Employment Screening

dchr9203

My company does NOT verify previous employment and/or education, and makes an attempt at checking 3 "personal" references per new hire. I think its in our best interest to verify current/previous emplyoment and education at a minimum, however, I'm getting resistence and a push for "arbitrary" program management determination (ie; let PM decide if they want to verify either/or/none). I'm confident there's some "disparate treatment" associated with screening this employee but not that one. What are your thoughts and/or experience?

Thanks!

HR in MN

I agree that you could be setting yourself up for a discrimination claim if you are selective about who you are contacting on different applicants. We are a public employer, so we often get criticized for our practices. So we have learned to do employment verifications on previous employment for all candidates. Our procedures are to contact former employers for the past 10 years. This includes a discussion with the HR office as well as the current/former supervisor. Sometimes the supervisor is anxious to get rid of someone and will give a glowing review even if their personnel file tells a different story. To get this information, we have the employee complete a release of information. Depending on your business, you would also want to consider doing verifications to avoid a negligent hiring claim.

Good luck.

Don D

On a scale of one to ten, I would rank the value of verifying previous employment a 10 and would rank the value of meaningless personal references a 1. For a person to list on an application as a personal reference, someone who would not give them glowing commentary, that is indeed an IQ test. Always check work history, inquire as to gaps, match real dates with listed dates. Our background checks reveal that 2 out of 10 applicants falsify their application either by showing false reasons for leaving jobs or by embellishing the dates by as much as years.

dchr9203

Thanks. What's your take on "selective" screening (ie: screen this hire but not that one)?

Don D

I would not have any part of it. Same as "Let's take an application on this one but not that one", or "These two must go through Job Service to be referred here, but this one can come on in and skirt the process." Don't do or omit anything that you are not willing to defend in a hearing.

AJ SPHR

Don D, I respectfully disagree. I conduct both employment verification checks (verify dates/title and whatever else they'll tell me) and also contact one or two personal references. If you ask the questions right, you can get some valuable information. I've encountered negatives and cautionary words in several personal reference checks that helped to confirm concerns that we had regarding the applicant. I think personal references can be valuable, but they must be as structured as interviews so that you solicit the information you want and don't rely on the person providing the information the ability to just say "Jane is great!".

deniseE

I'm not sure what kind of industry you work in...but if you're hiring anyone that will deal with the public, confidential information, finances, dangerous chemicals, obvious or potential weapons...or any area that may put the company in some position of liability for the ee's behavior or choices, you should be conducting a background check on your ee's. all of them.

Are you completing the I-9's and the W2 checks? These things are not an invasion of employee privacy, rather a protection for the company and any one your company comes into contact with.

dchr9203

Thanks for all of your inputs. I love this site! I work in an industry in which many hires are contract/customer driven, and many new employees are simply transitioning from one contract to another. The issue is "why incur the cost when we (or someone else) already 'knows' this person/employee". I work against a "closed" mindset and why "fix what ain't broke". All other processes are same for all "new hires", including I-9's, applications, W-2's, etc. I agree with Don D on personal references and as general practice have not used. But as you can see, my current company relies "heavily" on them. Don't know how it'll end up, but I won't support arbitrary or selective screening. Its all or none in my opinion.

Don D

I've probably done hundreds myself. Can you report to us that what you gathered in a reference check has ever tilted the balance one way or the other?

AJ SPHR

In a recent example, we were recruiting for a high level financial-type person. One of the applicants had a good background on paper so we invited him in to interview. He interviewed well, except one or two of the interviewers had a concern that he may not be able to communicate complex financial issues to non-finance people (which is critical in the job) and had a niggling suspicion that he could have a slight "prima donna" attitude.

During the personal reference checks, we contacted people he worked for and with previously and in addition to learning more about his roles and responsibilities in previous jobs, we also explored these two potential areas of concern. Both of the personal references we talked to provided some good input that he did have difficulty communicating with non-financial people and at times was resistant to hearing other points of view, not wanting to consider that he could be wrong.

As a result, we did not offer him the job.

Please be aware that when I type the concerns that arose during the interview process, they weren't as evident or clear-cut as what it seems when you read this brief synopsis. But it does provide a good example where personal reference checks worked for us.

And maybe it's the term - personal reference checks. Once someone is out of college or high school and no longer is listing their teacher or pastor or friend, but actually lists co-workers or previous managers, you're able to get more of a work-related reference check even though they're listed as personal checks.

HR in MN

I agree that personal references can be helpful but should never be the only references you should do. Sometimes it is surprising what the applicant suggested contact will come up with. If they don't know that the contact is goingn to say something bad, then you probably don't want the applicant!
I also believe strongly you should never do "selective" backgrounds or you will be changing that policy AFTER you lose the lawsuit.