Ygtjki

I recently interviewed for a position with the hiring manager and her next level manager. I was offered the job on the spot, which I accepted. A couple of days later I received an e-mail from a 3rd party company asking for consent for a background check.

I didn't find this unusual as most companies I've worked for do conduct pre-employment background checks. However, as I started into their online submission process, the first thing to sign was the consent form.

I took the time to read what I was signing and saw that the consent was not for a one-time background check, but for open-ended consent without notice or disclosure. It was very clearly asking for consent to conduct future background checks at any time during employment and without any type of notification.

I've never seen anything like that before. I e-mailed the hiring manager and explained that I was not comfortable giving open-ended consent and that I would not be moving forward with the company.

I then received an e-mail from the next level manager basically saying that it is the company's policy but that it is never abused and asking me to reconsider. I politely declined.

I don't have anything to hide or be concerned about and don't anticipate anything in the future. I just felt it was wrong to be asked to sign off on something like that.

Is this common practice nowadays? Did I over-react?

EDIT: To clarify, this is not a sensitive role in any way. No trade secrets, no secure information, etc. No request for non-disclosure or non-compete agreements. This is a part-time very low level merchandising role - placing coupons in stores.

As a European, I don't think you overreacted in the slightest!

When they say "it is never abused", my reaction is "they would say that, wouldn't they?". Further, they may not abuse it now, but what about later when they have been taken over by a less benevolent organization.

Given that you don't need the job, I think walking away was the right thing to do.

I admire you for following you conscience, and it is people like you that stop the gradual oppression of the working class by increasingly overbearing corporate America. OK, maybe I've gone a bit far. Anyway...

Yes, I would classify this as strange, given the industry and role, though I'm not from the US.

it is the company's policy but that it is never abused

That's, you know, exactly what one would say if they abused it.

Policy is borne of company needs, it isn't a reason it itself. If you were feeling charitable, you could have asked them why the policy is the way it is.

Whatever you do, it will come down to your needs. Maybe one day you will compromise on your morals, but hopefully you have enough opportunities that you never need to.

Consider the statement

it is the company's policy but that it is never abused

While "They would say that, wouldn't they?" is a perfectly reasonable (although somewhat cynical) response, it's not necessary to go that far. While the moment has passed, a perfectly logical response would have been

What part of company policy establishes the definition of "abused"? And what are the penalties if abuse occurs?

Refusal to explicitly define the company's power in this sort of situation is an open invitation to (ahem) abuse.

It certainly is odd, however one thing the other answers have not yet picked up on is that in some industries, repeated background checks are the norm and sometimes even mandated. However in such cases the rate of such checks being "at the company's discretion" is not normal at all.

Most places (and legislations) that require repeated background checks usually specify a fixed rate of when they happen (annually, once every six months). It seems that this company has taken a leaf out of the tech industry's approach to client contracts (i.e: in exchange for accessing this service, you have to agree to a completely unreasonable set of conditions that is totally one-sided in the provider's favour). You did the right thing in turning it down.

I have a medical matter that comes with a consent form. The form there, like yours, authorises them to contact "anyone" to check "anything", without time limit. (And, incidentally, not just limited to the medical matter, according to the strict wording.)

I did as you did. I declined - but in order to smooth it over as best I could, I wrote clearly in the blank space for the signature, something like "CONSENT TO BE OBTAINED IN WRITING ON EACH AND EVERY OCCASION", and signed that instead.

My rationale was that this way, nobody could ever argue that I had refused consent. On the contrary, I'd made it abundantly clear that consent could be requested any time it was needed. That, I felt, would put me on very solid safe ground if any unknown person in a back-office or higher up tried to put coercive pressure on me, or implied I wouldn't get what I wanted unless I signed fully.

Consent can't be consent unless freely given.

It was completely non standard - and I never had an issue doing it. I've done it several times since, and never had any hint of an issue any time - perhaps because it's so darn obvious what the issue is.