7 ms·

> 7. Background checks start in parallel with on-boarding. First week is spent with business unit teams to learn what the company actually, really does. Yikes!

> 7. Background checks start in parallel with on-boarding. First week is spent with business unit teams to learn what the company actually, really does. Yikes!!! I’ve never heard of a potential employer giving offers before background check. Do you tell candidates this before they quit their current jobs?

voiceblue 3y ago
Exactly. A lot can unexpectedly go wrong during a background check, some companies ask employees for (very old) W2's they may not have, etc. There was a time when I worked at <redacted> and a new co-worker suddenly disappeared without a trace, and I was told in confidence by a VP they "were not who they said they were" which I presume means they failed a background check. This was during growing pains, they were probably doing checks after hiring.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > "were not who they said they were" I worked with a guy who it later came out that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when he convinced a buddy of his to kill his ex-wife and her new boyfriend. Probably should have had better background checks at that company.
- adastra22 3y ago
  …why would you need an old W2?
  - reidjs 3y ago
    People lie about job history
    - indymike 3y ago
      There's a school of thought around comp where what someone's made in the past should inform what you offer in the future. Some use comp history as an indicator of quality. Some use it as guidance for making sure they don't offer too much.
    - adastra22 3y ago
      So you reference check with the company’s HR department, no? There is way too much info on a W2 that no future employer should have.
- nightski 3y ago
  If an employer ever asked for an old W-2 I'd refuse, and if it was enough of a problem I'd recuse myself. That's private, sorry. Not that it would matter for me personally, I've been self employed for 15 years. But still there has to be some self respect.
  - voiceblue 3y ago
    Unfortunately these types of requests come after you have presumably accepted the offer and declined alternative offers...
    - ozim 3y ago
      All “high-horse” claims work better when yo have cash in the bank and don’t need to get that job right here right now. I also decline signing NDA, providing data they should not request. Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours. But if I would need that paycheck ASAP all of it goes to trash and I would comply to most of shenanigans, maybe not all but still.
      - indymike 3y ago
        > Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours. We're pretty big on making sure that our contract allows this as we encourage developers to do side projects - open source, etc. We do have an anti-double dipping clause.
- LeafItAlone 3y ago
  Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though. If it’s fully communicated that the background check happens in parallel and the new hire doesn’t expect anything to pop up, it seems like a good option (provided the employer is reasonable about trying to solve unexpected inaccuracies that may arise). In my last two positions, I’m pretty sure my employment contract included a section indicting that at any time they can do a new check on me. And I believe my most recent one explicitly asked if I expected anything to come up.
  - voiceblue 3y ago
    > Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though. That's true, but consider this: by running these checks in parallel you are exposing your employees to whatever risks the new element brings in. Perhaps they were convicted of SA etc. and decide to stalk someone at your co. It just doesn't seem like the best idea.
- indymike 3y ago
  We're not doing a salary verification so we don't make the new hire provide a bunch of data, aside answering questions about where you lived, when. We are doing a court record and criminal background check. When we have a problem 100% of the time the new hire has misrepresented themselves. We tell people exactly what the background check will discover, and we've even hired people who have disclosed issues prior to the check (nothing serious).
lmarcos 3y ago
As someone not familiarized with background checks, why is it weird to do bg checks after handing the offer? If the employer does the bg check before handing the offer, that means the candidate hasn't resigned yet from their current job. So wouldn't the bg check expose the candidate? (E.g., my boss would know I'm thinking about leaving)
- gambiting 3y ago
  Doing the background check after the offer is fine, it's insane that they do it after the candidate already starts the new job. So what, I leave my current job to come work for you, and in the first week you tell me "sorry you failed our background check" and let me go? Who the F would ever agree to this kind of risk? >>8. End of first week, we occasionally have to let someone go on background issues Yeah, that's bonkers.
  - indymike 3y ago
    This is normal for non-tech employers. It is novel in tech, but not something that is bonkers in other sectors. We're able to have developers on the payroll three-four weeks before offers are out by competitors.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      I wonder where you find developers desperate enough to accept such conditions - I'm not sure I'd want to work with them.
      - indymike 3y ago
        This has never been a problem, except when someone is currently employed and is leaving a job to take one at our company. Right now, there's a lot of really good talent that does not have this issue.
        gambiting 3y ago
burkaman 3y ago
Yeah this sounds like it should be illegal, although it's probably allowed in the US. There's no way it is clearly communicated to candidates, I don't think most people would agree to a contract that says "FYI we might fire you after a week if HireRight doesn't like you, no we can't check beforehand you'll just have to hope you meet our standards."
- mywittyname 3y ago
  Yes, I agree that the company should be clear about this upfront. I would think that people affected by this are probably used to this coming up and are up-front with what happened before the accepting the offer. "Hey, so great to hear about the verbal offer. So about white collar crimes..." Unless the company is somehow getting expunged records or something like that, it's likely that the person is lying about something they shouldn't have and got caught.
TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
On one hand it sounds off putting, on other hand it can be very awkward that you have hired a mole from competition who is there to understand your secret sauce and get out or that you have hired somebody who was in prison for computer crimes.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  A week -1 background check would find anything a week 1 background check would find.
indymike 3y ago
Yes we disclose. We have to. Incentive is on the candidate to be honest.
appplication 3y ago
I work for a large, well known tech company and can confirm I had a formal offer before doing any background check.

