More and more corporations are utilizing background checks as a part of the employment process. They feel that so-doing adds a defensive layer against legal action for discrimination or laxity. They also search out the background report to confirm minute details of a person's resume that isn't be widely available in paper form. This, in turn, should protect a firm's public image for required groundwork while also giving current staff the sense that work-mates are the hackneyed 'real deal'.
Having claimed all that, companies should be aware that background checks do have some downsides that should be carefully considered before proceeding to make the choice to exploit them regularly. From a bottom line point of view, for example, background checks do not come at cheap prices. If an employer would like a complete report it can run lots of bucks. Multiply that by having three to 4 top candidates, and you've just spent over $1,000 to hire one individual. If you do basic background reports on all potential staff you're meaning to interview, that cost goes up enormously (costing about $25 for basic screening).
A second downside to these reports boils down to simple human boo boo. When info gets keyed into various computer systems, errors occur. A date or name can come up incorrectly or with misspelling. And thanks to the thrills of bureaucracy, once the mistake is IN the system, getting it fixed can become extremely difficult. Worse, at a peek and employer may not realize the report contains a screw up and depend on flawed information in the hiring process.
Beyond this are the negative results that background checks have on potential staff. A very experienced prospective employee may choose to stop the interview process because they're shocked. If an interviewee reveals that the process of background checks is not completed the same way for every person seeking employment - that's a lawsuit waiting to occur. Court actions can also arise if an employer uses old information that truly doesn't apply to the present job or circumstances. An example here could be someone who has a charge of disorderly conduct from university years due to a protest. This, in itself, isn't just cause to dismiss a prospective employee. Legally this is considered bigoted bias and the lack of relevance to the interviewing procedure can expose you to a future court action.
There are many other downsides to background checks. For one, the employer has to be certain to protect the interviewee'4s private info with due groundwork. Losing somebody's information leads to fines too. For another, if you are doing say two background checks on your top applicants and both come back with surprising negatives, you've got to begin your search for an employee all over again (after waiting for the report results, which can take a week).
Having claimed all that, companies should be aware that background checks do have some downsides that should be carefully considered before proceeding to make the choice to exploit them regularly. From a bottom line point of view, for example, background checks do not come at cheap prices. If an employer would like a complete report it can run lots of bucks. Multiply that by having three to 4 top candidates, and you've just spent over $1,000 to hire one individual. If you do basic background reports on all potential staff you're meaning to interview, that cost goes up enormously (costing about $25 for basic screening).
A second downside to these reports boils down to simple human boo boo. When info gets keyed into various computer systems, errors occur. A date or name can come up incorrectly or with misspelling. And thanks to the thrills of bureaucracy, once the mistake is IN the system, getting it fixed can become extremely difficult. Worse, at a peek and employer may not realize the report contains a screw up and depend on flawed information in the hiring process.
Beyond this are the negative results that background checks have on potential staff. A very experienced prospective employee may choose to stop the interview process because they're shocked. If an interviewee reveals that the process of background checks is not completed the same way for every person seeking employment - that's a lawsuit waiting to occur. Court actions can also arise if an employer uses old information that truly doesn't apply to the present job or circumstances. An example here could be someone who has a charge of disorderly conduct from university years due to a protest. This, in itself, isn't just cause to dismiss a prospective employee. Legally this is considered bigoted bias and the lack of relevance to the interviewing procedure can expose you to a future court action.
There are many other downsides to background checks. For one, the employer has to be certain to protect the interviewee'4s private info with due groundwork. Losing somebody's information leads to fines too. For another, if you are doing say two background checks on your top applicants and both come back with surprising negatives, you've got to begin your search for an employee all over again (after waiting for the report results, which can take a week).
About the Author:
Pat Cann is the owner of MyVerifax.com, a domain that discusses the advantages of personal background checks for job applications.
No comments:
Post a Comment