Mixing
Job offer contingent on background check: when to give notice?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
44
down vote
favorite
I have recently accepted a job offer from an employer (a relatively large one with big HR dept). Basically everything went fine: salary/benefits negotiated, start-date determined, etc. I got the letter, signed it, sent it back, and gave notice to my previous employer.
However, according to the paperwork, the job offer is contingent on passing a pre-employment background check. I have always thought it was a formality but this time the background check is really happening and appears to be fairly extensive and is taking more than two weeks. For example, I had to take a drug test and I know they are verifying my past employment with a third party, checking my linkedIn profile, etc, and who knows what else. The HR department doesn't even know when the background check will be complete.
There is no reason to believe that I won't pass the background screen and I have nothing to hide, but it makes me kind of nervous. What if something goes wrong for whatever reason and the offer is reneged? That would put me in a very vulnerable situation.
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check? The problem with that is that it could push out the start date because I expect to give a reasonable amount of notice to the previous employer. On the other hand, it sort-of provides an incentive for the background check to be done quickly.
hiring-process new-job
asked Apr 24 '12 at 20:33
Angelo
6,15621631
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
44
down vote
favorite
I have recently accepted a job offer from an employer (a relatively large one with big HR dept). Basically everything went fine: salary/benefits negotiated, start-date determined, etc. I got the letter, signed it, sent it back, and gave notice to my previous employer.
However, according to the paperwork, the job offer is contingent on passing a pre-employment background check. I have always thought it was a formality but this time the background check is really happening and appears to be fairly extensive and is taking more than two weeks. For example, I had to take a drug test and I know they are verifying my past employment with a third party, checking my linkedIn profile, etc, and who knows what else. The HR department doesn't even know when the background check will be complete.
There is no reason to believe that I won't pass the background screen and I have nothing to hide, but it makes me kind of nervous. What if something goes wrong for whatever reason and the offer is reneged? That would put me in a very vulnerable situation.
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check? The problem with that is that it could push out the start date because I expect to give a reasonable amount of notice to the previous employer. On the other hand, it sort-of provides an incentive for the background check to be done quickly.
hiring-process new-job
asked Apr 24 '12 at 20:33
Angelo
6,15621631
@Chad, I gave the current employer notice after I returned the offer letter to the new one. It now appears that this may be too soon in cases where an extensive background check is done. I guess it all boils down to how often do pre-employment background screens end with a "no-go"?
– Angelo
Apr 24 '12 at 21:36
5
It doesnt matter if it has never happened before if it happens with you. You do not know what their process is and how deep they are going. They made you the offer presumably because they want to hire you. I would expect you would know (or at least have a good expectation of) if you are going to pass the background check before they start. Did they know before you gave notice you were looking?
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Apr 25 '12 at 10:00
1
@Chad, you mean "does my new employer know I gave notice to my old employer?" Yes. My mistake was acting as though the offer letter was the "sure-thing" and not the subsequent background check. I had always assumed the background check was just a trivial formality, but that was not the case this time! :-O
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 12:04
2
@Chad, no... in the USA it is not customary to reveal that information. That could make a good workplace question, however: "Under what circumstances should one reveal to their employer that they are looking for new work?" In my experience, never, but I would be interested in knowing why it might be otherwise.
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 14:33
3
Yep, background check finally complete after 24 days. Next time I will heed the advice given here!
– Angelo
May 1 '12 at 14:59
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
44
down vote
favorite
up vote
44
down vote
favorite
I have recently accepted a job offer from an employer (a relatively large one with big HR dept). Basically everything went fine: salary/benefits negotiated, start-date determined, etc. I got the letter, signed it, sent it back, and gave notice to my previous employer.
However, according to the paperwork, the job offer is contingent on passing a pre-employment background check. I have always thought it was a formality but this time the background check is really happening and appears to be fairly extensive and is taking more than two weeks. For example, I had to take a drug test and I know they are verifying my past employment with a third party, checking my linkedIn profile, etc, and who knows what else. The HR department doesn't even know when the background check will be complete.
There is no reason to believe that I won't pass the background screen and I have nothing to hide, but it makes me kind of nervous. What if something goes wrong for whatever reason and the offer is reneged? That would put me in a very vulnerable situation.
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check? The problem with that is that it could push out the start date because I expect to give a reasonable amount of notice to the previous employer. On the other hand, it sort-of provides an incentive for the background check to be done quickly.
hiring-process new-job
asked Apr 24 '12 at 20:33
Angelo
6,15621631
I have recently accepted a job offer from an employer (a relatively large one with big HR dept). Basically everything went fine: salary/benefits negotiated, start-date determined, etc. I got the letter, signed it, sent it back, and gave notice to my previous employer.
However, according to the paperwork, the job offer is contingent on passing a pre-employment background check. I have always thought it was a formality but this time the background check is really happening and appears to be fairly extensive and is taking more than two weeks. For example, I had to take a drug test and I know they are verifying my past employment with a third party, checking my linkedIn profile, etc, and who knows what else. The HR department doesn't even know when the background check will be complete.
There is no reason to believe that I won't pass the background screen and I have nothing to hide, but it makes me kind of nervous. What if something goes wrong for whatever reason and the offer is reneged? That would put me in a very vulnerable situation.
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check? The problem with that is that it could push out the start date because I expect to give a reasonable amount of notice to the previous employer. On the other hand, it sort-of provides an incentive for the background check to be done quickly.
hiring-process new-job
asked Apr 24 '12 at 20:33
Angelo
6,15621631
edited Aug 1 '12 at 2:24
asked Apr 24 '12 at 20:33
Angelo
6,15621631
asked Apr 24 '12 at 20:33
Angelo
6,15621631
asked Apr 24 '12 at 20:33
Angelo
6,15621631
6,15621631
@Chad, I gave the current employer notice after I returned the offer letter to the new one. It now appears that this may be too soon in cases where an extensive background check is done. I guess it all boils down to how often do pre-employment background screens end with a "no-go"?
– Angelo
Apr 24 '12 at 21:36
5
It doesnt matter if it has never happened before if it happens with you. You do not know what their process is and how deep they are going. They made you the offer presumably because they want to hire you. I would expect you would know (or at least have a good expectation of) if you are going to pass the background check before they start. Did they know before you gave notice you were looking?
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Apr 25 '12 at 10:00
1
@Chad, you mean "does my new employer know I gave notice to my old employer?" Yes. My mistake was acting as though the offer letter was the "sure-thing" and not the subsequent background check. I had always assumed the background check was just a trivial formality, but that was not the case this time! :-O
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 12:04
2
@Chad, no... in the USA it is not customary to reveal that information. That could make a good workplace question, however: "Under what circumstances should one reveal to their employer that they are looking for new work?" In my experience, never, but I would be interested in knowing why it might be otherwise.
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 14:33
3
Yep, background check finally complete after 24 days. Next time I will heed the advice given here!
– Angelo
May 1 '12 at 14:59
 |Â
show 6 more comments
@Chad, I gave the current employer notice after I returned the offer letter to the new one. It now appears that this may be too soon in cases where an extensive background check is done. I guess it all boils down to how often do pre-employment background screens end with a "no-go"?
– Angelo
Apr 24 '12 at 21:36
5
It doesnt matter if it has never happened before if it happens with you. You do not know what their process is and how deep they are going. They made you the offer presumably because they want to hire you. I would expect you would know (or at least have a good expectation of) if you are going to pass the background check before they start. Did they know before you gave notice you were looking?
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Apr 25 '12 at 10:00
1
@Chad, you mean "does my new employer know I gave notice to my old employer?" Yes. My mistake was acting as though the offer letter was the "sure-thing" and not the subsequent background check. I had always assumed the background check was just a trivial formality, but that was not the case this time! :-O
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 12:04
2
@Chad, no... in the USA it is not customary to reveal that information. That could make a good workplace question, however: "Under what circumstances should one reveal to their employer that they are looking for new work?" In my experience, never, but I would be interested in knowing why it might be otherwise.
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 14:33
3
Yep, background check finally complete after 24 days. Next time I will heed the advice given here!
– Angelo
May 1 '12 at 14:59
@Chad, I gave the current employer notice after I returned the offer letter to the new one. It now appears that this may be too soon in cases where an extensive background check is done. I guess it all boils down to how often do pre-employment background screens end with a "no-go"?
– Angelo
Apr 24 '12 at 21:36
@Chad, I gave the current employer notice after I returned the offer letter to the new one. It now appears that this may be too soon in cases where an extensive background check is done. I guess it all boils down to how often do pre-employment background screens end with a "no-go"?
