Companies Must Adhere to Laws When Conducting Background Checks on Job Applicants

Wide Open Spaces

According to media reports, a certain food company recently sent a rejection notification to an applicant named Ms. Luo. After repeated communication, Ms. Luo finally discovered the reason for her rejection - she had a record of lawsuits and was previously sued. Experts point out that employers have the right to understand basic information related to labor contracts, but conducting background checks must ensure standard procedures, fair channels, and minimize privacy invasions.

In recent years, background checks (background investigations) have become a common process in corporate recruitment, from high-level executives to ordinary positions. However, some companies' background check behaviors have gradually deviated from their original intentions and even evolved into excessive exploration of job applicants' privacy and unfair judgments. From "lawsuit records" affecting hiring decisions to "lifestyle habits" being subjectively evaluated to lower salaries, and even marital status and social relationships being included in the investigation scope, background check irregularities are frequent, raising widespread concerns about laborers' rights protection.

The original intention of a background check should be to verify job applicants' professional history, education, criminal records, etc., which are directly related to their jobs, rather than conducting "moral judgments" on their personal lives. China's Labor Contract Law explicitly stipulates that employers have the right to understand laborers' information that is directly related to labor contracts, but this right does not extend indefinitely. For example, marital status, social relationships, and lawsuit records should not be included in background checks if they are unrelated to the job.

The Personal Information Protection Law establishes the principle of "minimum necessity," requiring companies to only collect information directly related to recruitment and obtain applicants' explicit authorization. However, some companies abuse their background check authority, even including job applicants' WeChat friends, consumer habits, etc., in their evaluation scope, seriously infringing upon personal privacy. Additionally, background investigation agencies may disseminate false information if they do not fulfill their verification duties, causing harm to the reputation of job applicants.

To curb the irregularities of background checks, we must take a multi-faceted approach: first, refine legislation. Labor administrative departments should issue regulations on background checks, clearly defining what information can be investigated and prohibiting the collection of sensitive data such as genetic testing or sexual orientation. Second, technical supervision. Using blockchain records to ensure that background check processes are traceable, requiring companies to publicly disclose AI background check models' logic and prevent algorithmic bias. Third, industry self-regulation. Background investigation agencies should establish professional standards, such as providing written evidence for negative information and setting mechanisms for appeal and review, to avoid subjective evaluations affecting report objectivity. Fourth, laborer rights protection. Job applicants should raise their awareness of their rights and clearly define the scope of background checks, promptly reporting or suing if false information is found.

Background investigations should be a tool for promoting workplace credibility rather than an "instrument of invasion" that infringes upon personal rights. As experts say, background checks should follow the principle of "minimum privacy invasions, necessity, and non-discrimination," ensuring that investigation behavior is both legal and in line with social norms. Companies must put aside their arrogance and return to the track of "limited knowledge" and rule of law. Only by safeguarding the boundaries of laws and morals can background checks truly serve the trust-building between labor and capital, rather than becoming a hidden shackles for job applicants.

This column article represents only the author's personal opinion