Like the Chamber, the Times expressed support for the goal of the legislation: giving ex-offenders a second chance. However, as the Times points out, the current version of the legislation places undue burden on employers. In particular, the Times writes that “the initial legislation would allow a lawsuit in which a court would second-guess the employer’s decision, creating a whole new way for disappointed job seekers to drag employers into court.” The Times also points out that the proposed legislation adds to regulations faced by employers only in the city of Seattle; those include the paid sick-leave law which the Chamber continues to oppose.
For those of you interested in keeping up with the latest in pre-employment background screening compliance and the laws that affect your use of employee background checks, check out our latest publication, “BTW: Your Guide to Staying Out of Hot Water“. This compliance resource has been crafted by our VP of Compliance and General Counsel, Angela Bosworth and is a must-read for human resources and security professionals.
Our January issue focuses on issues of privacy affecting the employment background screening industry, both from the prospective of data brokers and social media. Are data brokers responsible for the information they aggregate? Does it have to be accurate? Are private Facebook posts indeed private? For a preview of this issue, check out Angela’s video below.
It’s easy to reason that conducting employee background checks in schools is important, but it’s even more vital to consider the type of background check being done. Every school district or organization has different policies and many are finding that they need to tighten their processes to prevent the wrong employees from slipping through the cracks.
For example, a search forcriminal records might only be completed in the current county where the applicant resides. However, EmployeeScreenIQ has found that 8% of records are discovered in a county that was found in the national criminal database search. Imagine the criminal records that are missed when additional counties are not added to a background check.
Facebook is a seemingly endless source of juicy intel. As such, I always recommend that users lock down their privacy settings if they want to keep “the man” out of their timeline. Public posts are fair game for employers and anyone else who is interested. Read More
“I would suggest to (businesses) that they think long and hard about why they think they need to do a criminal background check”.
John Hendrickson, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District
If I asked you what the context of this quote was and what the EEOC attorney meant when he made these comments, what would you say?
Well, that was the primary question directed to me by Civil Rights Commissioner Dave Kladney following my testimony last month at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ hearing on the impact of criminal background checks and the EEOC guidance on the consideration of arrest and conviction records. And I have to admit, I was so floored by the question thinking that it was so obvious that I had a total Scooby Doo moment; ZOINKS!!!!
As many of you know, we have been asking for participation in our 2012 Employment Background Screening Trends Survey for the past several weeks. We closed the survey this past Friday and we’re excited to announce that the response was phenomenal with nearly 1,000 survey participants. So we would like to extend a huge THANK YOU to everyone that took the time to provide your invaluable feedback for our industry.
For anyone who missed our survey, some of the topics included were criminal records, new EEOC guidelines, resume distortions and social media within background screening.
In some corners, data collection has become the Wild, Wild West: unruly and unregulated. Well, not anymore. As 2012 drew to a close, two federal agencies made it clear that they intended to continue their focus on web-based information providers—so-called “data brokers”. On December 14, 2012, The FTC issued orders for information from nine companies (Acxiom, Corelogic, Datalogix, eBureau, ID Analytics, Intelius, Peekyou, Rapleaf, and Recorded Future). The firms were asked to provide the FTC with information about how they collect and use data (namely criminal record data) about consumers: The agency will use the information to make recommendations about the accuracy, collection and use of the information.
Facebook is a seemingly bottomless treasure trove of juicy intel. As such, I always recommend that users lock down their privacy settings if they want to keep “the man” out of their timelines. Public posts are fair game for employers and anyone else who is interested. So it would seem, after making the recommended changes to our profiles, we can enthusiastically post all of those choice pictures from the weekend, confident that we are safely shielded by the invisible fence provided by Facebook. Or can we?
Often as a part of a background check, employers will run a credit report. It’s not uncommon to worry about identity theft causing problems with a background check, but what if your credit history was confused with someone else’s? This is the case of Judy Thomas, whose credit report has been confused with another woman’s credit…in Utah. News Channel 5 in Cleveland reported that the women have similar names but live in different states and have very different credit records. Unfortunately for Judy, she has been turned down for jobs because of this mistaken identity.
As with some criminal recordsearches in background checks, credit bureaus might not be providing exact matches using important information such as Social Security Numbers, date of birth, or first name. Not using this information to correctly identify a person’s credit report can easily cause a credit bureau to provide incorrect credit records to an employer. According to attorney Sylvia Goldsmith 20-40% of people have significant mistakes in their credit report and they might not even know it.