Reply to: Security Clearance - Now do you understand the rules?

[malvolio]

OK, it sounds like I don't understand the rules either then. Are they a bit arcane?

How come you can't just send them your CV and then they can then have a quiet word with the agency and tell them to get you in for an interview quick smart. Or phone up a few agencies and say, "I've just been chatting to Mr XYZ at ABC and he wants me to apply for this SC position that's going but he's not allowed to make the first move so can you send him my CV?" Agency will bit your hand off surely... Contractor on a plate, pretty good chance of getting the job. Easy moneys.

Except...

You cannot suggest a candidate for a role. You have to raise a competency matrix so that any candidate can be compared on a level playing field. You then sift the applicants against that matrix and then panel interview those who pass, using the same set of questions and measuring them against the pre-defined competencies.

Plus, in the case I quoted earlier, the project sponsor (who probably would have taken me on) was not the hiiring manager, who would have to be able to be audited for compliance with the process. Total bollocks, of course, but that's how the world works.

[SuperZ]

As you were then.

Sorry to be negative but you know as well as I do that agents and HR people take no notice as there's no penalty. I applied for another DV role recently with HP and got the usual 'no DV no application' response, this is the largest player in the business.

You should try complain to HP HR department, do it right way and you won't burn bridges. Or raise it with the Cabinet Office?
A little while ago I raised the SC clearance requirement issue with one government department who were clearly in breach of the rules (they shall remain nameless) and they have now fallen into line, even though a few times since one of the agencies they use have still breached the rules, but overall the department is now ensuring the give the agencies the correct requirements (ie, SC clearance required really or not) and have I think also been keeping a closer eye on how the agencies they deal with advertise for positions.

[Wanderer]

And you should understand OGC hiring rules...

OK, it sounds like I don't understand the rules either then. Are they a bit arcane?

How come you can't just send them your CV and then they can then have a quiet word with the agency and tell them to get you in for an interview quick smart. Or phone up a few agencies and say, "I've just been chatting to Mr XYZ at ABC and he wants me to apply for this SC position that's going but he's not allowed to make the first move so can you send him my CV?" Agency will bit your hand off surely... Contractor on a plate, pretty good chance of getting the job. Easy moneys.

[malvolio]

You should get a telephone: they're great for things like telling people stuff.
(sorry for )

And you should understand OGC hiring rules...

[thunderlizard]

That's why I wasn't put forward for a role a year or two back to implement a strategy that I f***ing wrote a year earlier. The client would have had me back, but nobody would tell them I was available

You should get a telephone: they're great for things like telling people stuff.
(sorry for )

[Growernotashower]

I not whinning, quite the opposite. It's a pain in the backside for us too but I'm sure you've had clients that are pains in the botbot too but you just cracked on with the job.

Haven't ready the whole doc but it does say this "The Vetting Process
18. National security vetting may be carried out on recruitment and at any point subsequently when changes in duties or responsibilities require it. Individuals will be advised by their employer (or prospective employer) if and when they need to be subject to national security vetting. It is government policy that individuals should not be expected to hold an existing security clearance in order to apply for posts or contracts that require vetting, except in exceptional circumstances where such posts are short term and need to be filled urgently."

Last bit is key as the get out clause, if they are ever questioned they will see that "and" as an "or" and say I needed someone next week, and who decides what short term is?

Also, going back to you client, the same client that 10 other agents are working for at the same time on the same job, and saying you've got this wrong and legally you need to consider my non cleared candidate is professional suicide.

spelling/grammar awful, sorry in a rush

[malvolio]

[QUOTE=Growernotashower;1177906]

Good news indeed Mal.

I guess we need to place trust in the clients being firm with the agent and so on.


It's not the agent's that are the problem ffs! We only look for what the client asks for, if they ask for clearance, they get people with clearance, if they say they will look at people without or will clear people they get people without clearance!

Please, please please realise this!

Oh, and this latest statement gives them the same get out clause as before.

Of course I realise this. However every agency I've ever dealt with has trailed themselves as being the experts in recruitment, who take the pain out of hiring staff of the best quality; that doesn't seem to extend to telling their clients they are shutting themselves off from 85% of the candidates who may well be way better qualified than the recycled ones you only ever show them. That's why I wasn't put forward for a role a year or two back to implement a strategy that I f***ing wrote a year earlier. The client would have had me back, but nobody would tell them I was available

Yes it's the clients at fault and they are the prime target, but you guys aren't helping. These rules are clear and unequivocal, don't whine at us because we would like you to follow them.

