-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Pre employment checks
- Thread starter Zen23
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
185
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 5,042
Lordy... for a maintenance operative?! Maybe for financial or cash handling / purchasing jobs but not frontline staff. That's bad 
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Lordy... for a maintenance operative?! Maybe for financial or cash handling / purchasing jobs but not frontline staff. That's bad
A lot of metal and equipment theft are inside jobs. Seems prudent to make sure new starters don't have significant money problems. It's the same standard and principle as cash handling jobs.
DBS checks are one thing, financial credit checks........
I don't think it's prudent, i find it disgusting. An employer should have no right to delve into your financial status.
What does it or can it prove? Just because you have a bad credit rating does not make you a thief, make you dishonest or make you more liable to break any rules as an employee. I have at the moment due to marital separation and a previous job loss, an extremely bad (if not the worst possible) credit rating. Does this make me unemployable?
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
It's the way of the world. Apply for a job in a bank and they'll do the same.
A history of bad debt or bankruptcy makes a person much more likely to engage in crime with a financial benefit, unfortunately. As I said earlier, there is a history of some track workers pulling inside jobs and thieving metal or components.
Bad credit is not the same necessarily as being bankrupt or having CCJs.
Not all jobs require a credit check.
Last edited:
A bad credit rating I agree doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, but a credit check can highlight if a person has convictions for fraud, as well as a dubious identity. Also if a person can't handle their current debt, it could make them vulnerable to corruption, hence why the Police run checks of this nature on prospective staff.
Having a bad score for missing a couple of credit card payments is unlikely to affect you. This is why even lenders look at a report's content and to all intents ignore the score itself.
I was in the same boat as you (right down to the nightmare separation/divorce...), hence why I've been studying my own score for some years. I now have an okay report only held back by a CCJ hanging around which is due to disappear next year. My report was initially in tatters and what people also fail to realise is that payday/short term loans have a massive detrimental effect on one's report as again, this indicates you have a problem with credit/debt.
Last edited:
Raul_Duke
Member
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 397
Or they could just be verifying your address?
I had something similar happen once, it still shows up on your report.
IIRC they have to get your explicit permission to do a proper "credit search."
I had something similar happen once, it still shows up on your report.
IIRC they have to get your explicit permission to do a proper "credit search."
More than likely it'll be an identity check rather than a credit check. A credit search is only done when you actually apply for any kind of credit eg credit card or loan.
More than likely they're not going to be concerned about your financial status. It's an easy way of cross referencing the information you will have given them.
Any address check will be classed as a soft search. You'll be able to see it but any prospective lender won't. It has zero affect on your credit rating or your ability to apply for it. I wouldn't be too concerned.
More than likely they're not going to be concerned about your financial status. It's an easy way of cross referencing the information you will have given them.
Any address check will be classed as a soft search. You'll be able to see it but any prospective lender won't. It has zero affect on your credit rating or your ability to apply for it. I wouldn't be too concerned.
Last edited:
Regardless of the type of check an employer is running WONT affect your credit rating like a loan application would as it's known as a 'soft search'. My file at the moment shows loads of insurers listed as well as the BTP, but only I can see these. Insurers do this every time you use a comparison site and the BTP did it for vetting purposes. However, the BTP are looking for financial issues rather than just to check my identity. It still won't show to lenders or affect my score, but they are checking on my financial integrity.
Landlords also run checks of prospective tenants, but ONLY see public records such as CCJs or IVAs and not the whole report.
Last edited:
ZEN 23
Hi there, I saw your post and congratulations on gaining a contract with NWR.
I have an interview on 14 November 16, can I ask the following.......
1) Was your interview in your local area.....or the AREA the position was requested ?
2) how many interviewed you ?
3) The location of the vacancy, was there anyone from that area that interviewed you ?
4) what type of questions were posed ?
My Interview is for Operative-Track Maintenance-Bristol
sorry for the questions
be safe
Last edited:
1)I was interviewed in the area the position was requested which i live about 20mins away from.
2) Was interviewed bt the hiring manager and his assistant.
3) Both the manager and his assistant are from the area.
4) The questions were mostly safety based. e.g. hazards you come across working on the tracks, what to do if someone is doing something unsafe.
5)They are very relaxed and approachable
try and have some questions to ask at the end of the interview as well
All the best for your interview
2) Was interviewed bt the hiring manager and his assistant.
3) Both the manager and his assistant are from the area.
4) The questions were mostly safety based. e.g. hazards you come across working on the tracks, what to do if someone is doing something unsafe.
5)They are very relaxed and approachable
try and have some questions to ask at the end of the interview as well
All the best for your interview
Hi ZEN
Appreciate the feedback, and glad you are able to calm things down for me !
I have since found out the Interview IS in my area, Bristol as HR for this role are based in Liverpoool.
YES, I need to ensure I have appropriate interesting questions, but I do slightly feel I
may be assessed as coming second for this appointment-purely by the fact of my appointment time. As usually, the later you are at an interview, does effect their assessed placings of you from the group invited to interview.
I believe I am the second to be interviewed that morning, so a few more candidates will follow after me.
I thankyou for your response again, in my 14 months on the railway, I have met nothing but helpful people-truly amazing.
Good luck with your future my friend,
regards
With respect do you really believe that? That is akin to ridiculous rumours such as the DVLA having a mandatory failure rate in driving tests.
It has absolutely no bearing if you're first second or tenth. If you are good enough for the job, and you beat everyone else in that estimation, you will get the job. It has nothing to do with in what order you're interviewed!
carbers255
Member
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Messages
- 42
What did your formal offer include? What info did you have to provide? I've had an offer via phone today and said they would e-mail an offer pack, I just wondered what's in the pack and what you had to do besides medical etc.
Actually it does have an affect. How great that affect is is debatable. By the end of a day of interviews you are often fatigued, mentally tired, going through the motions etc etc. I still remember my MMI. The lady was rushed and the day was well past its expected finish. The MMI took about 10 minutes and I was rushed through.
There is also a case where you are doing interviews and you get a superb candidate pretty early. Suddenly you are comparing candidates against each other and using a single candidate as a yardstick; often to the detriment of comparing against criteria and often to the detriment of candidates.
There is also phenomenon about being first through the door because by the 'nth person you've interviewed you've forgotten about the first guy. We tend to remember the most recent candidates.
Interviews are generally biased and subjective. One of the great things about an MMI is that they are looking for set criteria. Our DMI's are now more of a fixed set of questions and each answer is rated by two DM's and compared.
If you are interviewing and you find someone early, of course you're comparing the yardstick against that candidate; that is the exact point of interviewing but if that perfect person is last, or first they should be equally remembered.
I am not the best interviewer, far from it, but having done an interview techniques course and interviewed to fill a few of positions myself I can comfortably state that any interviewer who only chooses the first or last person because they are the only one they can remember is unfit that job themselves.
The idea is to interview now and compare later, with paperwork and your own notes to hand. An interviewer who does not make notes and therefore no profile on all the candidates interviewed is a criminal, in my eyes. There is no excuse for a poor interviewer.
Last edited:
I totally agree. I always made notes
The problem is that there is the phenomenon that I highlighted above and that interviews are still biassed and prejudiced. As the entire employment world moves on its more and more a case of structured interviews or criteria based ones. Computer based tests are now doing the paper sift for us too.
Like you, I am often stunned that people are questioning the legitimacy of MMI/DMI and the whole process of recruitment, yet I have never seen a fairer and more equal system.
I've had two candidates form a joint complaint and questioned why an individual was offered the post and not themselves! Sour grapes certainly does travel faster than anyone agreeing that a recruitment process is fair.
Usually the one who complains the most has put themselves on the highest pedestal!
To avoid bias and prejudice though you should be interviewing 2:1 or more, rather than 1:1 but will always have some bias, however miniscule, as it is human nature.
Structured interviews are definitely much more easier to sift through as answers are around the same subject matter but finding info on them personally is, often, more revealing about themselves as an individual.
You might, for example, have someone who is, on paper, exactly everything you want yet are dull as dishwater and their personal life involves sitting at home in front of X-Factor all day long and has left several jobs, claiming they were "not suited" on every one! The other person has 80% of what you want, has not got precisely every trait that you're looking for yet is intelligent, eager and attending an OU course or doing other courses in their spare time to improve themselves and will, in a short time, be what you want.
That had the course I went on debating for a long time yet those in favour of the first person all glossed over or entirely missed the interaction with and needs of existing staff.
Usually the one who complains the most has put themselves on the highest pedestal!
To avoid bias and prejudice though you should be interviewing 2:1 or more, rather than 1:1 but will always have some bias, however miniscule, as it is human nature.
Structured interviews are definitely much more easier to sift through as answers are around the same subject matter but finding info on them personally is, often, more revealing about themselves as an individual.
You might, for example, have someone who is, on paper, exactly everything you want yet are dull as dishwater and their personal life involves sitting at home in front of X-Factor all day long and has left several jobs, claiming they were "not suited" on every one! The other person has 80% of what you want, has not got precisely every trait that you're looking for yet is intelligent, eager and attending an OU course or doing other courses in their spare time to improve themselves and will, in a short time, be what you want.
That had the course I went on debating for a long time yet those in favour of the first person all glossed over or entirely missed the interaction with and needs of existing staff.
Last edited:
I agree with your well made points, JohnFM. Structured interviews are best, note keeping is essential, but we can never really hope to attain 100% objectivity.
I always found that the most important thing in interviewing for a role was to be able to support your decision with facts. A scoring system can be useful as a back up to the notes.
I always found that the most important thing in interviewing for a role was to be able to support your decision with facts. A scoring system can be useful as a back up to the notes.
I agree with you. We used to have a scoring type grid alongside each criteria with 2-3 questions on how they matched that criteria.
The subjectivity comes in after scoring systems and notes are compared. It was always interesting to see where interviewers differed, although where I worked most of the time the notes and scores were very similar across the panel.
Ha ha ha. Ours didn't match!
One nurse we interviewed presented her CV which was headed gold embossed on velum! The Doctor I was with as part of the three person panel was bowled over and almost literally gushed all over her.
The other manager and I suspected there was more to this and found her to be abrasive and arrogant and almost every answer involved her changing the established clinics and audits to suit her and her studies if we gave her the job.
It was an interesting discussion afterwards and as proof that we made the right choice she was one of the two who formally complained once she was told she had not got the job!
One nurse we interviewed presented her CV which was headed gold embossed on velum! The Doctor I was with as part of the three person panel was bowled over and almost literally gushed all over her.
The other manager and I suspected there was more to this and found her to be abrasive and arrogant and almost every answer involved her changing the established clinics and audits to suit her and her studies if we gave her the job.
It was an interesting discussion afterwards and as proof that we made the right choice she was one of the two who formally complained once she was told she had not got the job!
- Status