employeescreenIQ Launches employeescreen University
employeescreenIQ is very proud to announce the launch of employeescreen University, a first-of-its-kind online, educational learning resource for human resource, security and risk-management professionals, which features regularly updated, free background-screening information aimed to help organizations make better hiring decisions.
We have been working diligently on this concept for some time now and hope you will take advantage of this free resource. We felt and continue to feel that there is so much misinformation out there about what constitutes an effective background check and how to establish a program that works for each individual organization. employeescreen University is all about educating the marketplace and empowering interested individuals with the information they need to develop an effective screening program. We also welcome your feedback and will tailor the site based on the comments and requests we see.
Please note that if you currently subscribe to this blog you will need to change the feed to http://blog.employeescreen.com/?feed=rss2 For those of you who are interested in subscribing for the first time, you can use the same feed.
Helpful Tool to Identify Fake Academic Credentials
Diploma Mills are on the rise and chances are you've seen them used on the resumes' of job candidates you have considered for employment. The question is whether you caught it our not. The Federal Trade Commission has published a helpful tool for employers to consult in order to combat fake degrees when performing Education Verifications:
You can use the Internet to check if a school is accredited by a legitimate organization at a new database of accredited academic institutions, posted by the U.S. Department of Education at www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation. (There are a few legitimate institutions that have not pursued accreditation.)
To find out if an accrediting agency is legitimate, check the list of recognized national and regional accrediting agencies maintained by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation at www.chea.org.
Monday February 18th is President's Day and as such all U.S. Courts are closed. Those conducting county-based criminal background checks should anticipate a one day delay in results.
Helpful Advice for Banks & Other Financial Institutions that Conduct Employment Verifications
(I know, long title). Many of you have seen recent articles we've written about what employers can and cannot or do and do not say when providing employment verification information on former employees. One of our clients was kind enough to pass along this article, Are You Hiring A Crook written by Mary Beth Guard at Bankersonline.com.
The article focuses on financial institutions who have terminated employees due to fraud or theft in the workplace, but where charges have never been filed. Many employers are scared to divulge such information if asked for fear of a lawsuit from the former employee. Most are unaware that the USA Patriot Act actually affords them the protection they need to warn financial institutions that might consider the individual for employment.
If you work in the financial sector, this article is a must read. I would recommend paying close attention to how this protection can be used and under what circumstances. I was so facsinated by this little know provision in the Patriot Act that I contacted the author and she was only so kind to offer her opinions and advice for how financial institutions can utilize this important protection. One thing that I found unfortunate was the fact that the language in this provision seems to make it impossible for a CRA (background screening organization) to conduct this type of verification on the employer's behalf.
The state agency said that a background check was conducted and did not reveal conviction records from the state of Texas which focused on writing bad checks. They said if they had known about these records, it might have affected their decision to hire this individual. My guess is that the state didn't conduct a thorough check, however it could have been much worse. Based on this report, it doesn't seem to indicate that this individual had prior records related to sex crimes or child pornography.
The importance of conducting a county criminal record search in each county where the applicant has lived, worked or attended school cannot be understated. The article doesn't indicate that these offenses occurred in counties where the individual resided, but I think it's a safe assumption. If he didn't the state would be claiming the they conducted a thorough check and wouldn't be reevaluating their procedures.
Major League Baseball Umpires Cry "Foul" Over Background Checks
Pick up any major U.S. paper today and you'll see that Major League Baseball Umpires are less than pleased with the methods MLB has used to conduct background checks. They have alleged that investigators are making inquiries with neighbors of the umpires which preclude the neighbors to believe that the umpires are engaged in such activities. Questions have included whether the umpires have ties to the Ku Klux Klan or if they have been known to grow marijuana. MLB has denied has denied any wrong doing.
Here's my take. First, the type of investigative work MLB has employed to vett their umpires is far beyond that which your average employer utilizes. That doesn't make it wrong. That makes it much more in-depth, time intensive and costly. Knowing the embarrassment caused to the NBA when it was revealed that one of their referrees was tied to a mafia gambling ring, they have a vested interest in knowing everything they can about the people they employ to protect the integrity of the sport. Furthermore, if they are not involved in these activities, why would they have a problem with these questions? Lastly, if they don't want to be subjected to these checks, they always have the option of seeking alternate employment.
HOWEVER
If, in fact the investigators crossed the line and intimated that the umpires were involved in the activities they were asking about, they were flat out wrong and should be held accountable. We should have more details in the next few days and weeks and hopefully will be able to make that determination at some other time.
Now, Mr. Seil was not an employee of his company so I doubt he would have instructed his people to run recurring background checks on him to allow for continuous employment, however if the state, which issued his license didn't get this anonymous tip he'd still be operating his business. What could the state have done?
Well, they did perform a background check to issue the license. However, that background check was conducted well before this incident took place. If the had a program in place to update the information, they could have caught this.
The same concept applies to any employer. It's great that so many organizations see the value in conducting background checks in order to make an informed hiring decision. But, that check doesn't guarantee that something hasn't happen since the time that the applicant hired.
Check out the links above for some suggestions on how to effectively screen your current employees.
Even Paradise is No Longer Immune to Need for Background Checks
The beautiful island of Bermuda is one of my favorites with majestic pink sand beaches and the clearest blue waters I have ever seen. If you close your eyes, you can just imagine this tropical paradise and forget about your cares.
Unfortunately, the people of Bermuda are learning a lesson that many have learned long ago: being on a small island or in a small community where everybody knows one another cannot insulate you from harm that can be caused by not performing proper background checks on job candidates.
Are Your Kids in Harm's Way is a story taken from a local Bermuda newspaper and details a story about a woman who abused children while operating a day care center. This woman had a criminal past and could have been prevented from caring for children had anyone performed a criminal background check.
The problem is that stories such as these repeat themselves all over our country and all over our world. People think that they are immune to such activities because they live in small communities. Unfortunately, many need to live through an experience such as this to realize that this logic cannot stand.
In the past my articles have centered around industry issues and identity theft. I just came across this article on Yahoo and thought it was very interesting. I think this type of case could make it to the U.S. Supreme court as it could have ADA and possible EEOC implications. Obviously, drug screening and substance abuse testing in the workplace is a hot issue today and certainly a service offered by employeescreenIQ. My passion for this particular issue could be argued on both sides. I am a strong supporter for substance abuse testing in the workplace but also understand and support the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am not sure where this one will go, but it will be an interesting ride nonetheless.
Medical Marijuana users can be fired: California Supreme Court
By Adam Tanner Thu Jan 24, 6:14 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Companies can fire employees who use marijuana for medical reasons even if California law allows such use because federal law prohibits it, the state's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
"Under California law, an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote.
employeescreenIQ president, Jason Morris and I have agreed to participate in the National Association of Professional Background Screeners' (NAPBS) Legislative Fly-In in Washington DC the first week of March. The intent of the event is to raise awareness of the association and the issues that affect CRA's and those that utilize background checks in their hiring process with our nation's legislators. I've always had a fascination with politics, so I look forward to participating. I'll keep you posted on what issues are discussed and who we meet with.
(I know, we've used similar posting titles before, but I could resist.)
Here's an interesting story which describes how the people who developed Credit Scores are in development of a "MedFico" score which will allow hospitals to assess a patient's ability to pay their medical bills. I'm sure this will prove to be more than controversial.
With this development can an "FCRA" for Patients be far off? Do you think patients will be more prone to identity theft and claim they needed to do it in order to get medical attention? Can a patient dispute what is found on their record, say a scandalous plastic surgery? Can trading organs on-line to pay for medical bills be far behind (oh yeah! That's been done)?
All these questions are making me dizzy. I hope my Doctor will be willing to see me even though I only have $20 in my pocket.
So I've been kind of ignoring the story of NASA workers who are objecting to background checks for the past couple months (I know, brilliant for the guy who's supposed to be paying attention to these things). I figured it was just another story about employees that were claiming that their privacy is being invaded.
"The workers sued the federal government, claiming that NASA was invading their privacy by requiring the investigations, which included probes into medical records and questioning of friends about everything from their finances to their sex lives."
I'm all for screening employees for things that might have a direct impact on their character or ability to perform a job, but information about their sex lives? Are you kidding me? I can't see how that might have an impact on one's ability to perform their job (unless they are trying to qualify for adult films {couldn't resist}).
I can't really speak to the objection about medical records. There are some jobs where that type of information is necessary and I certainly don't object to the part about personal finances if that sheds a light on character and personal responsibility.
I'll try to pay better attention in the future and keep you posted on this story.
Employment Verifications: What You Don't Say Can Hurt You
When conducting employment verifications we've all gotten used to the fact that many past employers will not willingly give adverse information about their former employees. Many will confirm employment, give you the dates of employment and starting and ending title/responsibilities. However, after that information is shared what else you get varies widely. Oftentimes, significant adverse information can be withheld.
Why? Employers are worried about getting sued by the former employee. In today's society, the prevailing logic is "why risk litigation, let the next person find out for themselves". Well, here's something that will make you cringe. In the last few years, past employers are being held accountable for what they do not say when it leads to actions by the former employee that could have been prevented had the prospective employer been informed.
I'm not sure if one police force can sue another, but I would imagine that the victim of the harassment might have a nice suit against both employers in this case.
The fact is, this issue of what you should and shouldn't say in an employment verification is extremely dicey for employers. It is a double edge sword of which employers have no guidance on what is appropriate to reveal and what is not. Until definitive best practices are established, employers are going to be left to their own best judgement. Should be interesting.
The purpose of the survey was to benchmark large retailers’ current pre-employment screening programs. The survey was sent to the most senior-level loss prevention executive in ten leading U.S. retailers. The surveyed retailers ranged in store count from 250 to over 3,000 locations and included both hardline and softline retailers. The survey focused on five types of screening processes—drug testing, assessments, credit checks, criminal history, and motor vehicle checks. The scope of the survey included store, distribution centers, and corporate levels at each retail company. The survey was conducted in March, 2007. The survey did not attempt to evaluate the ROI from a pre-employment background screening program. While this is outside the scope of this survey, many retail companies have an internal ROI process measuring programs such a pre-employment screening. The chart below is a summary of the responses to the five primary questions. Conducting an assessment is clearly the most common pre-employment screening method employed, followed by conducting a criminal background check.
Screening Type: Store Distribution Center Corporate Drug Screen 50% 60% 40% Assessment 90% 40% 40% Credit Check 0% 0% 33% Criminal Background Check 70% 80% 70% Motor Vehicle Record Check 0% 60% 40%
I am a little surprised that assessments beat out criminal background checks at the store level, but given the cost structure of screening tactics perhaps it makes sense. Also, I'm surprised that the Substance Abuse Screening levels and use of Criminal Background Checks vary from Store, to Distribution Center, to Corporate. I would think that if these things were important at one level, they would be important at all.
