GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Union bristles at background checks required under ID mandate

• 36092
  

  Has anyone ever the cost effectiveness of this effort as currently implemented? Costs include needed positions going unfilled for months, questionable invasions of privacy, possible false accusations made by a disgruntled or confused reference, etc. How many of these investigations that go beyond a simple background check actually result in adverse actions?

  M Huber Posted October 29, 2007 10:18 AM
• 26530
  

  I am so glad the Postal Service is doing security checks. Not just for employees that have been with the service for many years but especially for the new ones. All safety issues are important and should be addressed, hopefully it will weed out some really bad folks that work in this system.

  Sadie Posted June 22, 2007 2:56 PM
• 25207
  

  Great comments from everyone except the union versus management squabbles. Ugh!! Anyway, based on my military and state government experience with a wide variety of clearance levels and background checks, I'd say the real challenge will be the process itself. Right or wrong, it currently takes too long to be credible, i.e. to meet its intent as a national security tool. I don't think OPM and others have the proper resources to expand their programs. I've also noted a creep in the use of polygraphs, too. While I think background checks are clearly necessary to a degree, I'm not sure that we haven't gone overboard with the process. It's also a pain to transfer clearances between agencies, which is surprising in this digital age we live in. This all adds up to self-defeating inefficiencies. And that's not good for national security. Hmmm...

  Phil Oglesby Posted June 8, 2007 12:22 PM
• 25193
  

  I worked for DoD fire protection for 30-years and had a secret clearance. It was brought up to date when I changed fire chief jobs. All federal employees must have a background investigation with the depth of the investigation based on the level of security they face. This country is not safe and the union needs to shut up on security matters. Management has the right to fire, hire, and relocate if necessary. The union can take it to court and waste money. Al they will do is to scare off the hard working dedicated employees who agree, security mattes. They have the right for security investigations and if the individual cannot pass, FIRE THEM!

  Frank Livingston, EFO Posted June 8, 2007 10:47 AM
• 25188
  

  As a suitability adjudicator with a major federal agency, I was ineterested in the perceptions posted here.We are very careful not to disclose any information to anyone don't absolutely have to. When an issue comes up, we always contact the employee on a confidential basis in the first instance and generally don't even let the employee's supervisor know there may be an issue so as not to violate the employee's privacy. I have found when it comes to inital suitability (employee entering on duty)it is much better to fully investigate the issues up front rather than wait until the employee has passed the probationary period.A large number of these issues could have been overcome had the employee just disclosed the things they were required to disclose on the security forms. For continuing suitability (employees already on duty)even if there may be an issue, the agency still must be prepared to draw the nexus between the issue and the employee job duties.

  Barry Posted June 8, 2007 9:42 AM
• 25103
  

  Funny, most of us have certain subjects we pay more or less attention to. Some articles generate tons of responses mere minutes after "publishing" and others squeak by without a peep. I've watched a number of "battles" of wills and philosophies here; seen personal attacks waged back and forth. I've heard rants and raves, input from non-typists evidently without access to spell checkers, lofty laureates lauding loudly, and apparent bumpkins boasting briefly. In the heat of battle, I've even "spoken" what I should have edited. Yes, I too am guilty.

  But I know people will be people. I know the most prolific responses are due to the most contentious topics. For those pointing fingers, knocking reputations, and belittling opinions and experiences; I say "Fine." Express yourselves, we ask your opinions, but know that no one is omnipotent and others may have opposing views and still some validity. The simplest minds can have startling insight. We live not in a world of black and white but in all the colors and the shades of the rainbow.

  Since I found this forum I've also found a number of others; but seldom have I seen one with as open a policy for allowing discussions to wager back and forth as freely as I have here, or such a knowledgeable group of readers. At first I thought these responses to be in vain, cast upon the winds or to fall upon deaf ears if heard at all; but I've seen some responses and retorts that showed me some of the high and mighty do actually see these and listen, if only to a certain degree or in self-defense.

  I've noticed that in topics of the DHS, union actions, and NSPS implementation the opposing camps seem firmly entrenched. I ask for considerations from both sides; those who feel the need for what they perceive as improvement and progress and those who feel threatened and, to an extent, frightened. I ask that we all continue to consider the opposing views because otherwise all this boils down to a bubbling cauldron of hate and distrust; and we can not communicate from that vantage point.

  Strong emotions such as anger, disgust, and fear are most often seen during times of change. And if you wish any of this to change, you're going to have to listen sometime or someplace.

  Tip off Posted June 7, 2007 10:13 AM
• 25023
  

  I have been with the government for 31 years. I did have a background check when I was first hired.

  I do think that new folks need a background check. Maybe even us old timers because security needs have changed greatly and the government may have employees who would not pass today.

  The issue is what to do with those employees who are career employees and failed a background check maybe because they have a bad credit rating.

  Dovey Posted June 6, 2007 3:23 PM
• 25020
  

  Oh, yeah--watch out for shady background checks and political witch hunts. But union lawyers helping poor performers to hold tight to the federal teat, why, that's perfectly okay. And using union dues to support democrat candidates--that's okay, too. Speaking of using background checks to do some political vetting (only a shifty union steward would think of that)--maybe if they did, it would bring some balance to a liberal government workforce that doesn't represent America!

