Author |
Message |
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 8:21 am
Anyone here have real expertise in this? (I am thinking Juju might know a thing or two--or anyone with HR experience.) I did my due diligence in running a background report (from a couple sources, one of which is deemed "reputable" without spending an arm and a leg)--and both showed the same thing about an individual who is a potential employee. Here's what was giving me pause: Other names were associated with this individual's Social Security Number (SSN). And not just 1 or 2 (which I found when I ran my own check as a verifier of how goofy the reports were or not), but 10! One of which was a sex offender. When emailing the companies who are responsible for the checks, they both responded that there can be 3 reasons for these names: 1. Could be someone with whom they jointly applied for credit; 2. Could be someone's error in transposing numbers in the public records 3. Could be that the other individual's SSN is very close to that person's SSN. So what is that individual to do? Of course, I am having second thoughts now--but I know that it could be just as true that all of this was none of the individual's doing (why the 2 names appear with mine is beyond me, too). Guess I will have to get that taken care of, somehow. Now I am finding out, by the individual's own admission, that (1) he/she was turned down for credit (I didn't run a credit check on this person); and that (2) another pet sitting company told the individual she/he had to go to our state police to get a background check (not sure if this was because the business owner didn't want to pay for it or because the owner saw worrisome things, though). Wish the individual had told me those things first, but I can certainly understand why he/she wouldn't have. Guess I wouldn't have, either. Now, I know I am obligated to share the reports if I use them to turn someone down. I have already shared them with the individual. I let the candidate know that these matters had to be taken care of before I could hire him/her. I just cannot say I can vouch for someone when there is a doubt in my mind. I am giving the individual a chance to get the records cleaned up and return to me. So I told the individual to at least call the state police and see what they said. But this disturbs me greatly. I know how unfair it COULD be to people; yet, I don't want to risk my clients' confidence/safety, either. So how does one clean up this information? I know there are avenues if there is identity theft and credit reporting cleanup. But what if it doesn't really involve either? What if it's poor record-keeping or SSN's that are similar? Then how do you get all this rectified?
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 9:42 am
From a Social Security standpoint we do have a service to verify if the person's SSN and name match, for a fee. We will only tell you yes or no if the SSN matches though and then if it's a no we advise the person to go to their local Social Security office to prove who they are and their SSN etc.
|
Serate
Member
08-21-2001
| Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 12:26 pm
HP w/o going into too much detail, there were items of bad credit on my husband's credit report about 8 years ago. [He found this out when he was denied credit and utilized the option of them having to share the background/credit check with him.] There was also an alias who had bad items against him. At the time we were extremely tight on money, so after trying to get it rectified for a year and a half, we just gave up. When he went through the process of getting pre-approved for a mortgage 2 years ago, our agent took care of what was still left on his report - including the alias. And she took care of a company that had reported us default that we were not and we could prove that we were not in default. So it's not an easy process cleaning up your credit/background check, even if you are not at fault. You are the boss. Life is not fair. You have to do what you feel is best for your clients. And also what is best for your business, which is hiring safe reliable employees. IMO you went over and beyond what you had to do by telling this person they could come back as soon as things were straightened out and apply again. Alot of employers would not do that. So you are protecting yourself and your customers first, which is your main job, but are willing to give the person a 2nd chance if he/she comes back as an acceptable applicant. If he/she doesn't then that is his/her problem. Good for you.
|
Juju2bigdog
Member
10-27-2000
| Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 9:27 pm
HP, it may not be fair, but it ain't YOUR problem. Don't you DARE hire somebody for the business you are in if you get back a background check like that. Your employees have to be super squeaky clean, and I mean not a DUI, definitely not a shoplifting arrest, no theft or drug related arrests even if they were acquitted. You are letting strangers into people's homes. And probably wealthy homes from the looks of it. You could run into a gigantic liability problem if you let the wrong person into a client's home. I trust you, but I don't trust the rest of the mopes. Uhhhhh ... which brings up the consideration of bonding or liablity insurance or something. Got some? Got a bunch?
|
Texannie
Member
07-16-2001
| Friday, September 05, 2008 - 4:39 am
ditto Juju!
|
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Friday, September 05, 2008 - 11:13 am
Yes, I have liability insurance up to $50,000 per incident. And I am bonded up to the same amount for up to 3 employees for my rate. I can up the rate when I add more employees. Yeah, well, the individual is not hired until that is cleared up. They are NOT saying on the report that this individual has a criminal record. In fact, they say the person does not. The stain on this applicant's record is all the other names (not aliases, just other names) associated with her SSN--which is weird, weird, weird. Well, we shall see what happens with her cleanup. In the meantime, I have another interview and hope her stuff comes up clean!
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Friday, September 05, 2008 - 12:58 pm
My husband has a very common name. (As do we all with our last name which is in the same category as Johnson.) We had to have several checks ran on us when we were in the adoption process. We were all "cleared" by the time we were matched with Abby. In the 9th hour, someone realized that we did not meet one requirement which had been added since we had been officially cleared. I forget exactly which particular "clearance" it was, but my husband's came back with "something" on it. They would not tell us what it was. (and they NEVER EVER even told us what it was.) Well (as we are pretty much sick to our stomachs that something might prevent this adoption, we were on day 8 of our transition--birthmom had signed the papers on day 2) there were a few calls made and we got temporary approval until an FBI clearance was run. We knew there was no way there was anything on his record, but we were nauseous nonetheless as we know life is not always fair... We did get custody of her a few days later and headed home. (We adopted her out of state). But we were still semi-freaking out, despite the fact that our lawyer repeatedly told us all would be fine. Finally several weeks later after we went to the police station and started the FBI check we got notice in the mail that he was all clear. It sucked that that had to happen but at least all worked out in the end. In a way it really made us appreciate adopting Abby into our family all the more! Also not implying at all that HP should be "lenient" at all. It stinks that you HAVE to be that careful, cuz sometimes some people do fall in the cracks of the system.
|
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Thursday, October 02, 2008 - 8:33 am
Well, my applicant came through (today) with an email saying she received the Delaware State Police documentation that confirms she has no criminal record. So I am going to give her a chance, AFTER seeing this document, that is! (I'm wondering if they do merely a state check or a nationwide check.) They did take her fingerprints, btw.
|
|