If you live in the state of Ohio and want to be a dentist, veterinarian, marriage therapist, dietitian or an embalmer state lawmakers just passed House Bill 104 mandating a criminal background check. Seems like a good idea. However, the same lawmakers didn't think it was a good idea to subject themselves to the same requirement.
I am proud to announce that employeescreenIQ has been recognized as a Weatherhead 100 organization for the 3rd consecutive year. This year's ranking of 14th is extremely gratifying. I have included a brief description of the award below and invite you to view the attached press release.
Since 1987, the Weatherhead 100 has showcased the fastest growing companies in Northeast Ohio. Recognized organizations must demonstrate consistent growth over the previous five years. The Weatherhead 100 list is objectively determined annually and highly regarded throughout the region. It is branded as a testament to hard work, commitment, innovation, and the dream to succeed.
Drew Peterson Investigated for Conducting Illegal Background Checks
As if Drew Peterson wasn't in enough hot water, now he's being investigating for conducting illegal background checks through his police department's computer system. Talk about a guy who thought he was above the law. Peterson is a Chicago-area cop who is being investigated for his 4th wife's disappearance and his 3rd wife's death.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about applicants who claim to have degrees or diplomas but really don’t. We check, report back to our clients. They make a decision. However, not all cases are that clear cut.
Recently, a candidate said he had a degree, but the school couldn’t verify until they spoke to the applicant directly. Unusual, but not unheard of. Less than 48 hours later, we received a call from someone who said he was a school employee. This person verified the candidate’s degree. Sounds simple enough. Wrap it up and send it back to our client, right?
However, the area code on this phone call was different than the area code of the school. Our researcher’s curiosity was peaked at this point, and called back the school. They stated they still cannot release information, nor had they heard from the applicant!
Our work wasn't done though. The department the person who called us confirming the applicant’s degree. He didn’t work there. The Registrar’s Office? Not there either. At this point, we shared our findings with our client.
While this verification made for a pleasant blog piece, we’re happier about the performance of our researcher. She noticed something looked out of place and acted on her instincts. She made more than a few follow up attempts to obtain information, clarify what she was told, and ascertain the quality of the information she was given.
Our client was more than pleased. Could another company have done the same thing we did? Perhaps. But processes and best practices are very, very important to us. All of our verifications are done within 75 feet of my desk. We do this work in-house and train our own staff, so we can assure our clients they’re receiving a high quality report. We’re proud of our work and like to think our efforts pay off on searches like these.
I'll start by saying that I am not a tree hugger by nature. However, over the past several months I have spent time both personally and professionally wondering how I (and we as a company) can make a difference in the world. All of the environmental concerns you see written about every day and the topic itself are not going away. I strongly feel that protecting our environment should not be a political issue. It's a responsibility we all have (I know, I'm starting to sound preachy. I'll do my best not to preach for the rest of this post, or ever again).
Anyway, I've noticed how wasteful we have all become. Bottled water, 5 mile per gallon Hummer's, paper plates, printing of every email that comes through our in box. In the case of background checks, there is still a lot of unnecessary paper being wasted.
This morning I came across an article in the Chicago Tribune titled, Don't-print plea takes off (check it out). I've actually seen a lot of people in my personal and professional life add this environmentally-friendly message to their email signatures (see file below). I figured, it would be a great place to start. Next, I have decided to dedicate some future blogs to outlining some more environmentally-friendly processes for conducting background checks. Most that I have thought of actually improve the process anyways, so they won't necessarily make you go out of your way to adopt them if you so choose.
I will offer up the following disclaimer: I am not ready to call employeescreenIQ a "Green Company". There are far too many ways that I know we all fall short and I think people could take shots at us all day for things we could improve. Rather than risk becoming a hypocrite, we'll do what we can. Please feel free to make suggestions as you see fit. I won't adopt them all, but I really do believe that any change in action is a change for the better.
Okay, I'll get off my soap-box now and get on with the business of background checks.
The philanthropy committee wanted to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Hopefully this experience will make all of us appreciate the good food and family that surround us during the Thanksgiving holiday.
Lauren Keeper, committee co-chair was excited the group was able to donate so much to the food bank. Taking time off from conducting background checks to help those in need was just one step the committee is taking to help others.
Happy Thanksgiving to our loyal blog readers! I could write volumes on why this holiday is the best of all, but since it's the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, I'll make like everyone else and give a 15% effort on this day.
As many of you know, all U.S. courts are closed on Thursday.
Enjoy your families! Hopefully, the next time we correspond none of us will be 10 lbs. heavier.
Congratulations to great friend and former client Sue Hennessey who is now opening SearchPath International's 50th office. Sue is a true professional in every sense of the word with a tremendous body of work at the top levels of HR management. Click below to view the release.
The Ohio State University Admits Three Sex Offenders
So three of my esteemed colleagues emailed me this story which was published in Ohio State's student newspaper which reveals that three graduate students were admitted to the school with even though they were registered sex offenders. At the time of admission the school did not ask those that applied to enroll at the university if they had been convicted of a felony "in the past several years" as it now does.
Each person who emailed me the story wondered whether I would fry my own Alma Mater for this lapse in security the way that I have other academic institutions (see previous blog posts)over the past several months. The answer is yes and no.
One of these grad students was a teaching assistant who worked directly with students. Therefore, I'm towing the line on this one. There is no excuse whatsoever for a university not to conduct a background check at least on those that are charged with the education of its students. Furthermore, the school doesn't claim that the loop hole has been closed by now requiring background checks. It says that it closed the loophole by asking if they had been convicted of a felony. Are you joking me? How many of those with felonies are going to answer honestly? There is no excuse for not requiring a background check.
I don't know what to make of the remaining grad students who were characterized as "research associates" and didn't have any supervision over others. I guess that falls into my next opinion or lack thereof about the next topic that arises from this article: Should schools conduct background checks on students? This question is being contemplated in many circles now and could be an emerging trend in the near future.
I'm sure most would expect me to immediately say "yes" to that question since I am in the business of providing background checks. I can see how knowing of particular offenses would cause a university to question a prospective student's suitibility for enrollment. Let's look at a couple of things. Most undergrads that enroll are 18 or under. What would a background check reveal? I know juvenile records cannot be used for employment, so I would assume that couldn't be used for this purpose either. Next, what type of offense would constitute being denied admission and how can it be applied consistently? Until I get a clearer understanding of how a background check would be executed, what sources would be utilized and how decisions are made, I'm staying on the fence.
Next question. Should grad students be treated differently than their undergraduate counterparts? Maybe. Certainly if they are teaching other students. Even if they are not, grad students are typically older than undergraduates and arguably have higher standards for admission. The older part helps as far as providing a bigger picture for potential criminal records.
Since I have copped out a bit on this issue by not taking a side, I would like to invite your opinion or expertise on this subject. What do you think? And by the way, no comments about our heartbreaking loss to the Illini last weekend. We'll bounce back against the enemy to the North this Saturday.
Colleges & Universities Starting to Buy in to Background Checks
Well, it certainly took them long enough to catch up to the rest of the country, but we are finally seeing some positive trends when it come to higher education institutions and background checks. I found this great article, Checking Up on Your Past on insidehighered.com (I'm sure today's college students get a kick out of the name of this on-line publication).
The article focuses on last week's annual meeting of the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (who knew there was such a thing? but I bet you background screeners will be flocking to it from now on). Evidently, the topic of background checks was all the rage. Noteworthy in this article is a study conducted by Stephanie Hughes, an assistant professor of management at Northern Kentucky University on the use of background checks among universities. See a snapshot of results below.
- 13% of university's polled never engage in criminal background checks - 87% perform checks for some staff positions - 40% screen for some faculty positions - 26% conduct checks on some student workers
These are good stats, but a little misleading since "The way the survey was phrased, a “Yes” answer meant only that in some cases, a person in that category would be subject to a background check. That means that a college that would investigate a potential professor being hired in a field where security clearances are necessary or for work with young children would have answered Yes even if the vast majority of professorial hires are never subjected to a criminal background check."
All U.S. Courts are closed today in observance of Veteran's' Day. This means that criminal court record searches will not be processed today. But fear not, the they will reopen tomorrow and court business will continue as usual.
Today would be a nice day to thank anyone you see who has served in our military, past or present. Regardless of how you feel about current events, these are the people who have and will continue to protect us and allow all of us to live in a free society.
Background Screeners Held Accountable for Inaccurate Work
We've been following a case in the 9th Court of Appeals that is noteworthy for our industry and those that conduct background checks. The case, Dennis v. BEH-1 and Experian Information Solutions involves an individual who requested a copy of his credit report. The results indicated that there was a judgment against him in a civil case. In fact, Mr. Dennis was ordered to pay his landlord $1,959. However, at the time of judgment he entered into a stipulation that allowed for a "no judgment" so long as he made payments on the debt that triggered the litigation. Mr. Dennis did in fact make proper restitution so he disputed the results with Experian stating that that because he made the payments, the case shouldn't be considered a judgment against him.
Experian sent a researcher into the court again to verify the results. The researcher came back and confirmed the original findings. Case ends here, right? Wrong!
Mr. Dennis filed suit against Experian for failing to correct the report and a court ruled in favor of Experian saying that Experian couldn't be held accountable for the public record. Mr. Dennis then filed an appeal and here's where things get interesting. Evidently, if the researcher would have looked at the case file, they would have seen the order about the stipulation. Taking this into account, the appellate court reversed field and ruled that Experian failed to "maintain reasonable procedures" to ensure the accuracy of its reports.
It wasn't the initial findings of Experian that led to this decision. It was their failure to look deeper once the consumer disputed the findings and disclosed the stipulation.
What does this mean? This means that Consumer Reporting Agencies better take seriously their obligation to ensure the accuracy of the public information it reports. This has always been a hallmark of our service and we have always maintained procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information we provide to our clients. That doesn't mean that information can't be flawed when it is first reported. However, that's why you have convictions reviewed for accuracy before you report them. But even that isn't a guarantee 100% of the time. And when an applicant disputes the findings, you better make sure to follow up properly and responsibly.
Thompson Campaign Neglects to Conduct Background Checks
One of Fred Thompson's 2008 campaign co-chair's was convicted in 1979 for selling 11 pounds of marijuana and entered a no contest plea in 1983 for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy. Does this constitute as a reason not to hire him? Unfortunately, the republican presidential candidate didn't have a chance to decide. His campaign committee neglected to perform a background check.
The FTC and the federal financial institution regulatory agencies have submitted their final rules and guidelines on how creditors and financial institutions must handle identity theft "red flags" and address discrepancies.
