I just applied to a bank. I had three interviews that went pretty

Looks pretty promising but I still would not bank on it. Pardon the pun.

No. Background checks are a standard part of the application review process. Just because an employer does one should not be taken as an indication of possible employment.

>>16652022
If they're doing background checks, you've got the job. Has anyone called you and made you an offer yet?

>>16652049
Not yet. She said it might take a little longer than normal for the results because of the New Year's weekend.

I'm just nervous because I really need this job.

>>16652037

Why do you say that?

It depends on where you're applying. The post office does background checks on anyone who applies, but places like a bank aren't going to do a full out background check on people they don't plan on hiring. That's just a waste of money.

OP here checking back again. I'm getting very mixed signals from people.

>good sign, but not a for sure
>doesn't mean anything
>I've probably got the job

Are you all talking from experience?

Thanks for the responses so far also.

I've heard conflicting information too. I've got two friends who both work with hiring. One says you've basically got the job of you go through the entire interview process and they spend the money for a background check. The other says it's not as certain, but is still a good sign, since they're at least seriously considering you for the position.

Also curious.

Monitoring this thread.

If they're at the point they're doing a background check, they're likely ready to extend an offer. They aren't being outright yet and telling you it's conditional because that is just protocol (it can be ugly for them if something flags on the background check but you were promised a job)

>>16653786
Thank you for the response!

Have you been involved with hiring at all?