Questionable hiring policy.

Factual Questions
1

Good evening folks!

I’d like to get your opinion on a new hiring policy that simply reeks of poor judgment at best or completely illegal at worst.

Here we go:

Once a candidate has successfully passed the interview process and has been designated as a good candidate, the employer will perform a background check (criminal record) a verification of the candidates driving record, and finally a financial check.

Now the criminal and driving records are perfectly understandable, the financial check seems somewhat questionable for employees not involved in handling cash or bookkeeping, but regardless, the kicker is that the candidate is required to cover the costs of all these background checks???

In other words, someone could end up receiving an offer of employment AND a bill for what I’m guessing could amout to a few hundred dollars should they decide to accept the offer.

In my opinion this is tantamount to requesting payment in exchange for a job, but maybe I’m out of touch with HR practices these days…

Any thoughts?

Kind Regards,

Ookinator.

2

What type of job is this anyways?
I’d have to say that this isn’t illegal, assuming this is for a private company the employer AFAIK is compleatly within their rights to ask something like this. I’d imagine it’s similar to un paid training for a company, working at a water park that requires you to pay to certify your self for life guarding, or a restaurant that requires you to buy your own non refundably uniform. It also, in a way, is another method for weeding out people that arn’t serious about the job before someone has to go through the trouble of doing the work. Similar for paying to apply to a college. Many people would apply to schools they KNOW that can’t get into just for the hell of it, but if they’re charged up front to do so, they’re much less likely.

3

Thanks for the input Joey P!

I can see your point about weeding out prospects, but come one, If during the interview you provide all the information requested, performing a background check (or in this case, 3 checks) is kinda like saying “okay, you say this is the truth, but I’m still not convinced, I want some confirmation of it.”

Fine, check out my story if you like, but do it at your own expense don’t expect me to pay for it.

No?

4

That should have been “come on”.

5

ookpik2 wrote

Well, it’s certainly not illegal. Why would you consider it “poor judgement”? Do you think the company will risk losing a good quality candidate? In fact, the opposite is true, as people who pass all three tests are more likely (on average) to be more trustworthy.

Please explain why this would be “poor judgement.”

6

The poor judgment is in presenting the candidate with a bill to cover the costs of verifying the veracity of statements made during the interview.

I don’t have a problem with checking out someones history before offering them a position, in fact I’ve had to do this on many occasions, however, I would never even consider charging them for this.

I dunno, maybe I’m wrong, but it just seems like a bad start to a relationship…

7

Seems like a good way to make sure that you mostly hire well-off white folks.

By making the applicants pay these up-front costs to be hired, it’s likely to eliminate anyone (good candidate or not) who is poor. And that would include most minorities of any color or race.

But it’s probably legal. At least, they could put up a good pretence in court that they weren’t trying to eliminate poor or minority job applicants.

Whether that’s a “questionable hiring policy” depends on what you want to accomplish. If you want to “appear” non-discriminatory, but still keep out all of “those people”, this would mostly do that, no question.

8

I have some limited experience in Labor Relations. I was a Labor Relations Officer for about a year. Given this limited knowledge, i am pretty sure that, if the hiring practices are ever questioned (in court), the company would have to prove why the request of information, prior to employment, was a bona fide necessity given the nature of the job. Criminal checks have long been considered ok, as long as the company is ONLY trying to see if the person lied on their application. There are very few jobs where you can hold a criminal record against a person unless you can prove a nexus between the work and prior behavior. As for the financial check, depending upon the nature of the job, I can not see how many companies would be able to use this as a justification and they would be torn apart in court if a complaining party proved that this requirement led to a form of discrimination. As another poster pointed out, if they used this information improperly, it could screen out various minorities and groups that are over-represented in the poorer demographic categories.

However, I could see an HR department making the assertion that a good financial history is indicative of a responsible person and is therefore a more apt candidate. I just think they are walking a VERY thin line if they do not use that information responsibly.

As for the paying part of the equation. I really do not know. My limited experience sees no major problem with this as long as the expense is not too great to eliminate a particular group of people.

“Mr. Lissa”

9

t-bonham@scc.net wrote

Jeez. I suppose you have a problem with an employer requiring a college education, since that costs money (a mess more money then a background check).

10

I have worked in HR for about 3 years. In one job that was an entertainment company, we did:

Background check with past employers.
Checked references.
Drug testing.
Computer quiz/test during interview to confirm experience.
Credit check.

