Background check

slinuxuzer

I was wondering if anyone knew how long it normally takes to do a standard background check, not DoD but just a normal criminal check.

I have a job that I interviewed with several times, two or three phone interviews and one in person at the plant, talked money with the recruiter and now they sent me background check and reference authorization forms friday, I got them 4 p.m. last friday when I got to work, faxed em back so they have had them for two days.

Also, how good of an indication is this that they will make me an offer?

astorrs

I don't know what its like in TX, but here in Canada it usually takes a couple of weeks (2-3, but up to 6) to get the answer back. Most employers will provisionally hire you in advance of that (so you can do training and such) but some may not be able to (due to regulations, etc)

Luckycharms

Honestly It all depends on who is doing the check... HR--> might take some time... and if they have to send it out to do the background check then it takes even longer.... I have had to do a few of them.. It can literately take 10 min if you are in the right place or it can take weeks... best of luck...

astorrs

I don't think HR depts can really do proper criminal records checks... fingerprints are required after all?

Although it would be true if the place you work at has access to NCIC (law enforcement, etc) it would be almost instant...

Luckycharms

I don't think HR depts can really do proper criminal records checks... fingerprints are required after all?

3rd party background check... but that is expensive and farther then most company's are willing to go... So I agree with you on them not probably doing it.

TLETS access is what they would need in texas...

JDMurray

The basic background check (criminal, credit, DMV) takes 1-3 days to perform.

slinuxuzer

Thanks Jdmurray, thats been my experience in the past (1)times, is a couple days, let me ask you this I have a fico score of 570, but I am pretty sure that at this point I have paid off all of my debts, but just havent built any new credit, how bad could this be?

astorrs

I guess I misunderstood, employment rules in Canada are a bit more restrictive in what employers can ask for/do compared to down south. For example in British Columbia, you can’t refuse to hire someone because of a criminal conviction that is “unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person,” so you couldn't deny someone employment as a Database Administrator if they had a DUI in the past (and no I don't have a record ). Pre-employment and random alcohol and drug testing is also illegal (random alcohol testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions is allowed).

The only experience I have with background checks is for tier 3 & 4 colo's where they do the whole shebang (fingerprints to the RCMP, etc). Otherwise its just some HR rep phoning up a past reference or two (and maybe reaching out to one or two of the HR depts for the companies you listed as having been employed by just to verify dates of employment and job title).

liven

slinuxuzer wrote:

Thanks Jdmurray, thats been my experience in the past (1)times, is a couple days, let me ask you this I have a fico score of 570, but I am pretty sure that at this point I have paid off all of my debts, but just havent built any new credit, how bad could this be?

This depends on where your going to work.

Some companies want a pretty spotless records (especially financial institutions) when it comes to the credit check. But if you have a clean record other wise and little to no outstanding debt you will be fine.

eMeS

slinuxuzer wrote:

I was wondering if anyone knew how long it normally takes to do a standard background check, not DoD but just a normal criminal check.

I have a job that I interviewed with several times, two or three phone interviews and one in person at the plant, talked money with the recruiter and now they sent me background check and reference authorization forms friday, I got them 4 p.m. last friday when I got to work, faxed em back so they have had them for two days.

Also, how good of an indication is this that they will make me an offer?

Depending on exactly what they are checking, it could be complete in as little as a few hours. More than likely, they are checking the things that JD mentioned, which should be 1-3 days.

In my experience, once an employer conducts a background check an offer has already been made contingent upon satisfying the background check requirements. This is because they are spending money to review your background and would want to know that you accept the terms of their offer prior to the money being spent. My experience is in financial services, where background checks occur depending on the role primarily for risk, insurance, licensing, and regulatory compliance reasons.

I have seen people with terrible credit hired by companies. In many cases a low score can be explained, and if there are no active collections the candidate is seen as a lower risk. Oddly, when a company is in need of a very specialized skill, they have a way of overlooking blemishes on people's records.