Highlights of the rules include the following measures that must be taken:
1. Identify relevant patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that are “red flags” signaling possible identity theft and incorporate those red flags into the Program; 2. Detect red flags that have been incorporated into the Program; 3. Respond appropriately to any red flags that are detected to prevent and mitigate identity theft; and 4. Ensure the Program is updated periodically to reflect changes in risks from identity theft.
These guidelines seem like things you would think most creditors and financial institutions would already be doing. Hopefully, these measures can help protect consumers.
For you ATS enthusiasts out there, Kronos announced this morning that they have acquired Deploy Solutions. This acquisition goes well with their 2006 purchase of Unicru who also specialized heavy in retail. Consolidation reigns! See release below.
GSA Contrators Given Access to Information Systems without Background Checks
I realize that our government is so large that often things slip through the cracks, but how can it happen that the General Services Administration let contract workers have access to their information systems without being subjected to a background check?
This excerpt from the article says it all: In its audit, the IG said current safeguards do not guarantee that officials will complete investigations before granting access to agencies’ information systems. Even security measures mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, which requires credentials for all federal employees and government contractors after they have undergone a background check, does not offer that protection.
In this day and age, information systems are a treasure trove to those with nefarious motives. How can our government not recognize that and take our security more seriously? Shouldn't there be some accountability here?
Since these people owned the mortgage company, having them conduct background checks on themselves really wouldn't have helped, but it is demonstrative to employers of what an employee could do with sensitive data.
University of Kansas Reveals Background Check Policy: There Is None
Many universities thrive on their time honored traditions and pride themselves on staying true to the pillars of their foundations. One such foundation that is beginning to crack at schools across the country is the tradition of not thoroughly screening university employees for past criminal convictions.
One place that is clinging to the past is the University of Kansas, where they freely admit that their background check consists of a Sex Offender Search and asking the applicant of they have been convicted of a crime.
I'll let the article speak for itself. Anyone think this is a tradition worth saving?
Clerks in Santa Cruz, California on Strike: Criminal Background Checks Delayed
We have just learned that the court clerks in Santa Cruz County, California have gone on strike. This will effectively block access to the criminal records index which can only be searched by a court clerk. If you require criminal background checks in this county, be prepared for delays. Hopefully, this issue can and will be resolved quickly.
Okay. I owe the readers of this blog an apology for playing it safe and sitting on the sidelines on this one. Credit card titan Visa issued a press release on September 13th titled "Americans Unaware That Employers Can Legally Refuse to Hire Job Applicants With Low Credit Scores" The release points out that many employers are making their hiring decisions based on a credit score. I strongly disagree with this statement. Our experience is that employers stay as far away from credit scores as they can. I wasn't even sure if it was legal or permissible to use a credit score in the hiring decision so I took a week to discuss this topic with the folks at Experian and with some employment attorneys before snapping off an uneducated response. I have learned that while it is permissible, it is most likely ill-advised. The most common explanation for their opinions is the potential for a disparate impact on minorities. Not to mention that a bad credit score can occur for so many reasons unrelated to personal responsibility including divorce, critical healthcare issues, etc.
I did test the waters by responding to an ERE post that published the release going as far as calling out the folks at Visa for not doing their homework. I stand by this assertion. They should have clarified that employers are increasingly reviewing a credit report on prospective employees, not necessarily credit scores. That said, I think that the release is interesting. I just think Visa should have spent a bit more time fine tuning the information.
This is pretty drastic. Evidently Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich distrusts the Social Security Administration's and Department of Homeland Security's databases so much that he and other Illinois law-makers have banned the use of the basic pilot program. The basic pilot program allows employers to query these databases to determine if their employees are legal U.S. workers. I understand their concern about the fallibility of these databases. There are definitely some false-positives that come across (tentative non-confirmations that occur due to poor record keeping or data entry by these governmental agencies), but this seems a bit drastic. See the article below.
There is a vague provision that allows use of the system after "training" of an organization has occurred. I have been told by those in the know that this legislation is most likely in response to a power play from Illinois' labor unions and that this law will ultimately be deemed unconstitutional.
This is exactly how this should have played out with Major League Umpires. Instead, it appears that they are looking to use this issue as a bargaining chip. What could be more important than implementing a process that can help to ensure the integrity of the umpires and the game itself? Once the minor league umps understood how the process would work, they realized the need to submit to such checks. Thus far, the Major League umps have not relented.
How does this lesson apply to your average organizations? One, it is important to define the parameters of your screening program and to let your applicants/employees know what you are screening for and how the checks are being used. To a lesser extent, one can learn how the unions (in Major League Baseball's case) can take a no-brainer idea and make it an issue.
Ohio Employers Beware: Proposed Senate Bill Would Hurt Employment Background Screening Efforts
As we reported in an entry from earlier this month, State Senator Shirley Smith of Ohio has proposed a piece of legislation that seeks to expunge or seal certain felonies off the records of those with convictions. This isn't the first time we've seen such proposed legislation, however in most cases the crimes the seek to seal are usually for one time offenders with non-violent convictions. And most of the time, these efforts are squashed when the ramifications are considered.
Well, this time Senator Smith has greater reaching goals. It is being reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, that her proposal includes expunging crimnal records including felonies such as manslaughter, reckless homicide, domestic violence, stalking and abduction. Does this really sound like a good idea? I think not. This bill would in essence clean the records of felons with such convictions and leave employers blindfolded when considering such candidates for jobs, posing them with potential threats to their employees, clients and their overall businesses. See article below.
