On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:44:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:52:37 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 02:21:14 -0500, wrote:




OK, but if you have 1000 applicants and one finalist to make an offer,
you only need that one number, not all the others that will be sitting
in a file drawer for a long time.

Nobody is going to get to the application phase for 1000 prospective
employees to fill one job. You would not even look at that many
resumes. Usually they seldom even consider more than a few, enough to
call them back.

My point is though, you don't need the SS# on the application. Does
not matter if it is 2, 10, 100 or 10,000. Until you have a viable
candidate for the job, you have no need for the SS.

You must not live in a place where they have a lot of immigrants.

Around here, a job application with a SSN left blank would just be
tossed in the trash.
Around here there are immigrants from everywhere immaginable. Chine,
eastern Europe, Korea, the middle east, Africa, Central America, South
America,Western Europe, Great Britain, the south Pacific and even the
USA,

The SSN (SIN here in Canada) is not required untill the offer of
employment is made and accepted. The number is then mandatory -

On 12-05-2012 12:56, wrote:
wrote:
Good idea. A smart employer should realize that an applicant smart enough
to care about securing their own personal data might care enough to protect
company data as well.

Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

So this is a good trick to distinguish smart employers from most
employers. OK by me--I prefer working for a smart employer.

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

BTW, you don't think a SSN is needed for tax reasons? boggle

Not at the time a person is *applying* for a job, no, it's not needed for tax reasons.


In Canada it is - the income tax, Canada Pension and health tax
with-holding is tied to the SIN. That is ALL it is legally used for

In article ,
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.

I went online tonight to put a hold on a book at the library. The
library is using the first 4 numbers of my SSN in their "primary
identification" field.

That seems like a violation of security to me.


You certainly won't have to worry about it much longer. Now that you have
brought it to the attention of all the powerful and politcally well-connected
readers of alt.home.repair, I am sure that they will mobilize Congress to
quickly act and pass appropriate legislation correcting this gross assault
on the financial security of you and your cousin.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

wrote in news
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

BTW, you don't think a SSN is needed for tax reasons? boggle

Not at the time a person is *applying* for a job, no, it's not needed for tax reasons.


In Canada it is - the income tax, Canada Pension and health tax
with-holding is tied to the SIN. That is ALL it is legally used for

And you need that to *apply* for a job? Wow. Here, it's not needed (for tax purposes, at
least) until the employee is actually hired.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
news
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

BTW, you don't think a SSN is needed for tax reasons? boggle

Not at the time a person is *applying* for a job, no, it's not needed for
tax reasons.


In Canada it is - the income tax, Canada Pension and health tax
with-holding is tied to the SIN. That is ALL it is legally used for

And you need that to *apply* for a job? Wow. Here, it's not needed (for
tax purposes, at
least) until the employee is actually hired.

I think clare did not read with care

It's not needed in Canada until AFTER a job is offered and accepted.
Then you need it for the very same reasons as in the US.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 01:53:51 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in news
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

BTW, you don't think a SSN is needed for tax reasons? boggle

Not at the time a person is *applying* for a job, no, it's not needed for tax reasons.


In Canada it is - the income tax, Canada Pension and health tax
with-holding is tied to the SIN. That is ALL it is legally used for

And you need that to *apply* for a job? Wow. Here, it's not needed (for tax purposes, at
least) until the employee is actually hired.
Sorry - I didn't respond properly. Not needed to apply - IS needed
for tax reasons I THOUGHT it was obvious what I was responding too
but obviously it was not - and I can see how it could be read wrong.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:04:38 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
wrote in
news
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

BTW, you don't think a SSN is needed for tax reasons? boggle

Not at the time a person is *applying* for a job, no, it's not needed for
tax reasons.


In Canada it is - the income tax, Canada Pension and health tax
with-holding is tied to the SIN. That is ALL it is legally used for

And you need that to *apply* for a job? Wow. Here, it's not needed (for
tax purposes, at
least) until the employee is actually hired.

I think clare did not read with care

It's not needed in Canada until AFTER a job is offered and accepted.
Then you need it for the very same reasons as in the US.
Oh, I READ with care - just did not RESPOND with care. It is not
needed to APPLY - it IS needed for tax is what I THOUGHT I said.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:31:07 -0600, Doug
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:56:42 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:57:07 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 23:16:50 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

stuff snipped

Right, but they don't need that until a job offer is made and
accepted.


Exactly... which is why I tell my daughters when taking an interview,
they will supply their SS # upon employment.

Good idea. A smart employer should realize that an applicant smart enough
to care about securing their own personal data might care enough to protect
company data as well.

Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

This hasn't been the case where I live. Perhaps it depends on the
type of job you apply for ????

Or the company you apply to. I've refused to supply such information
very early in the process. I had one recruiter who demanded my
personal information before the first phone interviews, after finding
my resume on Monster. I don't think so! I never heard from him
again. OTOH, I have no problem supplying it on an application.

The fact is that the SSN horse has long escaped the barn.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

BTW, you don't think a SSN is needed for tax reasons? boggle

Not at the time a person is *applying* for a job, no, it's not needed for tax reasons.

Applicatoins also have the information needed to do any background
checks for employment. Why would you want to work for a company that
you can't trust with your SSN? Considering the number of people who
have your SSN, isn't this a little silly?

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!

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:12:37 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:



I hope you recogize the need to run background checks to
avoid hiring someone who is a fugitive? Or hiring a guy
convicted of embezlement to be your bookkeeper? Or
a night janitor who is a burglar?

Now, would you rather find that out before making the job
offer, when you can just politely tell them that you filled
the position internally. Or would you prefer to wait until
you tell them they have the job, then ask for the SS#, then
do the check, then have to tell them the specific reason
why they are now not getting the job? How about the
candidate turns out to be an axe murderer or a member
of the Bloods convicted of a drive-by? You want to make
that call?

I still contend, you don't need that for the initial application. At
the time of a second interview you can ask for it and simply state,
"we are interested in making you an offer contingent of a background
check".

How many times recently have you seen where information was stolen and
companies have to provide protection for a year after? Do you want to
take on that liability just because you have an application for a
couple hundred prospective employees that did not make the cut? IMO,
that is irresponsible putting your company at risk for no good reason.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:13:02 -0600, Doug
wrote:




Couldn't you "hire subject to" in the offer letter??

Sure, it is done all the time.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:04:16 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 4, 9:30*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.

Is that so? So a financial institution, say a bank, doesn't need
to make sure the person they are hiring isn't a felon, convicted
of theft, embezlement? A medical facility doesn't need to make
sure the person they are hiring isn't a violent criminal or murderer?
Would you hire someone to work at a hardware store you
owned without doing a background check? You'd probably be
the first person to sue the hospital if they didn't do a background
check and you were then mistreated.

My employer did a full background check on me, even though I'd worked
for them as a contractor for nine months and the contracting agency
had done a background check before they hired me. Anyone hiring
someone to a position of trust is going to run a background check on
prospective employees, if for no other reason than liability.


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 say you run your business and life the way you want to.
Let others run their business and lives the way they want to.
If someone is so upset by the request for a SSN from a
prospective employer, then they can go find a job elsewhere.
It's really that simple.

Oh, we can't have people actually making choices for themselves, now!

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:08:22 -0800, Oren wrote:




Would you work for a company that you could not trust with your SSN?

Would yo work for a company that wants your personal information for
no good reason?

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:38:19 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:44:32 -0500, wrote:

Around here, a job application with a SSN left blank would just be
tossed in the trash.

If the application is not completed in its entirety would tell me they
are not a team player :-\

You beat me to it.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:56:42 -0500, wrote:




Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

Responsible employers don't ask for personal information they do not
need. They don't take on the risk of keeping it on file. Some states
have privacy laws that require such information to be kept double
locked for security.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:44:32 -0500, wrote:



My point is though, you don't need the SS# on the application. Does
not matter if it is 2, 10, 100 or 10,000. Until you have a viable
candidate for the job, you have no need for the SS.

You must not live in a place where they have a lot of immigrants.

Around here, a job application with a SSN left blank would just be
tossed in the trash.

Take a walk out in my shop and you won't ask silly questions. Every
one has provided proper documentation at the time of hire.

Pick a day, pick a shift, pick a language. We have them all. Our
application does not have a place for the SS number.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:32:19 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 12-05-2012 12:56, wrote:
wrote:
Good idea. A smart employer should realize that an applicant smart enough
to care about securing their own personal data might care enough to protect
company data as well.

Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

So this is a good trick to distinguish smart employers from most
employers. OK by me--I prefer working for a smart employer.

I wouldn't intentionally limit my employment options by lying to
myself about the sanctity of my SSN.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:28:31 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:56:42 -0500, wrote:




Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

Responsible employers don't ask for personal information they do not
need. They don't take on the risk of keeping it on file. Some states
have privacy laws that require such information to be kept double
locked for security.

Wrong. They invariably ask for this information on the application
for employment.

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:26:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:08:22 -0800, Oren wrote:




Would you work for a company that you could not trust with your SSN?

Would yo work for a company that wants your personal information for
no good reason?

They have good reason, so they ask.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:26:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:08:22 -0800, Oren wrote:




Would you work for a company that you could not trust with your SSN?

Would yo work for a company that wants your personal information for
no good reason?

They have good reason, so they ask.

The Stasi had "good reason" for going "Papieren" whenever they felt like it
too.
That they have good reason (in their minds) does not necessarily make it
good reason for you or justify their asking

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

What some people seem to forget

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:25:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

BTW, you don't think a SSN is needed for tax reasons? boggle

Not at the time a person is *applying* for a job, no, it's not needed for
tax reasons.

Applicatoins also have the information needed to do any background
checks for employment. Why would you want to work for a company that
you can't trust with your SSN? Considering the number of people who
have your SSN, isn't this a little silly?

A lot of information is needed to complete the employment process including
personal and professional references. I don't and won't supply those unless
and until there is a determination of a skill set and other match for the
position.

It's unreasonable for an employer to expect that data at the get go.

The name of the game is protecting your information. I have had experience
where someone else used my data obtained from a contract recruiter to pose
as me including signing my name and professional license number to federal
documents.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:15:11 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:26:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:08:22 -0800, Oren wrote:




Would you work for a company that you could not trust with your SSN?

Would yo work for a company that wants your personal information for
no good reason?

They have good reason, so they ask.

The Stasi had "good reason" for going "Papieren" whenever they felt like it
too.

Silly moral relativity answer, not to mention a Godwin call.

That they have good reason (in their minds) does not necessarily make it
good reason for you or justify their asking

Bull****. Their job. You want it, or not? Your call.

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.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:26:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:08:22 -0800, Oren wrote:




Would you work for a company that you could not trust with your SSN?

Would yo work for a company that wants your personal information for
no good reason?

They have good reason, so they ask.

Good reason perhaps but justifiable reason is another matter. Some
companies have very specific rules about request for personal identification
UNTIL the hiring decision is made. At that time the checking begins. FWIW
my contract work especially for clients with a national security issues
clients do not ask until the deal is done and then the offer/contract is
based on supplying and passing a back ground check. This includes clients
I've worked with previously.

On 6 Dec 2012 03:50:13 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:26:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:08:22 -0800, Oren wrote:




Would you work for a company that you could not trust with your SSN?

Would yo work for a company that wants your personal information for
no good reason?

They have good reason, so they ask.

They don't have a good reason until they offer employment.

On 6 Dec 2012 03:49:46 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:28:31 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:56:42 -0500, wrote:




Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

Responsible employers don't ask for personal information they do not
need. They don't take on the risk of keeping it on file. Some states
have privacy laws that require such information to be kept double
locked for security.

Wrong. They invariably ask for this information on the application
for employment.

Wrong, many applications do not even has a space for it these days.

http://www.bbb.org/blog/2011/09/shou...b-application/
Remember: Until someone is about to hire you, they have no need for
your social security number. If they say they need it for a background
check, the job offer can be made contingent on a clean report.

The BBB suggests that the safest option for job-seeking consumers is
this: Never provide your SSN on a job application until you have a
verifiable job offer from a company you trust.

http://humanresources.about.com/b/20...ity-number.htm
I would not provide this information on a job application. Keep in
mind, though, that on many job applications, you are signing to
provide permission to check references, do background checks, allow
criminal record checks, and affirming that everything you have
provided on the application is the truth. If you do not supply the
social security number on the application, you will likely have to
make another trip to the company to fill it in, if the employer wants
to offer you a job.

With all of the new laws about guarding employee and applicant
information security, no client with whom I work, asks for this
information until the person is hired any more. No one wants to be
responsible for guarding this information for the year that it would
be accessible in a file.

http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/h...itynumber.aspx
An employment application should request only information directly
related to an applicant’s ability to perform a specific job. As a
general practice, employers should request SSN information only when
absolutely necessary, e.g., in conjunction with a background check,
completing a W-4, or when enrolling the employee into benefits plans.
This information should be requested separate from the employment
application, and safeguards should be in place to protect and keep
this information confidential. Employers should also implement
procedures for safe disposal of this information once an employment
decision has been made. Some states require security measures to be in
place if applications asking for SSN information are transmitted over
the Internet, or sent by mail when not in a sealed envelope.

On 12/5/2012 12:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:57:07 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 23:16:50 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

stuff snipped

Right, but they don't need that until a job offer is made and
accepted.


Exactly... which is why I tell my daughters when taking an interview,
they will supply their SS # upon employment.

Good idea. A smart employer should realize that an applicant smart enough
to care about securing their own personal data might care enough to protect
company data as well.

Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.


A big box or megacorp definitely would because they are looking for
bodies to meld into their system at the cheapest price. A smart small
business might appreciate that the person has a brain.

On 12/5/2012 10:28 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:56:42 -0500, wrote:




Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

Responsible employers don't ask for personal information they do not
need. They don't take on the risk of keeping it on file. Some states
have privacy laws that require such information to be kept double
locked for security.


Exactly, too much potential for litigation. My niece is the HR manager
for a ~ 800 employee company and one of her staff spends a good portion
of her time keeping up with various regulatory and compliance stuff
involved in running the business.

On 12/6/2012 5:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 6 Dec 2012 03:49:46 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:28:31 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:56:42 -0500, wrote:




Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

Responsible employers don't ask for personal information they do not
need. They don't take on the risk of keeping it on file. Some states
have privacy laws that require such information to be kept double
locked for security.

Wrong. They invariably ask for this information on the application
for employment.

Wrong, many applications do not even has a space for it these days.

Times change, an employer would be quite clueless to do things the
way they used to.



http://www.bbb.org/blog/2011/09/shou...b-application/
Remember: Until someone is about to hire you, they have no need for
your social security number. If they say they need it for a background
check, the job offer can be made contingent on a clean report.

The BBB suggests that the safest option for job-seeking consumers is
this: Never provide your SSN on a job application until you have a
verifiable job offer from a company you trust.

http://humanresources.about.com/b/20...ity-number.htm
I would not provide this information on a job application. Keep in
mind, though, that on many job applications, you are signing to
provide permission to check references, do background checks, allow
criminal record checks, and affirming that everything you have
provided on the application is the truth. If you do not supply the
social security number on the application, you will likely have to
make another trip to the company to fill it in, if the employer wants
to offer you a job.

With all of the new laws about guarding employee and applicant
information security, no client with whom I work, asks for this
information until the person is hired any more. No one wants to be
responsible for guarding this information for the year that it would
be accessible in a file.

http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/h...itynumber.aspx
An employment application should request only information directly
related to an applicant’s ability to perform a specific job. As a
general practice, employers should request SSN information only when
absolutely necessary, e.g., in conjunction with a background check,
completing a W-4, or when enrolling the employee into benefits plans.
This information should be requested separate from the employment
application, and safeguards should be in place to protect and keep
this information confidential. Employers should also implement
procedures for safe disposal of this information once an employment
decision has been made. Some states require security measures to be in
place if applications asking for SSN information are transmitted over
the Internet, or sent by mail when not in a sealed envelope.

