Posted by LynnNC on 11/7/13 12:16pm
Msg #491770

Just signed up for NNA background check

Can you believe the below from them?!



This notice is provided in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In conjunction with my application to the National Notary Association ("NNA") for certification as a Notary Signing Agent, Trusted Enrollment Agent, eNotary, and/or any other NNA certified Notary professional, I understand that the NNA will obtain a consumer report and/or an investigative report about me from a consumer reporting agency, Backgrounds Online, for employment related purposes, that will include information as to my background, character, general reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living, including but not limited to my motor vehicle and criminal records.

I understand and agree that Backgrounds Online will request information from various federal, state, and other agencies, including public and private sources which maintain records concerning my past activities relating to my driving record, criminal record, civil matters, and educational background, and which it deems appropriate at its sole discretion, including but not limited to, Department of Motor Vehicle records, criminal conviction records, Office of Foreign Assets Control records, Social Security Administration records, court records, and other Consumer Reporting Agencies. Such information may be requested by the NNA or on behalf of the NNA. Although NNA and Backgrounds Online will not consult with my former or current employers, this report may reveal information about work habits, civil matters, previous employment including oral assessments of my job performance, professional licensing, experiences and abilities, along with reasons for termination of past employment.

I understand that a copy of the report will be provided to me, free of charge, if I wish.

The report will be ordered from:
Backgrounds Online

Reply by Robert Wells on 11/7/13 12:21pm
Msg #491772

According to the latest news reports I have seen, the Obamacare Navigators didn't even need a background check. Go figure. A convicted felon could be "helping" you with your health care insurance, as well as looking at your personal information.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/7/13 12:59pm
Msg #491785

Robert, I don't recall seeing you post here before, so I'm going to assume that you're new here. (If I'm wrong, then here's a reminder that's probably overdue anyway.)

On the "Discuss Work" forum where we are now, political remarks are not welcomed. The "Just Politics" forum (see links above) is a free-for-all, where people can spout whatever beliefs they might have on any issue, but here we appreciate having comments limited to business related subjects. Not only that, it's the RULES. Offenders can get reported by other readers and eventually banned from this board.

Reply by LynnNC on 11/7/13 1:32pm
Msg #491791

Janet - You are overreacting

Reply by desktopfull on 11/7/13 1:35pm
Msg #491795

I believe that his comment is relevant to the discussion on background checking. IMHO, we are being raked over the coals concerning background checks over a marketing campaign by xyz because we are closing mortgage loans that contain personal information. The fact that someone correlates that the government won't require background checks and will hire criminals to handle all of your medical records, which contains far more sensitive information is relevant to the discussion and not political in nature.

Reply by LynnNC on 11/7/13 2:05pm
Msg #491804

I agree that Robert's comment was relevant to the discussion n/m

Reply by MAC/WA on 11/7/13 2:53pm
Msg #491820

I took Robert's comment as an example only

...unless he meant something else....

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/7/13 2:59pm
Msg #491823

Re: I agree that Robert

His comment was a statement about "Obamacare", requiring a certain political assumption for it to be relevant. Even at that, it was a stretch, imo.

Reply by MAC/WA on 11/7/13 3:25pm
Msg #491838

Re: I agree that Robert

His comment referenced a recent story about Navigators not having background checks.

Reply by Robert Wells on 11/7/13 7:49pm
Msg #491891

Did not mean to offend with my previous comments.

Reply by desktopfull on 11/7/13 8:08pm
Msg #491893

You didn't, and comment was revelant. n/m

Reply by BobtheElder on 11/8/13 5:34am
Msg #491927

Robert, you didn't offend most of us. Just certain vocal persons who don't care for political comments that don't match their own...

Reply by Belinda/CA on 11/7/13 2:02pm
Msg #491803

Relevant n/m

Reply by Sha/CA on 11/7/13 12:23pm
Msg #491773

I'm confused. You did this, Lynn? n/m

Reply by LynnNC on 11/7/13 1:35pm
Msg #491793

I signed up for the NNA background check...

...because about 10 companies that have emailed me in the last 2 months that they require it.

I have put it off until now and am sure that I have lost business due to my delay.

Reply by Notary On The Go on 11/7/13 1:38pm
Msg #491796

This is sad that we are donating to the very agency that

is turning against us. Maybe I have been lucky. So far I replied by email and they have all responded that I may submit one that meets the same criteria. Hard to believe our companies would be so different, since it appears we are both in NC.

Reply by desktopfull on 11/7/13 1:39pm
Msg #491798

I did the same thing for the same reason.

IMHO, xyz corporation is only in existence to devise schemes to pick the pockets of as many notaries as they can for as much money as possible.

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 11/7/13 3:05pm
Msg #491825

I've had 3 request send the request. I have moved all 3 of

them to my "Must Pre-Pay for Services" list of companies that I no longer extend credit to for signings.

I sent each of them a response that I was not a member of XYZ and would not become one, at my own expense, for them. I also mentioned the flippant attitude that Sterling officials seem to show towards the people that have sued them over their mistakes in background checks they provided others, and that I did not consider them a reputable company considering their attitude and the several times they have been sued for the same type of issue.

I told them that if they insisted on not accepting credible background checks from other credible sources, then I would not be able to extend them credit any longer as it seems that they are shilling on XYZ's behalf.

Reply by MW/VA on 11/7/13 7:05pm
Msg #491880

You did exactly what they wanted you to do--yield to the

pressure & give in. Did you sign that release form for FNF, too? That means your info can be given to anyone, and FNF has no liability.

Reply by desktopfull on 11/7/13 8:13pm
Msg #491894

Re: You did exactly what they wanted you to do--yield to the

No, I didn't sign the release. But I can't afford to go out of business either! 15 of my best clients requested/required it and I had no choice but to comply or go out of business. I refuse to cut my nose off to spite my face, I do need a source of income.

Reply by Anne McBride on 11/7/13 9:59pm
Msg #491913

Re: You did exactly what they wanted you to do--yield to the

Those who cave will eventually lose so much more. The release is dangerous and what's to come I fear is disaster.

Reply by MW/VA on 11/8/13 8:31am
Msg #491941

My comment was to the OP. Having the bgc isn't enough--

the signed release is required.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 11/7/13 1:10pm
Msg #491788

I wonder if they ran that statement through their legal counsel .......

RE: " ... along with reasons for termination of past employment." It was my understanding employers and/or their representatives, by law, are only allowed to verify "so and so" was employed by "so and so company" from whatever date to whatever date. Reason(s) for severance of employment not to be disclosed. Again, that was just my understanding when I was in the corporate world a few years ago.

Reply by jba/fl on 11/7/13 1:46pm
Msg #491800

I am glad you posted that Yoli - that is gospel to what I

knew to be in the past from HR experience. If a company doesn't want to be party to a lawsuit, they may verify that an individual ...... as you said. The operative word here: verify. Anything else is open to lawsuit....no personal comments about abilities, why, who, what etc.

This is against Federal law. Unless it has been changed recently. But I doubt it.

Reply by jba/fl on 11/7/13 2:01pm
Msg #491802

Some research - individual state laws

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter9-6.html

For example, Florida:
(Quoted directly

Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 768.095, 435.10, 655.51

Information that may be disclosed:

Employers that require background checks:

• reasons for termination or separation

• disciplinary matters

Banks and financial institutions:

• violation of an industry-related law or regulation, which has been reported to appropriate enforcing authority

Who may request or receive information:

• prospective employer

• former or current employee

Employer immune from liability unless:

• Information is known to be false or is disclosed without caring whether it is true.

• Disclosure violates employee’s civil rights.

Employer required to write letter:

• only employers that require background checks"



**So apparently, not Federal law, but state's law, so I will correct myself here from the previous above message. No phone calls, all by letter. I don't think that IC's are same category.

Reply by Anne McBride on 11/7/13 9:57pm
Msg #491912

Re: Some research - individual state laws

It says EMPLOYER.

Reply by Cali_RicM on 11/7/13 1:49pm
Msg #491801

In California, an employer can say anything that's "true".

However, we know that there may be different versions of the truth.

My HR friends from large tech companies will only verify start and termination dates, and salary.
Anything else, although may be truthful, is too risky should it cause someone to not get a job.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1050-1057

Reply by LynnNC on 11/7/13 2:10pm
Msg #491805

I recently signed up with a new TC that wanted 3 references

I contacted several TCs that I have worked for, and had to go to 8 before I found 3 that would provide a reference. Basically all the others said that they are please with my work, but all that they could say is that I have closed loans for them.

Reply by Sandra G Holland on 11/7/13 8:50pm
Msg #491899

Re: I recently signed up with a new TC that wanted 3 references

I have spent a lifetime in part-time, temporary, and self-employment. Many times, if I needed a reference, my supervisor was not "the boss" and was scared silly about the idea of putting anything in writing. If I ever needed a reference, I would go to people who knew me well, such as someone who had worked on a volunteer project with me, or a local politician I had helped. They would write nice letters in advance for whatever use I needed them. When I began doing signing agent work, it never occurred to me to have a reference from the companies. I haven't worked in this field very long anyway. What I did do, since the title companies sometimes asked the borrowers to fill out a survey, was to ask them to write something so I could get more jobs. They would write in my book. When I got the same request you did about background checks, I just sent in a few of the references from signers with their initials. They haven't yet asked for any more detail and I don't know whether they will. The signers, having met me, can give a whole lot of definite information about me as a person than can the people who have only talked with me on the phone. The borrowers know how I dress, whether I really am prompt and flexible, how I treat their children and furbabies, whether I am kind, impatient, or too businesslike.

Reply by jba/fl on 11/7/13 8:53pm
Msg #491900

That's smart Sandra - who else really "knows" us, personally n/m

Reply by Notarysigner on 11/7/13 2:11pm
Msg #491806

the company I worked for ( Large communications ) could only say whether they would rehire you or not!

Reply by Cali_RicM on 11/7/13 2:16pm
Msg #491808

That one is specifically a "no-no" as far as what anyone I've ever spoken with is concerned, but I've heard that one about 20 years ago. Their reason may be that they don't ever plan to hire anyone again, but it makes the person sound like the problem. That would get a lawsuit.

Reply by CarolF/NC on 11/7/13 2:21pm
Msg #491810

they can only verify dates of employment in California,

nothing else

Reply by Cali_RicM on 11/7/13 2:35pm
Msg #491812

Re: they can only verify dates of employment in California,

I don't think that's correct.
I think what you say is what they REALLY do for liability.
I'm not a lawyer though and don't know the law. Just pointing out what I read on California's web site.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1050-1057

But the law is here - see 1053

1053. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent an employer or an
agent, employee, superintendent or manager thereof from furnishing,
upon special request therefor, a truthful statement concerning the
reason for the discharge of an employee or why an employee
voluntarily left the service of the employer. If such statement
furnishes any mark, sign, or other means conveying information
different from that expressed by words therein, such fact, or the
fact that such statement or other means of furnishing information was
given without a special request therefor is prima facie evidence of
a violation of sections 1050 to 1053.

Reply by Notarysigner on 11/7/13 4:58pm
Msg #491862

why are you spending your time telling us about labor laws?

This issue was outlined in the OP.....and maybe a "paying" membership Will increase your visibility/credibility. IMO

Reply by Cali_RicM on 11/7/13 6:46pm
Msg #491876

Re: why are you spending your time telling us about labor laws?

Chill. Please.
I do not need to pay to be credible.
I do not need to pay to be seen.
Don't like it?
Don't read it.
I've said nothing rude or disrespectful, and I merely posted an official (not anecdotal) reference to what I stated.
Please chill.

Reply by Notarysigner on 11/7/13 7:40pm
Msg #491888

Message Deleted

This message has been deleted by a forum moderator.

Reason: Abusive

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/7/13 8:03pm
Msg #491892

James...seriously?? n/m

Reply by Cali_RicM on 11/8/13 1:29am
Msg #491917

Re: why are you spending your time telling us about labor laws?

I am sorry for you. I have not been rude or disrespectful to you, and I feel sorry that you feel the need to behave like you are. I wish you peace.

Reply by Matt_VA on 11/7/13 3:11pm
Msg #491827

In fact that's all most companies will even give for a job reference. They are all afraid of being sued. I'm thinking that is all any bgc can get as well.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/7/13 3:13pm
Msg #491828

Many states have laws in place...where previous employers

have to be careful of what they say so they're not accused of "blackballing" the employee.

Reply by Cali_RicM on 11/7/13 4:57pm
Msg #491861

Re: Many states have laws in place...where previous employers

Correct.
While a company is legally allowed to say anything "true", it's a completely unnecessary risk for them to take. This is why many of my HR friends will only confirm dates and salary.

Reply by Christine/OK on 11/7/13 5:17pm
Msg #491865

Interestingly, William Anderson XYZ posted a declaration

two days ago on LinkedIn at: http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&type=member&gid=112982&item=5801818731805945856&commentID=5803575305264185344&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_pd-pmr-cn&fromEmail=&ut=14u7267zMIVRY1#commentID_5803575305264185344

Verbatim:

"With our background screening program, we purposefully do not have access to the full information in your background check. The only information we obtain from our provider is whether you passed. If a company wants your full background check, we instruct our members that they must go to the background screening vendor’s website to obtain the full background screening report for themselves and then provide it to the company requesting it. "

Reply by desktopfull on 11/7/13 7:33pm
Msg #491886

He should read their contradictory Privacy Statement that

says the info will be made available at their other website signingagent.org. Looks like the right hand doesn't know what left hand is doing at xyz.

Reply by Stoli on 11/7/13 5:47pm
Msg #491871

Oh, paleeez, Janet. You support the XYZ--most don't. n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/7/13 9:40pm
Msg #491908

ROFLMAO!! Where did U get that idea? Or wrong name?? n/m