"Former name" on employment forms

[Pinkfluff]

I didn't see anything related to this from searching so I thought I'd post a thread. What is the best thing to do when employment forms ask about "former names", usually in the background check section? I am afraid to list the name I was once called because I don't want to give them another reason to discriminate, but I'm also afraid to not list it in case they later find out and either deny or fire if hired. My government ID has corrected name and so do both of my college diplomas, but my high school records do not.

So what is the safest thing to do? What do most people here do?

[Ann Onymous]

It all depends on the manner in which the question is posed...and depending on the job, you can reasonably infer what level of background check might be performed.  Quite frankly, if I were to ever apply for something ever again, I would not list anything but the current name, but there is basically no paper trail to link me to a name I have not used for more than 20 years.

[Pinkfluff]

It's pretty much always the same manner, at least that I've seen. Either "former name(s)", "previous names", "names you have worked or graduated from school under" or something to that effect. I don't really know how accessible past government, educational and employment records would be to any future employers. Any with "previous name" are at least 7 years old. The store I worked at before name change went out of business a year later too, which I always thought was kinda convenient, though I'm not sure if the company is still around in one form or another or not.

As far as the job, lately I've been applying to pretty much anything, from a call center job to defense jobs, and also commercial software jobs.

[Arch]

When I'm not sure, I call HR (or the equivalent) and ask whether I need to put down a name I haven't used in 15 years. If necessary, I can explain that none of my listed job history and none of my college degrees have the old name. But, yeah, I worry about this a bit, too.

[Cindy]

I'm with Arch, I'd check with HR, I have to have a police check every three years, so it could be a problem in that sort of circumstance if I didn't reveal my previous name. Then again that information is (supposedly) totally confidential and should not be passed on to the employer.

Within the health system I work in we have the ability to trace people by name, and there is provision for not only name change, for any reason. But also for people who undergo SRS and have a name  and gender change on their health records. People with the appropriate clearance can examine that persons files, for legitimate health reasons only, but they are locked to anyone else. But you are never totally 'free' of previous history. I presume that applies to other databases as well. No doubt the motor registration databases log that Fred Bloggs changed his name and gender to female and her name to Paris Hilton on 1 April 1900.

Cindy

[Ann Onymous]

Within the health system I work in we have the ability to trace people by name, and there is provision for not only name change, for any reason. But also for people who undergo SRS and have a name  and gender change on their health records. People with the appropriate clearance can examine that persons files, for legitimate health reasons only, but they are locked to anyone else. But you are never totally 'free' of previous history. I presume that applies to other databases as well. No doubt the motor registration databases log that Fred Bloggs changed his name and gender to female and her name to Paris Hilton on 1 April 1900.

yet another reason to despise nationalized healthcare...or even any sort of nationalized database. 

I did confirm many years ago that my DL showed no traces of the former name.  Although you are correct that a paper trail will often exist for MOST people.  I lucked out in that I never had to go to court and did everything in a pre-internet age. 

As to applications, my experience was that they were usually asking about maiden names or former married names and that their feeble little minds rarely worked if you asked about anything else.  Since I have never been married, I never listed other names...I also know what will return on the standard clearance checks, no matter whether criminal, credit or other deep background. 

[Arch]

I knew I forgot something--Ann Onymous reminded me--whenever I'm asked about a maiden name, I leave that blank.

There are weird little advantages to being FTM as opposed to MTF. Once I was applying for a census job, and there was a field for maiden name. We were all filling out the employment forms en masse, so I went over to the facilitator and said, "I changed my name years ago; should I put that in the 'maiden name' field?" And the woman said that I should only give what I was asked for and that I "obviously" didn't have a maiden name! So I didn't put down my old name.

Then again, I got a perfect score on their test and wasn't offered a job. But this was the last round of census jobs, and my application processing was delayed a few days because my Selective Service letter hadn't arrived yet. Those few days probably made the difference, but it's possible that my old name came up and I was rejected for that.

Anyway, I like that it's "obvious" that I would never have a maiden name. If I had been MTF, the facilitator might have asked whether I had ever been married, period, and that could have been awkward.

[Ann Onymous]

Then again, I got a perfect score on their test and wasn't offered a job. But this was the last round of census jobs, and my application processing was delayed a few days because my Selective Service letter hadn't arrived yet. Those few days probably made the difference, but it's possible that my old name came up and I was rejected for that.

FWIW, I have seen more than one civil service job where the top scorers were routinely culled...ran into that with two different agencies I applied for in the mid-80's and have heard it from acquaintances that work with other agencies.  I even saw qualified applicants (in a non-scored pre-screen) get culled when I worked for the State...some hiring authorities did not want the most qualified person because the expectation was they would get promoted somewhere else real quick, meaning a second round of hiring and training would be necessary to fill the vacancy. 

Idiotic, but that is government at, well, work...

[Arch]

Ann, I didn't think of that. But I believe I was just a little late getting that stupid letter to them; if I'd had it the day of the test instead of a couple of days later, I probably would have been in. I had a friend who was working as a supervisor for the census, and he was quite certain that they gave preference to people with perfect scores or higher-than-perfect scores (you get extra points if you're a veteran).

Anyway, it's water under the bridge now.