– Angelo
Apr 24 '12 at 21:36
5
5
It doesnt matter if it has never happened before if it happens with you. You do not know what their process is and how deep they are going. They made you the offer presumably because they want to hire you. I would expect you would know (or at least have a good expectation of) if you are going to pass the background check before they start. Did they know before you gave notice you were looking?
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Apr 25 '12 at 10:00
It doesnt matter if it has never happened before if it happens with you. You do not know what their process is and how deep they are going. They made you the offer presumably because they want to hire you. I would expect you would know (or at least have a good expectation of) if you are going to pass the background check before they start. Did they know before you gave notice you were looking?
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Apr 25 '12 at 10:00
1
1
@Chad, you mean "does my new employer know I gave notice to my old employer?" Yes. My mistake was acting as though the offer letter was the "sure-thing" and not the subsequent background check. I had always assumed the background check was just a trivial formality, but that was not the case this time! :-O
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 12:04
@Chad, you mean "does my new employer know I gave notice to my old employer?" Yes. My mistake was acting as though the offer letter was the "sure-thing" and not the subsequent background check. I had always assumed the background check was just a trivial formality, but that was not the case this time! :-O
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 12:04
2
2
@Chad, no... in the USA it is not customary to reveal that information. That could make a good workplace question, however: "Under what circumstances should one reveal to their employer that they are looking for new work?" In my experience, never, but I would be interested in knowing why it might be otherwise.
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 14:33
@Chad, no... in the USA it is not customary to reveal that information. That could make a good workplace question, however: "Under what circumstances should one reveal to their employer that they are looking for new work?" In my experience, never, but I would be interested in knowing why it might be otherwise.
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 14:33
3
3
Yep, background check finally complete after 24 days. Next time I will heed the advice given here!
– Angelo
May 1 '12 at 14:59
Yep, background check finally complete after 24 days. Next time I will heed the advice given here!
– Angelo
May 1 '12 at 14:59
 |Â
show 6 more comments
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
up vote
61
down vote
accepted
In general, I would say that the time to give notice is when you know 100% you will be working with the other employer. If the new job is contigent on something (such as a background check), don't give notice until it's done, because if something does turn up and they decide not to hire you because of it, you could find yourself either with no job, or begging for your old job back. And yes, it could push out the start date but it's only reasonable since they are pushing the lengthy background check.
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
9
Agreed. The OP mentioned negotiating a start date; in the future, start date is 2 weeks (or whatever your notice period is) after the offer is confirmed after the check. I work for a company that does these background checks and it's not uncommon for people to negotiate a start date 4-6 weeks out just to provide plenty of cushion all around.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 24 '12 at 20:47
5
The one cavet I would add is that in some cases, like federal jobs, you can actualy start working the job while such a background continues. So part of this is that you have a pretty good sense of your background, so you should have a relatively good sense of what might turn up and if you are upfront about that sort of stuff the background check is really a formality to make sure the story you provided checks out.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 24 '12 at 22:16
Thanks everybody, I think everything will be OK this time, but will definitely remember to wait until everything is done before settling on a start-date and giving notice to the previous employer !
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 11:46
@TrevorOwens: I'd never heard of that! If they find something they don't like, do they end your employment immediately?
– FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Apr 25 '12 at 13:36
1
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Thankfully I didn't have to find out! For the first year of fed employment is a probationary period, so you are more or less an at will employee. But yes, my understanding is that the contingency for the background check runs for as much as that year.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 25 '12 at 19:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
28
down vote
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check?
YES!
Until the contingencies are released, you should not give notice.
The new employer is setting the conditions ... they won't finalize the offer until after the background check clears. Make clear to HR and the hiring manager that you will give professional notice once the offer is finalized. When they press you for a start date, repeat "the Monday 2 weeks after the offer is finalized."
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
5
Exactly! In this situation, the employer is asking for a firm date / commitment from you, but is not willing to reciprocate. IMHO that should be a red flag.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
Never has a cliche been so apropos: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you're not cleared to work there, you don't hold a bird, period, end of line.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
Twice in a row, I had offers that were contingent on background checks. In each case, my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete, so I never had to mention my impending new employment, but both times, the background check delayed my start of employment by an extra week. The second time, I went and sat outside the offices on the day that the check completed, waiting the last few hours a Starbuck's while they got the final signatures. It had been nerve-wracking.
The delay doesn't bother the security folks at all. They need to get it right whether you need the job today or next month, so they won't hurry or skip steps due to your needs. If they rush and make a mistake, their jobs (or more) are on the line.
Offers involving 12-18 month background checks do occur. If you pass the interviews and then they start one of those background checks, you might even take another job while waiting for that background check to complete.
So, no, until you have a firm start date, don't give your notice.
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
"my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete" In that case, you keep looking. If the company takes their sweet time (or for whatever reason, withdraws the offer), you'll be that much ahead.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:07
I kept looking in both instances, since I knew both had a chance of delays and neither was my dream job.
– David Navarre
Nov 14 '12 at 0:03
12-18 month background checks? outside nuclear weapons or NSA related security work, this should never happen
– TemplateRex
Aug 26 '14 at 10:08
1
@TemplateRex, meaningless to someone to whom it doesn't apply. Meaningful to someone who is facing a 12-18 month background check. At the time I wrote my response, I was considering an offer that involved one of those long-term background checks, so it was certainly meaningful to me. Just because it's outside of your experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 16:40
1
I think it's a combination of the backlog and the fact they actually want to sit down and interview everyone who met you in the last 7-10 years. Tracking down the guy who rented me an apartment in Paris for a week in 2009 might take months. Does interviewing that guy tell them anything useful? I don't know, but then.... Edward Snowden.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 18:07
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
You really must stay with your previous employer until the last second because 3rd party background checks can be very extensive and intrusive. You really have to make sure that any offenses in your past, no matter how long ago, do not fall under guidelines that can make you a risk to the new employer. The 3rd parties job is risk assessment and they can be liable if they let someone slip by. You hear about people passing background checks all the time and committing crimes on the job. A properly done background check would have red flagged many of these individuals prior to their employment.
A lot of times though, as in my situation, you are hired prior to the final results of the whole background check. I tried numerous times in the interview process and evaluation to give my archived MVR but the person conducting the interviews was new at the job. I was told to give only a 10 year history even though I tried to explain that the job I was being considered for may not be available because of my MVR from 17 years ago. I was told it was not an issue and was hired.
Lo and behold 2 weeks later I was pulled of the job and told a red flag had come up on my MVR! Well what a surprise! LOL I was let go and now am without a job and my family and I are devastated. I thought I could not be at my previous job and the new job simultaneously so I should have listened to my heart and went over the new guys head to have my story heard. To make it worse he has lied several times to protect his job stating he has absolutely no idea what I am talking about.
Very long story short. If you think you are golden but have a history just know that a 3rd party background check is extensive and even though you may be told they are only looking this far back or for certain things, they are looking all the way back and looking at everything!!
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
1
Hi Scott, great information, but consider using some paragraphs next time. It actually makes your post easier for people to read in its entirety.
– jmort253♦
Nov 12 '12 at 2:57
1
Scott .. given that you disclosed the issue and were specifically told that it was not a problem, you may very well have a legal case. Essentially, they acted in bad faith. Go see a lawyer.
– tomjedrz
Dec 15 '12 at 1:23
1
Scott, if you have not chosen the legal route, it may also be appropriate for you to send a note to the manager above your guy, just to provide him with details on what a snake he has working for him. I'd suggest very professional language and no expectations that it will make any difference in your case, but that you wanted the higher ups to know what really happened.
– David Navarre
May 29 '13 at 20:04
2
What's a MVR?..
– CodesInChaos
Oct 20 '14 at 9:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Unless you're doing government/military work, the primary purpose of a background check like this is to ensure that
a) You don't have outstanding warrants or a criminal record,
b) You are who you purport to be (you went to school where you said you did, you worked where you said you did, etc.)
They're not checking whether you dated a communist when you were in college. Although I agree with the other posters that it's best to wait until all of this is done (because who knows how long it will take), in reality, your risk in giving notice or at least a head's up to your current boss is minimal.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
2
A credit check is pretty common as part of this, too. That's where you could run into problems you didn't know about, if you haven't been reviewing your own credit reports periodically.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 25 '12 at 16:29
Ref check does include to know whether you are bonafide. If your reference check brings out that you had a disciplinary problem, or cross gender complain against you (even if that doesn't amount to criminal offense or case) it might hurt you or block you.
