? regarding MVR disclosure

[gwm65]

What is the name of your state? Texas --- I had recently submitted my resume via email to a company. This company then called me and conducted a phone interview. The company decided to hire me over the phone, but asked for my D.L.# and D.O.B. info over the phone. I gave them the info. A couple of days later, they again called me and told me they could not hire me because my driving record came back as "not approved." I never signed a consent form for them to check my MVR. After this occurred, I noticed that I had simply overlooked that my license had recently expired. It has now been renewed. I called the company back and informed them that my license was now current. I would assume that if there was anything negligible on my MVR, other than it being expired, they would not bother to run a second check. They did run a second check and it, too, came back as "not approved." They stated that it may take time for the records to update. My questions are: Isn't the company required by law to obtain my written consent before checking my driving records?....and....Isn't the company required by law to provide me a copy of the driving record prior to making any adverse hiring decisions? If so, what is my legal recourse? I think the company uses a third party to check these records, but I am not positive of that. Thank you for your time and assistance.

 

[cbg]

If they do not use a third party to perform a background check, they do not need your written permission and they do not need to provide you with a copy of whatever record they used to make the decision.

I don't mean to be rude, but if your only contact with them has been over the phone and by e-mail, how would you know whether they use a third party or not?

 

[gwm65]

If they do not use a third party to perform a background check, they do not need your written permission and they do not need to provide you with a copy of whatever record they used to make the decision.

I don't mean to be rude, but if your only contact with them has been over the phone and by e-mail, how would you know whether they use a third party or not?

I do not know for sure, but for the purposes of my question here, let's assume that they did use a third party.....now can you answer my questions, please? That's what I came here for. Thank you. .....Also, cbg, I am curious as to your specialty....i.e....attorney? HR Manager? I am guessing HR Manager. .......just checked your profile....HR Consultant....figures....I know it's hard , but try to present an unbiased answer.....you know, not tilted towards the management point of view. Thank you.

 

[cbg]

If they did use a third party, they have to get your written permission. If they didn't, they don't.

Please explain to me how this answer is biased in favor of the employer.

 

[gwm65]

If they did use a third party, they have to get your written permission. If they didn't, they don't.

Please explain to me how this answer is biased in favor of the employer.

This answer is not biased, but your "don't mean to be rude" question shows you are obviously biased towards the employer. Let me try again to extract an answer from you: What is my recourse since they did not get my written permission or provide me a copy? (Again, we are still assuming that they DID use a third party.) Thank you.....Also, your lack of an answer yet to this question, asked in my original post, shows you are biased towards the employer, in my opinion.

 

[cbg]

Since you are so certain that my answer is going to be biased regardless of what I say, I decline to respond further.

I see no reason why I should provide you with a "biased" answer. Maybe someone else will come along whose responses you like better.

 

[gwm65]

Since you are so certain that my answer is going to be biased regardless of what I say, I decline to respond further.

I see no reason why I should provide you with a "biased" answer. Maybe someone else will come along whose responses you like better.

You cannot take criticism, can you? I'm not "certain," as you state, that you are going to provide a biased answer. I am just stating the facts thus far in our correspondence, as I see them. You knew the question I wanted answered the whole time, but you just continued to beat around the bush. And your continued refusal to answer my simple question does nothing but reinforce the fact that you are, indeed, biased. If you cannot answer my simple question, without getting defensive, then you should kindly excuse yourself from EVER giving advice on this site again. Seriously.

 

[cbg]

I am damned good and sick of being accused of being biased because I work in HR. HR employees are still employees - why the hell would we always answer in favor of the employer to spite ourselves? I am also damned good and sick of being held responsible for what the law says. I don't write the law; I simply tell you what it says. Yes, I know what answer you want to hear, but the facts in your post don't support your being given that answer. Without some evidence of a third party use, you have nothing but assumptions and the law doesn't work on assumptions.

If that's being defensive, so be it. I try to be courteous to you and you twist it around to "prove" I'm biased. But YOU'RE not biased at all, are you? You're making assumptions all over the place, but I'M the one whose biased because I won't blindly tell you what you want to hear.

