|
|
| *Ostroff, Fair and Company>>>Law & Legal |
Back ground checks do they work? |
I recently applied for a job and was tested and interviewed several times, this took about 6 months. I was told that I would finally receive a start date contingent upon a background check.Than I was informed that there was no problem with the check, except they could not verify one of my past employers. This they explained excluded me from the job offer. I pleaded my case and was allow to provide other proof, I still have no start date, how dose this prove a persons worth, and can someone tell what the value of back ground check is if you prove your self through test, interviews. Some companies do not provide any information about previous employees. My son went through the same thing and he had to provide a paystub from that company-and that was it! He was then hired. Offer to provide the most recent paystub for that company. Most companies just indicate that you've worked there-not sure they can say much more ...legal thing! If this excluded you for the job offer, It does sound pretty fishy to me....if that's the case, move on! The first thing this check does is shows whether or not you were telling the truth. If you are not during this process, why should they hire you? Why were they unable to confirm one past employer? I think it's all crap. It' s all just excuses why they don't want to hire you, because they allready know who they will hire for the job, and known about it for the past couple of weeks I bet. It's all formalaties and legal crap. Background checks are necessary because people lie. Companies have to be very careful when hiring because of liability in our litigious society. To be honest, the 6 month time frame has me a bit worried. Is this government, highly-classified, or security clearance required (or similar) work? If so, then the 6 month thing makes sense. If the job is not in the above areas, I would be concerned that the time frame is a bit long for you to still be in the running for the job. Some employers have very strict rules about background checks, and everything has to come out exactly as you said the first time around. It could also be that you and another candidate were equal in terms of experience, skills, and the interviewer liked you both, but the glitch from your background check made their decision for them. I know that isn't really fair, but sometimes the hiring company takes the easiest path (which, in this case, was to hire someone that they didn't need to do more digging on). :) Background checks cost money, and maybe the company has a policy of only running one check no matter what, even if there were mistakes in what they found. I would recommend that you call the company and ask them for a status update on the other proof that you provided. Also, you could ask them if they have set a start date for you yet - the worst they can say is "No, we hired someone else". At least then you'll know that it's time to look for another job, and hopefully, it will be with an employer who is much more responsive than this one! :) Good luck, and I hope everything works out for you! career coach for Help To Hire, helptohire.net; helptohire on Yahoo 360 and MySpace! You are dealing with a human resource department that is more concerned with making themselves look good to management, than in hiring qualified people. Six months of "interviewing" means the position isn't critical or the HR people are just looking around to see who is available and what they are earning. Move on. There is a better than even chance that there is NO job there. |
| Tags |
| Corporations Other - Careers & Employment Technology Marketing & Sales Law & Legal Health Care Government & Non-Profit Food Service Financial Services Administrative and Office Support |
Finance Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |