process audit
Apr. 17th, 2008 08:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
adrian_turtleWhen I was studying quality engineering, I learned about the value of process audits. The idea is that if you want reliably good stuff, you need to look at how it's made, not just at how well it turns out. So if you want blue dye to use as a raw material, you don't just go to the dye manufacturer and ask for a price list, and a materials safety data sheet, and samples to test. If you can, you're also supposed to look at the dye manufacturing process, to see how well they wash out their mixers between making different colors, to see if they have good inventory control and record-keeping, and so forth. (For things that are complicated to manufacture, process audits can take a long time.) This reduces the risk of getting a few good test samples at first, followed by production material that is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
I am pretty frustrated and upset with the intrusiveness I'm seeing for pre-employment background check requirements. (I am not applying for jobs requiring security clearance.) At my job interview yesterday, I met with the HR representative after hours of talking with various technical people. The HR person told me about benefits (yay health insurance!) and how wonderful it was to work for this company because everyone was so friendly and supportive. Then she said, "But it's really hard to get in. I mean, before getting hired, you have to pass a background check, and a physical, and a drug test, to keep out-"
I interrupted to ask, "Do you mean you don't want people to work here if they're not in perfect health?" I sounded impossibly calm. (I wonder if that's what Bujold means by "bland" voices or expressions. I've never known what it meant, before.) She assured me the physical exam was only to make sure prospective employees were physically capable of doing their jobs. Like for a job requiring lifting a certain amount, the exam would check that. I nodded politely, not believing her for a second. She assured me they did not disqualify people for high blood pressure or anything like that. I didn't talk about the connections between disease, disability, and stigma. I thanked her for the explanation and asked about retirement savings.
I didn't discuss it with her, but I was surprised and not a bit pleased by the background check information. When I was interviewing with 2 companies and thought 1 required an intrusive background check and the other didn't, the world felt safer and more comfortable than interviewing with 2 companies, 1 requiring permission for their intrusive background check before the interview and the other asking for it later in the process. I spent a lot of time filling out the paperwork. It's not just a matter of giving them permission to search. I had to search for the address of the apartment where I lived 10 years ago, exact salaries for jobs going back to 1993. There's a "remarks" section, near the end of the application, where they invite the applicant to "Use this space for additional information: attach additional page if necessary." I was tempted to write something angry, or maybe a polite objection to the level of intrusiveness. Then I thought, "What kind of a quality engineer would object to a company attempting to do a process audit before spending a lot of money on something that may or may not be reliable?" But I really do hate it.
At least this one does not specifically authorize them to search medical records. Some of them do. "I authorize [potential employer] and [consumer reporting agency] to retrieve information from all personnel, educational institutions, government agencies, companies, corporations, law enforcement agencies, relating to my past activities, to supply any and all information concerning my background. The information received may include, but is not limited to, academic, residential, achievement, job performance, attendance, litigation, personal history, credit reports, driving history, and criminal history records...the report may include information obtained through personal interviews regarding my character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and/or mode of living." This all feels terribly threatening. "Mode of living" is traditional code for investigating sexual orientation. Is a company based on Massachusetts and California really doing that? Are they looking for information about depression or other hidden disabilities? They require a physical exam, too. And a drug test. In terms of tangible consequences, the worst that is likely to happen is that they don't hire me. (Grand larceny identity theft is fairly rare.) But that's not what frightens me when I fill out these forms. I'm afraid of having my pain and disability investigated by people who despise it on general principle, and afraid of being condemned by the ravings of psychos I used to work for. That seems a lot more intimidating than just having them hire somebody with more experience or more specialized skills.
I am pretty frustrated and upset with the intrusiveness I'm seeing for pre-employment background check requirements. (I am not applying for jobs requiring security clearance.) At my job interview yesterday, I met with the HR representative after hours of talking with various technical people. The HR person told me about benefits (yay health insurance!) and how wonderful it was to work for this company because everyone was so friendly and supportive. Then she said, "But it's really hard to get in. I mean, before getting hired, you have to pass a background check, and a physical, and a drug test, to keep out-"
I interrupted to ask, "Do you mean you don't want people to work here if they're not in perfect health?" I sounded impossibly calm. (I wonder if that's what Bujold means by "bland" voices or expressions. I've never known what it meant, before.) She assured me the physical exam was only to make sure prospective employees were physically capable of doing their jobs. Like for a job requiring lifting a certain amount, the exam would check that. I nodded politely, not believing her for a second. She assured me they did not disqualify people for high blood pressure or anything like that. I didn't talk about the connections between disease, disability, and stigma. I thanked her for the explanation and asked about retirement savings.
I didn't discuss it with her, but I was surprised and not a bit pleased by the background check information. When I was interviewing with 2 companies and thought 1 required an intrusive background check and the other didn't, the world felt safer and more comfortable than interviewing with 2 companies, 1 requiring permission for their intrusive background check before the interview and the other asking for it later in the process. I spent a lot of time filling out the paperwork. It's not just a matter of giving them permission to search. I had to search for the address of the apartment where I lived 10 years ago, exact salaries for jobs going back to 1993. There's a "remarks" section, near the end of the application, where they invite the applicant to "Use this space for additional information: attach additional page if necessary." I was tempted to write something angry, or maybe a polite objection to the level of intrusiveness. Then I thought, "What kind of a quality engineer would object to a company attempting to do a process audit before spending a lot of money on something that may or may not be reliable?" But I really do hate it.
At least this one does not specifically authorize them to search medical records. Some of them do. "I authorize [potential employer] and [consumer reporting agency] to retrieve information from all personnel, educational institutions, government agencies, companies, corporations, law enforcement agencies, relating to my past activities, to supply any and all information concerning my background. The information received may include, but is not limited to, academic, residential, achievement, job performance, attendance, litigation, personal history, credit reports, driving history, and criminal history records...the report may include information obtained through personal interviews regarding my character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and/or mode of living." This all feels terribly threatening. "Mode of living" is traditional code for investigating sexual orientation. Is a company based on Massachusetts and California really doing that? Are they looking for information about depression or other hidden disabilities? They require a physical exam, too. And a drug test. In terms of tangible consequences, the worst that is likely to happen is that they don't hire me. (Grand larceny identity theft is fairly rare.) But that's not what frightens me when I fill out these forms. I'm afraid of having my pain and disability investigated by people who despise it on general principle, and afraid of being condemned by the ravings of psychos I used to work for. That seems a lot more intimidating than just having them hire somebody with more experience or more specialized skills.
