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.
Fine. Take the little box off. I'll just do a background check to make sure I'm not hiring an embezzler to run my accounting department or a thief in the warehouse with my merchandise.
So, yet another person who is under the delusion that embezzlers and thieves are those who must have had a previous conviction and are on file. They are just those that were caught and convicted. The chances that you could hire an up-and-coming embezzler or thief to your accounting department or your warehouse are pretty good since they still do AND ALWAYS WILL exist!
People have been lulled into a false sense of security with background checks and - here in Australia - the requirement of a 'Blue Card' in order to work around children or those considered to be 'vulnerable'.
Yes, it is like talking to walls. You still cannot answer the question of why we should waste time, money, and schedule to interview someone and go through much of the process only to discover at the end they can't be hired. It doesn't matter how much they "make their case" I cannot hire them. Or do you really just think that all that time, labor, and background check is free?
It's already been asked and answered, maybe you just don't like the answer, or maybe you didn't read all the posts
So, yet another person who is under the delusion that embezzlers and thieves are those who must have had a previous conviction and are on file. They are just those that were caught and convicted. The chances that you could hire an up-and-coming embezzler or thief to your accounting department or your warehouse are pretty good since they still do AND ALWAYS WILL exist!
People have been lulled into a false sense of security with background checks and - here in Australia - the requirement of a 'Blue Card' in order to work around children or those considered to be 'vulnerable'.
Exactly Great idea for Australia to issue a card like that, the US would be wise to do something similar.
No, I think I understood you, unless I'm missing something, you made the same point I did earlier that background checks give people a false sense of security. I offered the data to one poster who seemed to be claiming that a background check could prevent them from hiring an embezzler that only 7% of the people who are arrested for embezzlement have prior convictions.
It's already been asked and answered, maybe you just don't like the answer, or maybe you didn't read all the posts
No, it hasn't been. There's been a lot of hand waving and a lot of dismissal toward legitimate issues, and a lot of basically "feel good" arguments, but no logical, reasonable, justification of why we should waste time and money down a closed path. What value does it bring to counteract the cost? What is the benefit when the answer is still can't be hired?
The problem is you're trying to pretend that somehow the end answer will change. It won't. The information is too sensitive and the risk too great.
No, I think I understood you, unless I'm missing something, you made the same point I did earlier that background checks give people a false sense of security. I offered the data to one poster who seemed to be claiming that a background check could prevent them from hiring an embezzler that only 7% of the people who are arrested for embezzlement have prior convictions.
So, yet another person who is under the delusion that embezzlers and thieves are those who must have had a previous conviction and are on file. They are just those that were caught and convicted. The chances that you could hire an up-and-coming embezzler or thief to your accounting department or your warehouse are pretty good since they still do AND ALWAYS WILL exist!
People have been lulled into a false sense of security with background checks and - here in Australia - the requirement of a 'Blue Card' in order to work around children or those considered to be 'vulnerable'.
There is a difference in knowingly hiring someone who has previously stolen from an employers position. I guess it would be worth the risk that my business would cease to exist if I knowingly sent a thief into a customers house to you but not to me.
There is a difference if I did everything I could first to ensure safety, your right about crap happening but that's very different in the eyes of my customers.
I'm noticing that those who approve aren't employers. Nothing to lose I guess.
No, it hasn't been. There's been a lot of hand waving and a lot of dismissal toward legitimate issues, and a lot of basically "feel good" arguments, but no logical, reasonable, justification of why we should waste time and money down a closed path. What value does it bring to counteract the cost? What is the benefit when the answer is still can't be hired?
The problem is you're trying to pretend that somehow the end answer will change. It won't. The information is too sensitive and the risk too great.
I'm having the same issue.
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.
Great idea for Australia to issue a card like that, the US would be wise to do something similar.
