Re:He got 1%, we can't hire him
by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 28, 2013 @11:42AM
(#6290676)
Even in that case, HR can identify the risk paramters (likelihood of risk manifesting, expected cost if it manifests, overall expected cost taking all of that into account, etc.) but they can't weigh the cost against the expected benefits.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
There are plenty of cases in which the company just needs to have a policy that it's an unacceptable risk. For instance, if the job involves getting a security clearance, a felony on your background check basically means that you are unfit for the job. Or if you are dealing with highly sensitive financial data, there can just be too much of a risk.
I'm not saying that all HR departments should have such a policy (in fact, in some cases it can be illegal to request criminal background information, at least on the initial application form). But there are some cases in which a policy like that could be necessary and final.
Re:He got 1%, we can't hire him
by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 28, 2013 @01:44PM
(#6291490)
> There are plenty of cases in which the company just needs to have a policy that it's an unacceptable risk.
Sure, but HR generally shouldn't be setting that policy, and whoever is setting that policy is logically making the decision, HR is gathering an input to that decision (a potentially decisive input, but that's because of decision criteria set outside of HR.)