45
Can your employer legally ask for your deadname? (qnews.com.au)
submitted 3 days ago by to c/australia@quokk.au
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

trans social worker was awarded $35,000 after a workplace hiring process required him to share his deadname. So what does your employer legally have a right to know?

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 3 days ago (19 children)

Depends. Does your deadname have a criminal record? If you abuse the name change strictly to avoid the consequences of your criminal past, I'm inclined to side with the company's need to know.

If on the other hand, the company just wants to get all up in your business, then there isn't a need to know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 3 days ago (10 children)

    A police check can do that. Your employer doesn’t need to know.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (9 children)

    Doesn't need to know what? The deadname or that there's a criminal record?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    You don't need somebody's dead name to do a background check. Not a legal one at least. Now if you're trying to dig into things that you probably don't have a legal right to dig into you might want that information but there doesn't seem to be a legitimate need for your employer to have it, and asking for it is suspicious because there's no legitimate need for it which indicates that the only reason it's being asked for is probably an unscrupulous reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (7 children)

    That fully depends on whether the current name is legal/official or not. If the government doesn't know you by your new name, then the name on your government ID will be necessary to declare taxes, maybe even transfer to your bank account.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    That isn't the situation though. The person's new name was legal.

    No one is saying you can use whatever name during hiring without the legal process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    Yes, I am aware, I read the article. We aren't talking about that though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    We aren't talking about the situation in the article?

    Are we just making up a situation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Yes. Please read the initial comment. It has the context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Right, just making sure you know that you are making up a situation to argue about when the other people are talking about real life as portrayed in the article.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    🙄 you jump into a discussion without understanding the context, told that you're not understanding the context, and you get insulted. If you don't understand what's going on, maybe read before you respond instead making yourself look like a fool.

    Good day sir.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago*

    It feels weird that you are so adamant about saying "but this wouldn't work if it was a fake name!". Everyone knows this? What's your point? As if it's an issue, and people are using their new name in job interviews and official paperwork before it's legally changed.

    No one here is saying your employer can't push back if the name you give them doesnt show up in governmental systems. Who are you having this convo with?

    I'm sure you mean well but it felt you were trying to be purposefully obtuse.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    It's Australia, aren't you legally required to have a criminal record to maintain your citizenship or isn't that a requirement anymore? /s

    (I can't wait for all of the angry down-votes... 😅😂)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    If you abuse the name change strictly to avoid the consequences of your criminal past

    maybe I got something wrong, but how is this different from changing your name after marrying someone?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Depends, if the name change isn't official, then the employer will need the official name in order to pay your social contributions and taxes. If your current name is official, then there's no need to know the maiden name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    You can assume your spouse's surname at any point, you just need to show to marriage certificate when you change ID and show the name change and new ID to your bank and other accounts.

    It's a pain in the ass if things don't match, so it's best to do everything or nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    I can't speak from experience, but my feeling is that being a "deadname" means they want to push it out of their past, as not part of their real self. I get that, but it doesn't change the fact that at one time they were a different name with a history. It's a little different than a name change from a marriage. I agree on the need to know aspect. What I'm wondering is how do you provide references of past jobs if they were under that name, but treat it as a no-go for the company?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    The worker (anonymised as HGY) transitioned and legally changed his name in 2012.

    ...

    The health district argued in the tribunal that the Former Name Check Condition was essential for roles involving work with children and young people.

    The worker had already submitted a valid Working With Children Check. There was no legal need for his colleague to have access to that sensitive personal information.

    That's why it was discriminatory. "New" name is legal (2012 is 14 years ago, that's not new) and work permit was already valid, plus the reason was complete bullshit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    WRONG WRONG WRONG YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG

    2012 is 14 years ago

    THIS IS BULLSHIT AND FUCKING WRONG......... I don't care what the calendar says!!!!

    ;-)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    Any job that requires a security clearance will get all up in your business. Wait until they start going through your finances.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •