April 11, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I'm of two minds here. Certainly checks have their place, especially in high security environments, etc. On the other hand, society has become obsessed with snooping at every level and I suspect it has done little to reduce the overall rate of bad behavior. Nanny cams, cameras everywhere, private detectives checking up on friends, the government listening in on everything, all in the name of safety. IMO, it's gone too far. Life is risky and we have to weigh the risks against the real damage we do in creating a world where everyone is suspect, everyone has to be watched at all times. I think we've reached a level of unreasonable paranoia. Say hello to a child in the mall, ou're a potential pedophile. Check the news on Al Jazerra, you're a terrorist. It's insane.
April 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I think that a major point is being missed: and that is, that your personal opinion about the person being hired is irrelevant. Your decision must be made based on protecting the interests of your company, its employees and yourself.
In a society where law suits are filed for the most frivolous of reasons you must be able to defend your position for hiring or not hiring a person.
And that can only be achieved by performing “due diligence”: background checks, credit checks, criminal records, and references, among others.
When you hire some one, you speak for your company, not yourself.
April 11, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Due diligence very dubious words because it will not stop employer friends,family and concubines spending millions needed for development tools or industrial grade hardware software engineers need to perform basic everyday tasks. Corruption at high level cost companies more than is reported because it is the corrupt people who report the figures.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
April 11, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I repeat, you're missing the point: YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for your decision. What someone else does, corrupt or otherwise, is their issue.
YOU, AND ONLY YOU, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
April 11, 2007 at 7:54 pm
(Your decision must be made based on protecting the interests of your company, its employees and yourself.
When you hire some one, you speak for your company, not yourself. )
In many places I have worked by the time the company is protected a lot of money is wasted talented people have moved on. Due diligence will not prevent that because these people are only exposed by very egregious mistakes.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
April 11, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Addict:
With all due respect, you seem to be pre-occupied with what some one else does. The point I'm making is that I am responsibile for my actions and my actions only.
The decision I make in hiring or not hiring a person is based on a trust between my employer and myself. If I'm wrong, I deal with the consequences. So, in performing my "due diligence", I have supporting documentation for my actions.
If some one in my company is doing something wrong they deal with the consequences.
April 11, 2007 at 8:51 pm
The point I am trying to show is the people making the decisions do more harm to companies than people hired without background checks will ever cause any company.
The point I am trying to get across will make a very nice prediction modeling experiment. In this corner a pack of corporate heavy weights who can sign checks with known long records of malfeasance and a random group of job seekers who may have criminal tendency may is the operative word.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
April 12, 2007 at 7:07 am
How about prior convictions being positive indicators?
eg This applicant has speeding convictions, maybe they have been picked up for possession of cocaine. But the job's for CEO, and business needs risk-takers who aren't afraid to play fast and loose with the rules...
Business ethics have to address competitiveness, market share and profits. Professional ethics are more about personal standards and values expressed in attitude to work. The two do not necessarily coincide, and both interact with disparate views as to what constitutes moral behaviour at work and in personal life.
I think one problem is interpretation. A conviction for theft or deception calls into question probity, honesty and fittedness for jobs involving money. It may not follow that someone is more generally 'dishonest' - that they lie to their spouse and submit dodgy tax returns. Having a lot of debts in not illegal, and may make someone a risk or more focussed on performing well and getting promoted.
I would prefer minimal checks, and only on legal issues. A financial controller should not be an undischarged bankrupt, a warehouse manager should not have convictions for theft. In other respects guard the interests of the business with proper business processes. A bureaucracy should make make it harder and slightly less convenient and quick to do things, because then it makes it harder to do things badly or wrong. If two people need to sign something, or a random 10% needs independent checking, then ill-considered decisions, error and fraud are discouraged and detected. That way, a bunch of people from different backgrounds and with different views, histories, attitudes, morals, values and beliefs produce a reasonably consistent and acceptable business performance. And you don't have to venture into their private lives or make character assessments based on your personal feelings about things.
April 12, 2007 at 7:43 am
I agree with you in everything it is those processes that exposes wrong doings, processes, checks and balance will protect companies more than any intrusive background checks.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
April 12, 2007 at 8:01 am
I can definatly see a need for them, but I also think they need to be clearly defined before you look at a background check what will disqualify a person.
I also think that if the person discloses it up front there should be some leniancy since they are not trying to hide their past and lay all the cards on the table.
April 12, 2007 at 9:54 am
Why is this suddenly about "protecting the company" and not about finding the person who can do the best job?
I take offense when a company assumes that, if they hire me, I'm eventually going to be fired and I'm probably going to sue them over it.
April 12, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Bottom line folks: it’s always about protecting the company. And equally, it’s always about hiring the right person for the job.
The responsibility of a hiring manager is to do both. You make an informed decision based on information: background checks, credit report, references, verifying education, etc, in addition to professional qualifications. If that person seems like a good candidate, hire them. If not don’t. Having that information you can make that informed decision. But, should that individual ever become an issue, you at least have supporting documentation with which you can offer in support for your decision.
As a hiring manager, you should always consider the possibility of employment related litigation. Your taking offense is irrelevant. Another legal consideration is law suits from employees for actions of that un-vetted hire.
That’s the reality of our society. Decisions should never be made on some theoretical situation or compassion.
In my thirty+ years in IT, I’ve hired a lot more good people than bad people. But, I could always support my decision for hiring as well as firing.
When it’s your show, do what you want. Until then, your duty is to your employer.
April 15, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I know this might be a late response.
But when does this kind of invasion of privacy end? Like many other people have posted. A criminal background check is by all means not an accurate tool to determine if this individual will commit a criminal offense to your company. From the posts I have seen that once someone has committed a crime, that person is guilty for the rest of his/her lifetime. People can change and learn from their mistakes. But crucifying an interviewee for a past criminal offense in my opinion is not an ethical and sound business decision.
Next companies will start asking for medical records. Is this employee a smoker or obese? Does this individual have cancer or some kind of disease? If so, that could mean a huge drain on the company health benefits. Then that hiring manager might not hire that individual in order to help save the costs on the health benefits package.
With that kind of data available to hiring managers. They might have passed up on hiring a good knowledgeable and hard working employee based on a few minor faults. Keep that in mind when you're trying to hire the employee to do the job rather than basing a decision on trying to protect the company.
April 16, 2007 at 3:50 am
Chauchnet
Next companies will start asking for medical records. Is this employee a smoker or obese? Does this individual have cancer or some kind of disease?
Not sure what you mean by start, companies -at least here in the UK - do ask for medical declarations and many do drugs test before employment commences. If you lie on a medical declaration and later it comes to light you can be dismissed. I believe the original intentions were to prevent discrimination and alert the company to a potential medical emergency i.e peanut allergy or acute diabetes etc but i wonder how often these type of information is abused, i certainly know people who didn't declare they'd had depression for fear of losing the job or being labled at work. I have also heard from senior figures in a couple of companies that people who are into extreme sports such as rock climbing or parachuting are looked on disfavourably at interview because of the potential risks to the company of losing key personnel and i am certainly aware of credit checking being done in many companies on people who handle money or money related transactions as bad debtors are consider a potential liablity.
K.
April 16, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I recently came upon this link:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1175159036800
Apparently checking for criminal records or poor credit history can open companies for action by the EEOC.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 47 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply