Right. That's why I won't sign a job offer until the background checks are done. Not that there's anything of concern: every one has come back clean as can be, but I just don't like to take any chances.
Companies usually fuss about it, but I insist, and among quite a few orgs over the past 25 years I've never had one pass because I refused to sign prior to background check.
I made this mistake with my last move. Everything 100% done, contract signed, put in notice etc. Then a couple of days later they want a background check. Sure, I have no history, but what if I had? Or what if someone with the same name had?
The employer would only need that verbiage in an offer letter if they had failed to perform all reference, credit, criminal, etc. checks prior to sending you the letter.
Companies don't "fail" to perform background checks prior to making offers. In some jurisdictions (e.g. California), it's illegal to perform a background check prior to making an offer.
This is interesting! My involvement in background screening began and ended before this law was enacted. The CA law is probably good at preventing outright, unfair elimination of candidates because of criminal history.
I think one key thing in that California law is the notion of the “conditional job offer.” This law doesn’t effect the dynamics of the offer letters we were discussing at all. If you make an offer and there are still conditions pending, you’re obligated to let the candidate know. I cannot imagine CA is doing that differently.
I get your point, though, that doing the criminal portion of the background check after extending the offer is now not just normal, but mandatory, in CA.