voiceblue 3y ago

Exactly. A lot can unexpectedly go wrong during a background check, some companies ask employees for (very old) W2's they may not have, etc. There was a time when I worked at <redacted> and a new co-worker suddenly disappeared without a trace, and I was told in confidence by a VP they "were not who they said they were" which I presume means they failed a background check. This was during growing pains, they were probably doing checks after hiring.

lamontcg 3y ago
> "were not who they said they were" I worked with a guy who it later came out that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when he convinced a buddy of his to kill his ex-wife and her new boyfriend. Probably should have had better background checks at that company.
adastra22 3y ago
…why would you need an old W2?
- reidjs 3y ago
  People lie about job history
  - indymike 3y ago
    There's a school of thought around comp where what someone's made in the past should inform what you offer in the future. Some use comp history as an indicator of quality. Some use it as guidance for making sure they don't offer too much.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    So you reference check with the company’s HR department, no? There is way too much info on a W2 that no future employer should have.
nightski 3y ago
If an employer ever asked for an old W-2 I'd refuse, and if it was enough of a problem I'd recuse myself. That's private, sorry. Not that it would matter for me personally, I've been self employed for 15 years. But still there has to be some self respect.
- voiceblue 3y ago
  Unfortunately these types of requests come after you have presumably accepted the offer and declined alternative offers...
  - ozim 3y ago
    All “high-horse” claims work better when yo have cash in the bank and don’t need to get that job right here right now. I also decline signing NDA, providing data they should not request. Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours. But if I would need that paycheck ASAP all of it goes to trash and I would comply to most of shenanigans, maybe not all but still.
    - indymike 3y ago
      > Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours. We're pretty big on making sure that our contract allows this as we encourage developers to do side projects - open source, etc. We do have an anti-double dipping clause.
LeafItAlone 3y ago
Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though. If it’s fully communicated that the background check happens in parallel and the new hire doesn’t expect anything to pop up, it seems like a good option (provided the employer is reasonable about trying to solve unexpected inaccuracies that may arise). In my last two positions, I’m pretty sure my employment contract included a section indicting that at any time they can do a new check on me. And I believe my most recent one explicitly asked if I expected anything to come up.
- voiceblue 3y ago
  > Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though. That's true, but consider this: by running these checks in parallel you are exposing your employees to whatever risks the new element brings in. Perhaps they were convicted of SA etc. and decide to stalk someone at your co. It just doesn't seem like the best idea.
indymike 3y ago
We're not doing a salary verification so we don't make the new hire provide a bunch of data, aside answering questions about where you lived, when. We are doing a court record and criminal background check. When we have a problem 100% of the time the new hire has misrepresented themselves. We tell people exactly what the background check will discover, and we've even hired people who have disclosed issues prior to the check (nothing serious).

lmarcos 3y ago

As someone not familiarized with background checks, why is it weird to do bg checks after handing the offer? If the employer does the bg check before handing the offer, that means the candidate hasn't resigned yet from their current job. So wouldn't the bg check expose the candidate? (E.g., my boss would know I'm thinking about leaving)

gambiting 3y ago
Doing the background check after the offer is fine, it's insane that they do it after the candidate already starts the new job. So what, I leave my current job to come work for you, and in the first week you tell me "sorry you failed our background check" and let me go? Who the F would ever agree to this kind of risk? >>8. End of first week, we occasionally have to let someone go on background issues Yeah, that's bonkers.
- indymike 3y ago
  This is normal for non-tech employers. It is novel in tech, but not something that is bonkers in other sectors. We're able to have developers on the payroll three-four weeks before offers are out by competitors.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    I wonder where you find developers desperate enough to accept such conditions - I'm not sure I'd want to work with them.
    - indymike 3y ago
      This has never been a problem, except when someone is currently employed and is leaving a job to take one at our company. Right now, there's a lot of really good talent that does not have this issue.
      - gambiting 3y ago

burkaman 3y ago

Yeah this sounds like it should be illegal, although it's probably allowed in the US. There's no way it is clearly communicated to candidates, I don't think most people would agree to a contract that says "FYI we might fire you after a week if HireRight doesn't like you, no we can't check beforehand you'll just have to hope you meet our standards."

mywittyname 3y ago
Yes, I agree that the company should be clear about this upfront. I would think that people affected by this are probably used to this coming up and are up-front with what happened before the accepting the offer. "Hey, so great to hear about the verbal offer. So about white collar crimes..." Unless the company is somehow getting expunged records or something like that, it's likely that the person is lying about something they shouldn't have and got caught.

TheLoafOfBread 3y ago

On one hand it sounds off putting, on other hand it can be very awkward that you have hired a mole from competition who is there to understand your secret sauce and get out or that you have hired somebody who was in prison for computer crimes.

pseudalopex 3y ago
A week -1 background check would find anything a week 1 background check would find.

indymike 3y ago

Yes we disclose. We have to. Incentive is on the candidate to be honest.

appplication 3y ago

I work for a large, well known tech company and can confirm I had a formal offer before doing any background check.