Security Clearance / Government Employment

[JustIceNow]

I don't read this particular forum every day so I only just saw this post.

The poster appears to be one of the many I have responded to, who assume that there has to be some giant conspiracy involved in his not getting the employment they want. It's GOT to be because someone is saying something bad about him. It can't be because someone else is as or more qualified for the position.

It never crosses their minds that there are more people looking for work than there are jobs right now. I don't do recruiting any more but my friends that do, report that they are still getting 300 applications for every opening. That means 299 people who apply for a position are not going to get it. I'm no statistition but I can figure those odds.

300 people apply for ONE opening - you do the math.

If you re-read my post the scenario is thus: I get many many many interested calls. All goes well even the money negotiations. Then security gets involved. I meet with them, they say they will conduct their check (whatever that is) and that they will get back to me. The last part is where I'm puzzled. They don't get back to me and when I call them my calls are not returned. I am more than qualified for the positions that I have interviewed for. It's not a matter of skill. I am currently working in a gov facility (non-SCI) making more than I ever have but I still want to know WTF is up .... hopefully a current or former SSO is out there and can enlighten us all. Thank you.

 

[cbg]

I've never worked in the public sector but when I was doing recruiting, I would do checks on more than just one candidate. I would always check on at least three of my top candidates. That still leaves two out of three who will be told that a check is being run but will not get the job. Still don't see any proof of blacklisting.

 

[JustIceNow]

cbg....That's all good and fine, but did you contact or return the calls of the ones that weren't selected? I consider that a professional courtesy. Of the 399 applying, how many make the face-to-face interview cut? If I made it
that far don't you think the firm would want to keep me interested in case they have another opening that I am a better fit for? Just FYI, I seriously doubt that there are anywhere near 399, equally or greater qualified, applicants vying for the positions I've interviewed for...just the TS/SCI alone
renders that amount of applicants unlikely as these openings stipulate that you MUST already have the TS/SCI.

 

[cbg]

And no one, ever, in the entire history of the world, has every submitted their application for a position they weren't qualified for, is that your contention?

Give me a break. Just because the job description says ANYTHING is required doesn't mean that no one unqualified is going to apply. You've clearly never done any recruiting.

 

[JustIceNow]

cbg.....when a job posting states that you must already have TS/SCI that is what they mean. Unless you are the inventor of .net or whatever there are not a lot of companys that want to spend the amount of money and time that it takes to get TS/SCI regardless of the technical skills. If an applicant responds to one of these job openings and it is not clearly stated in some way that that primary requirement can be met, any recruiter worth their salt would eighty-six the application and press on. You have an anti-thetical view of the real TS world.

active clearance + very little experience = job (seen it happen and it sucks...lots of people suffered)

no clearance + mega experience = probably no job (seen it happen and it sucks...potentially, lots of people suffered)

When these companies require a clearance they mean it. They have an immediate need and to get a clearance, especially now, can take up to
18 months. Sure, you can get an interim but then its back to the cost factor.

Bottom line. Already having a clearance is a heck of a lot more attractive to an employer or recruiter than not having one if one is required.

P.S. I've gone to job fairs where you had to have proof of an active clearance to get in.

 

[cbg]

"when a job posting states that you must already have TS/SCI that is what they mean."

I don't doubt that in the slightest. However, that does NOT mean that everyone who applies is going to already have TS/SCI.

I really meant it when I said that the job required a minimum of five years experience, but that didn't stop a hundred or so people who had less than five year's experience from applying. I really meant it when I said that there was NO relocation available, but that didn't stop people who weren't even in the US, let alone in my state or even my region of the country, from applying.

And every one of those applications has to be looked at at least long enough to determine if they have the qualifications or not.

Just because you've never applied for a job that you didn't meet the stated qualifications for, if that is what you're claiming, doesn't mean that everyone else in the world likewise hasn't.

 

[JustIceNow]

cbg....Your comparisons are really missing the point. It's easy enough to
substitute 3 years experience for the stated 5 years required or even relocation issues can be negotiated. What I am saying is that you will probably not even get to the negotiation phase when you are talking about a requirement for TS/SCI. The only thing that can be remotely negotiated is...is the hiring firm willing to foot a very substantial bill to get you cleared even before you have proven your abilities? Probably ain't gonna' happen. If a firm is going to clear someone from scratch...they will probably look within the firm vice outside the firm.

