Is this as crazy as I think it is?

[Art Shirk]

I sent my resume and a cover letter to a small firm in the area and was told that interviews are only granted if the following form is signed, among other things. So, I open this thing up and find the following language. Anyone seen "The Firm"...creepy stuff here/ no booze? physical exam? honesty and personality tests? random future tests? credit check? personal investigation into friends and family?

APPLICANT’S STATEMENT & AGREEMENT
In the event of my employment to a position in this Company, I will comply with all
rules and regulations of this Company. This Company has a drug-free and alcohol-free
policy. I understand that the Company reserves the right to require me to submit to a
test for the presence of alcohol or drugs in my system prior to employment and at any
time during my employment. I also understand that any offer of employment may be
contingent upon the passing of a physical examination. I consent to the disclosure of
the results of any physical examination and related tests to the Company. I also
understand that I may be required to take other tests, such as but not limited to
personality and honesty tests, prior to employment and during my employment. I
understand that should I decline to sign this consent or decline to take any of the
above tests, my application for employment may be rejected or my employment may be
terminated. I understand that bonding may be a condition of hire. If it is, I will be
so advised before or after hiring and a bond application will have to be completed.
I understand that the company may investigate my credit, driving and criminal records
and that an investigative consumer report may be prepared whereby information is
obtained through personal interviews with my neighbors, friends, personal references,
and others with whom I am acquainted. This inquiry includes information as to my
character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living. I
understand that I have the right to make a written inquiry within a reasonable period
of time to receive additional detailed information about the nature and scope of this
investigation. I further understand that the Company may contact my previous employers
and I authorize those employers to disclose to the Company all records and information
pertinent to my employment with them. In addition to authorizing the release of any
information regarding my employment, I hereby fully waive any rights or claims I have
or may have against my former employers, their agents, employees, and representatives,
as well as other individuals who release information to the Company, and release them
from any and all liability, claims, or damages that may directly or indirectly result
from the use, disclosure or release of any such information by any person or party,
whether such information is favorable or unfavorable to me. I authorize the persons
named herein as personal references to provide the Company with any pertinent
information they may have regarding myself.
I also acknowledge that the Company promotes a voluntary system of alternative dispute
resolution which involves binding arbitration to resolve all disputes which may arise
out of the employment context. Because of the mutual benefits (such as reduced expense
and increased efficiency) which private binding arbitration can provide both the
Company and myself, I voluntarily agree that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy
(including, but not limited to, any claims of discrimination and harassment, whether
they be based on state or federal laws or regulations) which would otherwise require
or allow resort to any court or other government dispute resolution forum between
myself and the Company (or its owners, directors, officers, managers, employees,
agents, and parties affiliated with its employee benefit and health plans) arising
from, related to, or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with my seeking
employment with, employment by, or other association with the Company, whether based
on tort, contract, statutory, or equitable law, or otherwise, (with the sole exception
of claims arising under the National Labor Relations Act which are brought before the
National Labor Relations Board, claims for medical and disability benefits under the
Worker Compensation Act and Employment Security Department claims) shall be submitted
to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the Washington Arbitration
Act, in conformity with the procedures of the American Arbitration Association’s
current commercial arbitration rules. However in addition to requirements imposed by
law, any arbitrator herein shall be a retired Washington Superior Court Judge and
shall be subject to disqualification on the same grounds as would apply to a judge of
such court. To the extent applicable in civil actions in Washington courts, the
following shall apply and be observed: all rules of pleading (including the right of
motion to dismiss), all rules of evidence, all rights to resolution of the dispute by
means of motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Resolution of the
dispute shall be based solely upon the law governing the claims and defenses pleaded,
and the arbitrator may not invoke any basis (including but not limited to, notions of
“just cause”) other than such controlling law. The arbitrator shall have the immunity
of a judicial officer from civil liability when acting in the capacity of an
arbitrator, which immunity supplements any other existing immunity. Likewise, all
Rev. 12/12/03
Page - 1

communications during or in connection with the arbitration proceedings shall be
treated as privileged communications. As may be reasonably required to allow full use
and benefit of this agreement’s provisions, the arbitrator may extend any times set by
law for the giving of notices and setting of hearings. Awards shall include the
arbitrator’s written opinion and, at either party’s written request within 10 days
after issuance of the award, shall be subject to affirmation, reversal, or
modification, following review of the record and arguments of the parties by a second
arbitrator who shall, as far as practicable, proceed according to the law and
procedures applicable to appellate review by the Washington Court of Appeals of a
civil judgment following court trial. Should any term or provision, or portion hereof,
be declared void or unenforceable, it shall be severed and the remainder of this
agreement shall be enforceable. I UNDERSTAND BY VOLUNTARILY AGREEING TO THIS BINDING
ARBITRATION PROVISION, BOTH I AND THE COMPANY GIVE UP OUR RIGHTS TO TRIAL BY JURY.
I further understand that this voluntary alternative dispute resolution program covers
claims of discrimination or harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended. By marking the box to the right, I elect to give up the benefits of
litigating Title VII claims. [ ]
I hereby state that all of the information that I provided on this application or any
other documents filled out in connection with my employment, and in any interview is
true and correct. I have withheld nothing that would, if disclosed, affect this
application unfavorably. I understand that if I am employed and any such information
is later found to be false or incomplete in any respect, I may be dismissed.
If hired, I agree as follows: My employment and compensation is terminable at-will, is
for no definite period, and my employment and compensation may be terminated by the
Company (employer) at any time and for any reason whatsoever, with or without good
cause at the option of either the Company or myself. No implied, oral, or written
agreements contrary to the express language of this agreement are valid unless they
are in writing and signed by the President of the Company (or majority owner or owners
if Company is not a corporation.) No supervisor or representative of the Company,
other than the President of the Company (or majority owner or owners if Company is not
a corporation), has any authority to make any agreements contrary to the foregoing.
This agreement is the entire agreement between the Company and the employee regarding
the rights of the Company or employee to terminate employment with or without good
cause, and this agreement takes the place of all prior and contemporaneous agreements,
representations, and understandings of the employee and the Company.
If you have any questions regarding this statement, please ask a Company
representative before signing. I hereby acknowledge that I have read the above
statements, that they are true and correct and that I understand the same.
Signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, at
___________________, Washington.
DO NOT SIGN UNTIL YOU HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENT & AGREEMENT
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
DATE

[Big Blue]

ha, two words: Fuck That! Do you get a cavity search every morning when you show up for work?

[MarsB]

no booze

Is this a Mormon firm? Man, the Feds don't even scrutinize to that level!

[Art Shirk]

I am starting to wonder whether this is some sort of test. Maybe I am supposed to tell these people to shove it due to multiple privacy encroachments.

[leroy jenkins]

I am starting to wonder whether this is some sort of test. Maybe I am supposed to tell these people to shove it due to multiple privacy encroachments.

If so thats a stupid test, because a smarter person would just walk away, which is what I think you should do.

[Art Shirk]

If so thats a stupid test, because a smarter person would just walk away, which is what I think you should do.

Agreed. Even so, this was not foisted upon me until they received my contact information and a "deadline" was given for its return. As such, it is mildly possible that walking away would also be "passing" the test.

[Big Blue]

You could write up your own contract with similarly outlandish hoops that they would have to jump through in order for you to consider taking the job. Tell them that you'll sign theirs if they sign yours. It's only fair.

[Yeti]

I don't know how good the job opportunity is, but if you ask me, anyone who signs that agreement is a sucker. Represent yourself, biatch.

[The AD]

I am starting to wonder whether this is some sort of test. Maybe I am supposed to tell these people to shove it due to multiple privacy encroachments.

Yeah, if you sign it they'll tell you "Sorry. We'd never hire someone who'd actually agree to those terms."

[bklyn]

Is this as crazy as I think it is?

I sent my resume and a cover letter to a small firm in the area and was told that interviews are only granted if the following form is signed, among other things. So, I open this thing up and find the following language. Anyone seen "The Firm"...creepy stuff here/ no booze? physical exam? honesty and personality tests? random future tests? credit check? personal investigation into friends and family?

Yes, it's crazy. There are plenty of other employers.

Certain types of jobs may require getting bonded (financial industry, security among others). Some jobs may require extensive background checking including interviews with friends and family (secret service and high level govt security clearance). Physical exams for legal substances like alcohol, and broadly defined "honesty" tests are crossing the line.

Politely decline. I'd be surprised if they were attracting the best and the brightest with such restrictive policies.

[Shaggy]

Does the job require some kind of gov't security clearance? Background and character/friend checks are normal process for police jobs, and security agency jobs. But very odd in the private sector.

[Blatant]

taking a new job that has me on call 24/7. Can't really drink due to that and they do random drug/booze tests at that. No tolerance on it, governed by the dot and the ntsb. I comply or simply bounce.

The above however seems really suspect. What kind of job is it?

[ole2planker]

Sounds like a firm that practices employer-side labor and employment law. They probably tell their clients to do the same thing.

[TomK]

Sounds more like they want to OWN you 7x24x365, not hire you for your work hours. Slaves had more privacy.
I'd pass since it's impossible to work long term for such an incredibly nano-managing organization and maintain any sense of self-worth.

[Buster Highmen]

From the law offices of Ben Dover.

[ole2planker]

It reads more like Dewey, Cheatum & Howe to me.

[RootSkier]

On the upside, I bet all your coworkers would be real fun to hang out with. They are probably Ginger Ale conoisseurs.

[Art Shirk]

For some of those who asked, its just a regular run of the mill law firm. The rub is that I have heard great things about the place and I really want to leave my current situation ASAP. Also, the form looks amazingly generic. I am not sure that is was too thought out by the employer. Lastly, each contentious condition applies only after employment. As such, I can interview, figure out if these guys are fundies, and then bag out if need be. Sans the credit check. That will NOT be happening.

[shmerham]

How much do you think they're interested in you?

Maybe you should wait it out and see if they call you up and ask where the form is or setup an interview without making you sign it.

[Sinecure]

A great example of law firm attorneys who feel they need to do something to justify their existence. I used to sell software to law firms and they routinely felt obliged to make changes to the license agreement - mostly really stupid changes that did little or nothing to protect them, and in a few cases actually would have hurt them had there been a problem.

Most of what's there is straightforward, albeit ridiculously paranoid of any kind of litigation. A credit and background check is pretty standard these days and while very few firms do the neighbor interview kind of crap, you basically agree to that if you agree to a background check. The arbitration one, and its infinite detail is surprising. I'd be reluctant to agree to that, especially with a law firm who undoubtedly has a degree of familiiarity and at times a financial relationship with the arbitrators and arbitration firms.

Do all law firms these days do regular after-employment drug testing? Pre-employment makes a lot of sense to me, but if you aren't operating heavy machinery, what's up with the threat of tests after employment?

Since its a law firm, I'm assuming this was a paper document you are supposed to sign and bring with you at your next interview or at some point of the process. Have you consider striking all of the provisions you object to? I've done that before. I even did it on a job application. It was a provision I knew they were very unlikely to want or need to enforce, but there was no way I wanted it to happen. I struck the language from the paper document, initialed the strike-through, signed it and they never looked at it (it was on page 2). Had they ever undertaken litigation I'd have had them by the balls since they didn't have my consent. That was a ridiculous portion of the non-compete section which most likely wouldn't have been enforceable in CA anyway, but you get my point. Try striking any objectionable language and turn it in that way. See if they notice, and if they do, see what they say. If they take offense that you are trying to change a "standard" document, explain that its what lawyers are supposed to do. How could they expect you to be a top-notch advocate for your clients if you don't even apply that level of advocacy to your own situations? Then re-write it in a way that's acceptable to you and submit it.

I've also done that with absurd NDAs that tech companies have asked me to sign. Usually they send them in Word format so its easy to modify the agreement. I usually apply strike-through, rather than just deleting text so its obvious what I've done if they actually take the time to look at the doc. None of them ever do.

I guess it comes down to the question of how badly you want the job, and how likely you think they are to enforce some of the more objectionable parts of the agreement.

But I'm not a lawyer so my advice is worth about what you paid for it.

[irul&ublo]

A great example of law firm attorneys who feel they need to do something to justify their existence. I used to sell software to law firms and they routinely felt obliged to make changes to the license agreement - mostly really stupid changes that did little or nothing to protect them, and in a few cases actually would have hurt them had there been a problem.

Most of what's there is straightforward, albeit ridiculously paranoid of any kind of litigation. A credit and background check is pretty standard these days and while very few firms do the neighbor interview kind of crap, you basically agree to that if you agree to a background check. The arbitration one, and its infinite detail is surprising. I'd be reluctant to agree to that, especially with a law firm who undoubtedly has a degree of familiiarity and at times a financial relationship with the arbitrators and arbitration firms.

Do all law firms these days do regular after-employment drug testing? Pre-employment makes a lot of sense to me, but if you aren't operating heavy machinery, what's up with the threat of tests after employment?

Since its a law firm, I'm assuming this was a paper document you are supposed to sign and bring with you at your next interview or at some point of the process. Have you consider striking all of the provisions you object to? I've done that before. I even did it on a job application. It was a provision I knew they were very unlikely to want or need to enforce, but there was no way I wanted it to happen. I struck the language from the paper document, initialed the strike-through, signed it and they never looked at it (it was on page 2). Had they ever undertaken litigation I'd have had them by the balls since they didn't have my consent. That was a ridiculous portion of the non-compete section which most likely wouldn't have been enforceable in CA anyway, but you get my point. Try striking any objectionable language and turn it in that way. See if they notice, and if they do, see what they say. If they take offense that you are trying to change a "standard" document, explain that its what lawyers are supposed to do. How could they expect you to be a top-notch advocate for your clients if you don't even apply that level of advocacy to your own situations? Then re-write it in a way that's acceptable to you and submit it.

I've also done that with absurd NDAs that tech companies have asked me to sign. Usually they send them in Word format so its easy to modify the agreement. I usually apply strike-through, rather than just deleting text so its obvious what I've done if they actually take the time to look at the doc. None of them ever do.

I guess it comes down to the question of how badly you want the job, and how likely you think they are to enforce some of the more objectionable parts of the agreement.

But I'm not a lawyer so my advice is worth about what you paid for it.

A credit check and background check may be routine, but it is against Federal law to do so w/o the agreement of and notice to the potential employee. Same w/ all the med stuff too...HIPAA (Federal act on med record privacy) requires consent to use the results of any med testing. Also, w/ the exception of California, Washington probably has the most employee friendly state laws regarding the typical employment related claims. Since lawyers tend to do what lawyers do, I'm not suirprised that the form is used.

[Art Shirk]

I can't believe I entertained this for as long as I have. I should have round-filed the thing after the second sentence. I can't even have a bottle of scotch in my office drawer?

Thanks for the insight guys. I am going to respectfully decline.

[Tippster]

Call them and ask if that letter was serious or not. Then laugh at them until they hang up. Then call back and just laugh some more.

Blatant: They can only require you to be on call 24/7 if they're gonna pay you for it.

I wonder if this firm is doing this because that guy in Michigan got away with requiring his employees to quit smoking?

[Art Shirk]

Call them and ask if that letter was serious or not. Then laugh at them until they hang up. Then call back and just laugh some more.

Blatant: They can only require you to be on call 24/7 if they're gonna pay you for it.

I wonder if this firm is doing this because that guy in Michigan got away with requiring his employees to quit smoking?

The plot thickens. I spoke witha girl who interviewed for the position last week. She said that they sat her down and made her take a bevy of ridiculous tests at a computer kiosk. Then she was interviewed by some monotone lady, all the while, some rigid facker sat in the back with a copy of the constitution in his front shirt pocket, saying nothing the whole time. One of the questions: "If you were stranded in the middle of nowhere without a cell phone and were late for work, what would you do?" WTF kind of question is that?

Anyway, the legal community is fickle so I would rather not burn any bridges at this stage, despite the fact that my lawyer friends have all encouraged me to pull a Good Will Hunting moment. RETAINER!!!!! NO ONE IN THIS TOWN WORKS WITHOUT A RETAINER

[edg]

Reeee-Taaainnn-Errrrr! I love that film.

edg