Showing posts with label Employee background checking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Employee background checking. Show all posts
Monday, July 9, 2018
Can a prospective employer ask for background check info before they interview you?
We don’t even ask, we just do it. Your submission of an employment application to us gives us specific authority to do so.
That’s a problem? You don’t want to give us that authority? Your choice, but your application will proceed no further unless we can do a background check. It’s irresponsible to hire anyone without one, and we don’t waste time interviewing people we know we’re not going to hire.
Originally appeared on Quora
That’s a problem? You don’t want to give us that authority? Your choice, but your application will proceed no further unless we can do a background check. It’s irresponsible to hire anyone without one, and we don’t waste time interviewing people we know we’re not going to hire.
Originally appeared on Quora
Saturday, January 28, 2017
What are the most overrated qualities employers look for in a job candidate?
Credit rating.
Using a credit score to assess risk of embezzlement or theft, or as a measure of 'character', is about as ignorant and irresponsible as anyone's, or any company's, hiring process gets.
Dishonest people who are likely to steal don't care about the debts reported on their credit, anyway: if anything, they'll have very few showing because they use little credit and deal primarily in cash. Those who do steal don't do it to pay lawful debts of long standing. A debt problem of sufficiently lengthy standing to show up on a credit report is rarely the incentive or motive for someone who actually steals. When debt is the motive for theft or embezzlement, it's more likely someone who's being pressed for payment at the moment - perhaps by a bookie, loan shark, or drug dealer - not someone who needs to pay a valid debt that's been around long enough to show up on a credit report.
Using a credit score to assess risk of embezzlement or theft, or as a measure of 'character', is about as ignorant and irresponsible as anyone's, or any company's, hiring process gets.
Dishonest people who are likely to steal don't care about the debts reported on their credit, anyway: if anything, they'll have very few showing because they use little credit and deal primarily in cash. Those who do steal don't do it to pay lawful debts of long standing. A debt problem of sufficiently lengthy standing to show up on a credit report is rarely the incentive or motive for someone who actually steals. When debt is the motive for theft or embezzlement, it's more likely someone who's being pressed for payment at the moment - perhaps by a bookie, loan shark, or drug dealer - not someone who needs to pay a valid debt that's been around long enough to show up on a credit report.
After an interview, do potential employers send out rejections first or give out offers first?
We don't reject anyone.
If (for example) Son of Sam (David Berkowitz ) got out of prison and showed up looking for a job, we'd politely take his application and file it; and it would then sit in that file for sixty days, then probably get tossed (in accordance with our policy, spelled out clearly on the form that Son of Sam filled out and signed off on, that that's how long we keep applications on file). In the meanwhile, of course, chances are that Son of Sam's application wouldn't be acted upon beyond the point of his having submitted it and our having filed it, since -- if we're accepting applications at all and a staffing need comes up -- we've usually gotten at least one application from someone who isn't Son of Sam.
(Of course, in the interest of 'equal opportunity', we take care to do that with any job application that's been around for sixty days, even some that are viable, even a few from people that we'd like to have been able to hire; if we did not have a staffing need in the meanwhile for which one of the applicants would have been a good match. Chances are, with hourly jobs, any application that's more than three weeks old was submitted by someone who has since moved on and found another job, if for no better reason than he or she had to, and couldn't sit around and wait for us to get our mess together and make a decision.)
But we're not looking to reject or to 'discriminate' against Son of Sam - or anyone else. We're looking for the person who is the best match for the job. We're not going to reject people, one by one, until we find that person. We're going to go through the pile, choose several on the basis of what we feel are the likelihood that they will be that person, and continue with the screening and selection process.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
When hiring for your startup, how much does not having a college degree play into your decision?
Zip. For someone who can deliver the goods, the degree (or lack of one) is irrelevant. For someone who can't, it amounts to nothing more than a degree in "you owe me a chance because I went to college". (Michael Forrest Jones' answer to Do employers take the University of Phoenix seriously when considering an applicant's resume? | Michael Forrest Jones' answer to What is it like to be a high school dropout? )
Oh, you've "proven yourself"? Maybe you have -- to someone else. My hiring decisions are about my needs, not your pedigree or credentials.
Originally appeared on Quora
Oh, you've "proven yourself"? Maybe you have -- to someone else. My hiring decisions are about my needs, not your pedigree or credentials.
Originally appeared on Quora
Does Bill Gates have a resume?
Probably not. (I'd be amazed if he did.)
