Argthtjtr

As a European, I don't think you overreacted in the slightest!

When they say "it is never abused", my reaction is "they would say that, wouldn't they?". Further, they may not abuse it now, but what about later when they have been taken over by a less benevolent organization.

Given that you don't need the job, I think walking away was the right thing to do.

I admire you for following you conscience, and it is people like you that stop the gradual oppression of the working class by increasingly overbearing corporate America. OK, maybe I've gone a bit far. Anyway...

Yes, I would classify this as strange, given the industry and role, though I'm not from the US.

it is the company's policy but that it is never abused

That's, you know, exactly what one would say if they abused it.

Policy is borne of company needs, it isn't a reason it itself. If you were feeling charitable, you could have asked them why the policy is the way it is.

Whatever you do, it will come down to your needs. Maybe one day you will compromise on your morals, but hopefully you have enough opportunities that you never need to.

Consider the statement

it is the company's policy but that it is never abused

While "They would say that, wouldn't they?" is a perfectly reasonable (although somewhat cynical) response, it's not necessary to go that far. While the moment has passed, a perfectly logical response would have been

What part of company policy establishes the definition of "abused"? And what are the penalties if abuse occurs?

Refusal to explicitly define the company's power in this sort of situation is an open invitation to (ahem) abuse.

I have a medical matter that comes with a consent form. The form there, like yours, authorises them to contact "anyone" to check "anything", without time limit. (And, incidentally, not just limited to the medical matter, according to the strict wording.)

I did as you did. I declined - but in order to smooth it over as best I could, I wrote clearly in the blank space for the signature, something like "CONSENT TO BE OBTAINED IN WRITING ON EACH AND EVERY OCCASION", and signed that instead.

My rationale was that this way, nobody could ever argue that I had refused consent. On the contrary, I'd made it abundantly clear that consent could be requested any time it was needed. That, I felt, would put me on very solid safe ground if any unknown person in a back-office or higher up tried to put coercive pressure on me, or implied I wouldn't get what I wanted unless I signed fully.

Consent can't be consent unless freely given.

It was completely non standard - but I never had an issue doing it. I've done it several times since, and never had any hint of an issue any time - perhaps because it's so darn obvious what the issue is.

It certainly is odd, however one thing the other answers have not yet picked up on is that in some industries, repeated background checks are the norm and sometimes even mandated. However in such cases the rate of such checks being "at the company's discretion" is not normal at all.

Most places (and legislations) that require repeated background checks usually specify a fixed rate of when they happen (annually, once every six months). It seems that this company has taken a leaf out of the tech industry's approach to client contracts (i.e: in exchange for accessing this service, you have to agree to a completely unreasonable set of conditions that is totally one-sided in the provider's favour). You did the right thing in turning it down.

Your decision was right.

Background checks are something normal for a hiring process but giving consent for continuous background checks is unusual and concerning.

When I was hired I had to agree to one background check with the possibility for more background checks in the future but only with notification and me giving consent to each individual check.

But those additionally checks are understandable as my employer does have running contracts with military and government institutions, a lot of patents and I do have access to a lot of information.

Is this common practice nowadays? Did I over-react?

Background checks are not cheap and employers are seldom eager to run them more than necessary.

This is not uncommon though; it's standard in my industry and I'd be surprised if this wasn't part of boilerplate American employment contracts in 2019 (right up there with mandatory arbitration and non-competes). In unilateral contracts where you don't have your own attorney challenging the terms, they are always written so the house reserves and retains all rights to maximize their chances of winning in a dispute.

the next level manager basically saying that it is the company's policy but that it is never abused and asking me to reconsider.

The purpose of this clause is to find cause to qualify/disqualify you for promotions or continued employment. It exists to be used or abused in any way the employer sees fit.

Consider these scenarios:

• You falsely claim you have degree X from university Y. The verification vendor used in 2019 may not detect this, so you are hired. The company wants the right to revalidate your background with new data in 2059 before promoting you to management/senior management. After 40 years working for the company, they discover your fraud and terminate you instead of promoting you.


• You are hired in 2019 to distribute coupons. In 2022, you are arrested for DUI. In 2024, you are looking to move into a position that involves driving for the company. The company re-verifies your background and the arrest for drunk driving surfaces. Though unfair (no conviction!), the company may not want to accept that risk. No promotion for you.


• Regardless of at-will employment status, the company wants to fire you, lack cause and don't want to pay severance or raise their unemployment insurance premium. They run your background, uncover some misdemeanor arrest/conviction for shoplifting or domestic abuse that occurred after you were hired and use "ethics violations" or "workplace safety" as cause for termination. Being fired for cause (as opposed to laid off) generally disqualifies you from collecting unemployment. Laws against this vary by state, as will your success in challenging such a termination.