> 7. Background checks start in parallel with on-boarding. First week is spent with business unit teams to learn what the company actually, really does.
Yikes!!! I’ve never heard of a potential employer giving offers before background check. Do you tell candidates this before they quit their current jobs?
Yeah this sounds like it should be illegal, although it's probably allowed in the US. There's no way it is clearly communicated to candidates, I don't think most people would agree to a contract that says "FYI we might fire you after a week if HireRight doesn't like you, no we can't check beforehand you'll just have to hope you meet our standards."
Yes, I agree that the company should be clear about this upfront.
I would think that people affected by this are probably used to this coming up and are up-front with what happened before the accepting the offer. "Hey, so great to hear about the verbal offer. So about white collar crimes..."
Unless the company is somehow getting expunged records or something like that, it's likely that the person is lying about something they shouldn't have and got caught.
Exactly. A lot can unexpectedly go wrong during a background check, some companies ask employees for (very old) W2's they may not have, etc. There was a time when I worked at <redacted> and a new co-worker suddenly disappeared without a trace, and I was told in confidence by a VP they "were not who they said they were" which I presume means they failed a background check. This was during growing pains, they were probably doing checks after hiring.
We're not doing a salary verification so we don't make the new hire provide a bunch of data, aside answering questions about where you lived, when. We are doing a court record and criminal background check. When we have a problem 100% of the time the new hire has misrepresented themselves. We tell people exactly what the background check will discover, and we've even hired people who have disclosed issues prior to the check (nothing serious).
If an employer ever asked for an old W-2 I'd refuse, and if it was enough of a problem I'd recuse myself. That's private, sorry. Not that it would matter for me personally, I've been self employed for 15 years. But still there has to be some self respect.
All “high-horse” claims work better when yo have cash in the bank and don’t need to get that job right here right now.
I also decline signing NDA, providing data they should not request. Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours.
But if I would need that paycheck ASAP all of it goes to trash and I would comply to most of shenanigans, maybe not all but still.
> Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours.
We're pretty big on making sure that our contract allows this as we encourage developers to do side projects - open source, etc. We do have an anti-double dipping clause.
I worked with a guy who it later came out that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when he convinced a buddy of his to kill his ex-wife and her new boyfriend. Probably should have had better background checks at that company.
Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though.
If it’s fully communicated that the background check happens in parallel and the new hire doesn’t expect anything to pop up, it seems like a good option (provided the employer is reasonable about trying to solve unexpected inaccuracies that may arise).
In my last two positions, I’m pretty sure my employment contract included a section indicting that at any time they can do a new check on me. And I believe my most recent one explicitly asked if I expected anything to come up.
> Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though.
That's true, but consider this: by running these checks in parallel you are exposing your employees to whatever risks the new element brings in. Perhaps they were convicted of SA etc. and decide to stalk someone at your co.
There's a school of thought around comp where what someone's made in the past should inform what you offer in the future. Some use comp history as an indicator of quality. Some use it as guidance for making sure they don't offer too much.
As someone not familiarized with background checks, why is it weird to do bg checks after handing the offer?
If the employer does the bg check before handing the offer, that means the candidate hasn't resigned yet from their current job. So wouldn't the bg check expose the candidate? (E.g., my boss would know I'm thinking about leaving)
Doing the background check after the offer is fine, it's insane that they do it after the candidate already starts the new job. So what, I leave my current job to come work for you, and in the first week you tell me "sorry you failed our background check" and let me go? Who the F would ever agree to this kind of risk?
>>8. End of first week, we occasionally have to let someone go on background issues
We're not talking like government security clearance here. If you have some major legal or financial issue in your life then maybe it depends what exactly the BGC turns up or how it's adjudicated. If not, there's basically zero chance it's going to affect anything. Just a formality from the candidate's perspective.
You already know whether you have a criminal record or financial catastrophe. If you do, maybe you need to wait and see what they think of it. If you don’t, there is no chance of a problem.
This is normal for non-tech employers. It is novel in tech, but not something that is bonkers in other sectors. We're able to have developers on the payroll three-four weeks before offers are out by competitors.
This has never been a problem, except when someone is currently employed and is leaving a job to take one at our company. Right now, there's a lot of really good talent that does not have this issue.
> So wouldn't the bg check expose the candidate? (E.g., my boss would know I'm thinking about leaving)
HR at the orgs I've worked for call that a reference check and it is usually concurrent with the other background check processes before the offer. The background check I'm thinking of is more like criminal history, work eligibility status etc., potentially drug screening etc. I know I have no criminal record but I'd really like to know that whatever service HR is using to screen agrees with this before I quit my job.
Have you ever done a background check with HireRight? They ask you for all of your previous companies and contact them to verify. I think there is an option not to call your current employer.
There's a huge background check fetish here in the US, and it's facilitated by a massive lack of privacy and an equally big fetish for everlasting punishment.
Want a job or rent a place? Background check, baby!
Not just prior employment but even civil court cases and criminal history are all a part of it, and it doesn't help that even something as small as a traffic ticket shows up on your records.
Have you ever sued a landlord to get your deposit back? There's a good chance your new landlord doesn't want you.
Were you convicted of petty theft years ago? That might cost you your prospective job.
In most of the EU, much of this information isn't public, and in many countries, criminal records are inaccessible.
Often, in the latter, you can get a declaration of “good behavior” from the government if your prospective job has some sensitive elements. The government will then issue one or decline based on the specific job and its risks with your record in mind.
Were you caught committing a DUI? You won't get one for a job as a cab driver, but you can safely get one for working at a bank.
Have you got caught embezzling money? Then you can't get one working at a bank, but you're welcome to become a cab driver.
In the US? Well, you're SOOL. Enjoy being marked for life as your options to get an income legally have significantly shrunk.
Aside from things that may lead to accusations of violating equal opportunity employment laws, you can ask just about anything. Many previous employers won't do more than confirm employment though, as a negative review may open them up to liability. As a result, the norm in many industries is to only ask (and receive) confirmation of employment.
On one hand it sounds off putting, on other hand it can be very awkward that you have hired a mole from competition who is there to understand your secret sauce and get out or that you have hired somebody who was in prison for computer crimes.
Yikes!!! I’ve never heard of a potential employer giving offers before background check. Do you tell candidates this before they quit their current jobs?