More corporations are utilizing background checks as an element of the work process. They feel that so-doing adds a layer of protection against legal proceedings for discrimination or laxity. They also seek out the background report to confirm minute details of a person's resume that might not be readily available in paper form. This, in turn, should guarantee a firm's public image for due research while giving current staff the sense that work mates are the familiar 'real deal'.
Having said all that, firms should be aware that background checks do have some downsides that should be carefully considered before proceeding to make the choice to utilise them regularly. From a bottom line point of view, as an example, background checks do not come at cheap prices. If an employer wants a complete report it can run masses of greenbacks. Multiply that by having three to 4 top candidates, and you have just spent over $1,000 to hire one person. If you do basic background reports on all potential staff you are intending to interview, that cost goes up enormously (costing about $25 for basic screening).
A second downside to these reports comes down to simple human error. When info gets keyed into diverse PC systems, errors occur. A date or name can come up wrongly or with misspelling. And thanks to the glories of bureaucracy, once the error is IN the system, getting it fixed can get very tough. Worse, at a glance and employer may not realize the report contains a mistake , and rely on flawed data in the hiring process.
Past this are the negative results that background checks have on potential staff. A very experienced potential employee may choose to stop the interviewing procedure because they're shocked. If an interviewee uncovers the process of background checks isn't completed the same way for every person looking for work - that could be a court action waiting to occur. Court actions can also arise if an employer uses old info that really doesn't apply to the present job or circumstances. An example here could be someone that has a charge of disorderly conduct from college years thanks to a protest. This, in itself, is not just cause to dismiss a prospective employee. Legally this is considered bigoted bias and the absence of significance to the interviewing procedure can expose you to a future court case.
There are a few other flaws to background checks. For one, the employer must be certain to protect the interviewee'4s private info with due groundwork. Losing a person's data leads to fines too. For another, if you're doing say 2 background checks on your top candidates and both come back with surprising negatives, you've got to begin the search for a worker all over again (after waiting for the report results, which can take a week).
Having said all that, firms should be aware that background checks do have some downsides that should be carefully considered before proceeding to make the choice to utilise them regularly. From a bottom line point of view, as an example, background checks do not come at cheap prices. If an employer wants a complete report it can run masses of greenbacks. Multiply that by having three to 4 top candidates, and you have just spent over $1,000 to hire one person. If you do basic background reports on all potential staff you are intending to interview, that cost goes up enormously (costing about $25 for basic screening).
A second downside to these reports comes down to simple human error. When info gets keyed into diverse PC systems, errors occur. A date or name can come up wrongly or with misspelling. And thanks to the glories of bureaucracy, once the error is IN the system, getting it fixed can get very tough. Worse, at a glance and employer may not realize the report contains a mistake , and rely on flawed data in the hiring process.
Past this are the negative results that background checks have on potential staff. A very experienced potential employee may choose to stop the interviewing procedure because they're shocked. If an interviewee uncovers the process of background checks isn't completed the same way for every person looking for work - that could be a court action waiting to occur. Court actions can also arise if an employer uses old info that really doesn't apply to the present job or circumstances. An example here could be someone that has a charge of disorderly conduct from college years thanks to a protest. This, in itself, is not just cause to dismiss a prospective employee. Legally this is considered bigoted bias and the absence of significance to the interviewing procedure can expose you to a future court case.
There are a few other flaws to background checks. For one, the employer must be certain to protect the interviewee'4s private info with due groundwork. Losing a person's data leads to fines too. For another, if you're doing say 2 background checks on your top candidates and both come back with surprising negatives, you've got to begin the search for a worker 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 website that talks about the advantages of personal background checks for job applications.
