[lmarcos]

As someone not familiarized with background checks, why is it weird to do bg checks after handing the offer?

If the employer does the bg check before handing the offer, that means the candidate hasn't resigned yet from their current job. So wouldn't the bg check expose the candidate? (E.g., my boss would know I'm thinking about leaving)

[gambiting]

Doing the background check after the offer is fine, it's insane that they do it after the candidate already starts the new job. So what, I leave my current job to come work for you, and in the first week you tell me "sorry you failed our background check" and let me go? Who the F would ever agree to this kind of risk?

>>8. End of first week, we occasionally have to let someone go on background issues

Yeah, that's bonkers.

[closeparen]

We're not talking like government security clearance here. If you have some major legal or financial issue in your life then maybe it depends what exactly the BGC turns up or how it's adjudicated. If not, there's basically zero chance it's going to affect anything. Just a formality from the candidate's perspective.

[gambiting]

If it's just a formality, why not do it before you start the job then?

[closeparen]

If it’s just a formality, why would you delay the new hire’s start by several weeks while it’s pending?

[gambiting]

As an employer you wouldn't - but I don't understand how any employee agrees to starting before it's complete.

[closeparen]

You already know whether you have a criminal record or financial catastrophe. If you do, maybe you need to wait and see what they think of it. If you don’t, there is no chance of a problem.

[indymike]

This is normal for non-tech employers. It is novel in tech, but not something that is bonkers in other sectors. We're able to have developers on the payroll three-four weeks before offers are out by competitors.

[gambiting]

I wonder where you find developers desperate enough to accept such conditions - I'm not sure I'd want to work with them.

[indymike]

This has never been a problem, except when someone is currently employed and is leaving a job to take one at our company. Right now, there's a lot of really good talent that does not have this issue.

[gambiting]

>>except when someone is currently employed and is leaving a job to take one at our company.

And in that case you do the check before they start with you, yes?

[indymike]

Of course.

[lotsoweiners]

> So wouldn't the bg check expose the candidate? (E.g., my boss would know I'm thinking about leaving)

HR at the orgs I've worked for call that a reference check and it is usually concurrent with the other background check processes before the offer. The background check I'm thinking of is more like criminal history, work eligibility status etc., potentially drug screening etc. I know I have no criminal record but I'd really like to know that whatever service HR is using to screen agrees with this before I quit my job.

[throwaway38475]

Background checks don't call your old boss. How would they even know who that is?

[ghostpepper]

Have you ever done a background check with HireRight? They ask you for all of your previous companies and contact them to verify. I think there is an option not to call your current employer.

[BigJ1211]

How far can you legally go with those in the US?

Here in the EU at most you can ask if they worked there, nothing else.

[turquoisevar]

There's a huge background check fetish here in the US, and it's facilitated by a massive lack of privacy and an equally big fetish for everlasting punishment.

Want a job or rent a place? Background check, baby!

Not just prior employment but even civil court cases and criminal history are all a part of it, and it doesn't help that even something as small as a traffic ticket shows up on your records.

Have you ever sued a landlord to get your deposit back? There's a good chance your new landlord doesn't want you.

Were you convicted of petty theft years ago? That might cost you your prospective job.

In most of the EU, much of this information isn't public, and in many countries, criminal records are inaccessible.

Often, in the latter, you can get a declaration of “good behavior” from the government if your prospective job has some sensitive elements. The government will then issue one or decline based on the specific job and its risks with your record in mind.

Were you caught committing a DUI? You won't get one for a job as a cab driver, but you can safely get one for working at a bank.

Have you got caught embezzling money? Then you can't get one working at a bank, but you're welcome to become a cab driver.

In the US? Well, you're SOOL. Enjoy being marked for life as your options to get an income legally have significantly shrunk.

[dpe82]

Oftentimes, in practice it's the same.

Aside from things that may lead to accusations of violating equal opportunity employment laws, you can ask just about anything. Many previous employers won't do more than confirm employment though, as a negative review may open them up to liability. As a result, the norm in many industries is to only ask (and receive) confirmation of employment.

[adastra22]

Nearly the same. “Did BigJ1211 work at your company? Would you hire them again?”

But that signals to their current employer that they’re applying for other jobs. Unlike the EU, employers in the US can be retaliatory about that.