DIYbanter - View Single Post

Attila Iskander

wrote in message
...
On 6 Dec 2012 05:44:45 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:28:07 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:03:43 -0500, "Meanie" wrote:

"IGot2P" wrote in message
...
On 12/4/2012 8:30 PM, Meanie wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 4, 8:27 pm, Metspitzer wrote:
I was talking on the phone with my cousin today. She has worked as
a
substitute teacher in several schools. She is between jobs. One of
the things she mentioned was that they require her to furnish her
SSN
on job applications. Since the wrong person could do some serious
damage with your SSN, I really think it is a bad idea to have to
furnish them for a job application.

How is a prospective employer supposed to do
any kind of background checks without even a
SS #? It's typically asked for when applying for a
loan, credit card, apartment rental, hospital visit,
etc. So, I don't see the issue as being unique
or unreasonable in regard to employment.

Financial institutes, leasing agencies, medical facilities, etc. all
require
financial payment for services and/or goods. They require the need
to
check
credit history to ensure they deal with a financially responsible
person
so
they can get paid. An employer does not and simply pays the employee
to
do a
job. If anything, the applicant should check the history of the
employer
to
ensure they've never had problems with payroll. There is no need for
an
employer to seek SSN....period.

I am retired now but one of the first things that we did when someone
applied for employment was to run their SS# against the ones that
were
already on file for current employees. You might find it surprising
but
several times that SS# was already being used by one of our
employees.
We
then had to find out if the current employee was the actual owner of
that
SS# or if the applicant was or neither of them was.

Now that opens a new light and I can see the reason. BUT, I still can't
see
why they cannot wait to do that if/after they hire the person. Yes, it
may
avoid a minor hassle of hiring and paperwork, but it isn't difficult,
IMO,
to simply move on to the runner up applicant.

Because they're not going to do a pre-employment background check
*after* they hire. sheesh!

Your right

I even took a few English courses in grade school.

Instead they'll do a post-conditional-offer employment check with the
final offer conditional on the results
See how simple that is

No, they won't. They'll pass on your sorry ass for someone who will
follow instructions.

What some people seem to forget

...that they want a job? You probably have forgotten that.
There ARE employers ( and others) out there who will ask for
information they A) don't need and B) have no legal authority to ask
for and will be pricks when told politely they are not getting it.

There are people who will give it to them.

They deserve each other.

Indeed.
In many cases, those negotiations are all about setting up the parameters of
future treatment
If you give them too much rope, they will consider they can chew your leg
off.

There are also those who will ask for it, and when told, politely,
that they do not need it at this point and will not get it until they
DO need it, will agree and continue on.
When they hire the person who protected themselves, they get a good
employee/customer/whatever.

With today's privacy issues and litigation situation, ANYONE who has
custody of sensitive information without good reason is exposing
themself to way more serious risk than is warranted.

Indeed that is the other side of the coin that is being ignored by some
posters