Why to Perform Pre-Employment Screening (employee, credit report, application, employer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found the article on the internet, happy to share it with all friends here
Typically employers engage in pre-employment screening to:
1) Discourage applicants with something to hide such as a criminal background.
2) Encourage honesty on the application. It is estimated that as many as 35% of all applicants put false information or omit information on the application.
3) Show due diligence. As an employer you have an obligation to take reasonable steps to hire the right person for the job.
4) Protect the business from negligent hiring law suits, avoid any type of theft, promote safety in the work place, avoid angry customers or clients, or any of the other problems a wrong hire can cause.
5) It is cost effective. Why spend money recruiting, training and/or equipping a person just to learn he/she is not right for the job. In addition, the cost of a pre-employment screening is much less than the cost to litigate a law suit.
6) Avoid uncertainty in the hiring process. Hard facts are essential in making a hiring decision.
I totally agree with you, pre-employment screening is crucial to employers even if in the recession. Employers have to remember one point, hiring a good-quality employee is the simplest/effective way to reduce cost......just my opinion......
Absolutely nothing new here. Prospective employees need to start screening prospective employers as well. Who wants to work for Rupert Murdock, Bernard Madoff, Julian Assange, Anthony Weiner, to name the few who were caught. I would like to scrutinize their Facebooks, Twitters, Annual Corporate Tax Returns, etc. The Social Intelligence Corp needs to open up a branch company where candidates pay to do a background search on the employers. I don't want to lose my job because my employer is a white collar criminal, and I wasn't able to screen him/her before accepting the job. I"m sure people in Congressman's Weiner's office were ecstatic when he was all over the news with regard to his "se*tings". I don't want to be named a witness in a class action lawsuit or have my name plastered all over the news, as was the case with Madoff's former employees. Someone should form a corporation that does background checks and otherwise digs for dirt on employers and corporations. This company should specifically target the candidate/employee as the demographic to sell this service to. If we are going to live in Orwell's 1984 THEN LET'S TAKE IT ALL THE WAY, BABY. And that means the corporations too.
I found the article on the internet, happy to share it with all friends here
Typically employers engage in pre-employment screening to:
1) Discourage applicants with something to hide such as a criminal background.
2) Encourage honesty on the application. It is estimated that as many as 35% of all applicants put false information or omit information on the application.
3) Show due diligence. As an employer you have an obligation to take reasonable steps to hire the right person for the job.
4) Protect the business from negligent hiring law suits, avoid any type of theft, promote safety in the work place, avoid angry customers or clients, or any of the other problems a wrong hire can cause.
5) It is cost effective. Why spend money recruiting, training and/or equipping a person just to learn he/she is not right for the job. In addition, the cost of a pre-employment screening is much less than the cost to litigate a law suit.
6) Avoid uncertainty in the hiring process. Hard facts are essential in making a hiring decision.
SBCS
Are they required to let you know if you don't pass the preemployment screening or background check??
Articles say you should be "upfront" about any issues that may appear in a background check before it is run. I received an offer for a long term contract/temp job which required a full background/credit check. I was upfront about my credit issues and what I was doing to resolve them. The recruiter told me they would run the credit first and let me know where I stood.
I signed the authorization forms etc... I NEVER heard back from anyone and the recruiter I believe is purposely avoiding me by sending my call to voicemail when ever I call. This recruiter is from a third party employment agency that is the preferred vendor for that client
I thought if you get turned down for a job based on results from a background/credit check at the very least you are supposed to be notified with a formal letter referencing the credit reporting agency.
Purposely not responding even if the information isn't 'Positive' is unprofessional and also rude & immature.
Are they required to let you know if you don't pass the preemployment screening or background check??
I think it varies from state to state, but in Minnesota you can opt for a copy of the background check if the employers decides to perform a screening and you do not get the job.
I think it varies from state to state, but in Minnesota you can opt for a copy of the background check if the employers decides to perform a screening and you do not get the job.
Virtually every employer performs a screening now. Even for temp jobs you are subject to this background screening. Many firms do use credit as factor where if you have past due accounts or any public record it is automatic fail
The thing is that this isn't decided on a case by case basis.. One recruiter told me that you either get a pass or fail in each category but they are required only to provide you with a copy of the background screening not tell you what exactly caused you to be disqualified or allow you to rectify it
This is usually done after short listing candidates who cleared the initial screening interview. But at times, when urgent resource need arises, this process of background verification gets neglected in order to meet / fulfill the present resource demand consequently, increasing the risk of hiring a candidate whose background couldn’t be verified appropriately
i wish they would give constructive criticism as to why they did not hire the people they rejected
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
