Typically, at least with my company, we're not endorsing a candidate for clearance until they are offered the job and accepted.skeet50 wrote: ↑ I assume that this is for external hiring. You should be notified if you are placed in the pool and eligible for future appointments to available jobs. Usually, you don't receive any notice if you are found unqualified for the position.
Please remember that this is summer vacation time and many managers may be on holidays. Hiring typically ramps up again in the Fall, however with the Federal Election in October, some managers may be laying low to see what changes may be coming down after the election.
With the Federal Government, whether candidates are security cleared in the PQP will depend upon the job itself, whether the PQP is being shared by other hiring managers and the anticipated size of the PQP.
In some cases they cannot obtain the security clearance on a person. If they offer you the position based on the security clearance, they have tied up that position for some time. Decisions may be made on a case by case basis with hiring managers unable to provide much insight into why the security clearance is delayed nor when they may obtain the security clearance. The candidate is left in a lurch as they cannot be hired until the security clearance has been granted.
Money to burn??? Your mindset is just about saving $$$ and from small size company hirings. You don't have to security clear all your potential candidates (can be 30 more as the government does mass hiring to fill many positons), each of which takes at least a month as it has to go to other external parties like the RCMP. More efficient to just clear everyone before you start offering jobs and have one delay. Plus that pool of candidates will be valid for a year so if more hirings are needed you don't need to go through the entire expensive and time consuming exercise and putting out another job posting.
My company is anything but smallWetCoastGuy wrote: ↑ Money to burn??? Your mindset is just about saving $$$ and from small size company hirings. You don't have to security clear all your potential candidates (can be 30 more as the government does mass hiring to fill many positons), each of which takes at least a month as it has to go to other external parties like the RCMP. More efficient to just clear everyone before you start offering jobs and have one delay. Plus that pool of candidates will be valid for a year so if more hirings are needed you don't need to go through the entire expensive and time consuming exercise and putting out another job posting.
If you just security clear selected candidates, which some will turn down (got another job, no longer interested, etc.) and then you have to clear another batch and wait another month (and more would have got another job by then), and then another delay...... meanwhile the work that needs to be done like processing Passports will be backlogged from lack of staff and then you complain about how government service is SO SLOW.
If you offer a candidate a job without getting security clearance (which you can't do since how can they do any sensitive work) and then cancel the offer because they don't clear security after a month, then people would be mighty pissed if they just quit their old job thinking they got a job.
We're not talking about the the size of your company but size of your hiring pool for a position. If you just have one or two people for the position to fill you can afford to just do it one at a time, plus your reference check is not likely to be extensive as a security check.
Still a waste of money and resources.WetCoastGuy wrote: ↑ We're not talking about the the size of your company but size of your hiring pool for a position. If you just have one or two people for the position to fill you can afford to just do it one at a time.
GoC candidates know as part of the process that they have to be security cleared for the particular jobs but how does any of that make a difference. So you got 30 positions to fill - do you then just give out 30 conditional offers and then wait 30 days for security review and maybe 15 of them get rejected?? And then you revoke the 15 offers and then go through another 15 offers and wait another 30 days and then maybe out of that 7 gets rejected and then repeat??? Since it is sensitive work, you can't just make a conditional offer and then bring in the 30 candidates to start working conditionally. (Do you want even one criminal to review your passport information for 30 days until that person is rejected?) You can't just make 45 offers just in case to cover the number that could be rejected because what if all 45 get through then what?? Certainly it uses more resources but it also saves time. You can't just sit back and wait when you've got a public service to deliver and the public is already complaining about SLOW government services. And then in the news someone will say "but they have 15 unfilled positions to process passports, so what is going on - why can't stupid management get on with hiring blah blah blah?vkizzle wrote: ↑ Still a waste of money and resources.
We have over 400 openings globally.
Every candidate is advised up front that an offer is based on the condition that they successfully obtain the required clearance.
Is this unfair, no, as we disclose this requirement on every single job posting and a candidate should get familiar with the types of personnel security screening from the GoC's website.
