Background Checks

[thefourthwall]

My neighbor mentioned yesterday how her husband had gotten email from his employer's management (everyone there got this email) about background checks.

It seems that everyone will have to consent to a background check as a condition of continued employment, no matter how long people have worked there, and that if it comes back negative it will be grounds for a kick out the door.

That seems pretty ...draconian. Anyone heard of forcing current employees to agree to one of these?

 

[aarenot]

I am strictly speaking from a litigation stand point when stating that unless all persons are subject to the same background checks it may cause legal issues. The exception would obviously be that the higher the person in the oranization the more extensive the search. In the USA, that may well include managers, general managers, or anyone who collects a salary directly from the company including company execs., CFO's, CEO's. etc.

I would however also advise all prospective, or current employees to do thorough background checks on the prospective employer. Ask for references, especially from former employees, retirees, small dollar suppliers,and anyone taking a job without running a similiar report as a D & B report is kind of jumping in with their eyes closed. I would check the employers public record as criminal, or bad financial activities by a company also make that company a poor risk. If they are being reported for late payments, or defaulting on creditors, that is generally just the tip of the iceberg, as many vendors/suppliers do not report clients for 30, 60, 90, 120, or 180 days late payments as it is not always conducive to maintaining a continued vendor relationship. Although this is highly disreputable action for a company to engage in, but often not reported until the vendor is no longer doing business with the company. Especially if the vendor is a small firm working for a large firm as one of its largest accounts. This shows the companies true colors in my opinion.