5 ms·

>They didn't share what was in his check but it wasn't good. Always ask to see the background check details if you're the hiring manager (you should have the r

• yardie 9y ago
  Didn't know I could do that. I've had my own background checks in the past and no one has shared them with me. Speaking to HR, unless there is a negative item on your record they aren't required to.
  • marzell 9y ago
    If the background check was done on you, I believe they have to provide a copy of all the data they received if you request it.
    • twohlix_ 9y ago
      Depends on the state.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    • pionar 9y ago
      At least at the federal level, no they don't. Unless they decided not to hire you (or fired you afterwards). Then they only have to provide "a notice that includes a copy of the consumer report you relied on to make your decision" - https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/background_checks_employers.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/background_checks_emp...
    • yardie 9y ago
      I've requested it, just for my own amusement. They told me no. Unless they didn't hire me based on something from that background check they didn't have to give it to you.
  • PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    > Didn't know I could do that. o_O Why would you assume you couldn't?
  • Ralfp 9y ago
    In EU even something like recruiter scribbling notes over your printed CV during job interview automatically grants you right to look into them as it is considered personal data processing.
• tptacek 9y ago
  I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you mean a formal background check, which summarizes your criminal history or your credit history, then candidates are entitled to copies of the specific report the company claims to rely on in taking an adverse action, but nothing else. If you're referring to private reference checks, of the type that would surface "personal issues people might have with formal colleagues", you're not entitled to anything whatsoever. If you're a hiring manager in an organization where HR handles background checks, you personally as the hiring manager are entitled to nothing. I would venture further that it's inappropriate for HR to provide criminal/credit background check information to hiring managers.
  • WhitneyLand 9y ago
    >you [as] the hiring manager are entitled to nothing You mean in any kind of practical or legal sense or in your personal opinion? I see this happen all the time and am not aware of any thing barring this in the U.S. Think about the two extremes. If a startup of a few people run a background check there is no HR dept so the CEO/hiring manager is seeing it. On the other hand if the hiring manager is the CEO at an F500 company trying to hire a handpicked rockstar exec and a background check pops there no way that person will be rejected only on the word of HR without understanding what the issue is and the context around it. Somewhere in the middle of those extremes companies may have policies to address the situation, but I don't see how any blanket statement can be made here.
    • tptacek 9y ago
      I asked the author what they meant, and then laid out what the facts are. It's simple: * Candidates are entitled to copies of background/credit reports used to make adverse decisions against them, under the FCRA. * Candidates are only entitled to the specific document, collected under the FCRA, that was used to make the adverse decision. * Reference checks --- calls to previous employers and coworkers --- are not governed by the FCRA or, as far as I know, any other law. Candidates are absolutely not entitled to any information about reference checks, but a candidate that "flunks" a reference check might be told so when they're refused a job. Or they might not. * No law entitles hiring managers to any documentation whatsoever. Only the last point I made was one of opinion, but I think it's a widely held and pretty common sense opinion: It is terribly inappropriate for HR to share background check documentation with hiring managers. Companies that employ background checks should have simple, static rules, like "no previously undisclosed felonies" or "no violations relevant to the job", that are evaluated by HR. It's already a grave violation of candidate privacy to do these kinds of checks in the first place (which is why they have to collect special permission from candidates to do them at all!). It's negligent to then pass that information around the org chart to help others in the company read tea leaves from them. My opinion here is informed by experience working with companies that do background checks, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are fucked up companies where HR passes copies of credit and background reports to other employees.
• Gibbon1 9y ago
  Reminds me one of my old bosses hired someone. And then HR fired them because they had a pot conviction. So then my boss hired them as an outside contractor. Every six months HR would discover he was on the 'no hire list' and terminate his contract and my boss would cut him a new contract.
  • pkaye 9y ago
    HR doesn't need to approve of contractors?
    • valuearb 9y ago
      In a good company, HR has as little authority as possible.
  • walshemj 9y ago
    Reminds me when I worked a big telcom (BT) on of the guys in our section was an ex teenage Phreak and had been done for hacking PRESTEL. One day one of the feared internal security team who had caught him years ago was in the building and met him and freaked out - our centre mangers politely told him to f off when he demanded that we fire the guy.
  • walshemj 9y ago
    Was not the manger involved in the hearing in most big companies its the mangers who make the firing decision with input from HR.
  • 65827 9y ago
    Yeah let me guess this dude was white. Unbelievable, the world must be so different in that skin.
    • Gibbon1 9y ago
      My boss was French. Socially Adept Frenchman: 1 Human Resources: 0
• cperciva 9y ago
  Discrimination is exactly why you want to leave that decision in the hands of HR. In the event of a lawsuit they'll have evidence to show that they followed the process your lawyers signed off upon and the decision to say "no hire" was based solely on permissible factors. At large companies, this will go as far as "here's a database dump of all the applicants with X on their criminal record... as you can see, we didn't hire any of them". As soon as individual managers want to make those decisions for themselves, it becomes much harder to refute claims of discrimination.
  • valuearb 9y ago
    That's a terrible policy. You need to optimize for getting the best employees, not minimizing discrimination complaints. How often is a felon going to sue because the company once made an exception for a specific felon because of specific outside factors, and how can that cost you any suit? "Your honor, my client, the recently released child rapist with an iffy work record, is suing because BigCorp says they normally don't hire felons, but a few years ago BigCorp made an exception for a felon who sold marijuana, got his college degree in prison, then after he was released worked at non-profits helping the poor while getting an advanced degree in computer technology and writing several highly regarded academic papers on improving user interfaces for the disabled. That's not fair!" The specific facts matter, and HR should be fired if they have blanket polices that ignore them. HR needs to serve the business, not the other way round.