|
My wife is a Canadian citizen employed by Canadian Company Eh. Company Eh currently has a contract with American Company B, and my wife is currently working at one of Company B's offices in the US under an L1-B visa. She's been working on a project Company B has with Client C, but they now want her to work on a project for Client D. Client D has a very stringent vetting process for sub-contractors, and they want her to submit an updated background security check, including the past three years of income tax returns. My wife (and I) are both quite leery of just handing over such personal information, but on the other hand we can't think of anything nefarious they could potentially do with it. Company B has asked her today to provide the information to Client D by tomorrow. I'm inclined that she say something along the lines of "I'm not outright rejecting the request, but I need to speak to my lawyer first", and then actually speak with a lawyer. She's worried that if she puts up any resistance that they could pack her off back to Canada (which tbqh wouldn't break my heart in the least) and she could lose her job with Company Eh as a result. I personally think that any Canadian company who would fire an employee who says "I need to speak to a lawyer before providing you with personal financial information you may not be entitled to" would be opening themselves up to wrongful dismissal suits. Any thoughts? Tinestram fucked around with this message at 02:30 on May 4, 2018 |
#
?
May 4, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:44 |
|
|
If the company handles sensitive stuff they may do a more comprehensive background including financials to make sure that employees and contractors aren't unduly vulnerable to... outside influences. It could just be them being weird. I would frame that it is an unusual request so you are in the process of reviewing with a lawyer and if they can provide more information on what the information will be used for, that's fine. If you want to review with a lawyer get on that poo poo ASAP so you can have the process underway and it doesn't seem like you are trying to stonewall.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:If the company handles sensitive stuff they may do a more comprehensive background including financials to make sure that employees and contractors aren't unduly vulnerable to... outside influences. The client in question has had at least one widely-publicized issue with a contractor in the past, so your explanation makes sense. Thanks. In any case, the question has been put to bed completely by her direct employer, who has flat-out refused the request and also advised her not to give them her salary. He didn't explain why, but I suspect it's because Company B could potentially use that info in negotiating her billing rate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
runupon cracker posted:The client in question has had at least one widely-publicized issue with a contractor in the past, so your explanation makes sense. Thanks. Yes, almost certainly - that would reveal margin for her employer.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 16:56
|
|