[Technocrat]

From My experience they only ask for final settlement papers which list out the tax deduction they have done, if you are shifting job mid year you cant get Form 16 till the time the Financial year ends.

[DCEite]

Can someone put more light on this:

Originally Posted by DCEite

Q2 Consider a hypothetical situation. At the time of interview, the candidate verbally mentions his present CTC as 5LPA. He demands 7LPA (40% increase) from the company. The company agrees and sends him the offer letter mentioning 7LPA per annum.
Now, at the actual time of joining, employee furnishes Form 16 and salary slips of previous org, which show his salary to be only 4LPA. That is, he had lied to the HR at the time of interview about his present salary. The hike now becomes over 70%.
Now my question is, is the new company in a position to reject his employment, since A. He had verbally given wrong information, B. 70% increase is more than the threshold increase (say 60%) in the company HR policies.

[shuvc]

Originally Posted by DCEite

Q2 Consider a hypothetical situation. At the time of interview, the candidate verbally mentions his present CTC as 5LPA. He demands 7LPA (40% increase) from the company. The company agrees and sends him the offer letter mentioning 7LPA per annum.
Now, at the actual time of joining, employee furnishes Form 16 and salary slips of previous org, which show his salary to be only 4LPA. That is, he had lied to the HR at the time of interview about his present salary. The hike now becomes over 70%.
Now my question is, is the new company in a position to reject his employment, since A. He had verbally given wrong information, B. 70% increase is more than the threshold increase (say 60%) in the company HR policies.

Very difficult to do, if it was a verbal communication. This is why some organizations make it mandatory to submit a copy of salary proof before rolling out the offer. That way there is documented proof.

[Technocrat]

I agree with shuvc, No they can not deny his letter because if they wanted the hike only on his previous salary they should have asked for a proof.

Besides any company will not pay anyone more than he \dhe deserves(as per their salary metrics) & if they do then are desperate for the candidate & will pay even he wasn't earning anything.

See the bottom line is that the package range is decided by two major factors Work experience + skill set(based on experience &\or interview result) this determines the range that the company can offer to a candidate, now they arrive upon a package which is within these limits based on negotiations which may or may not include previous salary.

[Mission_Safari]

In my experience i always had to submit the salary slip in the interviews before the salary discussion starts. And i dont think any HR would fix a salary based on only the verbal agreement without seeing his/her previous salary slip.

[Technocrat]

I have never shown submitted any documents before joining any company so far I am in my third job right now.

[Mission_Safari]

Originally Posted by Technocrat

I have never shown submitted any documents before joining any company so far I am in my third job right now.

Thats strange. Weren't you asked to submit the payslips as part of the joining formalities atleast ?
I moved from my earlier job during November and attended 5 interviews, was asked for salary slip in all of them.

[mmmjgm]

Hi,

Companies ask for some proof of payment received, in BPO companies generally they have a Flexible Benefit Plan which helps save on taxes, in such cases, the actual salary (Basic, DA/LTA, HRA etc) is one component, and the other is reimbursement fixed depending upon the plan the company proposes - entertainment, travelling (petrol bills etc) rents paid for housing etc.

These show up as direct credits in the bank in some cases, in other cases it is mentioned in the salary slip.

Normally any company hiring a manager/assistant manager will ask for some documentation to find out what was the last salary drawn.

Naturally most reputed companies have an HR audit, if in the audit it is found that a candidate received a 70% hike, the HR person responsible can be pulled up or fired. This is the general procedure, to play safe most recruiters take proof of last salary before giving an offer to the candidate.

Cheers
M M M

[Technocrat]

Originally Posted by Mission_Safari

Thats strange. Weren't you asked to submit the payslips as part of the joining formalities atleast ?
I moved from my earlier job during November and attended 5 interviews, was asked for salary slip in all of them.

Nopes none not even after joining. I gave my tax record voluntarily so that tax is calculated correctly.

The only documents that I submitted were:

- Degree certificates
- Relieving letters of all previous companies
- Birth Certificate
- Passport copy(at the current one)

No salary related document ever & frankly why would they, they are offereing me what I am worth(actually less that what I am worth, if only I had negotiated better )

[Lalvaz]

Hi Madan, I'm familiar with the Background check process. Have a question for you though. Why is it that HR lays so much stress on having certain number of years of experience for certain positions? Are we assuming that all people are the same and everyone will magically become mature after 7 years of experience? Is'nt it possible that someone with 5 years could be more mature than someone with 10 years? Why dont we have some other basis for evaluation of suitability of a candidate? Perhaps the interview could be more detailed???

IMO, HR is too blinkered in its approach. Very often they want people who are graduates or even postgraduates, while the job could comfortably be done by an undergrad, for ex: Basic data processing at BPO's.

Similarly, HR says that people need to have experience. Even if the candidate is good, but is inexperienced, they never want to give him/her a chance. There was a time when I was looking for a job and was willing to work for free or a nominal stipend, but people were unwilling to recruit cos I did'nt have experience. Thats nonsense, how does one get experience unless someone agrees to recruit him. And just to clarify, I had the qualifications, am good in communication skills and am presentable too. And am currently doing pretty well, but I've been through this phase and cannot understand the way many HR depts work.

They really need to be more flexible and look for the right candidate. Oh and dont even get me started on the scams and arrangements they have with recruitment firms.

Cheers,
Lalvaz

Originally Posted by madan80

the recruitment teams are under a lot of pressure to fill up the 8-10K positions that they need to fill up. So first they hire the person based on what meets the eye- the resume, interviews ad technical know how. Then they do the "BACKGROUND" check. this is carried out by an indipendent body- that verifies what has been writen by the candidate.

You cant turn a blind eye to fake stuff- becase there is NO WAY on earth that you can verify what has been writen.
Example- Mr.X finished his college in 2000, from 2000- 2002 he was sitting at home. and 2002 he got a job with a company A. he worked there till 2007 - thats a good 5 years. Now he watns to apply for a project mangers position so he adds the 2 years he was sitting at home as experience in the same compny.

If the HR person glances at the resume- he./ she sees - graduated in 2000, wored frmo 2000-2007 - so that 7 years - making the person "technically" elligible for the next grade and position. now on background checking- the verification company will find out that it is incorrect and that the employee has worked there only from 2002-2007. So what do u do. keep the person - I dont think so.

you need to fire his *** and put a blot on it - because he is dishonest and trying to decieve you.

also -i dont think this thread is authentic - the email is just what has been doing the rounds. As they say - compnies are here to make money- that would mean by cutting their losses and letting people go, if not- they would be the UN.

[DCEite]

Originally Posted by mmmjgm

Naturally most reputed companies have an HR audit, if in the audit it is found that a candidate received a 70% hike, the HR person responsible can be pulled up or fired. This is the general procedure, to play safe most recruiters take proof of last salary before giving an offer to the candidate.

What happens to the Employee in that case? (The company did not ask him for salary proof at the time of interview and giving offer letter, but at the actual time of joininig)

[mmmjgm]

Originally Posted by DCEite

What happens to the Employee in that case? (The company did not ask him for salary proof at the time of interview and giving offer letter, but at the actual time of joininig)

Hi DCEite,

In all probability it is not the employee's (new hire's) fault that no documentation was asked from him and a certain amount of hike was given to him over his earlier pay. HR & the manager sanctioning the hire would be in a soup if found out.

No need to worry as most companies have a budget for hiring and allocations for each position. Needless to state that a good rapport with senior management helps in ambiguous situations.

By law, they cannot fire you for not taking any proof of last salary drawn. I am sure that in the joining form you would have entered some amount when completing your joining formalities. But then how much does the law work ?

Cheers
M M M

[shuvc]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Very often they want people who are graduates or even postgraduates, while the job could comfortably be done by an undergrad, for ex: Basic data processing at BPO's.

Mid-Late nineties : A lot of s/w companies would allow ONLY computer science, electronics and electrical graduates to write their exams. They could afford that, since their numbers were satisfied within the available pool.

See the scenario today. I had team member who holds a bachelors of english degree. And is a top performer as a technical practitioner in software development.

In a way it's a demand supply thing. They ask for grads/post grads and get them too. They day they won't, the criteria will be revised. Don't some BPO's use undergrads today?

What you say about capabilities vs qualifications is true.
But one of the objectives of these policies is also to reduce the chances of nepotism and malpractices in organizations with hundreds of interviewers across locations. Even with such stringent policies, I have seen extreme poor performers get through 2 rounds of interviews.

Detailed interviews you say. Possible when hiring numbers are small. Impossible when there are weekly targets to the tune of hundreds which is normally the ask for large companies.

Say if 1 hr per interview for a detailed one. Say 10 interview panels of 2 persons each. Max, 7 interviews per person on a Saturday considering breaks. Select ratio can be as low as 2-3 persons out of 10. So you interview 70 on a Saturday and select only 14-21. Out of which 5-6 would decline the offer later.

And I have not even considered the time taken for processing formalities, HR rounds, 2nd round interviews etc.

[Mission_Safari]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

IMO, HR is too blinkered in its approach. Very often they want people who are graduates or even postgraduates, while the job could comfortably be done by an undergrad, for ex: Basic data processing at BPO's.

Whats the difference between a graduate and under-graduate? I don't quiite get it.

[shuvc]

Originally Posted by Mission_Safari

Whats the difference between a graduate and under-graduate? I don't quiite get it.

He is probably referring to high-school passouts.