What a mess!

JM in ATL

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-03-03 AT 11:08AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I interviewed and hired the nicest person last Wednesday. He started on Monday, with limited access b/c I did not receive the results from his pre-employment testing. Apparently due to Holiday fever my testing company never received the fax...

Anyway, test came back today. It seems that he forgot to mention a little alleged misdemeanor incident he was recently "accused" of.

It gets worse... we are a wholesale distributor. Yesterday his sup. asked him to open a box and add another item. This box was on a pallet, which was shrink wrapped. He was caught on VIDEO putting the item in his pocket rather than in this box.

On top of all of this, he "forgot" that his daughter was to have surgery today and needed off.

Now unfortunately I will be letting this REALLY nice person go. I haven't had too much luck hiring people lately, and we have such an awesome company!! It's so depressing!

Can someone please tell me I am doing the right thing? Please?

POPEYE

The only thing I would say that you did or are going to do wrong was allowing any EE to begin employment until ALL post-offer testing or checks are returned and approved by HR. We have heard/read so many times just on this forum of the same type scenario and it just creates more unnecessary work and consumption of time, not to mention the emotional stress you have expressed for yourself and also on the new EE.

Even though you may be talking about an extra day or two for all results to be returned, it will be well worth the wait.

Parabeagle

I agree with Popeye. If at all possible, wait for all testing/checking results to come back before extending the offer - or, if that's not feasible, make the offer contingent upon successfully completing the test/background check/whatever. As far as letting the person go, I would not hesitate. Do it and do it now. Good luck.

JM in ATL

Oh it's clearly stated in his offer letter that employment is contingent upon a background check.

However, he told me about ONE of the incidents listed, explained what happened, we discussed it, and it really wasn't a reason NOT to hire him.

What got my goat was the second one that he didn't disclose, which on paper is more of a serious nature.

I am always on my soap box about getting the test results before starting employment, and in this case I just let my guard down. I guess it goes to show that you just can't do it. Trust me, I have no stronger judge, jury and critic other than myself. Apparently I just tasted my own medicine. ICK!

Balloonman

He is a thief, fire him. Don't feel bad, it is his loss.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

HRsage

I don't know if I would even disclose something that I was only "accused" of, unless it was specifically asked of me. We only ask for convictions not accusations.

The main issue to me is the theft. That's pretty cut and dry to me. He stole, you can prove it, he's gone. No question.

cthr

I would fire him based on the theft as well.

In regards to the other, some states prohibit asking about "arrests" and it is not required that applicants disclose them. If your state is not one-what does it say on the form that they fill out for this question, does it specify arrests or does it say convictions?

marc

Yes, you are doing the right thing.

You are firing a liar and a thief. It is absolutely correct to protect your company. Perhaps you should take another step and fill out a police report and let matters take their course. You might be protecting more than just your company then.

Do not feel bad about letting this guy pull the wool over your eyes. It is OK, to want to believe the best about people, the trick is not to end up cycnical about people, but to still follow the process that protects you.

The interview process is the best place to learn how to 'read' people. I am not great at this, but am getting better. If I can improve, anyone can - so there is hope if you hang in there and stay true to yourself.

JM in ATL

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-03-03 AT 01:28PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Well... he's gone. I didn't even mention the video tape. I didn't see a need to add fuel to the fire when the background was sufficient enough.

I feel horrible, he really presented himself as a nice person, and as we concluded the termination meeting, he stood up, and shook our hands and thanked us for everything. Then wished us a Merry Christmas as he walked out the door. I feel about 2 inches tall right now.

I know it was the right thing to do and I know that I was protecting my company, I just wish he could have been a jerk when we fired him. Ya know?!

Parabeagle

"I feel horrible, he really presented himself as a nice person..."

If I had a nickel for every time I've seen a manager hoodwinked by a "nice person" he/she has hired, I wouldn't be working here. I understand Butch Cassidy was a pretty decent sort, too. Didn't make him any less of a thief.

Relax. Even though you feel badly, you did do the right thing. Wait until you have to do it to a REALLY nice person for a nonperformance-related reason.

San Francisco

JM, think about it - he wasn't a really nice person, he only presented himself as a really nice person. I am not saying this is true of this particular individual, but there are those who make their living conning people and they are successful because they "appear" to be really nice people. Don't feel at all bad and stand up to your full height for goodness sakes.

Elizabeth

TN HR

JM,

I interviewed the same guy today! He said you guys were pieces of trash and that the only reason he pursued an opportunity with your company was so he could defraud your WC carrier and then you for UI. He even said, and I quote, "that schmuck JM really thought I was being sincere when I wished him a merry Christmas! HA!"

Ok, I hope this makes you feel a little better

Gene

JM in ATL

It almost did until you called me a schmuck and a "he" all in one sentence.

Is this what they call tough love?

Parabeagle

JM - Yes, it's tough love and only available on the Forum from Forumaniacs. At least I hope he made you chuckle - and I don't think "schmuck" is gender-specific, so you're safe. Although I would NEVER call you a "he." x;-)

marc

Watch out, Parabeagle is putting his smooth moves on you while you are in a vulnerable state.8-|

Parabeagle

Oh, gimme a break, Marc!

Don D

You're correct Marc. He's either putting me down or schmoozing some woman on the Forum. Problem is, he often doesn't know if it's a woman or a man he's schmoozing. That might get him in a bind.

Whatever

Schmuck is Yiddish for a part of the male anatomy. Therefore, it is very gender specific. However, it currently also has another meaning.

Dasher

Hey, JM -- please forget about it.

How in the world can a "nice" guy lie, steal and have a bad memory for major events in his life?

Good thing you found out sooner than later when the entire pallet of materials may have gone missing. Yes, we HR persons should (and do) have a heart, but why waste it on a deceiver.

Take care.