ID problem

[Mrs_Ryan]

hi and thanx W.A.Y,

 

I did have a passport until recently but I simply havent been able to afford to renew it.

 

I also have a provisional driving licence so I can usually get around it.

 

I really feel for the OP... in this Big Brother day and age it seems like anyone without a passport or driving licence is ostracised... even day to day things like banking can be difficult for example if you need to withdraw a large sum of money most banks wont let you unless you have a passport or FULL driving licence! My best friend has the same problem as the OP. She has been unemployed for 2 years and cannot apply for a lot of jobs as she has neither passport or driving licence and cannot afford to apply for one.... its a vicious circle, isnt it?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

It is Mrs Ryan and it's not fair.

 

There should be no reason for an employer to not take the OP on as they can read his application form, contact his references, his previous employers, his old school and he obviously has a NI number as he is receiving benefits.

 

Even a migrant worker need only produce a (faked) passport if they are so inclined. Just how many employers would check up on this?

 

Pathetic really.

[Mrs_Ryan]

Oh tell me about it. I used to work in the banking industry and we used to get reports all the time of fake passports... usually the fakes are so good you cant tell the difference... its just a case the employer will photocopy the passport and thats it.

 

They even nit-pick with birth certificates... Im told that only a 'full version that shows the name of both of the holder's parents' is acceptable... what about those single parents who do not place the fathers name on the certificate, will they be barred from using their birth certificate in this case?

 

Pathetic. I know most employers dont want to break the law but in a case where the applicant is blatantly from the UK and can, as you rightly point out, prove that by other means, why should he have to prove it???

[Weird Al Yankovic]

You have hit the spot Mrs Ryan!

 

The thought that the very basic right to work should be determined by producing a document that I, or is proven by the OP, just do not possess is a disgrace and should never happen.

 

There has been talk of ID cards being brought in by the back door-what more evidence is needed if this requirement to work for UK nationals were the case?

 

The legislation is for migrants to claim a right to work. It is not for me to prove I am Welsh! Or you a Geordie!

[bed32]

Pathetic. I know most employers dont want to break the law but in a case where the applicant is blatantly from the UK and can, as you rightly point out, prove that by other means, why should he have to prove it???

If you can provide an infallible way of knowing beyond doubt whether a potential employee is from the UK then that would be sufficient and there would be no need to do any further checks.

 

However if say you decided to allow white people with obviously English accents in without checks, but demanded documentation of a non-white person with a heavy accent, then you would be guilty of racial discrimination.

 

If you used to work in the Banking industry then you will be familiar with the principle of "know your customer" that requires you to get a similar level of ID from all customers.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

If you can provide an infallible way of knowing beyond doubt whether a potential employee is from the UK then that would be sufficient and there would be no need to do any further checks.

 

However if say you decided to allow white people with obviously English accents in without checks, but demanded documentation of a non-white person with a heavy accent, then you would be guilty of racial discrimination.

 

If you used to work in the Banking industry then you will be familiar with the principle of "know your customer" that requires you to get a similar level of ID from all customers.

 

But that's like saying all elderly woman should be stopped and searched on the street in case they are carrying knives or firearms for fear of upsetting young males who are the most likely to do this. It's pc madness.

 

Employers have always carried out checks on potential employees and it is quite adequate.

 

An application for a job will effectively be a history of an individual and it will reveal schooling, previous work history, DofB, often place of birth and nationality, etc etc. Checks are then just made including references.

 

Are HR managers now suddenly so inept that they are unable to display any sense or judgment whatsoever?

[bed32]

But that's like saying all elderly woman should be stopped and searched on the street in case they are carrying knives or firearms for fear of upsetting young males who are the most likely to do this. It's pc madness.

 

Employers have always carried out checks on potential employees and it is quite adequate.

 

An application for a job will effectively be a history of an individual and it will reveal schooling, previous work history, DofB, often place of birth and nationality, etc etc. Checks are then just made including references.

 

Are HR managers now suddenly so inept that they are unable to display any sense or judgment whatsoever?

No - as indicated above, HR managers are following the explicit advice of the home office in the light of recent changes to legislation. If they did anything else then they would be exposing their company to the risk of action, either for employing illegals or for racial discrimination.

 

An application for a job can include anything the applicant wants to put on there. I don't think anyone has ever bothered to check on whether I actually went to the school I say I went to, and only once as anyone actually checked that I actually have the degree I claim.

 

Nothing you list above, even place of birth, is itself proof that a person is entitled to work in the UK.

 

Everyone who is eligible to work in the UK will be able to provide the documentation required. I don't see what your problem is with this.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

No - as indicated above, HR managers are following the explicit advice of the home office in the light of recent changes to legislation. If they did anything else then they would be exposing their company to the risk of action, either for employing illegals or for racial discrimination.

 

An application for a job can include anything the applicant wants to put on there. I don't think anyone has ever bothered to check on whether I actually went to the school I say I went to, and only once as anyone actually checked that I actually have the degree I claim.

 

Nothing you list above, even place of birth, is itself proof that a person is entitled to work in the UK.

 

Everyone who is eligible to work in the UK will be able to provide the documentation required. I don't see what your problem is with this.[/quote]

 

Obviously you have not read what this thread is about.

 

The OP is unable to do so as he had a house fire. Why do you insist that a piece of legislation that has nothing to do with him should prevent him from the right to work?

 

I too am eligible to work in the UK as I am a UK citizen. The legislation is not for me to prove anything. It is for migrants to prove their eligibility.

 

And just how will this legislation eradicate illegal migrant workers?

 

As a HR manager you will check somebody's passport. Unless you then make further checks, such as making sure the passport is genuine, then you still will not be sure that the applicant is not illegal.

 

Why are you prepared to check this yet you are not prepared to check that I am who I say I am on the application form? There would be numerous ways of doing this as it is a document full of personal information.

 

It's just bizarre.

 

Should two people apply for the same post at your company, with very similar experience and qualifications, who will you choose?

 

Are you afraid of an allegation of discrimination because you chose the man over the woman, the white over the black or the able bodied over the disabled applicant?

 

Can you not see how interpretations of legislation like you display just creates potential problems rather than just applying it with good sense and judgment?

 

And what of the future? Not only do you insist UK citizens have to prove themselves to be UK citizens just to work will you also insist that a UK citizen has to carry id with them after dark?

 

To go to a swimming pool? To buy weekly groceries in a shop? Catch a bus? Walk down the street?

 

It is a simple basic right to work, or at least the opportunity to, and it does not come with conditions.

[bed32]

Of course I read the posts - all the OP has to do is to apply for a copy of his birth certificate, that costs a few pounds and takes a couple of weeks, and ask HMRC, or the benefits, or a previous employer, to provide some documentation with the NI number on. That is hardly onerous.

 

The point of the legislation is to provide a way of dealing with rogue employers who turned a blind eye to employing illegals. By making them liable it forces them to take responsibility. However the Home Office have also laid down explicit guidelines as to what they regard as sufficient due diligence - namely the items posted earlier in the thread.

 

It is quite reasonable to expect people to prove that they are eligible for certain privileges that are not universally available. It is partly because we don't have to carry anything to prove our identity/nationality that these checks are necessary.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Of course I read the posts - all the OP has to do is to apply for a copy of his birth certificate, that costs a few pounds and takes a couple of weeks, and ask HMRC, or the benefits, or a previous employer, to provide some documentation with the NI number on. That is hardly onerous.

 

I agree, which is why I suggested something similar in my very first post.

 

The point of the legislation is to provide a way of dealing with rogue employers who turned a blind eye to employing illegals. By making them liable it forces them to take responsibility. However the Home Office have also laid down explicit guidelines as to what they regard as sufficient due diligence - namely the items posted earlier in the thread.

 

It is quite reasonable to expect people to prove that they are eligible for certain privileges that are not universally available. It is partly because we don't have to carry anything to prove our identity/nationality that these checks are necessary.

Again, I agree, to a certain point.

This thread was side tracked because the member sidewinder posted up legislation that specifically concerns migrant workers. One only has to read the title of the legislation to know this.

Sidewinder insisted, as did a trade union activist quite alarmingly, that every potential employee has to provide documents from either List 1 and/or List 2 to work in the UK.

This is simply not the case for UK nationals. Although if a company insists on this then that is up to them but it is not compulsory.

The OP has had trouble producing ID to potential employers.

I suggested that a recent utility bill and/or some documentation from the DWP, as he is on benefits, may suffice.

Sidewinder's posts were inaccurate and alarming as proved by Mrs Ryan.

I just fail to see how, as a job applicant, an employer would be unable to check my identity, to confirm who I say I am and how qualified I am too, as has always happened.

This is checking a persons ID, the OP's actual problem, not an eligibility issue.

 

 

...

[bed32]

I think you are missing the significance of the Home Office guidance.

 

If you follow their advice then you are guaranteed to have fulfilled the requirements of the law. Anything else and you take responsibility yourself.

 

This is not about checking ID, this is about the eligibility. Just proving that you are you is not the same as proving that you are eligible to work. As far as I am aware the only documents that do that are your passport or your birth certificate

[Sidewinder]

Correct.

 

Once upon a time such matters as eligibility to work were few and far between and a candidate could be selected on their ability or suitability without fear of sanction. "Sorry but we don't employ black people" or "you are too old" type attitudes were commonplace.

 

In an increasingly diverse population and with successive pieces of legislation, that simply will not wash any more. Employers may no longer for example enquire as to the age of people applying for jobs - merely asking for a date of birth on an application form can create a case for discrimination, and one can only ask questions about ethnic groups 'in the interests of promoting equal opportunities'. A job advert (with few exceptions) cannot also state that applicants must be 'physically fit' any longer for example. The public demand that only those eligible to work in the UK are allowed to do so, and no doubt the rules over checking have been further strengthened by the embarassment of HM Government after finding staff working illegally as security guards at government premises. Consequently they have decreed that only specific items of ID are sufficient proof. Yes the law and guidance are there to stop illegal working, but in order to uphold the law regarding racial discrimination, the Home Office recommend that ALL prospective staff are asked for ID.

 

PC gone mad? Quite possibly, but as a jobseeker, how would WAY feel if he was denied a job on the basis that he is Welsh, or asked to prove his ID when somebody of a different nationality was not? WAY may use terms such as 'Bizarre' 'Common Sense' and 'Judgement' but sadly that is not sufficient in today's litigious society. Neither is it a matter of the employer proving that the candidate has a legitimate passport - it could indeed be false. What is crucial and is the employer's only defence in the event of the applicant subsequently being proved ineligible to work and guilty of using false documents, is that the employer sought and obtained copies of the documents prescribed by the HO. This is an absolute defence - that all reasonable steps were taken in accordance with HO guidelines.

 

Lorry drivers never used to be fined for bringing immigrants into the country unknowingly. One used to be able to conduct substantial cash transactions. In recent years this has changed and the likely sanctions for doing so without following the guidelines laid down are draconian. Health and Safety is similarly 'Bizarre'. We have had to pay out substantial sums of money for employees injured when choosing to break company policy in wearing MP3 headphones in a warehouse and walking in front of forklifts. We still have an ongoing case of an employee getting paralytic at a Christmas party then falling out of a minibus laid on to bring him back. Also a member of staff deliberately disobeying instructions and injuring himself on a piece of equipment. As an employer we are potentially liable for all of these. Health & Safety law is being rewritten with a claims culture in mind, and the same is true for policies and guidance on preventing discrimination claims. An employer can by all means choose to ignore HO guidance and determine their own policy - guidance is, after all exactly that, but for any employer dealing with volume applications, this is a timebomb waiting to explode in a very expensive way. Smoke alarms and safety instructions are only there for guidance aren't they? Surely they only apply to people careless or incompetent enough to need them? Or should people only take notice when they get hurt or lose everything in a fire?

 

Not the potential employee's problem of course, but would WAY when asked to produce the ID which the employer asks for having got that all important job, argue that this doesn't apply and that the employer is incompetent, over-zealous, silly, bizarre etc because any fool should be able to tell that he is of course eligible to work in the UK? I wonder.

 

The Job Centre have suggested that the OP needs to have sufficient ID. They would be remiss in suggesting that he does not need this in the event that he is offered a job (or in order to gain something else). It is not good enough to suggest that he need not worry about this, but better to suggest the most cost effective means of obtaining what he has been asked for. If the former then only certain documents are acceptable. It may seem strange, but then so are a lot of things.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I think you are missing the significance of the Home Office guidance.

 

If you follow their advice then you are guaranteed to have fulfilled the requirements of the law. Anything else and you take responsibility yourself. What on earth is wrong with that? Are not HR managers meant to be responsible anyway? Judgment and common sense.

 

What is wrong with simply asking an applicant if they are a UK citizen or allowed to work here? Is that beyond the scope of anybody?

 

This legislation, like all others, is not the perfect solution to a problem.

A migrant has to provide a passport or a document issued to them that proves eligibility.

 

That would then need to be checked to confirm it is genuine.

 

Similarly, my personal details could be checked, maybe with HMRC, that proves I have a NI number. I would have already stated I am British, say aged 56, and the NI number was issued 40 years ago.

 

Why can't any HR manager conclude from that that I am highly unlikely to be a migrant? Therefore, eligibility was never even an issue.

 

Why do you insist on making it one?

 

This is not about checking ID, this is about the eligibility. But it is not! Read the OP's initial post!

 

Just proving that you are you is not the same as proving that you are eligible to work. Yes it will! Once an employer checks my history from my personal details they will be able to confirm who I am. Once they can confirm who I say I am they will know I am a UK citizen. Eligibility will therefore not even be an issue!

 

As far as I am aware the only documents that do that are your passport or your birth certificate Again, you have to recognise the issue here. Establishing who I am can be done in many various ways and employers have done that for years. Would a reference from a Police Officer, a Magistrate, a solicitor etc not be trusted? Cannot an employer contact my old school, college, previous employment?

Has this not ever been done in the past?

 

How do I apply for a passport in the first place? I have to prove who I am to the authorities to get this document so that I can prove to you I have a passport to get a job!!!

 

If I just produce a birth certificate then some jobsworth HR manager may think they are easy to get hold of so I have to provide even more!

 

And all completely pointless as I need not do so in any case.

 

 

 

 

...

[citizenB]

I am a little concerned that the OP doesnt appear to have stuck around to see what advice has been given ?

[Sidewinder]

As is often the case...

 

Stir things up, cause arguments then vanish!

[citizenB]

As is often the case...

 

Stir things up, cause arguments then vanish!

 

 

Aha.. I see, the underlying debate is interesting though

[MontyTheDog]

Thank you all for your replies.

 

I live in rented accommodation where my rent covers utilities. Therefore I do not have utility bills.

 

I note what people have written above, but there is a world of difference between "can" and "will". Yes, employers can accept other forms of ID, but whether they will or not is a different matter. So far I have found none that are willing to. The same goes for employment agencies.

[bed32]

Like it or not in today's society you will struggle if you don't have the basics to prove your identity. I couldn't even see a solicitor without producing two forms of ID! Similarly you won't be able to open a bank account or get a job - I am actually surprised that you can even claim benefit.

 

You are not going to change the system so the best thing to do is start getting the proper documentation in order. I would have thought one phone call to HMRC, or the Job Centre, will get you an official document with your name, address and NI number on - that will serve as a "utility bill". Then you should fork out a few quid for a duplicate birth certificate.

 

Unless you do you are likely to get caught in the "economic underclass" with no access to bank accounts and so on.