agency unfairly pressuring me

[ratewhore]

i genuinely don't have anything hide, it's purely a matter of principle. the contract is between two companies, not between the company and myself. therefore the company i work for (my company), should do the vetting and guarantee to the client that all consultants have been vetted satisfactorily.

If this is an official security clearance check then it doesn't quite work like that...

[Denny]

If this is an official security clearance check then it doesn't quite work like that...

Very true. The goverment departments carry out their own security checks, even though they use recruiters who are meant to carry out 'suitability' checks of their own before representing a candidate. Partly because their own checks are more thorough with a wider remit than the agency legislation requires.

That doesn't mean that a candidate's wish not to have them carried out and misses out on a potential gig by refusing should have his refusal reasons passed onto another organisation without his authorisation though.

[contractoruk2006]

Very true. The goverment departments carry out their own security checks, even though they use recruiters who are meant to carry out 'suitability' checks of their own before representing a candidate. Partly because their own checks are more thorough with a wider remit than the agency legislation requires.

That doesn't mean that a candidate's wish not to have them carried out and misses out on a potential gig by refusing should have his refusal reasons passed onto another organisation without his authorisation though.

this isn't proper security clearance (SC). this is just a big bureaucratic company with a blanket security policy that dumps both permies and contractors in the same box.

[BoredBloke]

Which agency is it? Can you give us some hints?

[contractoruk2006]

Which agency is it? Can you give us some hints?

suffice to say that from now on i'll only be using agencies who are members of ATSCo.

[Denny]

this isn't proper security clearance (SC). this is just a big bureaucratic company with a blanket security policy that dumps both permies and contractors in the same box.

Same thing.

Some companies do have vetting procedures of their own - pharmaceutical companies for one and banks do as well, I think. The former don't want anyone on their site who belongs or has belonged to the Animal Liberation Front or other militatant animal rights organisations and the banks don't want anyone who could be unusually subjected to financial enticements or insider dealing etc.

The risks could be the same, whether they are dealing with contractors or permies couldn't they, if they have access to sensitive information or incompatible political allegiances.

As it happens, I was once offered a role at one of the pharmaceutical companies and the recruiter asked me to agree to have my background thoroughly checked out by the company private investigators which could take up to 2-3 weeks. I refused too and let the gig go on the grounds that I once had a cherished pet Guinea Pig and I felt that my pet owning history might persuade an interviewer that I love fluffy wuffy cutey animals too much to be safe bet in the company canteen sitting alongside hard-nosed scientists who are happy to squirt shampoo in bunny wunnies eyes.

[I made that last bit up].

[tim123]

this isn't proper security clearance (SC). this is just a big bureaucratic company with a blanket security policy that dumps both permies and contractors in the same box.

The problem that you have here, is that your company is a 2-bit off the shelf one.

Saying that your company will do the vetting and take the responsibility if it is wrong. is worth nothing at all if the company making the promise has nothing to lose.

I don't get this 'principle' thing.

If the company *really* have a reason to be sure that everyone on site (with access to their system, or whatever) passes some test, then it is perfectly reasonable for them to conduct the test, regardless of whether the person is a permanent employee or a visitor employed by a sub-contractor.

I don't see that there is a valid reason for you to complain about this, they are the ones who will suffer if it is done wrong, so they are the ones who make the rules about doing it.

Of course, if there's no valid reason for them conducting the test at all, then that's another matter.

tim

[contractoruk2006]

The problem that you have here, is that your company is a 2-bit off the shelf one.

Saying that your company will do the vetting and take the responsibility if it is wrong. is worth nothing at all if the company making the promise has nothing to lose.

I don't get this 'principle' thing.

If the company *really* have a reason to be sure that everyone on site (with access to their system, or whatever) passes some test, then it is perfectly reasonable for them to conduct the test, regardless of whether the person is a permanent employee or a visitor employed by a sub-contractor.

I don't see that there is a valid reason for you to complain about this, they are the ones who will suffer if it is done wrong, so they are the ones who make the rules about doing it.

Of course, if there's no valid reason for them conducting the test at all, then that's another matter.

tim

fair point, but, if i don't mind losing out on the role, should the agency still try and force me to send the information (or in fact send it themselves regardless)? that was my orginal issue.

[Denny]

fair point, but, if i don't mind losing out on the role, should the agency still try and force me to send the information (or in fact send it themselves regardless)? that was my orginal issue.

That's already been covered.

The answers no, they can't. Write to your agency immediately by e-mail and explicitely state that you do not wish information to be passed on and should they do so will open themselves up to allegations of a DPA breach. Don't put anything else in it like why that is or other justifications that you have nothing to hide etc. The more you try and justify yourself the more you are defending the indefensible which gives their request credibilty. The whole point of your refusal is because it lacks credibility.

Never apologise, never explain is your mantra here.

[contractoruk2006]

That's already been covered.

The answers no, they can't. Write to your agency immediately by e-mail and explicitely state that you do not wish information to be passed on and should they do so will open themselves up to allegations of a DPA breach. Don't put anything else in it like why that is or other justifications that you have nothing to hide etc. The more you try and justify yourself the more you are defending the indefensible which gives their request credibilty. The whole point of your refusal is because it lacks credibility.

Never apologise, never explain is your mantra here.

good advice, cheers.