And even if the hiring firm were willing to foot the bill... the time that it takes for you to be given access to the client site is oftimes prohibitive.

 

[cbg]

Fine. Whatever you say. The whole world is out to get you and keep you from becoming employed.'

Happy now?

 

[HomeGuru]

Paranoid writer.

 

[JustIceNow]

Fine. Whatever you say. The whole world is out to get you and keep you from becoming employed.'

Happy now?

cbg....Maybe to my detriment, I'm still giving you the benefit of having intellect and will again respond. As I stated earlier...........I am employed....at the highest (monetary) level in my life. I'm just curious as to what transpired with some of the other prospects, subsequent to my interview with a particular agency. They seemed to disappear after their security people became involved. Prior to that, I have had other firms inform me, both in writing and verbally, that I was not qualified. No biggie...just up my skill set and press on. That's called maintaining marketability parity, and if there is something out there that's hindering that, I WANT TO KNOW......that's all. Is it a hairy wart on my nose? Tell me, I'll cover it up or have it removed....Is it my lack of skills? again, tell me, I'll improve them.... My concerns aren't complicated or paranoid....anyone thats in the job market should be concerned with what's making OR breaking them. geeesh!

 

[cbg]

I understand that you want to know. I don't blame you for wanting to know. However, none of the agencies or employers who failed to employ you have any legal obligation to tell you why you were not selected or on what basis you did not measure up and it is highly unlikely that you will ever be told.

 

[JustIceNow]

cbg....Okay, I can agree with that. Picture this...if you will. My resume has
been reviewed by a recruiter. They are very interested because on paper I
am exactly what they are looking for. I am called in for a face-to-face, not only with the recruiter but with the hiring and technical managers. Everyone is pleased with the interview. I have an appointment with the security officer to go over my sf86. I know that you can be disqualified at any point in the process, but if you make it to the security interview chances are you're in. After I've filled out all appropriate paperwork giving my permission for the security officer to conduct any and all necessary checks, I am told that someone will be in touch with me. Nothing happens, noone calls or return
my calls which makes me believe there is a security issue somewhere as that is how business is conducted in that environment. Question: What information is the security officer getting from his checks on me and how can I get my grubby hands on this same info and possibly begin mitigation procedures? Just FYI, prior to my attempt at access to subject agency, I had had 2 job offers (offer letters in hand) but my company countered their offers and I stayed on. Now I wonder if I had accepted either of those offers, which had a different agencies for clients, and subsequently been denied access if we would be having this dialog?

 

[cbg]

What information is the security officer getting from his checks on me?

How in heaven's name do you expect me (or anyone else) to know what information the security officer is getting from his checks on you?

and how can I get my grubby hands on this same info and possibly begin mitigation procedures?

Since we don't have any idea where the problem is (assuming that there actually is one) the answer to this half of the question is the same as the first.

All I can tell you for certain is that there is NO such database as you presume (i.e. one general database, accessable to all or even limited to all government contractors, where resides some "security problem" that is preventing job offers from being concluded).

 

[JustIceNow]

What information is the security officer getting from his checks on me?

How in heaven's name do you expect me (or anyone else) to know what information the security officer is getting from his checks on you?

A: That "anyone else" could be a current or ex security officer.



and how can I get my grubby hands on this same info and possibly begin mitigation procedures?

Since we don't have any idea where the problem is (assuming that there actually is one) the answer to this half of the question is the same as the first.

A: DITTO. That "anyone else" may know how to get to this information.

All I can tell you for certain is that there is NO such database as you presume (i.e. one general database, accessable to all or even limited to all government contractors, where resides some "security problem" that is preventing job offers from being concluded).

A: I can tell you for certain there is a database that is limited to government contractors SPECIAL SECURITY OFFICERS and other SSO's. They are assigned access ID's that identify them as bonafide security officer's and allows them access to certain databases. Try to get access to the security officer portion of the espq and you will see what I mean. I can tell you have never dealt closely with the TS side of the government. I will take my perceived paranoia over your certain naivete any day.

 

[cbg]

Fine. Have a nice day.