A review of the Fund for employment is a priority for the security

If they spent any time working recently hunting, more likely painfully aware of the extreme measures that many companies use to ensure that their employees have own records. Pay them more work, more strict security control. A check of the history used to be a rare thing. They are now mandatory and complete. Immerse yourself in the history of the employment of a person, speak with references that have been written and even question former supervisors and co-workers. The main thing you are looking for is a criminal record. A previous conviction for a crime is considered by most companies as good enough reason to disqualify a candidate. I'm not sure that this is correct, that the person coming out of prison allegedly served his time, but if an employer choice is between two persons also qualified, and one of them has a history, the choice is easy.


A verification of employment history includes calls to everyone that the candidate has included in its application as a reference. It is still puzzled many people who claim that the process is wrong. No one will be discontent former colleague as a reference or a former supervisor in anger. The references are almost always friends or happy former supervisors. Critics argue that a verification of employment history should be more objective and less dependent on the information provided by the applicant. However, one of the main problems of this approach is that many former employers and their employees are prohibited by the policy of the company to communicate any irrelevant information companies to check background, or those who are seeking information on the ex-travailleur. The reason is the fear of a trial. In our company happy Sue is almost guaranteed that the applicant will be be suing the former employer if they get wind of a bad report. Former employers and supervisors can say is that the two and therefore worked there and, from time to time. They can not comment on the reason for not work and may even give no information on the last wage or representations.


However, this method of research on the history of the applicant is mandatory these days and will be detected unless the worst offenders or companies believe. The truth is that unless you have a public record of criminal activity likely they do not detect even if the larcenous activities have been years. Easier to find is his record of public credit history and many companies these days are not going to hire someone if they have too much negative activity on their credit reports. It is patently unfair, but it is perhaps the only solid evidence that will make verification of employment history, particularly in the contentious society in fear prevails that identity theft seriously and with good reason.