2 ms·

> To be fair, background checks take time and cost money. Background checks do, and a company shouldn't (and don't) do that before being ready to extend an off

by jjav 2y ago

> To be fair, background checks take time and cost money. Background checks do, and a company shouldn't (and don't) do that before being ready to extend an offer (actually it's usually done after extending the offer, just a contingency). However, a simple employment check is easy and quick. (Perhaps even automated by HRIS systems these days, haven't kept track so not sure.) Why waste ~6 hours of expensive senior engineer and hiring manager time doing rounds of interviews before doing a simple check on whether the resume is correct about employment place/title/duration?

wakawaka28 2y ago
"Simple" employment checks for casual reasons amount to spam. Most importantly you may put the candidate in a position of being known to be on the hunt for a job. That kind of shit gets people fired at some companies. I have had recruiters try to "verify" my employment but really they are trying to get in good with a manager who may soon have an opening, even if it screws you over. Sometimes management is very petty and will just fire you to make an example out of you for daring to have higher ambitions. Also, I've seen records from my most recent background check, and one of the companies I worked at simply didn't answer questions, and hardly ever picked up the phone. Almost nobody at any company I worked at had a phone, so it all had to go through HR. And again, if each unemployed worker gets like a dozen interviews, this kind of frivolous checking will generate hundreds of pointless phone calls. >Why waste ~6 hours of expensive senior engineer and hiring manager time doing rounds of interviews before doing a simple check on whether the resume is correct about employment place/title/duration? I think it is rare for a faker to make it through to an interview, much less even pass the first 1 hour session. Failing the background check is rare. I think it's safe enough to start with the assumption that a resume is correct and work from there. You should be able to detect most fakes because they will be screwed up in obvious ways.

by jjav 2y ago

wakawaka28 2y ago

"Simple" employment checks for casual reasons amount to spam. Most importantly you may put the candidate in a position of being known to be on the hunt for a job. That kind of shit gets people fired at some companies. I have had recruiters try to "verify" my employment but really they are trying to get in good with a manager who may soon have an opening, even if it screws you over. Sometimes management is very petty and will just fire you to make an example out of you for daring to have higher ambitions. Also, I've seen records from my most recent background check, and one of the companies I worked at simply didn't answer questions, and hardly ever picked up the phone. Almost nobody at any company I worked at had a phone, so it all had to go through HR. And again, if each unemployed worker gets like a dozen interviews, this kind of frivolous checking will generate hundreds of pointless phone calls. >Why waste ~6 hours of expensive senior engineer and hiring manager time doing rounds of interviews before doing a simple check on whether the resume is correct about employment place/title/duration? I think it is rare for a faker to make it through to an interview, much less even pass the first 1 hour session. Failing the background check is rare. I think it's safe enough to start with the assumption that a resume is correct and work from there. You should be able to detect most fakes because they will be screwed up in obvious ways.