But he isn't wrong... there is no other place in Europe with similarly low employee rights. I know a very senior manager of a Swiss company who was sent abroad. For pension reasons did he negotiate to keep his Swiss contract... and found himself kicked out on the spot a year later - something entirely impossible if he had taken a local EU contract.


So the bottom line in Switzerland is really simple: You are as an individual in a very weak legal position. So you need to trust any potential employer. A lot. Because they can totally screw you without you having any chance to fight back and get a decent settlement.

In my experience, such checks happen with US firms.
My checks were always longer than one month. If your employment history is long or if previous firms were sold / taken over, you can be sure that the records may be lost.
For instance, one of my older firms had me as a marketing assistant rather than fund manager. Took me one month and many phone calls to correct.

Also, rules differ a lot depending on countries. In France, they cannot ask much. In the UK, they can ask for anything, like seeing your bank account statements, etc.

I felt like a criminal during this process even if I had nothing to hide.

So do not resign before the all clear.

I see a lot of negative perceptions of this here....maybe I'm the delusional one or maybe it's a generational thing, but to me this is totally normal and part and parcel of holding positions in regulated environments.

I personally would not let a good career move slip away just for this. But maybe, OP, you are in a better place than me - well done

Also I see people using the US as a comparison. In my experience it is pretty standard in the US to get background-/drug-/criminal-record-checked even before receiving an offer. I much prefer the EU/Swiss way - e.g. going through a screening process only after I have seen and accepted the employment offer and have resigned from my current employer.


OP said in post #1 the start date is 1st Feb?


That seems like the worst of both worlds to me - get screened but possibly have no job at the end of the process. Anyway if you reject the offer they will most likely cease the screening then just re-start it if in the future you both agree to enter in to a new employment contract.

Also, a rejected offer puts the onus on them and if there was a 2nd/3rd place candidate they may just decide to move on to him/her if less hassle. Clearly in your case this is not an issue - lucky you

May I ask why not just accept the offer but refuse to sign the screening consent form? Would be interesting to see how they respond.

If they want you that badly they will surely push the start date back to allow you the ability to resign from your current role only after you received confirmation that you have 'passed' the check.

Or on the other hand they may think you have something to hide by putting up such a fuss....

The start date was not guaranteed, salary was not guaranteed from that date so clearly not contractually binding on BOTH parties. If salary was guaranteed for 3 months regardless of starting work, then it would have been a valid start date.

Are you going to work in the lab?
Sure they don't just ment the usual medical check up?

When two parties enter into a (hopefully!) long-term relationship, involving significant investment, it's better that employer and employee do their due diligence first.

Interviews and taking references have never been an accurate predictor of future performance or conduct.

Pre-employment checks come in many forms, with different levels of checks that are very different by hierarchy, responsibilities of the role and industry.

In many cases, this includes a social media and online reputation search.

In the OP's case, the potential employer is upfront about the requirement, and asked for consent. This is not unlawful.

However, by adding unhelpful conditions, the OP is unwilling, with good reason, to accept the offer.

I'm sure that before rejecting this offer, the OP will have asked the employer for details of exactly what the checks cover, what's the longest time the checks have taken for a candidate, what would constitute a failure, and what is the process if they dispute the outcome of a check.

Given employer fear of the cost and reputational damage that comes from hiring sexual harassers, bullies and dishonest people, these kinds of checks will become the norm for large employers in the next 5 - 8 years, even in Switzerland.

Thank you very much for your replies! I will try to answer the questions.
Consent has a part which states that withdrawal of it will immediately end the hiring process. I don’t care if I get screened and wouldn’t get the job, if they are willing to pay for my screening and not hire me it is up to them. Consent allows me to see the collected data and also to request deletion of the data within 30 days in case of unsuccessful application. I will do that if I have to.

The job is not in the lab but in the office, the same one that I had for the last many years. I am lucky to have a job now and don’t have to leave. Going to this other company would be a good career move if the company would be taking me seriously. I guess their hiring process will indicate just that.

"not" contractually binding on BOTH parties. In Switzerland, even if there is no contract and no guaranteed salary and somebody only works for a probation- in the end the work has to be paid by the employer.

