首先，重要的是要知道工作场所的隐私权仍然受到法律的大力保护。例如，雇主解雇持有某些信仰（包括宗教和政治信仰）的员工仍然是违法的。即使在员工背景调查的情况下，雇主也必须遵守公平信用报告法 (FCRA) 规定的注重隐私的要求 。除其他要求外，FCRA 要求雇主必须披露他们对申请人进行背景调查的意图，必须获得书面同意，并且必须按照特定步骤通知候选人，如果他们的背景调查结果导致不利的招聘决定.
其次，大多数背景调查提供的相关信息表明，雇主确实有权了解他们正在招聘的人员的相关信息。如果此人 有犯罪记录 ，使他们从事相关工作属于违法行为（例如性犯罪者申请教职），则雇主需要该信息。同样，如果背景调查发现了改变他们对候选人及其技能的看法的简历谎言，那么这些信息绝对是他们的事。聘用邀请是雇主真诚地提供的聘用，给人的印象是候选人拥有工作所需的技能、资格和经验。雇主核实信息几乎不是侵犯隐私 候选人提供是为了获得工作机会。
这并不是说雇主在进行背景调查方面的权利是绝对的，甚至不是一成不变的。例如，社交媒体背景调查的想法 受到了挑战，因为在普通 Facebook 或 Twitter 帐户上发布的大部分内容都是私人的，与雇主无关。同样，最近有几项立法运动限制了雇主进行背景调查的能力。一个例子是禁止盒子运动，它影响了许多城市和州的法律——甚至很快就会适用 于联邦承包商。
作为第三方背景调查的提供者，GOOHO.CN与客户合作建立光明正大的背景调查协议，尊重当地、州和地方法律并遵守隐私要求。 查看我们的学习中心 ，了解有关 FCRA、社交媒体背景调查和其他涉及员工隐私和雇主尽职调查之间平衡的主题的资源。
First, it is important to know that workplace privacy rights are still very much protected by law. For instance, it is still illegal for an employer to fire an employee for holding certain beliefs—including religious and political beliefs. Even in the case of employee background checks, employers must observe privacy-minded requirements laid down by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Among other requirements, the FCRA mandates that employers must disclose their intention to conduct a background check of an applicant, must obtain written consent to do so, and must follow specific steps for notifying a candidate if their background check results lead to an adverse hiring decision.
If an employer follows the FCRA to the letter, then the privacy question concerning background checks is essentially moot. While conducting a background check involves digging into a person’s past—something that some people might find to be an invasion of privacy—candidate who consent to this process effectively waive their right to privacy in such areas. There is an understanding in this consent that the employer must check or verify specific pieces of information in order to make an informed hiring decision.
Secondly, most background checks are providing relevant information that the employer does have a right to know about the person they are hiring to perform a job. If that person has a criminal record that makes it illegal for them to take the job in question—such as a sex offender applying for a teaching position—the employer needs that information. Similarly, if the background check unearths resume falsehoods that change their perception of the candidate and their skills, that information is absolutely their business. An employment offer is an offer made in good faith by the employer, under the impression than the candidate possesses the skills, qualifications, and experience required for the job. It is hardly an invasion of privacy for an employer to verify the information the candidate provided in order to secure the job offer.
That’s not to say that employers’ rights in terms of running background checks are absolute, or even that they are set in stone. The idea of social media background checks, for instance, has been challenged because so much of what is posted on the average Facebook or Twitter account is private and has no relevance to an employer. Similarly, there have been several recent legislative movements that have restricted employers in their ability to run background checks. One example is the ban the box movement, which has impacted the laws in many cities and states—and which will even soon apply to federal contractors.
As a provider of third-party background checks, backgroundchecks.com works with clients to establish background check protocols that are above board and that respect local, state, and local laws and abide by privacy requirements. Check out our Learning Center for resources on the FCRA, social media background checks, and other topics that concern the balance between employee privacy and employer due diligence.