been hired (much less been employed for 10 years).

Even if they found something they didn't like, they have no grounds at all to fire someone based solely on the results of a background check, unless they find that you lied on your application. Unless you're an at-will employee. Even then, they open themselves to a huge lawsuit (which they're probably doing anyway).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-16-2004, 01:55 AM:
 
Why would there be consequenses to suffer if you asked why you were signing it? Any company that gets angry with employees for asking a simple question pertaining to their job is evil and are run by terrorists.[av=c]
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-16-2004, 02:08 AM:
 
We just went through this at our company.

I have had background checks done at almost every company I have worked for. I was surprised that it took so long for my current company to realize the importance of background checks.

There is nothing illegal about asking a current employee to fill out a background check authorization. You can refuse to sign it, and your company cannot let you go for the refusal. They cannot let you go if they find out your an ex-con. They can, however, probably find a million other reasons to let you go if they find out you have a criminal background.

Oh yeah, and theres that "At Will" employement thing too.....
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-16-2004, 02:17 AM:
 
Background checks I have no problem with.

Credit checks on the other hand....

Jason, WTF? I thought it was 5 and not and 10 and I also thought....well, I won't say.

Email me if I don't email you first. Some pretty f*cked up things going on right now, don't you think?
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-16-2004, 05:01 AM:
 
If you a) have nothing to hide and b) aren't too worried about being fired, I'd refuse to sign (or "accidentally" lose the form or "forget" to sign it). It's ridiculous for a current employee and credit checks are ridiculous for anyone who isn't applying for credit. Any company that wants my credit information (which is excellent) for a non-credit reason is slimy and not a place where I would want to work. I suspect that asking a lawyer for an opinion would be a waste of money. If you desperately need the job, I'd make a few inquiries and probably then bend over and sign the thing.

This sort of crap is becoming increasingly common primarily because people don't seem to get upset when asked to sign authorization forms.
 

---

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 07-16-2004, 11:56 AM:
 
I could see starting a company policy that pertains to new employees, but I highly doubt they can demand this of current employees. Most employees have little courage to refuse, so they will get signed. I can't see any reason for a credit check unless there is suspicion of theft, and it would be part of an investigation. That would be court ordered though.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 07-17-2004, 02:39 AM:
 
They want to know if you will be a financial risk. If you owe more than you make, "you" could have the potential to steal. That is the thinking behind it.
 

---

Posted by Andrew Shingleton (Member # 2257) on 07-17-2004, 05:00 AM:
 
If that's their thinking then I'd be looking for a new job quick smart. Is that kind of culture common in the states, or is this an extreme example? I'd hate to work for a company that assumes I'm potentially a criminal unless I can prove otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 07-17-2004, 05:53 AM:
 
Unfortunately that is becoming the norm here in the states. Ususally, it is done as a screening BEFORE hiring to keep the potential thiefs out and cut down on turnover. If employers are doing it to current employees, especially ones that have been on for sometime, it just screams to me of paranoia. Jason,
has there been ALOT of terminations lately or job postings within your company?
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-17-2004, 08:10 AM:
 
To my knowledge in Ontario an employer or potential cannot ask for a credit check on an employee just like it is illegal to ask about a criminal record or labour religion or political affiliations also they must fikle a privacy statement with the prinacy comisioner as to what steps that are taken to prevent the disclousure of confidential information
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-17-2004, 09:11 AM:
 
Chris,

There have been very few changes in mid/upper level management in the last year or so. A policy was implemented last year whereby all new salaried positions required a background/financial check. I understand the reasoning behind checking new employees, but I have a hard time justifying long term employees being instructed to sign a financial disclosure.

Paranoia or not, I don't see it as being legal, or as a condition of employment. The EEOC advises that if it is a new company policy then not allowing authorization could be grounds for dismissal. I'm in at 'At-Will' state anyway, so there really has to be no rhyme or reason at all behind a termination.

I'm sorry, I believe in what I believe in, and to me, mandating a financial background check on any employee, whether it be in this industry or not, after xx years is simply not right.

 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-19-2004, 10:30 PM:
 
At Cinemark, the policy was to get background checks for promotions to management or to a higher level of management, such as promotion from local theater to corporate level.

Now, if logic holds true, one might infer that somebody may be considering you for a promotion. Why would somebody consider you for a position, get a background check on you but not tell you what they were up to? That doesn't make sense.

As far as I understand it, any company can do a background check on their employees or potential employees and they don't need permission... up to a point.

They can look up your driver's license to see if you have a safe driving record and to see that you really do live where you say you live. For instance, they can see if you have been suspended or had your license revoked but they can't see WHAT offences you may have committed. (Especially if you are in a job that requires driving on company time.)

In some states, they can find out if you have a criminal record but they generally can't find out what's IN your record. Usually it's a True/False reply. (Essentially to see if you lied when they asked you that on your application questionaire.)

They can talk to past employers to verify your work history... and... Depending on state regulations, they have varying ability to ask about your work history.

They can hire an investigator if they want to. Whatever the investigator finds out about you is fair game as long as the information is considered "Public Record" or is something that anybody could have known if they tried to find out. (Looking you up in the phone book, City Direcory, internet and/or talking to people who know you.)

Typically, they can't get your credit report or financial information without your permission, nor can they look into the contents of your criminal record without your permission.

The thing that puzzles me the most is that all of this background checking your company is doing is labor intensive. Furthermore, it's probably costing them money to pull your credit report. If this is a company-wide policy, they are probably going to spend a chunk of change to implement it.

Companies don't spend this kind of money without a reason. Either they're looking for something/somebody or they have you in mind for something.

Personally, I would go along with it but I would have a talk with the general manager as to why they want the information. I wouldn't accept, "It's a company policy." for an answer. I would ask some question like, "Why is this a new policy?" I would probably ask the questions while I'm filling out the form (and reading the fine print) but save the signature till the end when I'm satisfied with the outcome of the discussion.
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-19-2004, 10:44 PM:
 

quote: Randy Stankey

---

Companies don't spend this kind of money without a reason.

---

Paranoia.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 07-20-2004, 09:08 AM:
 
It's all paranoia, they hire or read research reports about employee stealing. When I worked for Mann Theatres, there was this manager at one of their High Profile Theatres in Westwood, Ca.. He had been with the company many years. On Saturday nights, he would play cards with a few of the Asst. Managers and projectionists. Soon it became three nights a week. He was the nices guy to work for. He left the union operators, to do their business. Then he started going to those card clubs, 5 to 6 nights a week. After about 6 six months, the company moved him to a six-plex just east of Pasadena, Ca. Well more trouble happened there with money. The company started sending checkers to the theatre. On some Saturday's he would work the box office all day. It turns out he was selling adult regular tickets, but using the senior tickets. The company found the number of seniors had grown to double the past numbers were.
Another manager who was a long time employee for Mann and then Edward's Theatres. He was well liked and a good manager and then a District manager. His theatres were doing excellent business. But his living over took his salary.
Sometimes companies read about the paranoia in the retail world about employee theft. So when they make company polices, they have to show it covers everyone (new hires & old employees).
There has been too many stories about old employees stealing from the companies.
It all called "Risk Management".
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-20-2004, 10:27 AM:
 
Background checks -- especially for management who will undoubtedly have keys to the building, keys to the safe, etc. -- are the norm, if not expected. Places like Disneyworld and Universal Studios do extensive background checks, even if you're a re-hire for a seasonal position less than a year ago. Main point is, you're going to be around a LOT of kids and a LOT of tourists with LOTS of money.

But I've never heard of a "financial check." I would consent to a background check, but not a credit check. Heck - I have no credit. I don't believe in it for "reasons." But if I did, I don't think I'd be comfortable in having my employer know how much I owe to whom. Especially Carmike.

Makes me wonder if Employees should be able to request a "financial check" of the company itself. That would make more sense, to see if they're going to go under or have to give people pay cuts because they built too many theaters on a credit card.

Now, doing such a check on someone who's been there more than FIVE years is absurd. I'm sure if a current employee commited a crime of any serious scope (or flat) the company would find out about it.

Here's an idea: Take the money you waste on doing these background and financial checks on current employees and use it to boost employee morale with raises or benefits. Then people won't have a reason to steal.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-20-2004, 07:26 PM:
 
I have been informed that credit checks will not be run. I will speak with HR to get a solid answer. I plan to consent to the background check but wil not authorize a financial records check under principal alone.

And yes, it cost, on average, $25-35 each for the background checks. There is more to this than meets the eye, I'm sure of it, but the simple fact remains, I will only be told what they want me to know anyway, so asking around as high as I can go is pointless.

BTW,
Randy is right. Employers cans implement policy (such as this) and the employee is expected to submit authorization or they could open grounds for termination, or so says the EEOC.


Again,
There is more to the story, I'm sure of it, but at this stgae of the game, I'm going to authorize the criminal background check as previously stated..
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 07-20-2004, 09:52 PM:
 
Oh, BTW, the ostensible reason for the financial/credit checks is to see if the person in question has a high debt load, has unpaid bills or is in danger of his wages being garnished.

Garnishment costs the company time and trouble with their payroll keeping if not actual monetary cost associated with extra bookkeeping and legal nonsense.

A person who is in danger of becoming insolvent is (supposedly) more likely to steal. Furthermore, a person who is careless with his finances is more likely to be careless with the company's money as well.

Still, I don't think these reasons justify checking everybody's records. It's expensive. Paranoia or not, I can't see where the return from reduced "shrinkage" would be paid off by the amount of $$ a company would pay to get the records and then pay somebody to go over the results and make decisions.

As mentioned above, a good bookkeeper with a little bit of "forensic accounting" knowledge could cut down on LOTS more shrinkage than company-wide background checks could!
 

---

Posted by Kyle Watkins (Member # 986) on 07-20-2004, 11:11 PM:
 
How far back are they going on the back ground checks, i applyed for best buy, for part time work, and they doing one but only ask for the past 7 years. This brings me a questions how far back are these theaters going. Any one know of laws for so many years have past they cant use??
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-21-2004, 12:21 AM:
 

quote: Christopher Duvall

---

They want to know if you will be a financial risk. If you owe more than you make, "you" could have the potential to steal. That is the thinking behind it.

---

quote: Jim Spohn

---

I checked with the HR manager at my company and he said that it would be highly questionable as to why your company would ask for that info after the fact, and that you have a right to know why they are asking now.

---

The reason they are requiring, not asking, for this information is due to implementation of a new company policy whereby background checks will be completed on ALL current Managers with 5+ years with the company. The caveat is those with fewer than 5 years obviously are NOT required to have a background check? WTF???
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-22-2004, 12:20 AM:
 
You must have missed the email about that in October and the subsequent....

Email to follow (sorry to everyone else on the forum but I want to keep my job).
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-22-2004, 12:57 PM:
 
10 years is about how many years your credit info goes back on your credit reports from the 3 major credit bureaus.

That would be why that is the magic number......
 

---