Swiss law:

Wird keine Unentgeltlichkeit vor dem Probeeinsatz verabredet, wird das Zustandekommen eines Arbeitsverhältnisses vermutet. Diesfalls hat der Arbeitgeber dem Arbeitnehmer den Lohn zu entrichten, der verabredet, üblich oder durch Normalarbeitsvertrag oder Gesamtarbeitsvertrag bestimmt ist (OR 322 Abs. 1).

So only in the case when the employee explicitly agreed to work for free then no salary is owed

see also:

https://www.law-news.ch/2018/05/arbe...emessener-lohn

You can always arraign an employer, in Switzerland it is the "Arbeitsgericht" and every canton has one. Up to CHF 30000 amount of dispute it is at no cost and you do not need a lawyer to bring your case in court.

Every job I have had in the last 5 years have required at least a criminal record extract. Here that is easy to order on-line with a 20chf fee.

Other jobs have also asked for my debt record, which again is easily obtained here from the Gemeinde for a small fee.

UBS introduced a new screening solution a few years ago using a third party company who look at everything including education certificates/diplomas etc..

Bullsh*. Background screenings have been standard m.o. elsewhere for YEARS if not decades. This is simply yet another (American) approach that has found its way into Switzerland.

And occasionally, there's good reason for it. Criminal records are the one part, but another are academic credentials, as the world of education has become such an utter mess. It's become easy to fake everything and you can literally buy diplomas off Ebay and Groupon, so it's only logical some companies would like some confirmation that the candidates are actually legit.

That said, I'm fairly opposed to social media background checks and have personally seen highly strange conclusions from them in the hiring process, but whether I think that's ok or not doesn't matter.

That said though, the process in this case is highly unusual - checks are done pre-offer and not post-offer - and I would have done the same as OP and rejected for the time being.

I have rejected the offer. The company wanted me to sign another consent and I have withdrawn everything altogether and told them to go f*** themselves. Please PM me if interested in the name of the company or their third party information collector.

They asked me to sign that “I am aware that it may be necessary for the information given in this application to be transferred to countries outside the EEA, which may have less comprehensive data protection legislation than the UK.”

Where would that be?

USA & pretty much anywhere non EU

When I worked for CS the first time, they sent me to a mandatory medical check up where the Dr. was required to touch my nuts to see whether they were real and confirm the gender at birth. Should they have wanted to make a prostate check I would have definitely chosen another job ...

When I underwent a medical check for Canadian Study Permit, "nuts" test was performed (but just a slightly touch and it was quick).

When I underwent a medical check in Basel arranged by my company, no "nuts" test was performed.

What's the big deal about a Doctor checking your nuts or prostate, surely it is better to have it checked by a professional who knows what he's doing rather than having to have surgery that can and often does have a VERY BIG impact on your sex life afterwards, if you are lucky and it's not already terminal.


You really think the Doctor wants to touch your nuts or put a finger up your ass ?

I think the doctor is just doing his job and I am OK with it. (although I personally do not like being touched that area).

There should be a predetermined list of checks that the doctors must follow, based on the requirements of the authority which he has to report the results to.

Health screenings can be a big source of anxiety for both men and women. I think women are accustomed to gynecological exams starting in the teen years, then there's pregnancy and giving birth - so we just get on with it and realize lots of strangers are going to see and touch our intimate bits. I've never had the impression any health professional was doing it for some sort of perverse pleasure.

Men don't have quite the same experience and many are reluctant to go to the doctor for anything, much less a comprehensive physical exam. In terms of the nuts test (if you want to call it that) nerves and whatnot can make a man appear aroused when he's not actually aroused. I imagine that could be a source of embarrassment/anxiety.

I think we should not mock people for their anxieties related to health. Let's help them see that enduring a few minutes of awkwardness can be worthwhile in the long run.

A friend of mine had his prostata checked on a yearly basis, as his dad died from prostata cancer. Luckily, they caught his on time and he is now healthy again.

So yes, awkward, but it can save your life!

Actually, an initial prostate exam is done via bloods these days, if abnormalities show up then the rubber gloves come out.



Sure it maybe a source of embarrassment although why people are so up tight about it is beyond me, we al got an asshole and 50% have a penis, 50% a vagina, really nothing new whatsoever

It is wrong that all have asshole. There is a type of disease people do not have asshole as a birth defect. In the past, these people surely died.

It is also wrong that gender ratio is 50:50. Not to mention transgender surgery..

For one to feel embrassed with the test, it is totally personal. Who tells you someone is "so uptight about it"? Where/How did you see it?