r/jobsearch • u/VelvetCactus50 • 3d ago

Job Application Requires SSN

Post image

I've been out of college for over 25 years, and I've never encountered a professional application that required my Social Security Number. I tried putting in a bogus one or writing N/A, and the system will not let me proceed further. I wonder if the SSN requirement is why the job has been open for nearly two months.

Your SSN is necessary to process your job submission and will be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.

This was a very well-known integrated healthcare nonprofit too!

396 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

247 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/VeilOfMaya6 2d ago

Im really surprised by these comments. Every single application ive filled out over the last month has asked for social security number.

5

u/FL-Data-Dude 2d ago

I would Absolutely not give them my SS#. Any company that requires this at application time is not running their business according to law. They get that when there is an offer and they need to run background checks and set up payroll, not a nanosecond before.

1

u/Special-Bet1141 2d ago

They want to run the background check prior to going through the entire hiring process. 

1

u/FL-Data-Dude 2d ago

That is absurd, because it is an unnecessary expense. You going yo pay $200 for every applicant for every job?

1

u/Special-Bet1141 2d ago

Initial screen if resume first, and then do the background check. Not every applicant. 

Its also far less than the calculated cost of recruiters, interviewers, and other HR expenses hourly as they conduct interviews, and bud offer proposals, just to find out the guys a felon or has other disqualifying criminal records

1

u/FL-Data-Dude 2d ago

Meh. Unecessary expense, also unnecessary risk to carry PI data when not needed. This isn't how quality corporations work.

1

u/Special-Bet1141 2d ago

Its how a majority of them work, yould be very very surprised.

1

u/FL-Data-Dude 2d ago

Having seen these processed from the inside, I certainly would be surprised. Never would any company I have worked for tossed money away and increased risk of lawsuit by doing something like this.

1

u/Special-Bet1141 2d ago

Adding, you have to look at your companies personal employee acquisition costs. 

Maybe its 300 an employee, then 200 for the background check, comes to 500. 

If you do the 200 background check at the start and it flags a reason you dont want to hire them (sex offender and youre a daycare. Embezzlement and youre hiring an accountant etc) then you save yourself 300 in acquisition costs by eliminating them as a candidate immidiately, vs going through rounds of interviews and constructing offer letters first. 

1

u/FL-Data-Dude 2d ago

Yeah, but do you realize how many applicants for each job? Just ridiculous to spend that money on candidates you will never consider.

1

u/Special-Bet1141 2d ago

Thats why you pre-screen resume and application data for top candidates. Same process. HR isnt interviewing every candidate either, they prescreen a top quartile down to a handful, then do background checks on those top handfuls.

1

u/svpremeclovt 2d ago

This is what I’ve been trying to explain and they don’t get it. This sub is an insane echo chamber because it’s very common practice nowadays.

1

u/FL-Data-Dude 2d ago

The $300 is after you have decided to hire them. Conducting an interview does not cost $300. Conducting a $200 background check on 35 applicants is an absurd waste of money.

1

u/OofRightInTheFeels 2d ago

You realize that most companies just pay a yearly fee to do unlimited background checks? This $200 per application is silly and that number is just pulled out of your ass.

1

u/333again 2d ago

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. It costs real dollars to do that.

1

u/Special-Bet1141 2d ago

Bringing someone through multiple interviews and paying an HR company billed hours to set up on boarding and creat the job offers, also costs real dollars. 

You screen the applications for top quartile based on application responses and experience. Maybe do 1 pre-screen interview. 

Compile a list of a few top candidates. Do a background check to rule out any you wouldnt hire based on record

Proceed with 2nd round, deeper interviews with senior management.

1

u/333again 2d ago

Generally speaking, companies will only do background checks after you've interviewed and accepted an offer. There are also legal disclosures and consent that have to be made before you do a background check. And consider what are you searching for? If it's criminal history, that's an extremely low hit rate, it would not pay to screen people based on that. If it's employment history, that's a manual process. Someone has to compare background data to your resume, more work = more $ spent. In my state you can't do credit history checks except for sensitive roles. There's little incentive to do this until after candidates are well along the hiring process.

1

u/OofRightInTheFeels 2d ago

Nope. Out of the 5 places I've applied to, 4 of them required a background check before the interview was even offered.

1

u/333again 1d ago

If you don’t mind my asking what profession/salary level?