As a career contractor, I have to go through background and police checks every six to 12 months, depending on the length of the assignment. As a condition of employment, each time I have to submit the same documents to (often) the same background check company.
While I understand why a new employer would want to perform background and police checks on each new starter, I find it difficult to understand why permanent staff do not have to go through the same process every couple of years even though later down the track they might have been convicted of a criminal offence.
Why do most organisations not bother? And why can’t background check companies save my documents so that I do not have to keep resubmitting them each time?
This sounds exasperating. Job applications are difficult enough currently without the re-submission and double up you’ve described.
Having said that, I asked Carol T Kulik, a Bradley Distinguished Professor in the School of Management at Adelaide University about your questions, and she told me that the frustrating repetition is usually unavoidable for a good reason.
“In some sectors, employers do conduct background checks of current employees on a regular, ongoing basis. This is especially true when the role involves children, aged care, financial services and government. The common denominator is high harm potential – vulnerable populations, high-stakes financial access and national security,” she says.
Unnecessary background checks could signal that the employee is not trusted, undermining psychological contracts and reducing employee engagement.
Carol T Kulik, a Bradley Distinguished Professor in the School of Management at Adelaide University
“But ongoing monitoring of employees is context-specific. For many roles, ongoing security checks would be difficult to justify legally or practically. Australia’s regulatory system reflects a core principle: employers should only collect and use personal information that is reasonably necessary for the role.”
“Repeated ‘blanket’ checking of employees could be viewed as disproportionate to job requirements and risk the collection of irrelevant personal information.”
This background information helps us answer the question of why applicants like you are being constantly asked to provide personal information while permanent employees are not – or at least not to the same degree as you. And Kulik elaborated on why repeated checks (apart from the exceptions mentioned above) don’t generally happen once a person is in a job.
“In practice, the bar for ‘reasonably necessary’ is typically lower for applicants than for employees. Once an employee is on the job, employers have immediate access to an extensive range of job-relevant information. Gathering it is less intrusive than a background check,” she says.
“Employers can directly observe the employee’s behaviour and review performance outcomes – work quality, safety records, client satisfaction. And, importantly, unnecessary background checks could signal that the employee is not trusted, undermining psychological contracts and reducing employee engagement. Extra monitoring is not a neutral activity – it may do more harm than good.”
But why does it seem you’re being asked over and over again? Kulik says it mostly comes down to the fact that one employer can’t rely on another employer’s vetting.
“In short-term contract roles, there’s less opportunity to build a track record on the job, and so trust has to be reestablished each time, with each new employer,” she says.
“Documents gathered during background checks are rarely re-used across employers. Different employers will apply different criteria and standards to background checks, and will want current data to make the most meaningful decisions. Plus, it’s essential for data security – storing sensitive data longer than strictly necessary creates opportunities for data breaches.”
Kulik says she sympathises with you and your frustration at the need to submit these documents over and over again. But, she explains, it’s a feature of a system designed to protect all stakeholders, including applicants, contractors and employees.
“Background checks produce information, and it’s up to individual employers to make the yes-or-no decision. You wouldn’t want a hiring decision to be affected by information that is irrelevant to the current role.”
Send your questions through to Work Therapy by emailing jonathan@theinkbureau.com.au
Get workplace news, advice and perspectives to help make your job work for you. Sign up for our weekly Thank God it’s Monday newsletter.
Jonathan Rivett is a writer based in Melbourne. He’s written about workplace culture and careers for more than a decade.