Still unsure about pre-employment screening..?

How much do you know about your new employees..?

I have attached below a link to the BBC news item about a woman who falsely claimed to be a qualified dentist.

I bet whoever employed her wishes they had invested £195 on an indepth background check now.

Imagine the following scenario:

Mr A is recruiting a new member of staff. He decides against spending the £195 fee for an indepth background check on the candidate, Mr X. Mr A congratulates himself on saving the boss £195.

Lets say 3 months after Mr X joins the company, it is plain to everyone that he cannot actually do the job. So, Mr A now begins the long and expensive task of disciplinary action against Mr X, with the end result that he leaves the company 6 months later. Mr A now bitterly regrets not doing the background checks, and worse still, his boss is mad at him.
Mr A now has to restart the hunt to fill the vacancy.
The boss has paid the wrong person for 9 months who didn't actually do the job he was paid to do.
Do you think the boss will insist on an indepth background check now ?

If Mr A had done a background check :

He would have known that Mr X was not qualified for the job and looked elsewhere for a suitable applicant.
Even if Mr X had somehow slipped through the checking system, Mr A would have been insulated against his bosses anger by saying, 'Dont blame me, I paid an outside agency to do a check, and here is their report'.

And all this assumes that Mr X is just incompetent, not a thief or a fraudster or someone who just want to damage your company.

£195 is a small price to pay, when you consider the alternatives.

Read the item below, unless you are from the West Midlands, and have been to the dentist recently..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-11434097

Andy Mileham
07775 603025

http://www.astoncovert.com/
http://www.thecovertagency.eu/
http://www.happycustomers.info/