Requirement to be SC cleared to apply for job

[northernladuk]

Thank you Malvolio. The more of us that complain to the CO the better. Maybe if they get enough complaints they will re-consider this discriminatory practice.

It seems to me that the best way to resolve this would be for individual contractors to be able to apply for SC clearance themselves.

Always good to get the mail in but bearing in mind Mal has been pushing this for thick end of 11 years I wouldn't be holding my breath...

And contractors applying for themselves is never going to happen. We had a post about the costs of applying which would kill this idea dead let alone anything else.

[malvolio]

Always good to get the mail in but bearing in mind Mal has been pushing this for thick end of 11 years I wouldn't be holding my breath...

And contractors applying for themselves is never going to happen. We had a post about the costs of applying which would kill this idea dead let alone anything else.

More to the point, clearance goers with the post, not the worker. So you can't apply for something that doesn't yet exist. If the post does exist, someone inside the organisation will be responsible for sponsoring the clearance application.

One obvious move is to make any reference to clearance illegal, meaning you can't advertise a role as needing clearance and you can't jump the queue by claiming you are already cleared (which, 99% of the time, you aren't any more anyway, officially).

Also the economic argument has been made and accepted at a very high level. It is that thanks to the agencies, HMG are recruiting people who are cleared, not people who are good at the job in hand. Therefore they are hiring from a reducing and increasingly out of date pool of resources. AS we've seen with the great successes in delivering HMG projects such as... erm....

[northernladuk]

Also the economic argument has been made and accepted at a very high level. It is that thanks to the agencies, HMG are recruiting people who are cleared, not people who are good at the job in hand. Therefore they are hiring from a reducing and increasingly out of date pool of resources. AS we've seen with the great successes in delivering HMG projects such as... erm....

Well they are adding new quality resources to the pool because PC and Darren_Test got clearance recently and......erm...

[SueEllen]

One thing that has changed in the years that malvolio has been complaining is lots more roles now just want you to have Disclosure Scotland or BPSS.

Some government departments and companies realise they are just getting people with out of date skills so to widen their pool they just require basic clearance.

[perplexed]

No you can't. Been happening for years and nothing is going to change. Malvolio posted an email address you can complain to but I doubt it will make any difference. They state its an urgent gig so must have existing clearance. To be fair most gigs want a quick start so it's a pretty good argument which is difficult to argue.

I suspect that argument falls apart when DVLA realise after 8 months of advertising identical roles they maybe should drop the SC requirement...

[northernladuk]

I suspect that argument falls apart when DVLA realise after 8 months of advertising identical roles they maybe should drop the SC requirement...

Unless it's actually required in which case they can't.

[FrontEnder]

It only takes 4-6 weeks for SC clearance for be granted. Agencies typically wait for at least a month for get their first invoice paid so I do not think this argument is valid. There can be no excuse for discrimination in the work place and that is exactly what this is.

It's completely valid. They can't bill for the 4-6 weeks while waiting for your clearance. What their invoice timescales are with the client is irrelevant.

It's not discrimination in the workplace either. Your company is bidding for work. Your company doesn't have anyone who can start the role immediately, so you lose the bid for work.

[perplexed]

Unless it's actually required in which case they can't.

Yeah, they have.

If it's required, then that's fine. What they really mean is they a) don't want to pay for it, b) don't want to pay for your time whilst waiting for it to be processed and c) don't want to risk candidates failing it. There's being risk averse and there's being incredibly anal to the point you don't fill roles. Roles advertised because you need people.

What any forward thinking place would do would be to at least look at the candidates available and make informed choices. If candidates have Disclosure Scotland, BPSS then any risk of them failing SC would generally be lower than that of random scrote off the street. If someone already has SC even better, reduces that risk even more if the company wants a fresh application rather than transferring.

[stek]

I suspect that argument falls apart when DVLA realise after 8 months of advertising identical roles they maybe should drop the SC requirement...

Done two SC gigs at the DVLA still no idea why SC was needed.

Data protection yeah, but whats sensitive? Someones reg no?

Couldn’t even see those...

[Anonimouse]

This is not the case, I have just been offered a role at cabinet office I do not have full sc only nppv3. I have also worked previously at MoJ and DoH have never had any probs getting an interview and the role.