Request to evidence career break from employer

[Simon HiredByMe]

I thought a bit more info on this thread might be helpful.

Without wanting to break the proportional rules, I'm part of a startup that's solving this problem for contractors by allowing you to get pre-employment screened in advance of finding a role, and carry your screening around with you like a passport, topping it up as you complete each role.

We are launching in Financial Services, and as you can imagine have done a lot of work with banks, RPO/MSPs, agents and screening companies to work out how to make our product work - so I think I can speak with some authority on this subject.

I'd point out a few things.

1) standards are tough, and only getting tougher
A few years back, even the toughest checks were reasonably straightforward - now almost all large FS organisations operate stringent checks, and with the current compliance focus these are increasing. We've seen contractors who have been out of the game (e.g. in a perm role) for a few years who are really surprised at the level of checking now being undertaken.

2) standards are not consistent between organisations
Some do very complex checks, with tight tolerances, others are easier. As an example, relevant to the original post, when it comes to gaps some organisations don't require evidence for gaps up to 6 months, others require it for anything over 30 days.

3) it isn't always clear why the standard is set the way it is, but tolerance for missing it is low
There are many cases in the bank standards where you look at the requirement and scratch your head about why that standard's been imposed. But there is low to no tolerance for not meeting the standard. In most large institutions all instances of not meeting the standard have to go for signoff, and as an ex-manager myself I know that this is different to asking for (e.g.) a rate exception. Most managers aren't going to go to bat on a possible compliance issue.

4) It's really important to keep CV, screening form and evidence in line
These days most institutions are looking for more than just that the DBS check shows no criminality. They're looking for any evidence of less-than-straightforward practice - for example, listing things on your CV that you don't then list on the organisation's screening form is likely to require further explanation.

I hope that's helpful - I'd be happy to answer any other questions on this topic that people have.

Simon

[nomadd]

I'm part of a startup that's solving this problem for contractors by...

Most, if not all - and certainly all IBs - will insist screening goes through their own preferred screener; as things stand, that isn't your "startup". The idea of Joe Contractor just turning up with a piece of paper from your company isn't going to wash, I'm afraid.

A couple of roles back of mine - an IB one - they actually changed their preferred screener half way through the contract and insisted every single contractor in the organisation went through screening process again from scratch. Likewise, my previous contract - another IB - was through the same agency as the new contract, and the new IB were using the same screening company as the old IB - that still made no difference, and I had to go through the whole procedure again from scratch (BTW, I left one role on Friday and started the new one on Monday, so no chance to rest at Her Majesty's Pleasure...) FWIW: I'm British and have lived here all my life (so no overseas complications), and have been contracting for 26 years continuously, but that doesn't count for a thing (in fact, maybe it's that last bit that makes me such a high risk. )

I wish you the best of luck in your new business venture, but I don't see it working at all. Still, if you can supply an exhaustive list of exactly which clients will accept your pre-screening approach, and that you will cover the time/costs when for some reason that process fails, and also inform me of the charges for your service, I'd be more than happy to listen. My own experience with countless Financial Clients over the last 20-odd years (especially the last 10), tells me you are going to struggle.

[Draco]

These are nonsense requirements, and I am totally against making it easier to get through the same silly hoops.

Not long ago I was going through nonsense screening, they wanted 5 years references, bank statements, personal reference, credit check, addresses, proof of most things on the CV. All that after 6+ hours of interviews. They want to know I've not been doing anything dodgy. Yet how do I know that the money they will pay me isn't dirty money? Oh, oops, I can't ask that. There is no symmetry, and there will never be, they have the money and you want the money.

They want compliant people. Regardless your extreme talents, they only want the part of you that does the job effectively, they don't care about the part where you respect yourself. Think, but not too much. And here's some dirty money for you.

The Compliance process is called that for a reason, and it is very successful at selecting the right crop that meets the criteria they want. It is nothing to moan about, it is not exploitation or unreasonable. Be glad you still have the choice whether to receive some anal probing or not. Some people are happy to go through with it.

In a nutshell,

[BolshieBastard]

These are nonsense requirements, and I am totally against making it easier to get through the same silly hoops.

Not long ago I was going through nonsense screening, they wanted 5 years references, bank statements, personal reference, credit check, addresses, proof of most things on the CV. All that after 6+ hours of interviews. They want to know I've not been doing anything dodgy. Yet how do I know that the money they will pay me isn't dirty money? Oh, oops, I can't ask that. There is no symmetry, and there will never be, they have the money and you want the money.

They want compliant people. Regardless your extreme talents, they only want the part of you that does the job effectively, they don't care about the part where you respect yourself. Think, but not too much. And here's some dirty money for you.

The Compliance process is called that for a reason, and it is very successful at selecting the right crop that meets the criteria they want. It is nothing to moan about, it is not exploitation or unreasonable. Be glad you still have the choice whether to receive some anal probing or not. Some people are happy to go through with it.

In a nutshell,

Totally agree. Contractors working for these people have only themselves to blame for landing the rest of us with their 'compliance or else' crap.

Well, my attitude is 'stick it where the sun dont shine!' I can get a job elsewhere and dont need to be drybummed to get one.

[Chuck]

Totally agree. Contractors working for these people have only themselves to blame for landing the rest of us with their 'compliance or else' crap.

Well, my attitude is 'stick it where the sun dont shine!' I can get a job elsewhere and dont need to be drybummed to get one.

Good for you. That leaves one more role for the rest of us.