IMO, credit scores are one of the worst things used to judge candidates for a job. I understand the point of checking credit to get an idea of whether the person fulfills committments, however, it seems silly to me that someone could be denied a job that might enable them to pay off debt because they have too much debt???? After all, your credit score is affected by the percentage of credit utilized. People make mistakes, and the punishment should and does fit the crime (e.g., higher cost of or no access to credit, PMI requirements on mortgages, etc..)...I don't see how denying access to employment is an appropriate punishment for poor credit, when having poor credit punishes one in so many other ways.

Not to rant, but I am...

IMO the next worst thing to judge candidates by are references - Who is going to provide reference on an application or form that is going to give them anything less than a glowing recommendation?.

And after that I would have to say it is drug screening - Although necessary for some jobs such as "pilot", or any other where people's lives are at risk, what is the point of doing this for a help desk or most IT jobs? I understand the arguments about being ill more, but couldn't the same be said for tobacco users or overweight people? Please note, I am not pro-legalization, and I am not a drug user. However, I don't think I want employers to have the power to pass judgment on criminal events well after the event occurred. I do think if an employer witnesses a crime, such as drug use, they should report it to the authorities.

Oddly enough, as much as I have worked in IT in financial services (where the credit and criminal background checks are stringent), I never once knew of a financial services company that did drug testing (I'm sure there is an example of one somewhere that does). Generally, the reason that they didn't do drug testing was because they would have had to fire about 80% of the staff....

MS[/i]

liven

eMeS wrote:

slinuxuzer wrote:

I was wondering if anyone knew how long it normally takes to do a standard background check, not DoD but just a normal criminal check.

I have a job that I interviewed with several times, two or three phone interviews and one in person at the plant, talked money with the recruiter and now they sent me background check and reference authorization forms friday, I got them 4 p.m. last friday when I got to work, faxed em back so they have had them for two days.

Also, how good of an indication is this that they will make me an offer?

Depending on exactly what they are checking, it could be complete in as little as a few hours. More than likely, they are checking the things that JD mentioned, which should be 1-3 days.

In my experience, once an employer conducts a background check an offer has already been made contingent upon satisfying the background check requirements. This is because they are spending money to review your background and would want to know that you accept the terms of their offer prior to the money being spent. My experience is in financial services, where background checks occur depending on the role primarily for risk, insurance, licensing, and regulatory compliance reasons.

I have seen people with terrible credit hired by companies. In many cases a low score can be explained, and if there are no active collections the candidate is seen as a lower risk. Oddly, when a company is in need of a very specialized skill, they have a way of overlooking blemishes on people's records.

IMO, credit scores are one of the worst things used to judge candidates for a job. I understand the point of checking credit to get an idea of whether the person fulfills committments, however, it seems silly to me that someone could be denied a job that might enable them to pay off debt because they have too much debt???? After all, your credit score is affected by the percentage of credit utilized. People make mistakes, and the punishment should and does fit the crime (e.g., higher cost of or no access to credit, PMI requirements on mortgages, etc..)...I don't see how denying access to employment is an appropriate punishment for poor credit, when having poor credit punishes one in so many other ways.

Not to rant, but I am...

IMO the next worst thing to judge candidates by are references - Who is going to provide reference on an application or form that is going to give them anything less than a glowing recommendation?.

And after that I would have to say it is drug screening - Although necessary for some jobs such as "pilot", or any other where people's lives are at risk, what is the point of doing this for a help desk or most IT jobs? I understand the arguments about being ill more, but couldn't the same be said for tobacco users or overweight people? Please note, I am not pro-legalization, and I am not a drug user. However, I don't think I want employers to have the power to pass judgment on criminal events well after the event occurred. I do think if an employer witnesses a crime, such as drug use, they should report it to the authorities.

Oddly enough, as much as I have worked in IT in financial services (where the credit and criminal background checks are stringent), I never once knew of a financial services company that did drug testing (I'm sure there is an example of one somewhere that does). Generally, the reason that they didn't do drug testing was because they would have had to fire about 80% of the staff....