  Ron Elglish Posted June 6, 2007 2:55 PM
• 25014
  

  boo hoo nobody. Problem is the investigations are abused and can be used to terminate anyone at anytime, regardless of service time, etc. My agency did that. It can happen to anyone. I read the 5CFR code that governs security clearances and should be adhered to. I don't want my supervisor to be able to read all my medical records, etc. which in some cases can happen. Bankruptcy can be used against a long time employee, and has nothing to do with "continuing financial irresponsibility" cited in 5CFR. YOu may have nothing to hide, but your agency can make up anything.

  pam j Posted June 6, 2007 2:08 PM
• 25005
  

  I have worked with the Gov. 30 years and don't remember having a background check. I am also a NFFE member. I'm glad to hear background checks are being done. I look at it as clearing me since I have nothing to hide. I want to know if I'm working with people who want to blow me or my family up. As far as ethnic checks I want the ones known for wanting to blow me and my family up more carefully scrutinized. I know thats not PC just common sense.

  Rick Jacobs Posted June 6, 2007 12:57 PM
• 25004
  

  I have seen this behavior before, while on active duty, and as a Federal employee. I work in HR so I see alot of interesting people "get through the check" that Absolutely should not have, example: A food service worker still on probation for a drug dealing conviction. And to top it off he will be working at one of our esteemed military academies coming into contact with cadets on a daily basis.

  RS Posted June 6, 2007 12:54 PM
• 25003
  

  This article is confusing, but it seems to me the issue is not the security checks themselves, but that those conducting the investigations are (sometimes) contractors who have not gone through background checks themselves; that no one is willing to say what criteria are being used to deny someone a badge; and that it's not clear what safeguards are in place to protect the very private information that is being gathered. Recent history suggests the government and its contractors are not very good at keeping this kind of data safe.

  Barbara Posted June 6, 2007 12:48 PM
• 25002
  

  This sounds like a great opportunity to do a mass purge of professional civil service employees who happen to be registered to vote as Democrats (but of course we know how the Republican administration would never be caught doing anything like that, yeah).

  I'm glad I've already retired.

  Just watch the mass exodus (brain drain) as others decide it's better to retire now than risk being terminated because of a corrupt administration.

  Angela Posted June 6, 2007 12:47 PM
• 24996
  

  As a former naval officer, you may want to spell check your words before you send them out. You also may not want to brag, since the Navy is suffering in many mandated areas. I know, I worked for them for 25 years. As a life long government employee, married to a Marine Officer, and raised by an Air Force dad with a mother who retired from civil service after 30 years, and a brother who recently retired from the AF and went right back to work for the goverment as well as a Viet Nam vet with muliple illness not found in our family history, I PERSONNALLY DON'T WANT MY MEDICAL INFORMATION, NOR THAT OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS, ANYWHERE EXCEPT WITH OUR DOCTORS. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. However, everyone in my family has been sent 2 or more letters in the past year indicating that our names/SSN's may have been compromised. I'm paying to keep my information safe. Last time I checked, that wasn't in my contract!!

  nolalive Posted June 6, 2007 12:29 PM
• 24993
  

  This is USA, not Venezuela, and we have every right to know what info they want and why they want it. Sure we are held to higher standards, but a little more "sitting at the table" and a little less "pushing out of the way" goes a long way to showing loyalty to those who give their all to their employers. The same union that some criticize for protecting the worker is the same union that brought you the 5 day work week and the same union that MANAGEMENT is known to turn to to resolve problems with COLA,locality pay, and issues with lower tax rates not being reflected in the take home salary of themselves! The union is being responsible in this, I applaud them. My only question is this - what is management hiding by not sharing why they want this info? In Havana they can get away with this. Not here.

  Bruce Posted June 6, 2007 12:11 PM
• 24990
  

  As the song goes, "Here we go again..." Only this time I must apply it to myself and that Devil's Advocate in me. I've been thinking about this and my first thought was "What in the world?"

  Please let me explain. Being retired military, I must agree with MOST of the posts here in and ask, "What is the problem?" I agree that we must be held to a higher standard. Practically every military and most civilians have been to briefings that identified key indicators of personnel who may be susceptible to coercion by foreign powers as political ideologues, individuals with overseas families, disgruntle employees, and those having financial difficulties. And recent terrorist plot exposés have solidified, in my mind, the need for vetting all personnel with access to federal facilities.

  But ... (and here, for me, is the rub), "the Devil IS in the details". The problems that come to my mind are:

  1. As someone else asked previously, "What happen to the original files?" This extends to "Will we be getting news shortly on more personal data losses?"

  2. Logic says that same ID requirement will extend this review beyond the organization mentioned, so "Do we have the resources to do this?" We've had trouble getting initial NACs completed.