And, would you refuse to hire him because of that? Or if he did give you one, would anything on it make a difference in your decision to hire him? Should it?
Who would you need, or expect, to call for references?
That's a shining example of how I consider the entire field of human resources generally dysfunctional . . . and why I don't put full pedigree information on my LinkedIn profile or spend too much time with it . . .
The information that shows up on a resume/CV (and the follow-up calls you'd make in connection with one if you had one) is a very small part of what a person -- especially a person of Bill Gates' known abilities, attributes and achievements, or a person who is similarly extraordinary in other fields -- is all about, and tells you very little about his or her capabilities. And that body of information would tell you way too much about his or her weaknesses, past mistakes, and failings, and put far and away too much emphasis on those. (Should it be held against Bill Gates that he dropped out of Harvard? After all, dropping out is bad. Especially after Daddy paid a whole lot of money to send you to Harvard! . . .)
And, would you refuse to hire him because of that? Or if he did give you one, would anything on it make a difference in your decision to hire him? Should it?
Who would you need, or expect, to call for references?
That's a shining example of how I consider the entire field of human resources generally dysfunctional . . . and why I don't put full pedigree information on my LinkedIn profile or spend too much time with it . . .
The information that shows up on a resume/CV (and the follow-up calls you'd make in connection with one if you had one) is a very small part of what a person -- especially a person of Bill Gates' known abilities, attributes and achievements, or a person who is similarly extraordinary in other fields -- is all about, and tells you very little about his or her capabilities. And that body of information would tell you way too much about his or her weaknesses, past mistakes, and failings, and put far and away too much emphasis on those. (Should it be held against Bill Gates that he dropped out of Harvard? After all, dropping out is bad. Especially after Daddy paid a whole lot of money to send you to Harvard! . . .)
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
How does hotel management or employees feel about the legalization of marijuana as it pertains to operations, whether that's housekeeping or marketing?
We're still going to drug test people, and if you test positive in a jurisdiction where the law permits (North Carolina is a tobacco-producing state and to protect smokers, North Carolina law prohibits discrimination on the basis of "off-duty use of lawful products", but I don't see North Carolina legalizing marijuana anytime soon), we're still going to fire you.
And if you smoke a joint on the job or show up to work stoned, that's on-duty use and you're meat on a hook, the same as if we caught you drinking on the job or if you show up to work inebriated . . .
Hello? This is 2017. Back in the '80's, before Len Bias, and Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" crusade; smoking grass was about as mainstream as it ever got, but not anymore.
What's going to have to change before we classify it with off-duty alcohol use and take a more laissez-faire approach to it isn't legalization per se, it's lawful sources of supply. I don't like the kind of people you'd have to deal with nowadays to get the stuff, and if you deal with such people, you've got the wrong kind of people for friends . . .
Personally, I support the legalization of marijuana, but that doesn't mean I'd use it myself or want it around me, that I want it in my workplace, or that I want my employees floating through the day with a buzz on . . .
Originally appeared on Quora
And if you smoke a joint on the job or show up to work stoned, that's on-duty use and you're meat on a hook, the same as if we caught you drinking on the job or if you show up to work inebriated . . .
Hello? This is 2017. Back in the '80's, before Len Bias, and Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" crusade; smoking grass was about as mainstream as it ever got, but not anymore.
What's going to have to change before we classify it with off-duty alcohol use and take a more laissez-faire approach to it isn't legalization per se, it's lawful sources of supply. I don't like the kind of people you'd have to deal with nowadays to get the stuff, and if you deal with such people, you've got the wrong kind of people for friends . . .
Personally, I support the legalization of marijuana, but that doesn't mean I'd use it myself or want it around me, that I want it in my workplace, or that I want my employees floating through the day with a buzz on . . .
Originally appeared on Quora
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
What matters more in a letter of recommendation: who writes it or what it says?
Who writes it.
And then, only if it’s written by someone I know — at least well enough to accept a connection request on LinkedIn from that person.
And then, only if they know and like me well enough to take a phone call from me — because the first thing that’s going to happen is, I’m going to call them and ask what they really think.
I don’t encourage the use of them, and I only skeptically accept them when they show up, if at all.
Frankly, I don’t want to see them, although I might get curious about one if it was written by someone I know; and for unsolicited employment applicants (people I invite to consider coming on board with us don’t need a ‘recommendation’), we even call it out.
First of all, you’re never, never, never going to see one where the writer has anything bad or negative or critical to say about the person he’s recommending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)