Since I don't have a direct answer to your questions, i can only offer this bit of information: one of the largest insurance companies in the world conducts annual background checks on all employees. They send a notification to everyone when it occurs, so for them, it's SOP, regardless of your position with them.

@Taegost I can understand that. My concern about potential abuse was the fact that this company doesn't have a standard in place, e.g. yearly - it's random. And they clearly state that they do not have to disclose it to you or notify you. Plus, in this particular position, employees wouldn't have access to any personal or sensitive information.

Just a little side note: performing background checks do cost some money, they'll probably never use that "privilege" unless you give them a reason to. But I totally understand your hesitation to go along with something like that.

Would it have been possible to cross out the lines giving future permission & simply give permission for one time only? You were clearly okay with a single check and this would at least show if the company felt it important enough to fight over or not.

Consider if you started missing a few days, and then you were gone for several days with no communication. I might want to be able to check if you were in a jail cell during those days you were missing, whereas without ability to check that kind of thing, I would never know as your employer.

@Dragonel No, that was not an option. I made it clear that I would agree to a one time consent with the understanding that I would need to give consent for future checks when they were performed. No deal.

Honest question: If you are comfortable with them performing a background check now, why are you not comfortable with them having the ability to do it again in the future? They wouldn't be granted access to any more information than if you were applying for the position in the future. What sort of abuse are you looking to prevent?

What sort of abuse are you concerned about?

@DavidK I am not uncomfortable with future background checks. What I object to is giving anyone carte blanche to access my personal and sensitive information any time they choose to without letting me know. Even if the hiring company has no ill intent, that doesn't stop the 3rd party company or a rogue employee of their's from accessing such information at their will. And because there is no set timeframe or notification in place, misuse or abuse could easily go unnoticed.

For context, a secret clearance, passport application, and immigration process don't allow this kind of open-ended discovery. Clearly, the organization in question holds the door open because it doesn't trust its employees and past employees to play nice, (possibly as an admission they don't pay a living wage).

@Rich Actually, just last year the US government just switched to a Continuous Evaluation model for clearance holders

For me, consent to future checks would be OK, but the part about without notice would not be acceptable. I would want to know if they felt the need to pay for a fresh background check.

@Rich Certain licenses in our state (teacher, nurse, realtor, security guard, etc) cause a file to be opened in your name at the state police. When a name check is done pursuant to an arrest, incident or even a traffic violation, your file will come up, just like people who are convicted of a crime. Therefore, it switches from a background check "pull" model to an active notification "push" model. While they may not continuously do background checks, the effect is just the same.

Two jobs ago, my employer had that in its on-boarding paperwork. It was for a senior technology job with a company best known as a credit bureau. I found it odd, but signed it (I was unemployed). I was only re-checked after 5 years (which they did for everyone). But I knew at least one person who had been randomly checked 3 times (someone who was more senior than me). That company was big on on-boarding screening since one of their products did credit checks for about-to-be-hired employees. I figured I had nothing to hide, and the offer was good, so...

What I'm interested in, is what do you think they will find, in the future, while you're still employed by them, which they can't find now? The reason they do it like this, is common in retail at least in my experience - they can hire people, and if they think they aren't what they stated to be, then and only then do they run the background checks. It's cheaper/easier this way, as most people perform as expected, only the outliers are ever actually background checked and it's often them it turns up something extraordinary anyway.

Does "open-ended consent" mean it lasts beyond the end of the employment? And yes, independent of this, the point is unacceptable in itself - and that is not even related to whether you like background checks or not.

You can consent now, then withdraw the consent immediately after you join (or leave). Such clauses generally contain instructions on how to withdraw consent, usually in writing, by mail.