Recently there have been a number of articles on companies wanting employees’ Facebook passwords and why this is an invasion of privacy. From both sides of the coin, it seems there are reasonable expectations; however, from the point of an employee who never uses a computer at work, my first question would be “Why do you want it?” But even before the Facebook issue arose, there existed another concern regarding the refusal to hire or (even more worrisome) the decision to fire employees based on background checks made by corporations that found arrests of employees on grounds that had absolutely nothing to do with the company or with the employees’ positions or responsibilities within the company.

Last January, some 300-odd workers who had previously filed complaints with the Federal Equal Opportunities Commission won their case and were awarded $ 3.1 million dollars against a unit of PepsiCo for unfairly targeting them for background checks.

Apparently Pepsi’s screening policy denied applicants with arrest records permanent employment – even when some had never been convicted of any offense. They also denied employment to several applicants who had been arrested and convicted of minor offenses.

WHAT THE EEOC DETERMINED

Some might ask why a company cannot formulate its own hiring policy to include information derived from a background check to determine whether a given applicant is ‘suitable’ for employment within that organization. It can’t do so because, as the EEOC showed in the investigation against PepsiCo, using someone’s arrest or conviction record to deny them employment can be illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when what is in the record has no relevancy to the job. This can also limit employment opportunities for applicants and workers based on their race or ethnicity. Pepsi has since revised its policy.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE NOSEY CREDIT CHECKS?

A Domino’s Pizza delivery driver was fired in 2009 after a background check revealed “some problems with his motor-vehicle history.” However, to this day, the driver has never been told exactly what the “problems” were. Claiming that he never received any disciplinary warnings for anything, he felt that to be fired “out of the blue” was totally unfair.

That Domino’s driver is now one of many in a developing class-action lawsuit alleging that Domino’s violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by running background checks without proper authorization, as well as not sharing what the reports showed, and then firing the employees because Domino’s didn’t like what they found. Domino’s position is steadfast, as one company spokesperson is quoted saying “We do not apologize for conducting criminal background checks.”

EMPLOYEE RIGHTS vs. COMPANY RIGHTS

More and more states are moving to protect the individual and employee’s rights from the prying eyes of employers. Seven states so far have limited the use of credit reports in hiring, and several more are debating the issue of further restricting credit checks or at least how far any employer should be able to go in using the reports. The seven that have already limited the use of credit reports are: Washington, Oregon, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Hawaii.

The Society for Human Resource Management believes workers should have guaranteed rights when it comes to background checks. Primary is providing a copy of any credit report to the individual being checked on if the information in the report could lead to dismissal or denial of a job. And some employers are checking on employees’ records even after those employees have been at the company for years. “Why?” is the question that everyone with a job might stop and wonder about.

More importantly, ask yourself “How would my credit history effect my job status today?” Does not paying your car payment or mortgage payment or that pesky Best Buy bill on time every month have anything to do with the work you do or how you do it? Is it anyone’s business if I do or if I don’t?

The next question is “What happens if I get a divorce? Or stop going to church? Or dye my hair blue?” How willing are we, as a society, to let our employers, business associates, friends or family know what is in our bank accounts or credit backgrounds?

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

Moorhead News:
The State of Minnesota is going to provide additional flood mitigation funding in the amount of $11.5 million to Moorhead. This will come out of the statewide pot of $30 million.

A news conference was held on Tuesday, May 22 with Mayor Mark Voxland, Senator Keith Langseth, Representative Morrie Lanning, and Representative Paul Marquart discussing the state investment approved for Moorhead during the 2012 legislative session, as the State of Minnesota passed the bonding bill with $30 million for flood mitigation, offering the City of Moorhead a minimum of $11.5 million to complete the remaining property acquisitions for flood control and remove the remaining at-risk homes from the flood plain. Mayor Voxland and Representative Lanning contend that this will enable the continuation of the city’s other flood projects, as well help stimulate further economic growth within the city of Moorhead.

Fargo News: The Fargo Access Channel Board will meet on Thursday, May 24, 2012, at 10 a.m. in the Commission Room at Fargo City Hall, 200 3rd St. N.

If you are not able to go to the live meeting, it will be broadcast live on TV Fargo 12 and online at www.cityoffargo.com/streaming.

EVERYONE HAVE A VERY SAFE AND MERRY MEMORIAL DAY!

Soo Asheim can be reached at: 218-233-8604 or by emailing sooasheim@aol.com

For letters to the editor: please include your first and last name and phone number. Your phone number is for verification only and will not be included with your letter.