And FTAOD, the only circumstances where pre-clearance is permissable is where the role will last less time than it will take to clear someone - so that's not your usual 3-month gig then - or where informed supervision cannot be provided - which is key sysadmins, comms guys and the like. That's about 5% of the total.

It's not us that needs educating...

[Growernotashower]

[QUOTE=northernladuk;1177392]Good news indeed Mal.

I guess we need to place trust in the clients being firm with the agent and so on.


It's not the agent's that are the problem ffs! We only look for what the client asks for, if they ask for clearance, they get people with clearance, if they say they will look at people without or will clear people they get people without clearance!

Please, please please realise this!

Oh, and this latest statement gives them the same get out clause as before.

[northernladuk]

Good news indeed Mal.

With my half empty cup and lack of trust of agents I can't see this will make much difference though. The only indicator of when they break these rules is when the put a 10 year service guy in as a deployment manager (which I am aware has happened). The only justification for this is the fact the service guy is cleared. There is no other justifiable reason they would do this.

If it comes to two equivalent deployment managers need to start in two weeks how do you know they have discriminated against against the non SC guy?

I guess we need to place trust in the clients being firm with the agent and so on.

Either way certainly a move forward.

Nice to see you cheeful Mal

EDIT : Doh, no I read the full list of responses I see other made my point a number of times already. Won't bother deleting it but sorry to others who posted first.

[malvolio]

The only way it will change is if legislation is introduced to govern it and someone ends up with a hefty fine for breaking the law.

That thought has occurred to others...

[DaveB]

Actually the "exceptional circumstances" are defined in the basic guidelines and are quite pragmatic. Nobody has a problem with them, but they only apply to about 5% of roles, not all of them. Also HP are not the MOD and are using their own imaginary rules. Lack of DV doesn't mean you can't apply and get the interview - and if the client thinks you're good enough, clearance will sort of stop being a major issue. The problem is that we can't get in front of the hiring managers to psersuade them how good we are and the hiring managers aren't seeing the best candidates since they are only being presented with the ones already inside the fence.

It''s a step forward, the real challenge will be to work out how to enforce it. That said, the fact that this has happened at all means someone with a big stick believes there is a major problem to be resolved. Perhaps penalties for non-compliance will come about. Funnier things have happened...

Thats the problem, they are only guidelines. There is no legal requirement to comply with them and no penalties for not doing so, so the big suppliers play by their own rules.

The only way it will change is if legislation is introduced to govern it and someone ends up with a hefty fine for breaking the law.

[malvolio]

As you were then.

Sorry to be negative but you know as well as I do that agents and HR people take no notice as there's no penalty. I applied for another DV role recently with HP and got the usual 'no DV no application' response, this is the largest player in the business.

Actually the "exceptional circumstances" are defined in the basic guidelines and are quite pragmatic. Nobody has a problem with them, but they only apply to about 5% of roles, not all of them. Also HP are not the MOD and are using their own imaginary rules. Lack of DV doesn't mean you can't apply and get the interview - and if the client thinks you're good enough, clearance will sort of stop being a major issue. The problem is that we can't get in front of the hiring managers to psersuade them how good we are and the hiring managers aren't seeing the best candidates since they are only being presented with the ones already inside the fence.

It''s a step forward, the real challenge will be to work out how to enforce it. That said, the fact that this has happened at all means someone with a big stick believes there is a major problem to be resolved. Perhaps penalties for non-compliance will come about. Funnier things have happened...

[gingerjedi]

...no one should be expected to hold an existing security clearance to apply for a sensitive post, apart from in exceptional circumstances.

As you were then.

Sorry to be negative but you know as well as I do that agents and HR people take no notice as there's no penalty. I applied for another DV role recently with HP and got the usual 'no DV no application' response, this is the largest player in the business.

[SueEllen]

Still will not stop agencies and the like demanding that you have security clearance in place before you apply for a role whether contract or permanent as they will say their role is the in the "exception" category.

[DaveB]

This has quite made my day, after seven years of banging on about it...

New Prime Ministerial Statement on national security vetting policy | PCG

Won't make any difference, the agencies will still weed out those without clearance and justify it by saying they had better candidates.