The vetting process is a PITA and I hate it, expecially as I had a couple of years off in 2008/9 when the market collapsed. Even going back to the same clients, through the same agency and screening companies, I have to jump through the same hoops, 10 years no gaps no excuses, and I can't stand it. But it is what it is. You live with it or you work outside FS.

[MrMarkyMark]

Good for you. That leaves one more role for the rest of us.

The vetting process is a PITA and I hate it, expecially as I had a couple of years off in 2008/9 when the market collapsed. Even going back to the same clients, through the same agency and screening companies, I have to jump through the same hoops, 10 years no gaps no excuses, and I can't stand it. But it is what it is. You live with it or you work outside FS.

This +1.

Anyone that chooses not to do it won't then get the better rates that FS pays for roles, in general.

This can be up to 150 PD+ for me.

The moneys why I go contracting and if going through this compliance earns me, both, more money and time off, then I'm prepared to do it.
If other people have other principles then that is their choice, also.

[fool]

Have you seen the hoops a business has to jump through to get on to and secure work through the government GCloud framework? Should they all go permie? Most entry points in to a company require hoops to jump through. Being a business does not mean they do not apply to you. Nothing weak about being faced with something imposed on by a company who are not willing to bend just because you think you are a proper contractor. As a sweeping statement put like that it sounds a bit ridiculous.

It's not that hard, it's just silly that applications are only open for a short period of time rather than rolling.

Anyways the "if you have nothing to hide" comments are scary. We all have something to hide.

[Glencky]

I'm interested in this thread because I've worked in FS for 15 years now, just under 12 as a permie, a year's gap and 2 years as a contractor. As a contractor I've gone via one of the biggest agencies for one contract, but direct for the other 2. I agree with people who say this is about financial services - I've not worked in IB myself so I'm interested to know whether they specifically really are worse than other FS companies. We'll see, I suppose, if I ever get the opportunity! In my agency gig, I did get questioned about my 12 months off, and had to fill out a declaration as to what I was doing (I didn't say much, just something like that I was having a planned career break - nothing informative at all) and this was deemed fine. The declaration 'plugged the gap'.

However when I got on site, a colleague, also contracting, was going through the same clearance (yes, continuing whilst she was already on site - very naughty from the agency). She had had a year off after having a baby - hardly an unusual thing to do. She had also contracted for the same agency, same client, on and off for 5 years. For some reason, this 'mat leave' was causing a real issue and the agency was asking for 12 months' bank statements. I suspect the agency took the risk and put her on site before SC was complete precisely because the people on the ground knew she was OK, and the client was screaming for her start date - her being a totally known quantity to everyone. I aways wondered how they squared this off, in the end. But it does sound similar to what some have encountered. However same agency, same SC company at roughly the same time as me, and I got no bother, just a declaration.

I do wonder if the SC companies work with some sort of process flow and depending on exactly how you phrase your description of what you're doing, that will determine what they ask by way of evidence. I understand well all the reasons FS companies have to be particularly careful with compliance issues - or perceived potential compliance risks, I should say - particularly since I've spent a lot of time implementing regulatory change. So what people have said is right - there is very limited flexibility. But on the other hand, I didn't fall foul of this - so why not? A mystery. In my case I didn't know anyone at the client company from Adam so it's not because they were pressuring the agency from that end (well they may have been as they were keen for me to start, but not THAT much).

In general I'm in the 'if you want the gig and have nothing to hide, you've little choice' camp. However I think I would also draw the line at 12 months' bank statements. But in doing so, simply I would know that what I was doing was potentially walking away from a contract. At the end of the day this is simply a commercial decision. So whether I drew the line would depend on how big an impact it would be if I had another X weeks/ months unplanned bench time!

Also, they're not only trying to see whether you were in prison or whatever. They're also looking to see if you were actually working for somebody else undeclared because it didn't go well, or whatever. It's as simple as, nobody likes an unexplained gap.

[SueEllen]

In general I'm in the 'if you want the gig and have nothing to hide, you've little choice' camp. However I think I would also draw the line at 12 months' bank statements. But in doing so, simply I would know that what I was doing was potentially walking away from a contract. At the end of the day this is simply a commercial decision. So whether I drew the line would depend on how big an impact it would be if I had another X weeks/ months unplanned bench time!

Also, they're not only trying to see whether you were in prison or whatever. They're also looking to see if you were actually working for somebody else undeclared because it didn't go well, or whatever. It's as simple as, nobody likes an unexplained gap.

There are laws that prevent companies digging into medical records but the same laws aren't there for financial records. However there is nothing stopping them asking the woman to get a letter from her doctor to say she had a baby as asking for 12 months bank statements isn't fool proof. Many people have more than one personal bank account. In fact you don't even need to use a bank account to move money around you could use your savings account(s).

[BolshieBastard]

Good for you. That leaves one more role for the rest of us.

Good for you with the permie mindset.

I dont need to jump through hoops to get a contract but commiserations to those that still do \ have to.

The vetting process is a PITA and I hate it, expecially as I had a couple of years off in 2008/9 when the market collapsed. Even going back to the same clients, through the same agency and screening companies, I have to jump through the same hoops, 10 years no gaps no excuses, and I can't stand it. But it is what it is. You live with it or you work outside FS.

You hate it but you perpetuate it. Clearly you cant see the wood for the trees. And like Ive said previously, Ive worked in Finance for the last 12+ years with Tier 1 UK and international banks but, hey-ho!