As both an employer in the state of Ohio and an employment screener, we are going to do something about this. We have already begun a letter writing campaign to our State Senators and Congressmen urging them to consider the consequences of this measure. We intend to rally the support of our clients who conduct background checks in the state of Ohio to do the same. We will reach out to relevant media outlets and advocate on behalf of all employers in the state of Ohio.
Do you think the folks from CU read our blog from yesterday or do you think they just arrived at the decision that performing employment background checks before such an incident occurs is better than doing so after the fact? Hopefully, they won't cut corners and instead perform a thorough and extensive search on all candidates.
Now that we've cleared this up, can anyone put me touch with the folks at CU? I'm sure I know someone who can help them with their efforts.
Background Checks Proposed After Incident at University of Colorado
This is interesting. The Chicago Tribune reports that a Freshman at the University of Colorado was stabbed by a school employee on his first day of classes. Quite a way of welcoming an incoming student, don't you think? What I find interesting is that the school has promised to do a background check on the employee now that he has committed this act. Anyone scratching their head over this? Now who knows if this individual has anything on his record, but at by doing it beforehand the school would at least have that to rely on. See the article below.
You would think that the tragedy at Virginia Tech last Spring might have caused universities to rethink their policies. At least that incident involved a student, not an employee of the university.
The folks over at Cheezhead were crazy enough to ask us to participate in their newest endeavor, Xtra Cheezhead and contrary to our assertion that we didn't know what we were talking about, we agreed. Xtra Cheezhead is an extension of its parent recruiting blog and offers posts from outside experts on relevant subject matter. We were asked to be the guest contributor in the background employment screening area and we made our first entry today. Enjoy and feel free to applaud, critique or tell us what clowns we are whenever you feel the need.
This Just In! Employers are Perforning Background Checks
Okay. So maybe this isn't new news, but the story never gets old. Two Stamford, CT based HR Consulting firms released a study that shows that 65% of the companies in Fairfield county and the metro New York area conduct background checks. The findings were published in the Greenwich Time. See link to article below.
While the study doesn't point this out, I think this news is noteworthy because those that conduct background checks in New York are subject to exhorbitant court access fees. For those of you unfamilar, New York established the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to act as a clearinghouse for criminal records in the the state of New York. The price tag for the privledge of this information: $52.00! (More on the OCA in a post later this week.)
Anyway, it is encouraging to see that these outrageous fees are not making it cost-prohibitive for employers to perform proper due diligence on their job applicants.
New U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Rule (Ice) Creates Greater Risk for Employers
Check out this update from Seyfarth Shaw concerning a recent rule established by ICE concerning tougher enforcement of Social Security Mismatch Numbers.
Employers that don't properly follow up on and resolve errors stemming from workers with social security numbers that come back as mismatches now face greater risk. If the government actually follows through on this employers should take note.
There are some affective tools out there for proactively determining an employee's right to work status. One such tool is the Electronic I-9 Process which has developed by experts to allow employers to fill out a "smart" electronic I-9 form and submit it to the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security for instant status. They then can electronically archive the report and the results. It's a great solution to handle the I-9 process, but until the federal government enacts and enforces legislation my experience is that employers aren't going to bite.
Thankfully, the American Bar Association caved in to business advocacy groups in it's efforts to seal certain criminal convictions from the records of those seeking employment.
As I've said in the past and will continue to say as this issue comes up, it is not the goal of an effective background check to exclude people from getting a job. The purpose of a background check is to make an informed decision about a candidate. Just because someone has a been convicted of a crime should not alone disqualify that person from employment. However, employers shouldn't be left in the dark. They are the ones who will be left holding the bag if something happens. If you want to correct this problem, teach employers how to make proper decisions and hold those accountable who do not.
Thank you to the folks at BRB Publications for bringing this story to our attention.
State of Virginia Tops Forbes.com's "Best States for Doing Business"
Congratulations to the state of Virginia for their #1 Ranking of "Best States for Doing Business" by Forbes.com. Each U.S. state was evaluated based on composite ranking for Business Cost, Labor Rank, Regulatory Environment, Economic Climate, Growth Prospects and Quality of Life.
The Top 5 States: 1. Virginia 2. Utah 3. North Carolina 4. Texas 5. Washington
Bringing up the Rear: 46. Michigan 47. Alaska 48. Maine 49. Louisiana 50. West Virginia
More interesting for readers of this blog were the rankings for Labor.
The Top 5 States: 1. New Hampshire 2. Colorado 3. Maryland 4. Washington 5. Virginia
Bottom Feeders: 46. Indiana 47. Oklahoma 48. Mississippi 49. West Virginia 50. Louisiana
Now here's a classic Union vs. Employer showdown on a very public stage that we can all relate to as chronicled in the New York Times article Baseball and Umpires Clash Over Background Checks. Major League Baseball (MLB) is reacting to the latest National Basketball Association (NBA)referee gambling scandal and thinks it might do well to monitor the backgrounds of it's umpires. It appears that they have conducted background checks before umpires were hired, but have not been monitoring them throughout their employment. It also seems clear from this article that the scope of the background check did not include a credit report and that the consent that was granted at the time of hiring did not allow for post hire screening.
Now MLB is going back to the umpires and asking them to grant consent to perform further checks. In my opinion they are attempting look for any red flags that might suggest trouble. Rather than trying to understand what MLB is looking for and how they might use such information, the union appears to be angling for concessions completely unrelated to this topic. They've already threatened retaliation to a process that legally cannot take place without their consent. This should be interesting.
