Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. During the initial screening and interviewing we don't take resumes with addresses. After the job is offered, of course we have new employees fill out paperwork that will reveal their address. The point is the job was already offered WITHOUT consideration to whether or not the employee was in the area.
We do not offer relocation packages of any kind because we have a "blind" policy. We might offer a signing bonus which an employee could use for whatever they want, including if they need to move.
Where someone lives is not really a big deal. If they want to live somewhere else, why should an employer turn down a willing, qualified candidate? They don'[t have to pay for the move if they don't want to.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. During the initial screening and interviewing we don't take resumes with addresses. After the job is offered, of course we have new employees fill out paperwork that will reveal their address. The point is the job was already offered WITHOUT consideration to whether or not the employee was in the area.
I'm aware of that.
But why wouldn't the location of the employee want to be known prior to the job being offered (after the expensive background checks, time wasted, paper wasted, etc.)?
But why wouldn't the location of the employee want to be known prior to the job being offered (after the expensive background checks, time wasted, paper wasted, etc.)?
It doesn't matter in our industry. We do a reference check before the job is offered but a credit check AFTER the job has been offered. The paperwork goes through a third party for that.
I don't have any idea why an employer needs to know exactly where you live prior to offering a job. At my company we have a few virtual employees who live in another state. Why does it matter?
yeah, there are a lot of legitimate concerns around an employee's location. what if they live an hour and a half away and don't intend to move? that's a concern, since they might have problems with arriving on time due to traffic or weather, or they might just decide the commute is too much and quit. what if they need to relocate but have no concrete plan, or need a very long notice period for moving, or expect relocation assistance you aren't willing to give (i guess if the majority of the background check is post-offer, that's not such a big deal), or just aren't really that committed to moving? what if they move, hate it, and move right back to where they came from? that's a concern too. i don't think those factors should eliminate a candidate (obviously, because i am job searching long distance right now!) but i understand discussing them during the hiring process.
it does depend on the level of the job and the industry (people can work from home and high level people can afford to do very long distance commutes).
you could even ask for city and state but not specific address if you are worried about people claiming they've been stereotyped by neighborhood. if your system works for your company i guess it's fine, but it's not at all the norm.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. During the initial screening and interviewing we don't take resumes with addresses. After the job is offered, of course we have new employees fill out paperwork that will reveal their address. The point is the job was already offered WITHOUT consideration to whether or not the employee was in the area.
We do not offer relocation packages of any kind because we have a "blind" policy. We might offer a signing bonus which an employee could use for whatever they want, including if they need to move.
Where someone lives is not really a big deal. If they want to live somewhere else, why should an employer turn down a willing, qualified candidate? They don'[t have to pay for the move if they don't want to.
In this economy especially, there are likely several willing, qualified candidates are are local, let along those that are non-local.
It's just far less risky to only open positions to local candidates than to non-local candidates. The company just has to be sure not to give the person that was denied any reason to feel they were discriminated by a protected class.
The fact is, the way your company and lifeexplorer's company does things is not standard.
It doesn't matter in our industry. We do a reference check before the job is offered but a credit check AFTER the job has been offered. The paperwork goes through a third party for that.
So what you meant to say is that you find out their location after the initial screening but before the job is offered? If so, that's different from what you said before
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisthedealwith
At my company we have a few virtual employees who live in another state. Why does it matter?
But those are virtual employees, not employees in which you have to worry about attendance or relocation. In other words, I'm assuming those employees work from any location they please at any time they please.
yeah, there are a lot of legitimate concerns around an employee's location. what if they live an hour and a half away and don't intend to move? that's a concern, since they might have problems with arriving on time due to traffic or weather, or they might just decide the commute is too much and quit. what if they need to relocate but have no concrete plan, or need a very long notice period for moving, or just aren't really that committed to moving? that's a concern too.
it does depend on the level of the job and the industry (people can work from home and high level people can afford to do very long distance commutes).
you could even ask for city and state but not specific address if you are worried about people claiming they've been stereotyped by neighborhood. but hey, if it works for your company i guess it's fine.
But those are not an EMPLOYER concern. Getting to work is on the employee. The employer sets up the work environment and policies and its up to the employee to follow them. If the employee can't, the employer fires them.
Thinking that way is dangerous for employers. Its like saying 'If I hire a young married woman, she will very likely get pregnant, than what do I do? I am not going to hire young married women. " Or, "If I hire a guy who is really into sports, he is going to want to take time off when the Superbowl is on and that is our busy season. No, I can't hire anyone who is really into sports."
Employers have to draw the line at what is JOB RELATED and that includes duties that are performed during work hours. Not commutes. Not where someone lives. Not what someone may or may not do based on experiences with others with similar characteristics.
So what you meant to say is that you find out their location after the initial screening but before the job is offered? If so, that's different from what you said before
But those are virtual employees, not employees in which you have to worry about attendance or relocation. In other words, I'm assuming those employees work from any location they please at any time they please.
No, this is what I said--
We don't find out addresses during the initial screening.
After the job is offered, the employee accepts and fills out their paperwork. This includes a credit check and basic benefit stuff which asks for addresses. A third party does the credit check. I am sure that HR sees everything else.
Why are you determined to argue with me about the policies at the place I work?
In this economy especially, there are likely several willing, qualified candidates are are local, let along those that are non-local.
It's just far less risky to only open positions to local candidates than to non-local candidates. The company just has to be sure not to give the person that was denied any reason to feel they were discriminated by a protected class.
The fact is, the way your company and lifeexplorer's company does things is not standard.
Where I live is a major city which attracts a great deal of talent. There are qualified people who already live here and lots of people who want to move here.
I can see that if you are in a smaller town or a more economically depressed place, there might be some grumbling about hiring "outsiders" where there are people out of work. But that is not the case where I live.
But those are not an EMPLOYER concern. Getting to work is on the employee. The employer sets up the work environment and policies and its up to the employee to follow them. If the employee can't, the employer fires them.
But let's say you're hiring to fill positions for a call center that is extremely busy from open to close. It is an absolute must that all of your employees are on the phone and taking calls at the time the center opens to the time the center closes.
However, let's say you hire someone who lives 30 miles away. Every other day, they have an issue which causes them to be late. For example, there's a terrible accident on the highway they use to commute into work, or they drive a hooptie which has all sorts of problems. By missing this one employee for that bit of time, you're not only overworking the employees that have arrived on time, but you're also making your customers angrier with the longer wait times and damaging your call stats, which doesn't look good for management.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
