Exactly. A lot can unexpectedly go wrong during a background check, some companies ask employees for (very old) W2's they may not have, etc. There was a time when I worked at <redacted> and a new co-worker suddenly disappeared without a trace, and I was told in confidence by a VP they "were not who they said they were" which I presume means they failed a background check. This was during growing pains, they were probably doing checks after hiring.
We're not doing a salary verification so we don't make the new hire provide a bunch of data, aside answering questions about where you lived, when. We are doing a court record and criminal background check. When we have a problem 100% of the time the new hire has misrepresented themselves. We tell people exactly what the background check will discover, and we've even hired people who have disclosed issues prior to the check (nothing serious).
If an employer ever asked for an old W-2 I'd refuse, and if it was enough of a problem I'd recuse myself. That's private, sorry. Not that it would matter for me personally, I've been self employed for 15 years. But still there has to be some self respect.
All “high-horse” claims work better when yo have cash in the bank and don’t need to get that job right here right now.
I also decline signing NDA, providing data they should not request. Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours.
But if I would need that paycheck ASAP all of it goes to trash and I would comply to most of shenanigans, maybe not all but still.
> Asking to cross off anything that encroaches intellectual property I might create after hours.
We're pretty big on making sure that our contract allows this as we encourage developers to do side projects - open source, etc. We do have an anti-double dipping clause.
I worked with a guy who it later came out that he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when he convinced a buddy of his to kill his ex-wife and her new boyfriend. Probably should have had better background checks at that company.
Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though.
If it’s fully communicated that the background check happens in parallel and the new hire doesn’t expect anything to pop up, it seems like a good option (provided the employer is reasonable about trying to solve unexpected inaccuracies that may arise).
In my last two positions, I’m pretty sure my employment contract included a section indicting that at any time they can do a new check on me. And I believe my most recent one explicitly asked if I expected anything to come up.
> Your example seems like something that the employee likely knew of though.
That's true, but consider this: by running these checks in parallel you are exposing your employees to whatever risks the new element brings in. Perhaps they were convicted of SA etc. and decide to stalk someone at your co.
There's a school of thought around comp where what someone's made in the past should inform what you offer in the future. Some use comp history as an indicator of quality. Some use it as guidance for making sure they don't offer too much.
