|
|
|
|
|
by hmahncke
1436 days ago
|
|
My company did adopt background checks, as part of our SOC-2 requirements and because my company works with health insurers (which generally impose this requirement via contract, regardless of SOC-2). Like many people here, I didn't like the requirement. That being said 1) It's possible to configure background checks so you don't receive irrelevant information (e.g., if DUIs aren't relevant, then configure the check so you don't receive information about DUIs). In most cases, you'll just want to receive information about financial and privacy related offenses. 2) What you do with the information is up to you (unless your customers enforce certain actions). In general, the SOC-2 auditors will want to see a plan by which you acknowledge and manage the risk, which doesn't necessarily mean you can't hire the person. |
|
DUI is a sign of gross recklessness and apathy for the well being of others. Sure I won't blame a young adult for doing this mistake and there are situations where it's understandable (i.e. some kind of emergency making you DUI even through you generally are against it).
But still I would prefer to work with someone who in the youth due to poverty has committed robbery (but not anymore since 20 years), then someone who in their 40th who is frequently driving under influence of alcohol.
Anyway even if I had a company and it for whatever reason would do background checks I wouldn't want to know the outcome as long as whoever is responsible for it following some strict guidelines didn't judge it to be a problem (and no if it's not a car company it wouldn't contain DUI, and generally I don't like background checks).