> At the end they were both let go once we discovered the deception (their downfall was neither of them were meeting productivity expectations, not getting their work done)
> After this, we heavily beefed up our pre-employment screening, which is all of what this person is complaining about.
So practices were already in place to detect and correct this.
That makes it quite foolish to distrust all applicants across the board, and make their experience worse, when performance tracking and correction was already a solved problem.
To be fair, the earlier in the process you can disqualify a bad candidate, the less money and time you waste. It's generally positive to re-assess the pre-employment screening when it fails to do it's job.
That said, making the process worse for your good candidates is a horrible solution.
> After this, we heavily beefed up our pre-employment screening, which is all of what this person is complaining about.
So practices were already in place to detect and correct this.
That makes it quite foolish to distrust all applicants across the board, and make their experience worse, when performance tracking and correction was already a solved problem.