  3. And most importantly, "Can adverse determinations be appealed?" What if an initial determination is faulty?

  My concern is that in today's atmosphere as exhibited by the DOJ firings, the statements and actions of the GSA leader Ms. Doan, and the on-going appeals in GAO that these investigations made be used in a less-than-above-board manner. My confidence is sufficiently shaken by this Administration and their attempts to gain ever more unreasonable and inexorable control over the non-political civil servant that this appears to have a great potential for abuse.

  Perhaps it is mere timing, perhaps it is my unfortunate friend "Paranoid Pete" rearing his ugly head, or perhaps it is just the accumulation of numerous perceived assaults on that which made the civil servant an unbiased, impartial, and nonpolitical defender of the realm and Constitution.

  Whatever, as I said, "the Devil IS in the details".

  Tip off Posted June 6, 2007 11:59 AM
• 24983
  

  I just had a background check and have been employed for 29 years. Not a big deal, just a bother. Unions have taken down the auto industry and our education system, guess now they just want to finish the job.

  VA Carl Posted June 6, 2007 11:23 AM
• 24982
  

  What's the big deal? When I was hired 25+ years ago, I was required to undergo a background investigation to determine my suitability for employment with the federal government. In addition, I am also required to have an updated background investigation every 5 years due to the nature of my job as a federal law enforcement officer. Unless you have something to hide, I don't see why any federal employee would object to this policy, which helps to maintain the integrity of the federal workforce.

  Senior Special Agent Posted June 6, 2007 11:21 AM
• 24972
  

  I don't understand why "racial", ethnic and medical backgrounds are required, but just because I don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. The right thing to do is to ask that the data request be justified and only if the request can't be then fly off the handle. As federal worker I expect to be held (and try to live up to) a higher standard and every day I am required and choose to give up part of my right to privacy for the priviledge of working for one of the best employers around (NAVAIR). I seem to recall a recent case of some pizza deliverer having free rein of a federal facility and using the info gathered to plan violence agaisnt U. S. citizens. The only defense we have is to try to id those cooks before giving them access. As a federal employee I am more of a target than the general population and these security requirements enhance my personal security as well.

  bill t Posted June 6, 2007 10:18 AM
• 24971
  

  Makes one wonder what they are trying to hide. As a formere naval officer adn now a government support contractor I don't see any problem having my background checked, or providing a urine sample or whatever it takes to ensure the security and safety of our country. If you don't like the rules go some place else to work, I hear the fast food joints are hiring.

  George Heidenreich Posted June 6, 2007 10:14 AM
• 24965
  

  "Boo-hoo...our union members are being treated like everyone else." It is interesting the see public employee labor unions extend their obstreperousness beyond traditional opposition to performance measures and move now to security checks. For their opposition to the first, unions must now officially take a share of the blame for poor government performance; for this new obstructionism, they must share the blame for any union members' sabotage. For the rest of us the question is: will it be enough to blame them in hindsight, or have they sufficiently shown that they should be officially castigated and sidestepped in matters of national safety and economic health?

  Ron Elglish Posted June 6, 2007 9:43 AM
• 24947
  

  I have 33 years at USDA and have just completed the forms for a background check etc. and have been fingerprinted as "it seems that they have lost or misplaced my original checks". There are at least 5 other people in my agency in this state going through this also now. My neighbor called me to say he completed a form he received so I know that the background check is actually being done -- I am not that concerned about this except for the fact of where my original file has ended up, so much for privacy and security. I should probably take comfort in the fact that since I have reached 55 with over 33 years service I am now in the KMA club.

  Michael Dennison Posted June 6, 2007 8:22 AM
• 24942
  

  What background do the contractors have for investigating Civil Servants and government contract workers? Unless they are former law enforcement officers (government and civilian), they have no business doing these investigations. They also have no right to determine if a current employee is "suitable" to work for the government. That should be determined by the agency after reading the reports and interviewing the employee. I have worked for five federal agencies (IRS, Social Security, Department of the Army, BIA and State). IRS, Army and State conducted investigations; the one that "dug the deepest" is State. State conducts individual investigations every five years. Any change in circumstances can change the security clearance of the individual - or get them fired. All OPM has to do is request the current results of current Civil Servants to be included in the OPM official files. What office would oversee the government contractor "suitability"?

  Jo Ann Posted June 6, 2007 7:57 AM
• 24938
  

  I feel for these people. I have been waiting 4 years for my background check to be completed and have been with the Government for 34 years. 20 years active duty status and 14 years federal service.

  GD Posted June 6, 2007 7:28 AM
• 24930
  

  Security is everyones concern, however it must be tempered with a little common sense. When someone has gone through a divorce, and is struggling with financial issues it does not follow that they are a general security risk. Are we to assume that everyone who has slow payment histories is willing to sell out their country? If that is so, then the pool of available, qualified and dedicated employees is indeed small. It should be limited to known activities or sympathies demonstrated by membership to subversive or anti-american organizations.

  Thomas Rowley Posted June 6, 2007 6:25 AM
• 24904
  

  OPM should immediately be given the requisite statutory law enforcement authority and funding to more rapidly facilitate critical interviews and/or interrogations. This would greatly speed up the investigative process in the field.

  Eugene Posted June 5, 2007 6:52 PM