– Dipan Mehta
Apr 26 '12 at 10:21
Some of this is country specific. It's EXTREMELY unlikely this would come out in a reference check in the United States.
– Scott C Wilson
Apr 26 '12 at 10:25
@ScottWilson The risk of a week's delay is far more likely than being rejected. If you can handle a week or more with no pay, then it's not a problem, but if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, a week without pay is a serious problem.
– David Navarre
Jul 31 '12 at 19:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In the US:
The answer is when you are comfortable with the risk of not getting the new position and being out of work should the position fall through.
Unless you have a contract, until you reach the point where you have started, the new position can fall through. You may have some recourse once the official offer has been extended but there are many valid reasons that will make that recourse effectively moot. Then in the first part of your employment the employer can terminate you with little real recourse.
If you leave your original company on good terms you can probably return with little fuss. This can be a bit humbling but generally your knowledge and skills are valuable enough that you can return and provide value immediately. This makes you less of a risk than a new employee. Because of this many times an employer will take you back if they still have positions open.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
1
Even within the US, employment laws vary. For example, in Ohio, employment is "at will", meaning essentially the employee can quit or the employer can let the employee go at any time. This will be affected by e.g. a union contract, but my point is don't expect the employer's and employee's options to be the same everywhere, even in the US.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The answer depends if your current employer knows you are looking for a new job. Its reasonable to assume most background checks will involve calling your current employer. If the first they hear about your job hunt is a reference call then its likely to reflect badly on you. If they know then you can wait till you get the green light.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
1
I believe in the US most companies are "neutral reference" nowadays, meaning that they will verify that you worked there from date A to date B but nothing more. (People & companies have been sued for giving negative feedback.) If you've listed someone at your current company as a personal reference, that is of course a different story -- but in that case the person would presumably be aware that you're looking.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:07
Really?! In the UK saying nothing beyond confirming they worked for you is the worst possible reference you cant give.
– Tom Squires
Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
As I said, it's for liability reasons. (I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's an entirely different can of worms.) In recent years, I've changed jobs several times (due to outsourcing-related layoffs); I've worked for a large telecom, a medium-sized motor carrier, and a technology startup, and they've all operated this way.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:42
@TomSquires It depends on your field, but it's getting a lot more common for UK companies to do the same. As David said, it's to do with liability. They're frightened of saying anything.
– starsplusplus
Jan 27 '14 at 13:30
add a comment |Â
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
61
down vote
accepted
In general, I would say that the time to give notice is when you know 100% you will be working with the other employer. If the new job is contigent on something (such as a background check), don't give notice until it's done, because if something does turn up and they decide not to hire you because of it, you could find yourself either with no job, or begging for your old job back. And yes, it could push out the start date but it's only reasonable since they are pushing the lengthy background check.
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
9
Agreed. The OP mentioned negotiating a start date; in the future, start date is 2 weeks (or whatever your notice period is) after the offer is confirmed after the check. I work for a company that does these background checks and it's not uncommon for people to negotiate a start date 4-6 weeks out just to provide plenty of cushion all around.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 24 '12 at 20:47
5
The one cavet I would add is that in some cases, like federal jobs, you can actualy start working the job while such a background continues. So part of this is that you have a pretty good sense of your background, so you should have a relatively good sense of what might turn up and if you are upfront about that sort of stuff the background check is really a formality to make sure the story you provided checks out.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 24 '12 at 22:16
Thanks everybody, I think everything will be OK this time, but will definitely remember to wait until everything is done before settling on a start-date and giving notice to the previous employer !
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 11:46
@TrevorOwens: I'd never heard of that! If they find something they don't like, do they end your employment immediately?
– FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Apr 25 '12 at 13:36
1
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Thankfully I didn't have to find out! For the first year of fed employment is a probationary period, so you are more or less an at will employee. But yes, my understanding is that the contingency for the background check runs for as much as that year.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 25 '12 at 19:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
61
down vote
accepted
In general, I would say that the time to give notice is when you know 100% you will be working with the other employer. If the new job is contigent on something (such as a background check), don't give notice until it's done, because if something does turn up and they decide not to hire you because of it, you could find yourself either with no job, or begging for your old job back. And yes, it could push out the start date but it's only reasonable since they are pushing the lengthy background check.
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
9
Agreed. The OP mentioned negotiating a start date; in the future, start date is 2 weeks (or whatever your notice period is) after the offer is confirmed after the check. I work for a company that does these background checks and it's not uncommon for people to negotiate a start date 4-6 weeks out just to provide plenty of cushion all around.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 24 '12 at 20:47
5
The one cavet I would add is that in some cases, like federal jobs, you can actualy start working the job while such a background continues. So part of this is that you have a pretty good sense of your background, so you should have a relatively good sense of what might turn up and if you are upfront about that sort of stuff the background check is really a formality to make sure the story you provided checks out.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 24 '12 at 22:16
Thanks everybody, I think everything will be OK this time, but will definitely remember to wait until everything is done before settling on a start-date and giving notice to the previous employer !
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 11:46
@TrevorOwens: I'd never heard of that! If they find something they don't like, do they end your employment immediately?
– FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Apr 25 '12 at 13:36
1
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Thankfully I didn't have to find out! For the first year of fed employment is a probationary period, so you are more or less an at will employee. But yes, my understanding is that the contingency for the background check runs for as much as that year.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 25 '12 at 19:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
61
down vote
accepted
up vote
61
down vote
accepted
In general, I would say that the time to give notice is when you know 100% you will be working with the other employer. If the new job is contigent on something (such as a background check), don't give notice until it's done, because if something does turn up and they decide not to hire you because of it, you could find yourself either with no job, or begging for your old job back. And yes, it could push out the start date but it's only reasonable since they are pushing the lengthy background check.
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
In general, I would say that the time to give notice is when you know 100% you will be working with the other employer. If the new job is contigent on something (such as a background check), don't give notice until it's done, because if something does turn up and they decide not to hire you because of it, you could find yourself either with no job, or begging for your old job back. And yes, it could push out the start date but it's only reasonable since they are pushing the lengthy background check.
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
answered Apr 24 '12 at 20:40
FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
10.7k43957
10.7k43957
9
Agreed. The OP mentioned negotiating a start date; in the future, start date is 2 weeks (or whatever your notice period is) after the offer is confirmed after the check. I work for a company that does these background checks and it's not uncommon for people to negotiate a start date 4-6 weeks out just to provide plenty of cushion all around.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 24 '12 at 20:47
5
The one cavet I would add is that in some cases, like federal jobs, you can actualy start working the job while such a background continues. So part of this is that you have a pretty good sense of your background, so you should have a relatively good sense of what might turn up and if you are upfront about that sort of stuff the background check is really a formality to make sure the story you provided checks out.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 24 '12 at 22:16
Thanks everybody, I think everything will be OK this time, but will definitely remember to wait until everything is done before settling on a start-date and giving notice to the previous employer !
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 11:46
@TrevorOwens: I'd never heard of that! If they find something they don't like, do they end your employment immediately?
– FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Apr 25 '12 at 13:36
1
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Thankfully I didn't have to find out! For the first year of fed employment is a probationary period, so you are more or less an at will employee. But yes, my understanding is that the contingency for the background check runs for as much as that year.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 25 '12 at 19:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
9
Agreed. The OP mentioned negotiating a start date; in the future, start date is 2 weeks (or whatever your notice period is) after the offer is confirmed after the check. I work for a company that does these background checks and it's not uncommon for people to negotiate a start date 4-6 weeks out just to provide plenty of cushion all around.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 24 '12 at 20:47
5
The one cavet I would add is that in some cases, like federal jobs, you can actualy start working the job while such a background continues. So part of this is that you have a pretty good sense of your background, so you should have a relatively good sense of what might turn up and if you are upfront about that sort of stuff the background check is really a formality to make sure the story you provided checks out.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 24 '12 at 22:16
Thanks everybody, I think everything will be OK this time, but will definitely remember to wait until everything is done before settling on a start-date and giving notice to the previous employer !
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 11:46
@TrevorOwens: I'd never heard of that! If they find something they don't like, do they end your employment immediately?
– FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Apr 25 '12 at 13:36
1
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Thankfully I didn't have to find out! For the first year of fed employment is a probationary period, so you are more or less an at will employee. But yes, my understanding is that the contingency for the background check runs for as much as that year.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 25 '12 at 19:03
9
9
Agreed. The OP mentioned negotiating a start date; in the future, start date is 2 weeks (or whatever your notice period is) after the offer is confirmed after the check. I work for a company that does these background checks and it's not uncommon for people to negotiate a start date 4-6 weeks out just to provide plenty of cushion all around.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 24 '12 at 20:47
Agreed. The OP mentioned negotiating a start date; in the future, start date is 2 weeks (or whatever your notice period is) after the offer is confirmed after the check. I work for a company that does these background checks and it's not uncommon for people to negotiate a start date 4-6 weeks out just to provide plenty of cushion all around.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 24 '12 at 20:47
5
5
The one cavet I would add is that in some cases, like federal jobs, you can actualy start working the job while such a background continues. So part of this is that you have a pretty good sense of your background, so you should have a relatively good sense of what might turn up and if you are upfront about that sort of stuff the background check is really a formality to make sure the story you provided checks out.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 24 '12 at 22:16
The one cavet I would add is that in some cases, like federal jobs, you can actualy start working the job while such a background continues. So part of this is that you have a pretty good sense of your background, so you should have a relatively good sense of what might turn up and if you are upfront about that sort of stuff the background check is really a formality to make sure the story you provided checks out.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 24 '12 at 22:16
Thanks everybody, I think everything will be OK this time, but will definitely remember to wait until everything is done before settling on a start-date and giving notice to the previous employer !
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 11:46
Thanks everybody, I think everything will be OK this time, but will definitely remember to wait until everything is done before settling on a start-date and giving notice to the previous employer !
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 11:46
@TrevorOwens: I'd never heard of that! If they find something they don't like, do they end your employment immediately?
– FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Apr 25 '12 at 13:36
@TrevorOwens: I'd never heard of that! If they find something they don't like, do they end your employment immediately?
– FrustratedWithFormsDesigner
Apr 25 '12 at 13:36
1
1
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Thankfully I didn't have to find out! For the first year of fed employment is a probationary period, so you are more or less an at will employee. But yes, my understanding is that the contingency for the background check runs for as much as that year.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 25 '12 at 19:03
@FrustratedWithFormsDesigner Thankfully I didn't have to find out! For the first year of fed employment is a probationary period, so you are more or less an at will employee. But yes, my understanding is that the contingency for the background check runs for as much as that year.
– Trevor Owens
Apr 25 '12 at 19:03
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
28
down vote
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check?
YES!
Until the contingencies are released, you should not give notice.
The new employer is setting the conditions ... they won't finalize the offer until after the background check clears. Make clear to HR and the hiring manager that you will give professional notice once the offer is finalized. When they press you for a start date, repeat "the Monday 2 weeks after the offer is finalized."
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
5
Exactly! In this situation, the employer is asking for a firm date / commitment from you, but is not willing to reciprocate. IMHO that should be a red flag.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
Never has a cliche been so apropos: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you're not cleared to work there, you don't hold a bird, period, end of line.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
28
down vote
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check?
YES!
Until the contingencies are released, you should not give notice.
The new employer is setting the conditions ... they won't finalize the offer until after the background check clears. Make clear to HR and the hiring manager that you will give professional notice once the offer is finalized. When they press you for a start date, repeat "the Monday 2 weeks after the offer is finalized."
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
5
Exactly! In this situation, the employer is asking for a firm date / commitment from you, but is not willing to reciprocate. IMHO that should be a red flag.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
Never has a cliche been so apropos: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you're not cleared to work there, you don't hold a bird, period, end of line.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
28
down vote
up vote
28
down vote
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check?
YES!
Until the contingencies are released, you should not give notice.
The new employer is setting the conditions ... they won't finalize the offer until after the background check clears. Make clear to HR and the hiring manager that you will give professional notice once the offer is finalized. When they press you for a start date, repeat "the Monday 2 weeks after the offer is finalized."
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
In the future, should I refrain from giving notice to my previous employer until after the completion of the background check?
YES!
Until the contingencies are released, you should not give notice.
The new employer is setting the conditions ... they won't finalize the offer until after the background check clears. Make clear to HR and the hiring manager that you will give professional notice once the offer is finalized. When they press you for a start date, repeat "the Monday 2 weeks after the offer is finalized."
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
answered Apr 25 '12 at 7:23
tomjedrz
1,11669
1,11669
5
Exactly! In this situation, the employer is asking for a firm date / commitment from you, but is not willing to reciprocate. IMHO that should be a red flag.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
Never has a cliche been so apropos: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you're not cleared to work there, you don't hold a bird, period, end of line.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:05
add a comment |Â
5
Exactly! In this situation, the employer is asking for a firm date / commitment from you, but is not willing to reciprocate. IMHO that should be a red flag.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
Never has a cliche been so apropos: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you're not cleared to work there, you don't hold a bird, period, end of line.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:05
5
5
Exactly! In this situation, the employer is asking for a firm date / commitment from you, but is not willing to reciprocate. IMHO that should be a red flag.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
Exactly! In this situation, the employer is asking for a firm date / commitment from you, but is not willing to reciprocate. IMHO that should be a red flag.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:53
Never has a cliche been so apropos: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you're not cleared to work there, you don't hold a bird, period, end of line.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:05
Never has a cliche been so apropos: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." If you're not cleared to work there, you don't hold a bird, period, end of line.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
Twice in a row, I had offers that were contingent on background checks. In each case, my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete, so I never had to mention my impending new employment, but both times, the background check delayed my start of employment by an extra week. The second time, I went and sat outside the offices on the day that the check completed, waiting the last few hours a Starbuck's while they got the final signatures. It had been nerve-wracking.
The delay doesn't bother the security folks at all. They need to get it right whether you need the job today or next month, so they won't hurry or skip steps due to your needs. If they rush and make a mistake, their jobs (or more) are on the line.
Offers involving 12-18 month background checks do occur. If you pass the interviews and then they start one of those background checks, you might even take another job while waiting for that background check to complete.
So, no, until you have a firm start date, don't give your notice.
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
"my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete" In that case, you keep looking. If the company takes their sweet time (or for whatever reason, withdraws the offer), you'll be that much ahead.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:07
I kept looking in both instances, since I knew both had a chance of delays and neither was my dream job.
– David Navarre
Nov 14 '12 at 0:03
12-18 month background checks? outside nuclear weapons or NSA related security work, this should never happen
– TemplateRex
Aug 26 '14 at 10:08
1
@TemplateRex, meaningless to someone to whom it doesn't apply. Meaningful to someone who is facing a 12-18 month background check. At the time I wrote my response, I was considering an offer that involved one of those long-term background checks, so it was certainly meaningful to me. Just because it's outside of your experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 16:40
1
I think it's a combination of the backlog and the fact they actually want to sit down and interview everyone who met you in the last 7-10 years. Tracking down the guy who rented me an apartment in Paris for a week in 2009 might take months. Does interviewing that guy tell them anything useful? I don't know, but then.... Edward Snowden.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 18:07
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
Twice in a row, I had offers that were contingent on background checks. In each case, my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete, so I never had to mention my impending new employment, but both times, the background check delayed my start of employment by an extra week. The second time, I went and sat outside the offices on the day that the check completed, waiting the last few hours a Starbuck's while they got the final signatures. It had been nerve-wracking.
The delay doesn't bother the security folks at all. They need to get it right whether you need the job today or next month, so they won't hurry or skip steps due to your needs. If they rush and make a mistake, their jobs (or more) are on the line.
Offers involving 12-18 month background checks do occur. If you pass the interviews and then they start one of those background checks, you might even take another job while waiting for that background check to complete.
So, no, until you have a firm start date, don't give your notice.
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
"my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete" In that case, you keep looking. If the company takes their sweet time (or for whatever reason, withdraws the offer), you'll be that much ahead.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:07
I kept looking in both instances, since I knew both had a chance of delays and neither was my dream job.
– David Navarre
Nov 14 '12 at 0:03
12-18 month background checks? outside nuclear weapons or NSA related security work, this should never happen
– TemplateRex
Aug 26 '14 at 10:08
1
@TemplateRex, meaningless to someone to whom it doesn't apply. Meaningful to someone who is facing a 12-18 month background check. At the time I wrote my response, I was considering an offer that involved one of those long-term background checks, so it was certainly meaningful to me. Just because it's outside of your experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 16:40
1
I think it's a combination of the backlog and the fact they actually want to sit down and interview everyone who met you in the last 7-10 years. Tracking down the guy who rented me an apartment in Paris for a week in 2009 might take months. Does interviewing that guy tell them anything useful? I don't know, but then.... Edward Snowden.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 18:07
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Twice in a row, I had offers that were contingent on background checks. In each case, my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete, so I never had to mention my impending new employment, but both times, the background check delayed my start of employment by an extra week. The second time, I went and sat outside the offices on the day that the check completed, waiting the last few hours a Starbuck's while they got the final signatures. It had been nerve-wracking.
The delay doesn't bother the security folks at all. They need to get it right whether you need the job today or next month, so they won't hurry or skip steps due to your needs. If they rush and make a mistake, their jobs (or more) are on the line.
Offers involving 12-18 month background checks do occur. If you pass the interviews and then they start one of those background checks, you might even take another job while waiting for that background check to complete.
So, no, until you have a firm start date, don't give your notice.
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
Twice in a row, I had offers that were contingent on background checks. In each case, my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete, so I never had to mention my impending new employment, but both times, the background check delayed my start of employment by an extra week. The second time, I went and sat outside the offices on the day that the check completed, waiting the last few hours a Starbuck's while they got the final signatures. It had been nerve-wracking.
The delay doesn't bother the security folks at all. They need to get it right whether you need the job today or next month, so they won't hurry or skip steps due to your needs. If they rush and make a mistake, their jobs (or more) are on the line.
Offers involving 12-18 month background checks do occur. If you pass the interviews and then they start one of those background checks, you might even take another job while waiting for that background check to complete.
So, no, until you have a firm start date, don't give your notice.
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
answered Jul 31 '12 at 19:50
David Navarre
1,5161112
1,5161112
"my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete" In that case, you keep looking. If the company takes their sweet time (or for whatever reason, withdraws the offer), you'll be that much ahead.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:07
I kept looking in both instances, since I knew both had a chance of delays and neither was my dream job.
– David Navarre
Nov 14 '12 at 0:03
12-18 month background checks? outside nuclear weapons or NSA related security work, this should never happen
– TemplateRex
Aug 26 '14 at 10:08
1
@TemplateRex, meaningless to someone to whom it doesn't apply. Meaningful to someone who is facing a 12-18 month background check. At the time I wrote my response, I was considering an offer that involved one of those long-term background checks, so it was certainly meaningful to me. Just because it's outside of your experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 16:40
1
I think it's a combination of the backlog and the fact they actually want to sit down and interview everyone who met you in the last 7-10 years. Tracking down the guy who rented me an apartment in Paris for a week in 2009 might take months. Does interviewing that guy tell them anything useful? I don't know, but then.... Edward Snowden.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 18:07
 |Â
show 5 more comments
"my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete" In that case, you keep looking. If the company takes their sweet time (or for whatever reason, withdraws the offer), you'll be that much ahead.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:07
I kept looking in both instances, since I knew both had a chance of delays and neither was my dream job.
– David Navarre
Nov 14 '12 at 0:03
12-18 month background checks? outside nuclear weapons or NSA related security work, this should never happen
– TemplateRex
Aug 26 '14 at 10:08
1
@TemplateRex, meaningless to someone to whom it doesn't apply. Meaningful to someone who is facing a 12-18 month background check. At the time I wrote my response, I was considering an offer that involved one of those long-term background checks, so it was certainly meaningful to me. Just because it's outside of your experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 16:40
1
I think it's a combination of the backlog and the fact they actually want to sit down and interview everyone who met you in the last 7-10 years. Tracking down the guy who rented me an apartment in Paris for a week in 2009 might take months. Does interviewing that guy tell them anything useful? I don't know, but then.... Edward Snowden.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 18:07
"my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete" In that case, you keep looking. If the company takes their sweet time (or for whatever reason, withdraws the offer), you'll be that much ahead.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:07
"my current contract expired on it's own before the background check was complete" In that case, you keep looking. If the company takes their sweet time (or for whatever reason, withdraws the offer), you'll be that much ahead.
– BryanH
Nov 12 '12 at 23:07
I kept looking in both instances, since I knew both had a chance of delays and neither was my dream job.
– David Navarre
Nov 14 '12 at 0:03
I kept looking in both instances, since I knew both had a chance of delays and neither was my dream job.
– David Navarre
Nov 14 '12 at 0:03
12-18 month background checks? outside nuclear weapons or NSA related security work, this should never happen
– TemplateRex
Aug 26 '14 at 10:08
12-18 month background checks? outside nuclear weapons or NSA related security work, this should never happen
– TemplateRex
Aug 26 '14 at 10:08
1
1
@TemplateRex, meaningless to someone to whom it doesn't apply. Meaningful to someone who is facing a 12-18 month background check. At the time I wrote my response, I was considering an offer that involved one of those long-term background checks, so it was certainly meaningful to me. Just because it's outside of your experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 16:40
@TemplateRex, meaningless to someone to whom it doesn't apply. Meaningful to someone who is facing a 12-18 month background check. At the time I wrote my response, I was considering an offer that involved one of those long-term background checks, so it was certainly meaningful to me. Just because it's outside of your experience doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 16:40
1
1
I think it's a combination of the backlog and the fact they actually want to sit down and interview everyone who met you in the last 7-10 years. Tracking down the guy who rented me an apartment in Paris for a week in 2009 might take months. Does interviewing that guy tell them anything useful? I don't know, but then.... Edward Snowden.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 18:07
I think it's a combination of the backlog and the fact they actually want to sit down and interview everyone who met you in the last 7-10 years. Tracking down the guy who rented me an apartment in Paris for a week in 2009 might take months. Does interviewing that guy tell them anything useful? I don't know, but then.... Edward Snowden.
– David Navarre
Sep 2 '14 at 18:07
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
7
down vote
You really must stay with your previous employer until the last second because 3rd party background checks can be very extensive and intrusive. You really have to make sure that any offenses in your past, no matter how long ago, do not fall under guidelines that can make you a risk to the new employer. The 3rd parties job is risk assessment and they can be liable if they let someone slip by. You hear about people passing background checks all the time and committing crimes on the job. A properly done background check would have red flagged many of these individuals prior to their employment.
A lot of times though, as in my situation, you are hired prior to the final results of the whole background check. I tried numerous times in the interview process and evaluation to give my archived MVR but the person conducting the interviews was new at the job. I was told to give only a 10 year history even though I tried to explain that the job I was being considered for may not be available because of my MVR from 17 years ago. I was told it was not an issue and was hired.
Lo and behold 2 weeks later I was pulled of the job and told a red flag had come up on my MVR! Well what a surprise! LOL I was let go and now am without a job and my family and I are devastated. I thought I could not be at my previous job and the new job simultaneously so I should have listened to my heart and went over the new guys head to have my story heard. To make it worse he has lied several times to protect his job stating he has absolutely no idea what I am talking about.
Very long story short. If you think you are golden but have a history just know that a 3rd party background check is extensive and even though you may be told they are only looking this far back or for certain things, they are looking all the way back and looking at everything!!
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
1
Hi Scott, great information, but consider using some paragraphs next time. It actually makes your post easier for people to read in its entirety.
– jmort253♦
Nov 12 '12 at 2:57
1
Scott .. given that you disclosed the issue and were specifically told that it was not a problem, you may very well have a legal case. Essentially, they acted in bad faith. Go see a lawyer.
– tomjedrz
Dec 15 '12 at 1:23
1
Scott, if you have not chosen the legal route, it may also be appropriate for you to send a note to the manager above your guy, just to provide him with details on what a snake he has working for him. I'd suggest very professional language and no expectations that it will make any difference in your case, but that you wanted the higher ups to know what really happened.
– David Navarre
May 29 '13 at 20:04
2
What's a MVR?..
– CodesInChaos
Oct 20 '14 at 9:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
You really must stay with your previous employer until the last second because 3rd party background checks can be very extensive and intrusive. You really have to make sure that any offenses in your past, no matter how long ago, do not fall under guidelines that can make you a risk to the new employer. The 3rd parties job is risk assessment and they can be liable if they let someone slip by. You hear about people passing background checks all the time and committing crimes on the job. A properly done background check would have red flagged many of these individuals prior to their employment.
A lot of times though, as in my situation, you are hired prior to the final results of the whole background check. I tried numerous times in the interview process and evaluation to give my archived MVR but the person conducting the interviews was new at the job. I was told to give only a 10 year history even though I tried to explain that the job I was being considered for may not be available because of my MVR from 17 years ago. I was told it was not an issue and was hired.
Lo and behold 2 weeks later I was pulled of the job and told a red flag had come up on my MVR! Well what a surprise! LOL I was let go and now am without a job and my family and I are devastated. I thought I could not be at my previous job and the new job simultaneously so I should have listened to my heart and went over the new guys head to have my story heard. To make it worse he has lied several times to protect his job stating he has absolutely no idea what I am talking about.
Very long story short. If you think you are golden but have a history just know that a 3rd party background check is extensive and even though you may be told they are only looking this far back or for certain things, they are looking all the way back and looking at everything!!
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
1
Hi Scott, great information, but consider using some paragraphs next time. It actually makes your post easier for people to read in its entirety.
– jmort253♦
Nov 12 '12 at 2:57
1
Scott .. given that you disclosed the issue and were specifically told that it was not a problem, you may very well have a legal case. Essentially, they acted in bad faith. Go see a lawyer.
– tomjedrz
Dec 15 '12 at 1:23
1
Scott, if you have not chosen the legal route, it may also be appropriate for you to send a note to the manager above your guy, just to provide him with details on what a snake he has working for him. I'd suggest very professional language and no expectations that it will make any difference in your case, but that you wanted the higher ups to know what really happened.
– David Navarre
May 29 '13 at 20:04
2
What's a MVR?..
– CodesInChaos
Oct 20 '14 at 9:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
You really must stay with your previous employer until the last second because 3rd party background checks can be very extensive and intrusive. You really have to make sure that any offenses in your past, no matter how long ago, do not fall under guidelines that can make you a risk to the new employer. The 3rd parties job is risk assessment and they can be liable if they let someone slip by. You hear about people passing background checks all the time and committing crimes on the job. A properly done background check would have red flagged many of these individuals prior to their employment.
A lot of times though, as in my situation, you are hired prior to the final results of the whole background check. I tried numerous times in the interview process and evaluation to give my archived MVR but the person conducting the interviews was new at the job. I was told to give only a 10 year history even though I tried to explain that the job I was being considered for may not be available because of my MVR from 17 years ago. I was told it was not an issue and was hired.
Lo and behold 2 weeks later I was pulled of the job and told a red flag had come up on my MVR! Well what a surprise! LOL I was let go and now am without a job and my family and I are devastated. I thought I could not be at my previous job and the new job simultaneously so I should have listened to my heart and went over the new guys head to have my story heard. To make it worse he has lied several times to protect his job stating he has absolutely no idea what I am talking about.
Very long story short. If you think you are golden but have a history just know that a 3rd party background check is extensive and even though you may be told they are only looking this far back or for certain things, they are looking all the way back and looking at everything!!
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
You really must stay with your previous employer until the last second because 3rd party background checks can be very extensive and intrusive. You really have to make sure that any offenses in your past, no matter how long ago, do not fall under guidelines that can make you a risk to the new employer. The 3rd parties job is risk assessment and they can be liable if they let someone slip by. You hear about people passing background checks all the time and committing crimes on the job. A properly done background check would have red flagged many of these individuals prior to their employment.
A lot of times though, as in my situation, you are hired prior to the final results of the whole background check. I tried numerous times in the interview process and evaluation to give my archived MVR but the person conducting the interviews was new at the job. I was told to give only a 10 year history even though I tried to explain that the job I was being considered for may not be available because of my MVR from 17 years ago. I was told it was not an issue and was hired.
Lo and behold 2 weeks later I was pulled of the job and told a red flag had come up on my MVR! Well what a surprise! LOL I was let go and now am without a job and my family and I are devastated. I thought I could not be at my previous job and the new job simultaneously so I should have listened to my heart and went over the new guys head to have my story heard. To make it worse he has lied several times to protect his job stating he has absolutely no idea what I am talking about.
Very long story short. If you think you are golden but have a history just know that a 3rd party background check is extensive and even though you may be told they are only looking this far back or for certain things, they are looking all the way back and looking at everything!!
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
edited Nov 12 '12 at 2:59
jmort253♦
10.4k54376
10.4k54376
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
answered Nov 10 '12 at 18:47
Scott
7111
7111
1
Hi Scott, great information, but consider using some paragraphs next time. It actually makes your post easier for people to read in its entirety.
– jmort253♦
Nov 12 '12 at 2:57
1
Scott .. given that you disclosed the issue and were specifically told that it was not a problem, you may very well have a legal case. Essentially, they acted in bad faith. Go see a lawyer.
– tomjedrz
Dec 15 '12 at 1:23
1
Scott, if you have not chosen the legal route, it may also be appropriate for you to send a note to the manager above your guy, just to provide him with details on what a snake he has working for him. I'd suggest very professional language and no expectations that it will make any difference in your case, but that you wanted the higher ups to know what really happened.
– David Navarre
May 29 '13 at 20:04
2
What's a MVR?..
– CodesInChaos
Oct 20 '14 at 9:24
add a comment |Â
1
Hi Scott, great information, but consider using some paragraphs next time. It actually makes your post easier for people to read in its entirety.
– jmort253♦
Nov 12 '12 at 2:57
1
Scott .. given that you disclosed the issue and were specifically told that it was not a problem, you may very well have a legal case. Essentially, they acted in bad faith. Go see a lawyer.
– tomjedrz
Dec 15 '12 at 1:23
1
Scott, if you have not chosen the legal route, it may also be appropriate for you to send a note to the manager above your guy, just to provide him with details on what a snake he has working for him. I'd suggest very professional language and no expectations that it will make any difference in your case, but that you wanted the higher ups to know what really happened.
– David Navarre
May 29 '13 at 20:04
2
What's a MVR?..
– CodesInChaos
Oct 20 '14 at 9:24
1
1
Hi Scott, great information, but consider using some paragraphs next time. It actually makes your post easier for people to read in its entirety.
– jmort253♦
Nov 12 '12 at 2:57
Hi Scott, great information, but consider using some paragraphs next time. It actually makes your post easier for people to read in its entirety.
– jmort253♦
Nov 12 '12 at 2:57
1
1
Scott .. given that you disclosed the issue and were specifically told that it was not a problem, you may very well have a legal case. Essentially, they acted in bad faith. Go see a lawyer.
– tomjedrz
Dec 15 '12 at 1:23
Scott .. given that you disclosed the issue and were specifically told that it was not a problem, you may very well have a legal case. Essentially, they acted in bad faith. Go see a lawyer.
– tomjedrz
Dec 15 '12 at 1:23
1
1
Scott, if you have not chosen the legal route, it may also be appropriate for you to send a note to the manager above your guy, just to provide him with details on what a snake he has working for him. I'd suggest very professional language and no expectations that it will make any difference in your case, but that you wanted the higher ups to know what really happened.
– David Navarre
May 29 '13 at 20:04
Scott, if you have not chosen the legal route, it may also be appropriate for you to send a note to the manager above your guy, just to provide him with details on what a snake he has working for him. I'd suggest very professional language and no expectations that it will make any difference in your case, but that you wanted the higher ups to know what really happened.
– David Navarre
May 29 '13 at 20:04
2
2
What's a MVR?..
– CodesInChaos
Oct 20 '14 at 9:24
What's a MVR?..
– CodesInChaos
Oct 20 '14 at 9:24
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Unless you're doing government/military work, the primary purpose of a background check like this is to ensure that
a) You don't have outstanding warrants or a criminal record,
b) You are who you purport to be (you went to school where you said you did, you worked where you said you did, etc.)
They're not checking whether you dated a communist when you were in college. Although I agree with the other posters that it's best to wait until all of this is done (because who knows how long it will take), in reality, your risk in giving notice or at least a head's up to your current boss is minimal.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
2
A credit check is pretty common as part of this, too. That's where you could run into problems you didn't know about, if you haven't been reviewing your own credit reports periodically.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 25 '12 at 16:29
Ref check does include to know whether you are bonafide. If your reference check brings out that you had a disciplinary problem, or cross gender complain against you (even if that doesn't amount to criminal offense or case) it might hurt you or block you.
– Dipan Mehta
Apr 26 '12 at 10:21
Some of this is country specific. It's EXTREMELY unlikely this would come out in a reference check in the United States.
– Scott C Wilson
Apr 26 '12 at 10:25
@ScottWilson The risk of a week's delay is far more likely than being rejected. If you can handle a week or more with no pay, then it's not a problem, but if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, a week without pay is a serious problem.