We performed a credit check to see how responsible a person was. We had over 15 candidates for one position and we couldn’t really make a decision sometimes. If a person was late on payments, no biggie. But sometimes people had F9’s (?) on their credit report which meant they were over 120 days overdue on a bill. We would propose this info to the applicant and give him/her a chance to explain why. Sometimes we hired people even though they had terrible credit. I only had to do a credit check a few times and it was a last resort in the hiring process when you had a “feeling” about someone’s future performance. If the person put the blame on something/someone else with some huge story regarding their credit, who’s to say they wouldn’t take responsibility if something had happened during their employment. It’s just a way of asking for an answer for a problem. We also gave them the option to release the info to us. It just gave them more credibility. Well, that’s how we did it.
-M

11

Great. I was researching the legality of this policy when I realized that your location was important to know. It’s not listed next to your posts or in your OP, but it does appear in your profile (in the biography section, btw). Ottawa, Canada? No clue.

As far as reeking of poor judgment, it does. If the company is that cheap, why in the heck would I, as an applicant, expect them to be any different when setting my starting salary, or future raises, or yearly bonuses, etc.? What kind of reputation does this company expect to have by doing such a thing?

Even though I work in HR, I’ve never heard of a company with such a policy nor ever imagined that one would have such a policy in place. It just seems incredibly tacky and unprofessional. If the applicant fails the background checks and then not offered the position, are they still charged?

As far as the financial background checks, I was working in the HR dept. of a company (California SF Bay area) when they decided to begin these and the criminal ones for new employees (paid by the company). When promoted to manager, I stopped doing the financial checks, and a rep. for the company that conducted these checks said she was surprised we had asked for the financials initially. In her experience, these were rarely requested.

12

Bill H. - there are numerous ways to finance a college education, and a college education has unquestioned benefits over and above access to a single, particular job with a particular company.

In this situation, however, applicants are expected to pony up a fee ahead of time to prove that they meet some subjective, unknown criteria on the chance that they might get hired. This isn’t asking that someone have specific ability to do a job (as demonstrated by their education or certification) or a current license to practice their profession. It’s saying “Okay, we like you, now we want you to pay for a bunch of empirical data, some of which we’re going to analyze and draw inferences from, and we’re going to make a hiring decision based upon the overall positivity or negativity of those inferences.”

I don’t think that it’s accurate to say that “most” minorities wouldn’t be able to do this, any more than it’s fair to say that “most” whites could. The problem here isn’t really would could or could not do this, its who would do it, and even more important - why they should. This is an especially pointed question for someone who isn’t well off, who has a lot of education debt, -has been unemployed for a period of time, and so on.

I’m fairly certain that this practice is completely legal, but the company must realize that no matter their rationale for putting this cost (normally considered a basic operations cost) off on prospective employees, they’re only getting a very self-selecting pool of talent – people with money to burn or those so desperate for a job that they’ll pay costs that they really ought not have to pay. As a hiring manager, I’d be wary if that was the totality of available hirees, but that’s just me.

In addition, the fact that there is no access to cash or financial information involved in the work and they’re still insisting on a credit check throws up a big red flag for me. AFAIC, it’s not an employer’s business to know the kind of info that’s included on such a report for just any employee. (And in fact, credit reports can reveal personal data which an employer cannot find out through direct questions during an interview as a matter of law, which heightens my objection to casual use of them.) Overall, I strongly question any suggestion that a layman’s reading of credit report (without accompanying biological information which, again, tends to fall into the legally protected category) can provide information which indicates an unacceptable level of risk of workplace dishonesty, theft or embezzlement. So what are they looking to prove on someone’s dime, anyway?

I’d run as far away from this company as I possibly could. I’d probably be screaming while I ran.

13

tlw wrote

Then we’re in complete agreement. This was the exact point I was countering of t-bonham@scc.net’s, who’s sole addition to this conversation was that the likely reason for this process was to keep poor minorities out. Which I believe is total bullshit.

As an employer, I don’t believe having candidates pay for the testing is the right choice just for good relations. I do think that a financial check is good for some positions, though I’ve never done one myself on a candidate.

But I certainly don’t believe that the employer is putting this hurdle up as some sort of racial filter. t-bonham@scc.net’s accusation was not only completely unfounded, it was likely completely wrong, and it was vicious and antagonistic. As far as I’m concerned, wrongly accusing someone of denying jobs to minorities is on par with denying jobs to minorities.

14

>> I’d run as far away from this company as I possibly could. I’d probably be screaming while I ran.

I second that. I would never consider them, if only because it is tacky and not customary.

15

Business executive here.

I wouldn’t tolerate that during an interview process. Even if I wanted to work there I simply wouldn’t. Plenty of other employers in the see.

I quote Crash Davis: “After 14 years in the minors…I don’t try out.”

16

Thank you all for your valued input!

Ookpik