As a contractor, I am required to undergo background and police checks every six to twelve months, depending on the duration of my assignments. As part of the employment process, I must consistently provide the same documents to (often) the same background screening company.
While I comprehend the rationale behind a new employer wanting to conduct background and police checks for each new hire, I struggle to grasp why permanent employees aren’t subjected to a similar review every few years, especially since they could potentially face criminal charges later on.
Why do many organizations neglect this? And why can’t background check firms store my documents to eliminate the need for repeated submissions each time?
This is incredibly frustrating. Navigating job applications is challenging enough as it is, without the added hassle of resubmitting and duplicating efforts you’ve mentioned.
That said, I consulted with Carol T Kulik, a Bradley Distinguished Professor in the School of Management at Adelaide University, regarding your concerns. She explained that this annoying repetition is often necessary for valid reasons.
“In certain industries, employers routinely perform background checks on their current employees. This is particularly prevalent in roles that involve working with children, elderly care, financial services, and government. The common thread here is the significant risk of harm—whether to vulnerable groups, substantial financial responsibilities, or matters of national security,” she noted.
Ongoing monitoring of employees is inherently context-specific. In many positions, the justification for continuous security checks may not hold up legally or practically. Australia’s regulatory framework underscores a key principle: employers should only gather and utilize personal information that is reasonably necessary for the specific role.
Repeated blanket checks on employees can be perceived as excessive in relation to job requirements, potentially leading to the collection of irrelevant personal data.
This context sheds light on why applicants like you are frequently required to provide personal information, while permanent employees face less scrutiny. Kulik further explains that, aside from certain exceptions, repeated checks are uncommon once an individual is employed.
“In essence, the threshold for what is deemed ‘reasonably necessary’ is generally lower for applicants compared to employees. Upon employment, employers gain immediate access to a broad spectrum of job-related information, making the gathering process less intrusive than conducting a background check,” she notes.
“Employers have the advantage of directly observing employee behavior and assessing performance metrics such as work quality, safety records, and client satisfaction. Moreover, unnecessary background checks can imply distrust towards the employee, which can undermine psychological contracts and diminish engagement. Additional monitoring is not a neutral endeavor; it might result in more harm than benefit.”
So, why the repeated requests? Kulik attributes this largely to the inability of one employer to depend on the vetting processes of another.
“In short-term contract roles, there’s limited opportunity to establish a reliable track record, necessitating the re-establishment of trust with each new employer,” she explains.
“Documents obtained during background checks are seldom reused across different employers. Each organization applies its own criteria and standards to these checks and requires up-to-date information for making well-informed decisions. Furthermore, maintaining data security is paramount; retaining sensitive information longer than necessary heightens the risk of data breaches.”
Kulik acknowledges your frustration regarding the continual submission of these documents. However, she clarifies that this is a characteristic of a system designed to safeguard all parties involved, including applicants, contractors, and employees.
“Background checks yield information, and it falls on individual employers to determine the yes-or-no outcome. You certainly wouldn’t want a hiring decision influenced by information that is irrelevant to the current position.”