– David Navarre
Jul 31 '12 at 19:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Unless you're doing government/military work, the primary purpose of a background check like this is to ensure that
a) You don't have outstanding warrants or a criminal record,
b) You are who you purport to be (you went to school where you said you did, you worked where you said you did, etc.)
They're not checking whether you dated a communist when you were in college. Although I agree with the other posters that it's best to wait until all of this is done (because who knows how long it will take), in reality, your risk in giving notice or at least a head's up to your current boss is minimal.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
2
A credit check is pretty common as part of this, too. That's where you could run into problems you didn't know about, if you haven't been reviewing your own credit reports periodically.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 25 '12 at 16:29
Ref check does include to know whether you are bonafide. If your reference check brings out that you had a disciplinary problem, or cross gender complain against you (even if that doesn't amount to criminal offense or case) it might hurt you or block you.
– Dipan Mehta
Apr 26 '12 at 10:21
Some of this is country specific. It's EXTREMELY unlikely this would come out in a reference check in the United States.
– Scott C Wilson
Apr 26 '12 at 10:25
@ScottWilson The risk of a week's delay is far more likely than being rejected. If you can handle a week or more with no pay, then it's not a problem, but if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, a week without pay is a serious problem.
– David Navarre
Jul 31 '12 at 19:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Unless you're doing government/military work, the primary purpose of a background check like this is to ensure that
a) You don't have outstanding warrants or a criminal record,
b) You are who you purport to be (you went to school where you said you did, you worked where you said you did, etc.)
They're not checking whether you dated a communist when you were in college. Although I agree with the other posters that it's best to wait until all of this is done (because who knows how long it will take), in reality, your risk in giving notice or at least a head's up to your current boss is minimal.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
Unless you're doing government/military work, the primary purpose of a background check like this is to ensure that
a) You don't have outstanding warrants or a criminal record,
b) You are who you purport to be (you went to school where you said you did, you worked where you said you did, etc.)
They're not checking whether you dated a communist when you were in college. Although I agree with the other posters that it's best to wait until all of this is done (because who knows how long it will take), in reality, your risk in giving notice or at least a head's up to your current boss is minimal.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
answered Apr 25 '12 at 10:57
Scott C Wilson
3,7872028
3,7872028
2
A credit check is pretty common as part of this, too. That's where you could run into problems you didn't know about, if you haven't been reviewing your own credit reports periodically.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 25 '12 at 16:29
Ref check does include to know whether you are bonafide. If your reference check brings out that you had a disciplinary problem, or cross gender complain against you (even if that doesn't amount to criminal offense or case) it might hurt you or block you.
– Dipan Mehta
Apr 26 '12 at 10:21
Some of this is country specific. It's EXTREMELY unlikely this would come out in a reference check in the United States.
– Scott C Wilson
Apr 26 '12 at 10:25
@ScottWilson The risk of a week's delay is far more likely than being rejected. If you can handle a week or more with no pay, then it's not a problem, but if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, a week without pay is a serious problem.
– David Navarre
Jul 31 '12 at 19:52
add a comment |Â
2
A credit check is pretty common as part of this, too. That's where you could run into problems you didn't know about, if you haven't been reviewing your own credit reports periodically.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 25 '12 at 16:29
Ref check does include to know whether you are bonafide. If your reference check brings out that you had a disciplinary problem, or cross gender complain against you (even if that doesn't amount to criminal offense or case) it might hurt you or block you.
– Dipan Mehta
Apr 26 '12 at 10:21
Some of this is country specific. It's EXTREMELY unlikely this would come out in a reference check in the United States.
– Scott C Wilson
Apr 26 '12 at 10:25
@ScottWilson The risk of a week's delay is far more likely than being rejected. If you can handle a week or more with no pay, then it's not a problem, but if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, a week without pay is a serious problem.
– David Navarre
Jul 31 '12 at 19:52
2
2
A credit check is pretty common as part of this, too. That's where you could run into problems you didn't know about, if you haven't been reviewing your own credit reports periodically.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 25 '12 at 16:29
A credit check is pretty common as part of this, too. That's where you could run into problems you didn't know about, if you haven't been reviewing your own credit reports periodically.
– Monica Cellio♦
Apr 25 '12 at 16:29
Ref check does include to know whether you are bonafide. If your reference check brings out that you had a disciplinary problem, or cross gender complain against you (even if that doesn't amount to criminal offense or case) it might hurt you or block you.
– Dipan Mehta
Apr 26 '12 at 10:21
Ref check does include to know whether you are bonafide. If your reference check brings out that you had a disciplinary problem, or cross gender complain against you (even if that doesn't amount to criminal offense or case) it might hurt you or block you.
– Dipan Mehta
Apr 26 '12 at 10:21
Some of this is country specific. It's EXTREMELY unlikely this would come out in a reference check in the United States.
– Scott C Wilson
Apr 26 '12 at 10:25
Some of this is country specific. It's EXTREMELY unlikely this would come out in a reference check in the United States.
– Scott C Wilson
Apr 26 '12 at 10:25
@ScottWilson The risk of a week's delay is far more likely than being rejected. If you can handle a week or more with no pay, then it's not a problem, but if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, a week without pay is a serious problem.
– David Navarre
Jul 31 '12 at 19:52
@ScottWilson The risk of a week's delay is far more likely than being rejected. If you can handle a week or more with no pay, then it's not a problem, but if one is living paycheck-to-paycheck, a week without pay is a serious problem.
– David Navarre
Jul 31 '12 at 19:52
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In the US:
The answer is when you are comfortable with the risk of not getting the new position and being out of work should the position fall through.
Unless you have a contract, until you reach the point where you have started, the new position can fall through. You may have some recourse once the official offer has been extended but there are many valid reasons that will make that recourse effectively moot. Then in the first part of your employment the employer can terminate you with little real recourse.
If you leave your original company on good terms you can probably return with little fuss. This can be a bit humbling but generally your knowledge and skills are valuable enough that you can return and provide value immediately. This makes you less of a risk than a new employee. Because of this many times an employer will take you back if they still have positions open.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
1
Even within the US, employment laws vary. For example, in Ohio, employment is "at will", meaning essentially the employee can quit or the employer can let the employee go at any time. This will be affected by e.g. a union contract, but my point is don't expect the employer's and employee's options to be the same everywhere, even in the US.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
In the US:
The answer is when you are comfortable with the risk of not getting the new position and being out of work should the position fall through.
Unless you have a contract, until you reach the point where you have started, the new position can fall through. You may have some recourse once the official offer has been extended but there are many valid reasons that will make that recourse effectively moot. Then in the first part of your employment the employer can terminate you with little real recourse.
If you leave your original company on good terms you can probably return with little fuss. This can be a bit humbling but generally your knowledge and skills are valuable enough that you can return and provide value immediately. This makes you less of a risk than a new employee. Because of this many times an employer will take you back if they still have positions open.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
1
Even within the US, employment laws vary. For example, in Ohio, employment is "at will", meaning essentially the employee can quit or the employer can let the employee go at any time. This will be affected by e.g. a union contract, but my point is don't expect the employer's and employee's options to be the same everywhere, even in the US.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
In the US:
The answer is when you are comfortable with the risk of not getting the new position and being out of work should the position fall through.
Unless you have a contract, until you reach the point where you have started, the new position can fall through. You may have some recourse once the official offer has been extended but there are many valid reasons that will make that recourse effectively moot. Then in the first part of your employment the employer can terminate you with little real recourse.
If you leave your original company on good terms you can probably return with little fuss. This can be a bit humbling but generally your knowledge and skills are valuable enough that you can return and provide value immediately. This makes you less of a risk than a new employee. Because of this many times an employer will take you back if they still have positions open.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
In the US:
The answer is when you are comfortable with the risk of not getting the new position and being out of work should the position fall through.
Unless you have a contract, until you reach the point where you have started, the new position can fall through. You may have some recourse once the official offer has been extended but there are many valid reasons that will make that recourse effectively moot. Then in the first part of your employment the employer can terminate you with little real recourse.