MS[/i]

WELL SAID!!!

Funny thing is I didn't have to take a drug test to get a security clearance for the government. But I did have to take a drug test to get a job with a fortune 500 company!

cacharo

eMeS wrote:

IMO, credit scores are one of the worst things used to judge candidates for a job. I understand the point of checking credit to get an idea of whether the person fulfills committments, however, it seems silly to me that someone could be denied a job that might enable them to pay off debt because they have too much debt???? After all, your credit score is affected by the percentage of credit utilized. People make mistakes, and the punishment should and does fit the crime (e.g., higher cost of or no access to credit, PMI requirements on mortgages, etc..)...I don't see how denying access to employment is an appropriate punishment for poor credit, when having poor credit punishes one in so many other ways.

Credit reports are very important in certain fields. It all depends on the job being performed and the environment they work in. A potential employee in a lot of debt can be seen as a huge security risk. If the employee is new they typically do not have much allegiance to the company or a sense of pride in what they do. They could very make some easy money and get themselves "unstuck" just by offering up some inside information or customer lists. I do not have any stats to back it up but I would assume most stolen or sold proprietary material comes from employees with the company <1 year.

astorrs

True but what about an employee with a very low FICO score because they didn't have much credit?

eMeS

cacharo wrote:

eMeS wrote:

IMO, credit scores are one of the worst things used to judge candidates for a job. I understand the point of checking credit to get an idea of whether the person fulfills committments, however, it seems silly to me that someone could be denied a job that might enable them to pay off debt because they have too much debt???? After all, your credit score is affected by the percentage of credit utilized. People make mistakes, and the punishment should and does fit the crime (e.g., higher cost of or no access to credit, PMI requirements on mortgages, etc..)...I don't see how denying access to employment is an appropriate punishment for poor credit, when having poor credit punishes one in so many other ways.

Credit reports are very important in certain fields. It all depends on the job being performed and the environment they work in. A potential employee in a lot of debt can be seen as a huge security risk. If the employee is new they typically do not have much allegiance to the company or a sense of pride in what they do. They could very make some easy money and get themselves "unstuck" just by offering up some inside information or customer lists. I do not have any stats to back it up but I would assume most stolen or sold proprietary material comes from employees with the company <1 year.

I do understand the reason and the risk that someone with too much debt might resort to criminal activity in order to service that debt. The majority of my professional career (~20 years) has been in IT in financial services, where intense background checks and bonding are the norm. I have customers to this day that want to check my credit/background, which I decline because I carry an errors and omissions insurance policy.

However, I ask the question, "If someone were successful at such an activity (such as selling proprietary information) wouldn't they likely have no debt and a high credit score?" In other words, someone that is smart enough to steal without getting caught is unlikely to draw additional unwanted attention to themselves.

I don't see how checking credit addresses this. In fact, all that I really see that it does is presuppose that some population of candidates are predisposed to crime. I may live in a dream world, but where I live it's the burden of the accuser to prove the crime, and for that to occur a crime has to have actually happened.

A high credit score really only tells me that the candidate has a high credit score, just as a low credit score indicates that they have a low credit score. It tells me nothing about whether or not the person with the high credit score is more or less likely to steal than the person with the low credit score.

I am reminded of the recent MacLaren/Ferrari event that has been much discussed. My undestanding is that there was a guy at Ferrari who held a high-up confidential position. He was passed over for a promotion, which pissed him off so he decided to sell information to MacLaren. I don't know this to be a fact, but I am somewhat certain that Ferrari does a significant background check before giving someone the keys to the castle. Obviously this guy passed the background check to get the job, however, some event after that triggered his behavior. The same type of damaging behavior that companies are trying to avoid by doing background checks! (If I have the details of the story wrong, please some of the F1 fans provide clarification).

History is littered with similar examples of people that passed whatever background screening was required at the time, yet turned out to be bleeding their employers or their nations dry....

MS