Thread Rating:

TigerWu
TigerWu
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 5509
Joined: May 23, 2016
September 14th, 2018 at 8:04:53 AM permalink
I had to pay for a background check once, but it was for a college application, so I was already paying out the nose for everything else anyway.
DRich
DRich
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 11596
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
September 14th, 2018 at 8:06:42 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Like people looking for work can afford the up-front expense. But a (garbage) case can be made for either.



In this type of economy, more people are employed and changing jobs as opposed to being unemployed.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
September 14th, 2018 at 8:09:41 AM permalink
Quote: DRich

In this type of economy, more people are employed and changing jobs as opposed to being unemployed.



Yes. That's what I'm talking about below what you quoted. More companies will pay their own pre-employment screening costs as the available worker pool shrinks. And more employees will apply for better jobs than they currently have if it costs them nothing to be considered.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3577
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
September 14th, 2018 at 8:25:24 AM permalink
The last time I was an employee/applied for jobs was 2009-2012, all had background most drug tests employer expense always. None did a credit check, these were not great jobs I think many higher level jobs at that time required credit but no drug test. I’m rather surprised that in this sort of labor market for the professional level jobs gf is applying for that that is required. My jaw would drop if asked to pay the expense don’t know what I would say but it seems unfathomable to me that it would be a generally accepted practice regardless of labor market, they are imposing the requirements, they are expected to be profiting off of your work assuming you meet them.

For renting the background/credit checks I’ve done usually renter expense, but frequently waived or negotiatiable contingent on approval. Actual cost of background/credit check through a third party company when I was a rental agent circa 2010 was less than $25.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 3540
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
September 14th, 2018 at 11:02:12 AM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

So the expense of a background check and drug test meant the time it took you to get a drug test, and the invasion of your privacy to get a background check?


Right, I didn’t mean monetary expense.

I think a criminal background check for any job is reasonable. For the type of work I am in, I think that a credit check and drug screening is overly invasive.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 14th, 2018 at 11:11:42 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs



Mortgage companies routinely require $300-500 up front for credit checks and appraisals. So do many rentAL agents (charge you some or all of credit check) while considering your application.



This is so that people do not flake on them. Credit pulls are not free, and all those tire-kickers add to the cost. Appraisals can cost hundreds, $500-700 these days what with all the risk on the appraiser.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
billryan
billryan
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 16282
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 14th, 2018 at 11:24:57 AM permalink
My Brother in laws limo company requires applicants to complete a Nassau County Limo Commission background check- an interview, fingerprinting and drug test, at applicants own expense. I'm told that is common in that business.
The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
September 14th, 2018 at 12:53:08 PM permalink
Quote: gamerfreak

Right, I didn’t mean monetary expense.

I think a criminal background check for any job is reasonable. For the type of work I am in, I think that a credit check and drug screening is overly invasive.



Companies can’t pick and choose who they drug test. So if companies want to test some employees, they often times choose to test all.

Exceptions can be made, but there needs to be a legitimate business purpose to make them, which is hard to prove.

Not sure if this is the case in the position you took.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13885
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
September 14th, 2018 at 2:21:51 PM permalink
Quote: billryan

My Brother in laws limo company requires applicants to complete a Nassau County Limo Commission background check- an interview, fingerprinting and drug test, at applicants own expense. I'm told that is common in that business.



In many businesses. Don’t NV dealers have to pay to get their work card?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 3540
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
September 14th, 2018 at 2:53:01 PM permalink
Quote: FinsRule

Companies can’t pick and choose who they drug test. So if companies want to test some employees, they often times choose to test all.

Exceptions can be made, but there needs to be a legitimate business purpose to make them, which is hard to prove.

Not sure if this is the case in the position you took.


Most definitely could have been the case with the other 3 positions I was offered, but probably not with the job I took. With the exception of receptionists and IT, nearly everyone in the company has a Masters degree or PhD.

I just don’t see the purpose. I realize that scientists with advance degrees aren’t immune from substance abuse, but a standard urine test is absurdly easy to beat. Most hard drugs don’t even stay in your system for more than 48 hours. And of course a crippling alcoholic would be completely in the clear.

I’m convinced that the idea that these tests are effective at anything is a scam propigated by the testing labs.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
Thanked by
petroglyph
September 14th, 2018 at 5:11:24 PM permalink
Quote: gamerfreak

Most definitely could have been the case with the other 3 positions I was offered, but probably not with the job I took. With the exception of receptionists and IT, nearly everyone in the company has a Masters degree or PhD.

I just don’t see the purpose. I realize that scientists with advance degrees aren’t immune from substance abuse, but a standard urine test is absurdly easy to beat. Most hard drugs don’t even stay in your system for more than 48 hours. And of course a crippling alcoholic would be completely in the clear.

I’m convinced that the idea that these tests are effective at anything is a scam propigated by the testing labs.



Agree, but add the Reagan Administration onward as a major scammer. Everyone was basically forced to follow suit and billions have been spent to prove a negative and presumed guilty as innocent.

Not to mention search and seizure. No, I'm not over it. 30+ years now more jobs than not, you have to prove you're not on drugs, and keep proving it through random or periodic testing.

Reasonable suspicion, erratic behavior, fine. Do your test.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3577
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
September 14th, 2018 at 5:37:16 PM permalink
I failed a couple hair follicle tests in my early 20’s. Those ones aren’t as easy, detox shampoos at least then weren’t very reliable.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 3540
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
September 14th, 2018 at 5:49:00 PM permalink
Quote: mcallister3200

I failed a couple hair follicle tests in my early 20’s. Those ones aren’t as easy, detox shampoos at least then weren’t very reliable.


Yea, those tests are more reliable in detecting long term use. And very difficult to beat. But very few companies do it because it’s so expensive.

I always wonder what they do if you are completly bald.
gamerfreak
gamerfreak
  • Threads: 57
  • Posts: 3540
Joined: Dec 28, 2014
September 14th, 2018 at 5:49:44 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Agree, but add the Reagan Administration onward as a major scammer. Everyone was basically forced to follow suit and billions have been spent to prove a negative and presumed guilty as innocent.

Not to mention search and seizure. No, I'm not over it. 30+ years now more jobs than not, you have to prove you're not on drugs, and keep proving it through random or periodic testing.

Reasonable suspicion, erratic behavior, fine. Do your test.


Just like every other war, the war on drugs is all about $$$$ and maintaining control over people.
mcallister3200
mcallister3200
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 3577
Joined: Dec 29, 2013
September 14th, 2018 at 5:52:37 PM permalink
Quote: gamerfreak

Yea, those tests are more reliable in detecting long term use. But very few companies do it because it’s so expensive.

I always wonder what they do if you are completly bald.


Body hair. Seriously. If you’re bald bald, idk. Yeah we are talking $20/hr jobs 2009-2012 hair follicle, crazy. In high turnover jobs
  • Jump to: