wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:28:30 -0500, wrote:

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 -

You may not have all the government red tape an employer has here.

Most employers would look at a blank SSN as a person trying to hide
something and with the typical stack of applications they will get for
any job, why even go any farther. Chuck it and look at the next one.

Why don't you stop claiming that you are speaking for "most employers"
You are not

In article ,
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.

Been lurking on this thread for a while, but time to toss in my 2 cents:
You're absolutely right, Ed. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to
ask for an SSN on the application, and a bunch of good reasons not to.
But, those who disagree will not be persuaded by logical argument.

I bet it's the same crowd who pretends to want smaller and less
intrusive government who think it's fine to give away all your privacy
to some ****ing nosy bureaucratic HR manager. I don't even want the
supermarkets to keep track of my purchases. Once got 86'ed at Ralphs
because I told the manager I didn't want to be ****ed in the ass at the
cash register just because I didn't want to join his ****ing club.

Y'all keep thinking about how it's fine to have Big Brother watching
over everything you do, and they *WILL* come to ration your bullets,
mark my words.

Drifting back towards topic, FWIW, out of the 100 or so people I've
hired and fired over the last 30 years, the one who's the best employee
I've ever had is a convicted felon.

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.

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.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:55:01 -0500, 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.

*EVERY* one I filled out last year required my SSN, including ones
online before the interview.

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.

Perhaps you don't think they have a need but they do. You're looking,
they're hiring. Ask yourself, "do I want to **** of the HR droid?".

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.

Good luck with that anymore.


redundant bull**** snipped

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:26:00 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:28:30 -0500, wrote:

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 -

You may not have all the government red tape an employer has here.

Most employers would look at a blank SSN as a person trying to hide
something and with the typical stack of applications they will get for
any job, why even go any farther. Chuck it and look at the next one.
Their loss. We have enough hiring red tape up here - why open
yourself to legal problems that would exist if the information was
leaked - even by someone else - and you were the one found with it in
an unsecured for - and not NEEDED.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:51:24 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
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.

Been lurking on this thread for a while, but time to toss in my 2 cents:
You're absolutely right, Ed. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to
ask for an SSN on the application, and a bunch of good reasons not to.
But, those who disagree will not be persuaded by logical argument.

Logic has nothing to do with reality. The *fact* is that employers do
want this information in advance of the hiring decision and
*certainly* ahead of any offer. IME, there is no "job pending
background checks". They want that done before the offer is even
made.

I bet it's the same crowd who pretends to want smaller and less
intrusive government who think it's fine to give away all your privacy
to some ****ing nosy bureaucratic HR manager. I don't even want the
supermarkets to keep track of my purchases. Once got 86'ed at Ralphs
because I told the manager I didn't want to be ****ed in the ass at the
cash register just because I didn't want to join his ****ing club.

I'm all for limiting information creep. However reality is something
different. That horse is long gone.

snipped idiotic ramblings

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:02:12 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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..

I don't know but you seem to be able to answer your own question.

As to your "Godwin call", where did I make any mention of nazis ??
Apparently you're not even up to speed on Godwin..

Yes, in fact you did. The fact that you referenced the E. German
secret police instead of the SS is meaningless. Further, the fact
that you're now trying to back away from the reference is instructive.



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

"Do you really think you're that unique? Nope. I din't need a Prima
Dona."

Unlike you, I was and still am in high enough demand, that It's a sellers'
market for me.

Your attitude is also quite instructive. It's amazing that anyone
would put up with it.

Hell, I don't even discuss $$$ and benies unless they have clearly stated
that here is a job on the table.

Irrelevant.

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

You assume a lot and think an lot of yourself. Pass.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:47:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Your (worthless) opinion.

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?

Touche'

Is asking for a DOB, home phone contact number, emergency contact
number and name of a family member a _good reason_ for that "personal
information"?

Frankly I developed an allergy to work so I'm off the market for
employment :-\

On 12/6/2012 9:22 AM, wrote:
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.


Like all things in life it isn't a black and white scenario that you
rely on.

After all this is nothing but a business transaction. You are offering
something for sale and someone may want to buy it. Terms and conditions
are a moving target.

If say it is a position at the big box mart chances are you are going
nowhere if you don't absolutely comply with whatever procedures are in
place. But say it is a skilled or professional position. Then you have
bargaining room. The employer makes an offer and you make a counter
offer. Everytime I accepted a position there was a period of negotiation
with offers and counter offers leading into it. If we agreed the usual
deal on the first day was a request to "stop by HR and give them
information so they can enter you into the payroll system".

On 12/6/2012 11:20 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

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

Exactly, most things in life are more than simple black and white
situations.



#
# 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 ?

On 12/6/2012 9:02 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

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..
'


Seems like an "expert" may not know how hiring for responsible job
positions work. The "want it or not" thing is what someone might expect
from the big box mart but responsible jobs involve negotiations.

On Dec 6, 11:20*am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
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


Attila, someone has hijacked your PC and is using it to make
stupid posts. How may Cripts members or similar criminals
do you think apply for legitimate jobs where their expertise is
badly needed?



#
# 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 ?

Now you've shown that you;re even further removed from
reality. I would not say wanting to not have to call a member
of the cripts that you offered a job two days ago to and
telling them they now can't have it after you've obtained there
SS# and found out their background isn't being chicken.
Especially when there is no need to when you can get
their SS# when they apply, do the check, and not have
to pull back the offer.


The hiring guys job is to fill the post with the best choice at the least
cost

Which, of course, is yet another thing that has nothing to
do with the issue.



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 ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're really wandering in the wilderness here.

On Dec 6, 11:22*am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't know who the hell you're talking to or think you're
talking to. I never said I was involved in hiring people,
asking for the SS#, or anything else. Can't you even
follow a thread? As for who's stupid, well if you can't
follow a thread.....

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:02:12 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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


wrote in message
m...
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..

I don't know but you seem to be able to answer your own question.


Well in your case the answer is none, since there is no sound in a vacuum of
any sort.


As to your "Godwin call", where did I make any mention of nazis ??
Apparently you're not even up to speed on Godwin..

Yes, in fact you did. The fact that you referenced the E. German
secret police instead of the SS is meaningless. Further, the fact
that you're now trying to back away from the reference is instructive.


1) Why should I back away from a reference that I did intentionally ?
Are you really this stupid ?
2) Godwin is SPECIFALLY about calling someone a Nazi
Making a refenrence to the Stasi, does NOT qualify
Hell even making a reference to the SS does NOT qualify in many
instances
Go back and get yourself educated on Godwin before you embarrass
yourself any further
Oh wait.
That might impossible.
3) And your false attempt to invoke Godwin is simply an admission that
you have been trumped and you're much too intellectually dishonest to admit
it.




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

"Do you really think you're that unique? Nope. I din't need a Prima
Dona."


That you generalize like an idiot is not my problem


Unlike you, I was and still am in high enough demand, that It's a sellers'
market for me.

Your attitude is also quite instructive. It's amazing that anyone
would put up with it.


Well, you're right, stupid little gits like you have a hard time with me,
since I'm often the guy who starts the process of getting them out the door
to make things work better.


Hell, I don't even discuss $$$ and benies unless they have clearly stated
that here is a job on the table.

Irrelevant.

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

You assume a lot and think an lot of yourself. Pass.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:55:01 -0500, 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.

*EVERY* one I filled out last year required my SSN, including ones
online before the interview.


LOL
Are we surprised that you had to fill out a whole slew of job applications ?
NOT !

But good luck finding something
Even you should be able to find some kind of work


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.

Perhaps you don't think they have a need but they do. You're looking,
they're hiring. Ask yourself, "do I want to **** of the HR droid?".


If that's what it takes to **** off a HR droid
It's a pretty low-level droid..


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.

Good luck with that anymore.


Well not everyone is busy filling fields on the terminals at Walmart like
you.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:47:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Your (worthless) opinion.

No different in value from yours

On Dec 6, 1:00*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 11:26:00 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:28:30 -0500, wrote:

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 -

You may not have all the government red tape an employer has here.

Most employers would look at a blank SSN as a person trying to hide
something and with the typical stack of applications they will get for
any job, why even go any farther. Chuck it and look at the next one.

*Their loss. We have enough hiring red tape up here - why open
yourself to legal problems that would exist if the information was
leaked - even by someone else - and you were the one found with it in
an unsecured for - and not NEEDED.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, that's right. The same info that your bank
has, your broker, your home insurance agent, your auto
insurance agent, your apt manager, your
mortgage company, every credit card you've ever applied for,
every hospital and doctor you've visited.... why it's just so totally
unacceptable for a prospective employer to ask for it, that it's
worth not getting the job. Good thinking. And why stop there.
Why should they have your home address either? That's of
no relevance either, right, yet could be used for identity theft.
Or how about your phone and email address? Why my God!
They could send you spam..... I guess the new procedure
should be to go in an refuse to even give a name. What the
hell difference does it make if your name is John Doe or
Zachary Smith?

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

wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 11:20 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
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
#
# Attila, someone has hijacked your PC and is using it to make
# stupid posts. How may Cripts members or similar criminals
# do you think apply for legitimate jobs where their expertise is
# badly needed?

Trader, someone stole your brain and is using it for a football
I'll leave you to your stupid strawman




#
# 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 ?
#
# Now you've shown that you;re even further removed from
# reality. I would not say wanting to not have to call a member
of the cripts that you offered a job two days ago to and
# telling them they now can't have it after you've obtained there
# SS# and found out their background isn't being chicken.
# Especially when there is no need to when you can get
# their SS# when they apply, do the check, and not have
# to pull back the offer.

yawn
Your strawman.
You feed it


The hiring guys job is to fill the post with the best choice at the least
cost

Which, of course, is yet another thing that has nothing to
do with the issue.



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 ?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're really wandering in the wilderness here.

On Dec 6, 2:15*pm, George wrote:
On 12/6/2012 9:02 AM, *Attila Iskander wrote:







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..
'

Seems like an "expert" may not know how hiring for responsible job
positions work. The "want it or not" thing is what someone might expect
from the big box mart but responsible jobs involve negotiations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which of course is nonsense. What exactly is a "responsible"
job. The big box mart has everything from a cashier, to loss
prevention,
to maintenance, to dept mgr, to GM. Are all of them irresponsible?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:30:02 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:55:01 -0500, 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.

*EVERY* one I filled out last year required my SSN, including ones
online before the interview.


LOL
Are we surprised that you had to fill out a whole slew of job applications ?
NOT !

You really are a clueless ****.


But good luck finding something
Even you should be able to find some kind of work

Terminally stupid, clueless ****.

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.

Perhaps you don't think they have a need but they do. You're looking,
they're hiring. Ask yourself, "do I want to **** of the HR droid?".


If that's what it takes to **** off a HR droid
It's a pretty low-level droid..

There aren't another kind, moron.

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.

Good luck with that anymore.


Well not everyone is busy filling fields on the terminals at Walmart like
you.

It's OK. Loser lefties always look down their nose at those who work
for a living.

BTW, I'm an EE. I was out of work for three months *last* year. I
probably filled out a dozen job applications and all required full
personal information. One, a state university job required it online
before any interview at all.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:07:33 -0500, George
wrote:

On 12/6/2012 9:22 AM, wrote:
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.


Like all things in life it isn't a black and white scenario that you
rely on.

After all this is nothing but a business transaction. You are offering
something for sale and someone may want to buy it. Terms and conditions
are a moving target.


It is *exactly* a business transaction. One person has a product to
sell and another has money to buy. Just like a retail transaction,
there are agents in the middle who operate with a set of rules that
they usually have no power to change. If you don't follow the rules,
you lose.


If say it is a position at the big box mart chances are you are going
nowhere if you don't absolutely comply with whatever procedures are in
place. But say it is a skilled or professional position. Then you have
bargaining room. The employer makes an offer and you make a counter
offer. Everytime I accepted a position there was a period of negotiation
with offers and counter offers leading into it. If we agreed the usual
deal on the first day was a request to "stop by HR and give them
information so they can enter you into the payroll system".

Complete nonsense.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:27:13 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:02:12 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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


wrote in message
om...
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..

I don't know but you seem to be able to answer your own question.


Well in your case the answer is none, since there is no sound in a vacuum of
any sort.

True, I guess I gave you too much credit for having a brain. I won't
make that mistake again.

As to your "Godwin call", where did I make any mention of nazis ??
Apparently you're not even up to speed on Godwin..

Yes, in fact you did. The fact that you referenced the E. German
secret police instead of the SS is meaningless. Further, the fact
that you're now trying to back away from the reference is instructive.


1) Why should I back away from a reference that I did intentionally ?
Are you really this stupid ?

I don't know why you did. Perhaps you should ask yourself that
question.

2) Godwin is SPECIFALLY about calling someone a Nazi
Making a refenrence to the Stasi, does NOT qualify

Bull**** but nice back pedal. Your form is perfect. You must
practice it a lot.

Hell even making a reference to the SS does NOT qualify in many
instances
Go back and get yourself educated on Godwin before you embarrass
yourself any further
Oh wait.
That might impossible.
3) And your false attempt to invoke Godwin is simply an admission that
you have been trumped and you're much too intellectually dishonest to admit
it.

More beck pedaling. Nice job.



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

"Do you really think you're that unique? Nope. I din't need a Prima
Dona."


That you generalize like an idiot is not my problem

I"m not mocking you, moron.

Unlike you, I was and still am in high enough demand, that It's a sellers'
market for me.

Your attitude is also quite instructive. It's amazing that anyone
would put up with it.


Well, you're right, stupid little gits like you have a hard time with me,
since I'm often the guy who starts the process of getting them out the door
to make things work better.

IKWYABWAI. Nice comeback after a Godwin moment.


Dig some more. It's entertaining.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:15:10 -0500, George
wrote:

On 12/6/2012 9:02 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

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..
'


Seems like an "expert" may not know how hiring for responsible job
positions work. The "want it or not" thing is what someone might expect
from the big box mart but responsible jobs involve negotiations.

You obviously don't know how hiring is done in large organizations.
The word is "clueless".

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:30:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:47:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Your (worthless) opinion.

No different in value from yours

Moron, neither my opinion, Ed's, nor yours matters. What matters is
the opinion of the hiring entity. It's important for *THEM*. Your
sorry ass loses (to be expected for a loser).

On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:40:53 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


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.

Fair enough but note that you *will* be excluded from consideration by
many employers. I refused to supply this information, once, before
even a phone interview. That was the last I heard from the company.


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

It doesn't matter what *you* think is reasonable.

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.

You've already lost. That horse is *long* gone. Do yourself a favor
and don't **** off prospective employers for no reason.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:06:24 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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

No, dummy. You used the WRONG WORD. It shows a lower than claimed
intellect.

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.

Obviously wrong. You already failed third grade.

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

You're providing the evidence. You've stated that you would not
follow instructions. End of argument. You lose.

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.

YOu really don't have a clue.

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

[..../]
IRONY

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:22:59 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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

It's clear you can't even write (or post) coherently.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:51:29 -0500, wrote:

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.

They clearly believe they have the need for the information. They
also have the legal authority to ask for the information, so your
argument is just as stupid as...

There are people who will give it to them.

Those who want the job, yes.

They deserve each other.

Those who want to hire and those who want to be hired, yes, but that's
the only thing you've said that makes sense, if only by accident.

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.

....and the employer will indeed move one. No problem.

When they hire the person who protected themselves, they get a good
employee/customer/whatever.

Absurd (but not surprising).

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.

Nonsense. That horse is long gone.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:32:51 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:28:30 -0500, wrote:

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 -

You may not have all the government red tape an employer has here.

Most employers would look at a blank SSN as a person trying to hide
something and with the typical stack of applications they will get for
any job, why even go any farther. Chuck it and look at the next one.

Why don't you stop claiming that you are speaking for "most employers"
You are not

....and you are? You are really *FUNNY*. What a moron.

wrote in :

Most employers would look at a blank SSN as a person trying to hide
something and with the typical stack of applications they will get for
any job, why even go any farther. Chuck it and look at the next one.

Most employers don't ask for the SSN on a job application.

That's why the ones that do are viewed with suspicion.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:30:25 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:47:22 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Your (worthless) opinion.

No different in value from yours

Moron, neither my opinion, Ed's, nor yours matters. What matters is
the opinion of the hiring entity. It's important for *THEM*. Your
sorry ass loses (to be expected for a loser).

Funny how over the last 30+ years, I had people coming to Me with offers and
not the other way
around.
Must suck to be so part of the herd that you actually need to make an
effort to distinguish yourself

The original troll must be marvelling at returns well beyond any
reasonable expectation from his post.

--
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 message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:30:02 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:55:01 -0500, 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.

*EVERY* one I filled out last year required my SSN, including ones
online before the interview.


LOL
Are we surprised that you had to fill out a whole slew of job applications
?
NOT !

You really are a clueless ****.


Mmm..
Let's see..
Your words
" *EVERY* one I filled out last year required my SSN..."

Apparently I'm less "clueless than you are..




But good luck finding something
Even you should be able to find some kind of work

Terminally stupid, clueless ****.

I'll take that as an admission that you've just been bitch-slapped



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.

Perhaps you don't think they have a need but they do. You're looking,
they're hiring. Ask yourself, "do I want to **** of the HR droid?".


If that's what it takes to **** off a HR droid
It's a pretty low-level droid..

There aren't another kind, moron.

I haven't had to deal with one of those since...
um
1971. When I applied for a summer job with IBM just before I started
Engineering School.







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.

Good luck with that anymore.


Well not everyone is busy filling fields on the terminals at Walmart like
you.

It's OK. Loser lefties always look down their nose at those who work
for a living.

BTW, I'm an EE. I was out of work for three months *last* year. I
probably filled out a dozen job applications and all required full
personal information. One, a state university job required it online
before any interview at all.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:07:33 -0500, George
wrote:

On 12/6/2012 9:22 AM, wrote:
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.


Like all things in life it isn't a black and white scenario that you
rely on.

After all this is nothing but a business transaction. You are offering
something for sale and someone may want to buy it. Terms and conditions
are a moving target.


It is *exactly* a business transaction. One person has a product to
sell and another has money to buy. Just like a retail transaction,
there are agents in the middle who operate with a set of rules that
they usually have no power to change. If you don't follow the rules,
you lose.


If say it is a position at the big box mart chances are you are going
nowhere if you don't absolutely comply with whatever procedures are in
place. But say it is a skilled or professional position. Then you have
bargaining room. The employer makes an offer and you make a counter
offer. Everytime I accepted a position there was a period of negotiation
with offers and counter offers leading into it. If we agreed the usual
deal on the first day was a request to "stop by HR and give them
information so they can enter you into the payroll system".

Complete nonsense.

Just because YOU never had that experience does NOT mean it's not true or
"complete nonsense".
All you are demonstrating with such comments, is that you have spent your
life working at the low end of the food chain.

I had one job offer that went.
"We have heard good things about you
We would like to hire you to work X hours a week at $YY.00 (as per
union Contract) per hour.
All you need to do is come fully prepared to do A,B.C. those X
hours."
We will provide all administrative support.
nterested ?"

Did that for 10 years on the side of my regular consulting job
I could have done nothing else but just those X hours a week, and lived
very comfortably of that income.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:15:10 -0500, George
wrote:

On 12/6/2012 9:02 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

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..
'


Seems like an "expert" may not know how hiring for responsible job
positions work. The "want it or not" thing is what someone might expect
from the big box mart but responsible jobs involve negotiations.

You obviously don't know how hiring is done in large organizations.
The word is "clueless".

You're really not paying attention are you ?
We have all admitted that what you describe is quite true for a large
organization hiring LOW-skill employees.
But that is NOT true for either small or large corporations hiring
higher-skill employees who can just as easily sell their expertise down the
street at the company next door.

wrote in message
news
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:22:59 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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

It's clear you can't even write (or post) coherently.

I'll consider that ad hom as an admission of having lost the argument

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:27:13 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:02:12 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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


wrote in message
news:arp2c8p3p0vejdd17hq42u598l60n00f6r@4ax. com...
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..

I don't know but you seem to be able to answer your own question.


Well in your case the answer is none, since there is no sound in a vacuum
of
any sort.

True, I guess I gave you too much credit for having a brain. I won't
make that mistake again.

And you are teh idiot claiming that I can't operate in English
Here you are dmonstrating that your reading skills can be graded with one
digit on a 3 digit scale




As to your "Godwin call", where did I make any mention of nazis ??
Apparently you're not even up to speed on Godwin..

Yes, in fact you did. The fact that you referenced the E. German
secret police instead of the SS is meaningless. Further, the fact
that you're now trying to back away from the reference is instructive.


1) Why should I back away from a reference that I did intentionally ?
Are you really this stupid ?

I don't know why you did. Perhaps you should ask yourself that
question.


I know why I did, dummy
Because it evokes a VERY clear image in the minds on most people who don't
operate on "knee-jerk" ignorance like you do.



2) Godwin is SPECIFALLY about calling someone a Nazi
Making a refenrence to the Stasi, does NOT qualify

Bull**** but nice back pedal. Your form is perfect. You must
practice it a lot.

sigh
Why do you insist on demonstrating that you're more ignorant than a 10
year-old noob ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's
Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in
1990[2][non-primary source needed] that has become an Internet adage. It
states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words,
Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion-regardless
of topic or scope-someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler and the
Nazis.

Actually, by raising Godwin's law falsely, YOU are the one guilty of
breaching it.




Hell even making a reference to the SS does NOT qualify in many
instances
Go back and get yourself educated on Godwin before you embarrass
yourself any further
Oh wait.
That might impossible.
3) And your false attempt to invoke Godwin is simply an admission that
you have been trumped and you're much too intellectually dishonest to
admit
it.

More beck pedaling. Nice job.



"beck (sic) pedaling"
LOL
Is that supposed to be a weak imitation of a South African Accent ?

**** son, you can't even spell for ****.





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

"Do you really think you're that unique? Nope. I din't need a Prima
Dona."


That you generalize like an idiot is not my problem

I"m not mocking you, moron.


Hello ?
Anyone home ??

Who made ANY claim of being mocked

Oh wait,
You're not having a conversation with me
You're responding to the voices in your head



Unlike you, I was and still am in high enough demand, that It's a
sellers'
market for me.

Your attitude is also quite instructive. It's amazing that anyone
would put up with it.


Well, you're right, stupid little gits like you have a hard time with me,
since I'm often the guy who starts the process of getting them out the
door
to make things work better.

IKWYABWAI. Nice comeback after a Godwin moment.


No Godwin moment except in your stupid attempt to weasel away from being
spanked


I'll leave you to it. you stupid troll

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:06:24 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


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


wrote in message
m...
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

No, dummy. You used the WRONG WORD. It shows a lower than claimed
intellect.


No stupid,
It's a typo from not paying close enough attention to the spell-checker
But this from the idiot who writes
"beck pedaling"
snicker

Idiots in glass house should not throw anyting
So drop whatever in in your hand, dummy




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.

Obviously wrong. You already failed third grade.


From the idiot who starts a spell flame from a typo while writing
"beck pedaling"

snicker
You really are stupid



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

You're providing the evidence. You've stated that you would not
follow instructions. End of argument. You lose.


What instructions are those dummy ?


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.

YOu really don't have a clue.


You're right, I haven't ever had to spend a whole year sending out multiple
applications like you did
Just goes to show that I don't go around applying for a job at big box
stores like you do.



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

[..../]
IRONY

yes that was
At least you should SOME intelligence for recognizing it

Too bad that you're nonetheless idiot enough to start a spell flame for a
typo between "your" and "you're" and then post "beck pedaling"

How stupid is that ?