Second on our list of coming trends presented to the 2007 SHRM annual conference in Las Vegas was "verification of right-to-work." In a nutshell, the push is to force employers to utilize DHS' Basic Pilot Program for instant, electronic I-9 verifications. It's great in theory but employers have been slow to embrace the instant electronic confirmation of work eligibility.
Colorado has already mandated this tool for employers, and Arizona is set to enforce stiff penalties beginning in 2008, to include potential revocation of business licenses, for employers that fail to comply, or knowingly employ ineligible workers.
A recent article, "Employers brace for immigration rules", discusses a new tack the federal government is considering. Whether or not any employer nationwide utilizes the basic pilot program, the Social Security Administration has historically flagged SSNs that didn't jibe with identity info on record. "No match" letters have always been sent to workers and employers, but left it up to the employee to resolve the issue, with no culpability on the employer's part.
The proposed new rule will put the onus on the employer to make sure the issue is resolved within 60 days, or they must fire the employee outright. Failure to comply means the employer may be deemed as having knowingly hired illegal workers, and face stiff penalties. This will be an obvious incentive for employers to utilize the electronic instant verification system (basic pilot program), but doesn't appear to specifically mandate it (we can probably assume mandated use of the system won't be far behind).
Broward County Florida Bilked for $2 million: Forgot to Conduct a Background Check
Now this is brilliant. Broward County in South Florida began instituting background checks for new employees, but didn't think to go back to those that were already working within the organization. As a result, a woman that was already employed managed to steal over $2 million from the county. Had they performed a background check, they would have seen that she already had a conviction for Grand Theft on her record. Below is a link to the article published in the Miami Herald.
Don't Punish Employers: Criminal Background Checks are Vital Part of the Hiring Process
The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently pusblished a story, Ex-cons need jobs, but bill that would seal their records goes too far, which describes a State of Ohio Senator's efforts to have certain criminal records, including felonies wiped off convicts records so that they can find better jobs. I am not so delusional to think that this a one-sided story, but as an employment screener and a business owner I can't help but think that this solution just punishes employers and dilutes the deterrance of committing a crime. I wrote the following letter to the editor which was then cut down and published. Rather than give you the condensed published version, I thought I would post the un-edited version here.
I am deeply concerned about how a new piece of legislation proposed by State Senator Shirley Smith (Senate Bill 197), which would allow certain felonies to be expunged, will affect our state’s employers. As a both and employer in the state of Ohio and a professional employment screener, we are charged by corporations, large and small, with obtaining any existing criminal records on their job applicants. Obtaining this type of background is necessary because it allows a decision-maker to qualify their applicants. It also allows them to protect their company from the potential risks of hiring those who have a criminal past that would affect their ability to perform a specific job function. Failing to factor in a candidate’s criminal past represents a major liability to employers.
We see it every day — an employee commits a crime while at work that negatively affects a co-worker, customer or vendor. The crime victim files a lawsuit against the employer. It is then discovered the employer failed to perform an adequate background check and the jury rewards the defendant millions at the cost of the employer — this is in addition to the billions of dollars employers lose each year to internal theft. While the cost of a lawsuit or theft can be overcome, the negative publicity and loss of public confidence cannot.
The senator will argue that this measure will apply only to those certain felony offenses that she deems not to be harmful to employers. I contend that a felony conviction is a felony conviction, regardless of the crime and that if it wasn’t a serious crime, than it wouldn’t be prosecuted as a felony. How does this affect employers? If a record is expunged, then it ceases to exist on an individual’s criminal record. When a background check is conducted, that record cannot be found, therefore cannot be factored into an employer’s hiring decision. This leaves the employer twisting in the wind.
Employers are not unchecked when it comes to conducting background checks and acting on adverse information. They must consider the various attributes of the conviction and the individual that committed them; what type of crime was committed, how long ago did it take place, is the person a repeat offender, etc. It is not acceptable for employers to simply adopt a policy with no tolerance for past transgressions. Perhaps a small group of employers have done so and it is my recommendation that rather than hamstring our state’s employers with the inability to properly evaluate job applicants, that Senator Smith propose funds for educating employers on how to make proper hiring decisions and holding them accountable in the isolated incidents when they run afoul of the law. Remember that a background check is an acceptable tool for determining a candidate’s qualifications and suitability for employment. There is a job out there for everyone including those with past transgressions. Just don’t inhibit the ability of employers to make an informed decision.
Interesting UK Study on Social Networking Sites Role in Hiring Decisions
Have you noticed a recent trend in this blog of chronicaling the role Social Networking sites play in the hiring process? This story isn't going away and neither is the trend for employers to go on-line to learn about their candidates. This study conducted in the UK by Joslin Rowe, a financial services recruiter finds that 20% of the employers polled said that they used social networking such as myspace to find out more information about their job applicants. The poll says that 68% of respondants claim to have used search engines. While I question the sampling of employers used in this study, these numbers do suggest that more and more employers are using the internet as a means to qualify candidates. And while this study reflects employers in the UK, this trend no doubt exists throughout the industrialized world.
Here's a question though. I don't have numbers to support this assumption (although I hardly doubt that I am far off here), but I am guessing that most people over the age of 35 don't not have a facebook or myspace account. Using this logic, that means that this practice is being used primarily for candidates just entering the workforce up to those looking for second and third jobs. What are these employers doing with the rest of their candidates? What qualifies as information that would prevent an individual from being employed? Who decides? How is the information found verified to ensure both that it is true and accurate?
All lot of questions. We don't have the answers. I'm sure this won't be the last entry on this topic.
Check out the findings of this study on Substance Abuse in the Workplace just released by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. The study concluded that 1 in 12 U.S. workers have used illegal drugs within the last month. It would only stand to reason then that a portion of these people are using these drugs at work, which can put employers at significant risk.
Employers should take this study to heart. While many require substance abuse screening prior to employment, it is important to develop a program for random testing throughout the year. Post accident testing is also a good idea for employers.
Social Networking Sites and Employment Screening Continued
The debate about the use of social networking sites as an acceptable means for evaluating potential employees continues to grow. We remain opposed to this practice, but rather than write volumes on why we reject it, thought it made sense to provide a quick illustration.
Amy Polumbo was recently crowned Ms. New Jersey and seeks to become Miss America. As most young adults do, she posted non-pornographic pictures of herself with her friends on her private Facebook site. Yes, some were a bit risque, but overall they were benign pictures of a college aged woman having fun with her friends. Someone has gained access to these photos and threatened to blackmail her with them. Rather than give in, she decided to release them herself as you will see in her interview with Matt Lauer from the Today Show.
No, she wasn't being considered for a job, but one person putting their own spin on these photos and attempting to portray Polumbo in a negative light threatened her ability to attain the position of Ms. America. It's easy to draw a correlation to how such a thing can happen in the employment environment. It doesn't even have to be a blackmail situation. All it takes is an Internet savvy individual browsing a social networking site and then whatever is found can be interpreted in many different ways.
I attended a Human Resources Management Association of Chicago (HRMAC) panel discussion for young HR Leaders about how to grow your career in HR this past week and really glad I did. The panel consisted of Anne de Bruin Sample, SVP of Human Resources of Pepsi Americas (and fellow Ohio State Buckeye alum), Brad Patrick, SVP of Human Resources of Sara Lee Corporation and Haven Cockerham, President and CEO of Cockerham and Associates (former high level HR leader at GM and RR Donnelly). Paul Schneider of Scherer, Schneider, Paulick, LLC was the moderator and asked intuitive questions about the career paths of each of the panelists. All gave very thoughtful and revealing answers about their successes and their mistakes, their advice for young HR leaders looking to get ahead and their cautionary tales about what can derail a successful career. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to these successful people offer advice and quickly came to the conclusion that whether talking about a successful career in HR or a successful career in any other profession, the general advice is all the same. Learn everything there is to know about your company. Meet as many people as you can within that company and learn about what they do. Become a thought leader. Don't just cow to every opinion offered and become a wall flower. Most successful careers are launched not be status quo or agreeing to everything that your colleague offer, but by careful consideration about how to do things differently. Communication and the ability to build coalitions is the key to a successful career. Without these two characteristics, a successful career become more and more difficult to achieve.
I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, but all of this advice about a successful career led me to think about a couple things I think are necessary ingredients. The first is something my father taught me: No matter what job you have or what your profession is, you are always selling. Whether you are selling a product or service to a customer, an idea to a colleague or advice to an executive. Second, be genuine and treat others as you wish to be treated, not matter their position within a company. Third, push yourself to learn and be challenged. When you stop doing this things, you might as well quit. It's transparent to everyone: your boss, your colleagues and, or your clients.
Who's guarding the guards. According to this article written by the Associated Press and posted on Yahoo private security guards charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks are both underpaid and not properly vetted. Setting aside the pay scale, let's address the concerns with background checks. Yes, it is of major concern that these guards are not undergoing a thorough and effective check before they are charged with protecting us. And yes, there should be regulations for doing so. However, has anyone noticed that when the government starts to regulate in this area, they fall far short of the intended goal? If you are going to regulate, then put some teeth behind the effort and require not just a background check, but a stringent background check that doesn't involve an internet search at cheapinstantbackgroundchecks.com (made up company). To do anything short of this is to create a false sense of security.
While I do agree with the premise that background checks should be performed, I have some concerns with the author of this article for the implication that "criminal records" should disqualify those seeking employment. This is a slippery slope for any employer and an unfair practice. Each record should be evaluated on its own merit or lack thereof and then considered for how the past transgression would impact the applicant's ability to perform well with integrity.
Bottomline, there is no excuse for employing a security guard without executing a thorough and effective background check. Without it you must ask "who's guarding the henhouse".
Home Depot Rescreens Workers Sent into Homes. This story posted by WCVB in Boston chronicles another instance where an inexpensive database search ended up costing a national organization far more than they anticipated. Bottom-line, whatever short cuts they were taking in the background screening process didn't reveal that they were hiring a violent sex offender and placing him in people's homes. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but if Home Depot had to do it all over again I'm guessing they would have spent the money to do a proper background check rather than trying to rebuild its image in a major US city.
Say what you will about freedom of speech and right to privacy, but MySpace should be commended for finally making the right decision and turning records over to authorities of sex offenders they have caught and banned from their site. Whether they did this because they felt it would make the world a safer place or because it would generate positive PR and make their users feel more comfortable is immaterial. The information they turn over can help law enforcement protect all of us from sexual predators.
All information contained on this website is provided by employeescreenIQ solely for the convenience of the site viewers. employeescreenIQ is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this website or otherwise by employeescreenIQ should be deemed as legal guidance or advice. Users are solely responsible for complying with all local, state, and federal laws relating to the use of any information provided on this website and any information products provided by employeescreenIQ. Users should consult with their own legal counsel if they have questions regarding their legal responsibilities or any information provided by employeescreenIQ.