On 12/4/2012 8:45 PM, mike wrote:
On 12/4/2012 5:27 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.

I went online tonight to put a hold on a book at the library. The
library is using the first 4 numbers of my SSN in their "primary
identification" field.

That seems like a violation of security to me.

There are lots of privacy issues.
Some have argued that federal law prohibits using the SSN for other
purposes.
But it's a very convenient unique identifier that separates you from
that other John Smith. Do you really want his arrest record coming up
when they check you out?

And they typically ask for your national ID card (used to be a drivers
license but became a defacto national ID card). There is no prohibition
on that.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:15:11 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:26:18 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:08:22 -0800, Oren wrote:




Would you work for a company that you could not trust with your SSN?

Would yo work for a company that wants your personal information for
no good reason?

They have good reason, so they ask.

The Stasi had "good reason" for going "Papieren" whenever they felt like
it
too.

Silly moral relativity answer, not to mention a Godwin call.


So what is the sound of an argument entering in one ear, exiting out the
other, and never slowing down in between..
As to your "Godwin call", where did I make any mention of nazis ??
Apparently you're not even up to speed on Godwin..



That they have good reason (in their minds) does not necessarily make it
good reason for you or justify their asking

Bull****. Their job. You want it, or not? Your call.

My experience and expertise,
You want it or not ?
Your call

Unlike you, I was and still am in high enough demand, that It's a sellers'
market for me.
Hell, I don't even discuss $$$ and benies unless they have clearly stated
that here is a job on the table.

But then, unlike you, I'm not an easily replaceable drone..
'

wrote in message
...
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.



Oh dear.
A spell flame
Someone is getting desperate

I didn't study Englsih or in English until High School.
And I'm willing to bet if it came to a showdown, that I have a larger
vocabulary and a beter grasp of grammar and syntax than you.



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.


You really should stop making stupid presumptions about others

What some people seem to forget

...that they want a job? You probably have forgotten that.

Indeed.
From age 25 on, I had people calling me to offer me work.
Nice when you can get it.

Just goes to show that you should avoid making stupid presumptions about
others.

On Dec 6, 8:46*am, George wrote:
On 12/5/2012 12:56 PM, wrote:





On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:57:07 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Doug" wrote in message
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 23:16:50 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

stuff snipped

Right, but they don't need that until a job offer is made and
accepted.

Exactly... which is why I tell my daughters when taking an interview,
they will supply their SS # upon employment.

Good idea. *A smart employer should realize that an applicant smart enough
to care about securing their own personal data might care enough to protect
company data as well.

Most employers would just think this guy is hiding something or he is
going to be a pain in the ass employee and just throw the application
in the trash.

A big box or megacorp definitely would because they are looking for
bodies to meld into their system at the cheapest price. A smart small
business might appreciate that the person has a brain.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So then you have to ask yourself. How lucky to you feel today?
Is it worth having the prospective employer throw the application
in the trash because you didn't supply the SS#? With unemployment
at 8% I know what my answer would be. But on the other hand
when you can collect unemployment for 2 years, food stamps,
free healthcare, I guess that changes the equation. In fact, maybe
leaving it off is a good idea. One way to go on those job interviews
and make sure you don't get the job.

On Dec 5, 2:06*pm, chaniarts wrote:
On 12/5/2012 6:53 AM, wrote:



On Dec 5, 8:39 am, Peter wrote:
On 12/4/2012 8:45 PM, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 20:27:55 -0500, 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 would she get SS credits, otherwise?

The OP was only applying for the job, she hadn't been hired yet. *I
agree that there's no need for the SSN on the application as long as the
employer is satisfied that the applicant is legally in the country

How exactly does an employer do that easily without a
SSN?

and
meets the relevant employment criteria.