If you leave your original company on good terms you can probably return with little fuss. This can be a bit humbling but generally your knowledge and skills are valuable enough that you can return and provide value immediately. This makes you less of a risk than a new employee. Because of this many times an employer will take you back if they still have positions open.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
answered Apr 25 '12 at 15:59
IDrinkandIKnowThings
43.9k1398188
43.9k1398188
1
Even within the US, employment laws vary. For example, in Ohio, employment is "at will", meaning essentially the employee can quit or the employer can let the employee go at any time. This will be affected by e.g. a union contract, but my point is don't expect the employer's and employee's options to be the same everywhere, even in the US.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |Â
1
Even within the US, employment laws vary. For example, in Ohio, employment is "at will", meaning essentially the employee can quit or the employer can let the employee go at any time. This will be affected by e.g. a union contract, but my point is don't expect the employer's and employee's options to be the same everywhere, even in the US.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:03
1
1
Even within the US, employment laws vary. For example, in Ohio, employment is "at will", meaning essentially the employee can quit or the employer can let the employee go at any time. This will be affected by e.g. a union contract, but my point is don't expect the employer's and employee's options to be the same everywhere, even in the US.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:03
Even within the US, employment laws vary. For example, in Ohio, employment is "at will", meaning essentially the employee can quit or the employer can let the employee go at any time. This will be affected by e.g. a union contract, but my point is don't expect the employer's and employee's options to be the same everywhere, even in the US.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The answer depends if your current employer knows you are looking for a new job. Its reasonable to assume most background checks will involve calling your current employer. If the first they hear about your job hunt is a reference call then its likely to reflect badly on you. If they know then you can wait till you get the green light.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
1
I believe in the US most companies are "neutral reference" nowadays, meaning that they will verify that you worked there from date A to date B but nothing more. (People & companies have been sued for giving negative feedback.) If you've listed someone at your current company as a personal reference, that is of course a different story -- but in that case the person would presumably be aware that you're looking.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:07
Really?! In the UK saying nothing beyond confirming they worked for you is the worst possible reference you cant give.
– Tom Squires
Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
As I said, it's for liability reasons. (I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's an entirely different can of worms.) In recent years, I've changed jobs several times (due to outsourcing-related layoffs); I've worked for a large telecom, a medium-sized motor carrier, and a technology startup, and they've all operated this way.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:42
@TomSquires It depends on your field, but it's getting a lot more common for UK companies to do the same. As David said, it's to do with liability. They're frightened of saying anything.
– starsplusplus
Jan 27 '14 at 13:30
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The answer depends if your current employer knows you are looking for a new job. Its reasonable to assume most background checks will involve calling your current employer. If the first they hear about your job hunt is a reference call then its likely to reflect badly on you. If they know then you can wait till you get the green light.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
1
I believe in the US most companies are "neutral reference" nowadays, meaning that they will verify that you worked there from date A to date B but nothing more. (People & companies have been sued for giving negative feedback.) If you've listed someone at your current company as a personal reference, that is of course a different story -- but in that case the person would presumably be aware that you're looking.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:07
Really?! In the UK saying nothing beyond confirming they worked for you is the worst possible reference you cant give.
– Tom Squires
Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
As I said, it's for liability reasons. (I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's an entirely different can of worms.) In recent years, I've changed jobs several times (due to outsourcing-related layoffs); I've worked for a large telecom, a medium-sized motor carrier, and a technology startup, and they've all operated this way.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:42
@TomSquires It depends on your field, but it's getting a lot more common for UK companies to do the same. As David said, it's to do with liability. They're frightened of saying anything.
– starsplusplus
Jan 27 '14 at 13:30
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The answer depends if your current employer knows you are looking for a new job. Its reasonable to assume most background checks will involve calling your current employer. If the first they hear about your job hunt is a reference call then its likely to reflect badly on you. If they know then you can wait till you get the green light.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
The answer depends if your current employer knows you are looking for a new job. Its reasonable to assume most background checks will involve calling your current employer. If the first they hear about your job hunt is a reference call then its likely to reflect badly on you. If they know then you can wait till you get the green light.
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
answered Apr 25 '12 at 8:53
Tom Squires
1,842917
1,842917
1
I believe in the US most companies are "neutral reference" nowadays, meaning that they will verify that you worked there from date A to date B but nothing more. (People & companies have been sued for giving negative feedback.) If you've listed someone at your current company as a personal reference, that is of course a different story -- but in that case the person would presumably be aware that you're looking.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:07
Really?! In the UK saying nothing beyond confirming they worked for you is the worst possible reference you cant give.
– Tom Squires
Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
As I said, it's for liability reasons. (I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's an entirely different can of worms.) In recent years, I've changed jobs several times (due to outsourcing-related layoffs); I've worked for a large telecom, a medium-sized motor carrier, and a technology startup, and they've all operated this way.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:42
@TomSquires It depends on your field, but it's getting a lot more common for UK companies to do the same. As David said, it's to do with liability. They're frightened of saying anything.
– starsplusplus
Jan 27 '14 at 13:30
add a comment |Â
1
I believe in the US most companies are "neutral reference" nowadays, meaning that they will verify that you worked there from date A to date B but nothing more. (People & companies have been sued for giving negative feedback.) If you've listed someone at your current company as a personal reference, that is of course a different story -- but in that case the person would presumably be aware that you're looking.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:07
Really?! In the UK saying nothing beyond confirming they worked for you is the worst possible reference you cant give.
– Tom Squires
Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
As I said, it's for liability reasons. (I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's an entirely different can of worms.) In recent years, I've changed jobs several times (due to outsourcing-related layoffs); I've worked for a large telecom, a medium-sized motor carrier, and a technology startup, and they've all operated this way.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:42
@TomSquires It depends on your field, but it's getting a lot more common for UK companies to do the same. As David said, it's to do with liability. They're frightened of saying anything.
– starsplusplus
Jan 27 '14 at 13:30
1
1
I believe in the US most companies are "neutral reference" nowadays, meaning that they will verify that you worked there from date A to date B but nothing more. (People & companies have been sued for giving negative feedback.) If you've listed someone at your current company as a personal reference, that is of course a different story -- but in that case the person would presumably be aware that you're looking.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:07
I believe in the US most companies are "neutral reference" nowadays, meaning that they will verify that you worked there from date A to date B but nothing more. (People & companies have been sued for giving negative feedback.) If you've listed someone at your current company as a personal reference, that is of course a different story -- but in that case the person would presumably be aware that you're looking.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 17:07
Really?! In the UK saying nothing beyond confirming they worked for you is the worst possible reference you cant give.
– Tom Squires
Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
Really?! In the UK saying nothing beyond confirming they worked for you is the worst possible reference you cant give.
– Tom Squires
Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
As I said, it's for liability reasons. (I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's an entirely different can of worms.) In recent years, I've changed jobs several times (due to outsourcing-related layoffs); I've worked for a large telecom, a medium-sized motor carrier, and a technology startup, and they've all operated this way.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:42
As I said, it's for liability reasons. (I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be that way, but that's an entirely different can of worms.) In recent years, I've changed jobs several times (due to outsourcing-related layoffs); I've worked for a large telecom, a medium-sized motor carrier, and a technology startup, and they've all operated this way.
– David
Apr 25 '12 at 19:42
@TomSquires It depends on your field, but it's getting a lot more common for UK companies to do the same. As David said, it's to do with liability. They're frightened of saying anything.
– starsplusplus
Jan 27 '14 at 13:30
@TomSquires It depends on your field, but it's getting a lot more common for UK companies to do the same. As David said, it's to do with liability. They're frightened of saying anything.
– starsplusplus
Jan 27 '14 at 13:30
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f947%2fjob-offer-contingent-on-background-check-when-to-give-notice%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
@Chad, I gave the current employer notice after I returned the offer letter to the new one. It now appears that this may be too soon in cases where an extensive background check is done. I guess it all boils down to how often do pre-employment background screens end with a "no-go"?
– Angelo
Apr 24 '12 at 21:36
5
It doesnt matter if it has never happened before if it happens with you. You do not know what their process is and how deep they are going. They made you the offer presumably because they want to hire you. I would expect you would know (or at least have a good expectation of) if you are going to pass the background check before they start. Did they know before you gave notice you were looking?
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Apr 25 '12 at 10:00
1
@Chad, you mean "does my new employer know I gave notice to my old employer?" Yes. My mistake was acting as though the offer letter was the "sure-thing" and not the subsequent background check. I had always assumed the background check was just a trivial formality, but that was not the case this time! :-O
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 12:04
2
@Chad, no... in the USA it is not customary to reveal that information. That could make a good workplace question, however: "Under what circumstances should one reveal to their employer that they are looking for new work?" In my experience, never, but I would be interested in knowing why it might be otherwise.
– Angelo
Apr 25 '12 at 14:33
3
Yep, background check finally complete after 24 days. Next time I will heed the advice given here!
– Angelo
May 1 '12 at 14:59