Good luck getting your answer.

 

[gwm65]

I am damned good and sick of being accused of being biased because I work in HR. HR employees are still employees - why the hell would we always answer in favor of the employer to spite ourselves? I am also damned good and sick of being held responsible for what the law says. I don't write the law; I simply tell you what it says. Yes, I know what answer you want to hear, but the facts in your post don't support your being given that answer. Without some evidence of a third party use, you have nothing but assumptions and the law doesn't work on assumptions.

If that's being defensive, so be it. I try to be courteous to you and you twist it around to "prove" I'm biased. But YOU'RE not biased at all, are you? You're making assumptions all over the place, but I'M the one whose biased because I won't blindly tell you what you want to hear.

Good luck getting your answer.

You are unbelievable. We are not in a court of law. This is a forum, remember? I asked for your opinion if certain conditions were to be true. Scenarios? Ever heard of them? I think you need to reexamine your whole analysis of the situation. By the way, I now know for FACT that a third party was used, yet you still have not given the answer. Take a deep breath and a long, hard look in the mirror. I know it's in you somewhere. C'mon now, you can do it....

 

[gwm65]

Let me show you how your answers appear to me:


You don't know the facts yourself, only what I tell you. I tell you that odds are they DID use a third party.

You automatically take the side of the employer, only explaining what would happen if they didn't use a third party. Well, what if they did? (And, as we now know, they DID) I told you odds are that they did, but you only explain what if they didn't. You can't see the bias there? C'mon, quit kidding yourself.

 

[gwm65]

If they do not use a third party to perform a background check, they do not need your written permission and they do not need to provide you with a copy of whatever record they used to make the decision.

I don't mean to be rude, but if your only contact with them has been over the phone and by e-mail, how would you know whether they use a third party or not?

See? Here is your original answer above. It only presents a view in favor of the employer. A fair and unbiased answer would have included a paragraph such as....

"If they do use a third party to perform a background check, and they did not get your written permission, then your recourse would be to....."

You cannot see the bias? Or is it that you just don't want to admit it.....

 

[gwm65]

OK Here it is, plain and simple, (FOR SOMEONE THAT KNOWS AND IS WILLING TO BE HELPFUL, UNLIKE YOU KNOW WHO) please fill in the blank to the following statement:

"If they do use a third party to perform a background check, and they did not get your written permission, or provide you a copy of the report, then your recourse would be to________________________________________"

Thank you.

 

[longneck]

"If they do use a third party to perform a background check, and they did not get your written permission, or provide you a copy of the report, then your recourse would be to..."

...post an incomplete question on a free advice site, dislike the answer, insult one of the most respected members, and be summarily ignored by the rest of the community.

 

[jpritchett81]

...post an incomplete question on a free advice site, dislike the answer, insult one of the most respected members, and be summarily ignored by the rest of the community.

Pretty much....what a dork

 

[gwm65]

...post an incomplete question on a free advice site, dislike the answer, insult one of the most respected members, and be summarily ignored by the rest of the community.

That was a statement, not a question, dumbass. Dislike the answer? How can I dislike it? I never received an answer. It was obvious I knew about the "third party" aspect or I would not have brought it up in my original post. Never once has my question regarding my recourse been answered here. Or did you not read the whole thread? That's ok, I know to never use this poor excuse for an "advice" (what a misnomer) site again. I am resourceful enough to look elsewhere for my answer. My apologies to the few here at this site who actually provide helpful advice. I've looked around. I see LOTS of bias and ridicule being dished out here. Very little helpful advice. LOTS of people here who have no business dishing out advice; throwing in their two cents where it's not appropriate to do so. People seeking advice for possible legal problems with an employer should NOT be given advice by an HR person....who would have a natural bias for the employer. People seeking advice for trouble with the law should NOT be given advice by a police officer....who would have a natural bias for law enforcement. There are more examples here....shall I go on? This is called a CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!! Those of you who fit in this category should be ashamed of yourselves. But you are most likely the type of person who revels in another person's misery. That's why you are here spewing bias and ridicule. That old adage still holds true....you get what you pay for....which in this case is nothing. Good riddance.