My employment criteria includes not being a fugitive,
having outstanding warrants, being convicted of
embezlement, etc. * How does an employer do that
without a SSN? *Throw away the application from
everyone with the same name that comes back with
a background check hit?

all the job offers i've gotten say: we're offering you this job subject
to passing the following checks: background, fingerprint, citizenship,
etc....

they can make an offer contingent on things, so they don't have to have
the ssn for the application. it just makes it easier (and perhaps
cheaper) on them to do the weeding before the checks, rather than after.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Did you see my post where I asked this? You're the
hiring guy. Which scenario would you prefer? A guy
comes in, fills out the application with his SS#. You use it
to run a background check and it turns out he's a member
of the Cripts, convicted of multiple drive-bys. You
tell him you filled the position internally and thanks for
applying.

Scenario two. You don't get the SS# until you've
extended your contingent job offer. Now you have to
call him and tell him he's not getting the job you offered
him 2 days ago and why.

On Dec 6, 12:44*am, 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.- Hide quoted text -



I agree with you on this one. Especially with 8%
unemployment and if you want a job. So many places
have your SS# anyway and like you say, why would you
want to work for an employer that you don't trust with a
SS#?

As for the argument that it makes no difference to make
the offer, then get the SS# and do a background check,
how about this:

You're the hiring guy. Which scenario would you prefer?
A guy fills out the application with his SS#. You use it
to run a background check and it turns out he's a member
of the Cripts, convicted of drug dealing and multiple drive-bys.
You tell him you filled the position internally and thanks for
applying.

Scenario two. You don't get the SS# until you've
extended your job offer, contingent on him supplying
the SS#. Now you have to call him and tell him he's not
getting the job you offered him 2 days ago and why.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 5, 2:06 pm, chaniarts wrote:
On 12/5/2012 6:53 AM, wrote:



On Dec 5, 8:39 am, Peter wrote:
On 12/4/2012 8:45 PM, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 20:27:55 -0500, 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 would she get SS credits, otherwise?

The OP was only applying for the job, she hadn't been hired yet. I
agree that there's no need for the SSN on the application as long as
the
employer is satisfied that the applicant is legally in the country

How exactly does an employer do that easily without a
SSN?

and
meets the relevant employment criteria.

My employment criteria includes not being a fugitive,
having outstanding warrants, being convicted of
embezlement, etc. How does an employer do that
without a SSN? Throw away the application from
everyone with the same name that comes back with
a background check hit?

all the job offers i've gotten say: we're offering you this job subject
to passing the following checks: background, fingerprint, citizenship,
etc....

they can make an offer contingent on things, so they don't have to have
the ssn for the application. it just makes it easier (and perhaps
cheaper) on them to do the weeding before the checks, rather than after.-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
#
# Did you see my post where I asked this? You're the
# hiring guy. Which scenario would you prefer? A guy
# comes in, fills out the application with his SS#. You use it
# to run a background check and it turns out he's a member
# of the Cripts, convicted of multiple drive-bys. You
# tell him you filled the position internally and thanks for
# applying.

that would depend on the type of job being filled
If it's for a warm body with little skill requirement, your argument may
hold
If it's for expertise that they need badly with few available bodies for the
job, your argument fails


#
# Scenario two. You don't get the SS# until you've
# extended your contingent job offer. Now you have to
# call him and tell him he's not getting the job you offered
# him 2 days ago and why.

So you're hiring guy is a lazy chicken ?
Is that a good thing in your book ?
The hiring guys job is to fill the post with the best choice at the least
cost
But in some cases "least cost" is NOT "minimum wage" by a long shot.
What do you imagine the strategy should be for someone you really want and
need to fill a specific post that has few available candidates who are in
great demand by the competition ?

wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 12:44 am, 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.- Hide quoted
text -


snip of repetitions

You have already asked the question in a slightly different form
Are you stupid enough to imagine that repeating it multiple times will
somehow make your very limited scenario more right ?
Clearly you operate at the warm body level of the hiring scale
And clearly that requirement is applicable at that low level

Let's hope that you don't get promoted to hire people operating at a higher
level
You would fail miserably at the job