EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

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.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-sa-b2b1aug23,0,2640911.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

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.

Continue Reading

I just put my daughter on the school bus to go to kindergarten for the very first time and I actually made it through without having to be restrained from accompanying her or from being put in a straight jacket. As I drove to work, I thought about all the people we as parents entrust our children to when they go to school. Teachers, school administration, the bus driver, maintainance workers, etc. Because I am in the business of employment screening, I am acutely aware of the substandard searches required by the states and executed by the schools. So obviously I was looking at an excuse to rail on the system as I have for some time now. Only now, it’s very real to me and very personal.

Imagine my surprise (not!) when I saw this article where the State Auditor in Missouri says more thorough background checks need to be conducted. I am impressed that an employee in this state is actually admitting that there is a problem and trust me when I tell you that this problem exists in every state. They say that they’ve used the state mandated FBI Check and a Central Registry Child Abuse Search, but it’s not enough. And they’re 100% right. It’s not enough for anyone working with children.

So why hasn’t anyone done anything up to this point? Two reasons: enlightenment that the methods the state imposes is just one resource and does not constitute a thorough check. Secondly, and here’s the big one: funding. Where will they get the money to conduct a thorough check? It seems to me that if a state can fund bridges and road construction, not to mention pork barrel spending attached to every bill, that surely they could find a budget that wouldn’t cost more than $100 per school worker. Relatively speaking, the total annual spend would be a drop in the bucket.

Here’s hoping someone takes action.

Continue Reading

For those outside the state of California, you might be surprised to learn that employers can only consider criminal convictions on an applicant’s record that have taken place within the past seven years. The state enacted these laws to help those with past convictions on their records get on with their lives and to remove the potential barriers to employment. Seems like a pretty noble cause until you consider what has recently taken place at FedEx.

FedEx Fires Employee, An Unregistered Sex Offender

FedEx claims to have conducted a background check on an employee that had a forcible rape conviction on their record from 1978, and they probably did. The problem is that when they conducted the check, due to the California law, they weren’t allowed to see the past conviction; and even if they were allowed to, they couldn’t consider it. The employee made it even more difficult by failing to register as a convicted sex offender and FedEx only found out when authorities caught up with him for failing to do so. This has obviously created an embarrassing situation for FedEx and could have put them in hot water should something have happened.

If you ever read this blog, I know I’m going to sound like a broken record, but you have to trust employers with this information so that they can make an informed decision that insulates their employees, their customers and their business from negative incidents. I think that the state of California’s inclination to wipe the slate clean on past convicts has merits, but it’s got to be balanced with what can happen if you don’t allow the information to be considered.

Continue Reading

Check out this update from Seyfarth Shaw concerning a recent rule established by ICE concerning tougher enforcement of Social Security Mismatch Numbers.

Social Security Mismatch Letters: New ICE Rule Increases Risk to Employers

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.

Continue Reading

Many of you may be aware of the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP. They are one of the country’s largest labor and employement firms and widely respected as a foremost expert in such matters. employeescreenIQ is proud to be a client of this esteemed firm and as such get regular legislative updates from them concerning employment topics that can affect all of us.

Seyfarth had been kind enough to allow us to post such updates in this blog, so beginning today we will screen these updates for information that might be of interest to our loyal blog readers.

Just another opportunity for us all the learn together.

Continue Reading

I don’t normally use this space to shill for those looking to promote their HR conferences. However, this one might be worth your time if you are in the Chicagoland area (and no, they didn’t ask or pay me to write this).

The Human Resources Management Association of Chicago (HRMAC) is having their Annual Summit at the Donald E. Stevens Convention center in Rosemont, Illinois on October 23, 2007. HRMAC always has great keynote speakers, develops relevant learning opportunities and creates a comfortable networking atmosphere attendees and exhibitors alike. The conference is first rate and so is the organization. They really have their pulse on the HR community and they have established quite a following among HR professionals at all levels in Chicago and surrounding areas.

And if that’s all not a compelling enough reason to attend, employeescreenIQ will be an exhibitor for the 3rd year in a row. (Sorry for the shameful plug, but you’ve got to weigh all the great benefits of attending).

Continue Reading

ABA Commission Pulls Proposal on Criminal Records

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.

Continue Reading

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

Click here to view the entire list

Continue Reading

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.

For more information on credit reports, click on the link below.
http://www.theverifier.net/verifier_13/page2.php

Continue Reading

When considering a thorough criminal background check, employers should consider checking their candidates for criminal convictions in the Federal Courts. While conducting a criminal record search at the county level is a best practice, this method will not reveal any convictions that have been prosected at the Federal level. And true, relative to crimes prosecuted locally, only a miniscule number of crimes are prosecuted federally. However, if you seek to cast the widest net possible, this search is recommened. The most common crimes found at this level are white-collar in nature or those criminal activities that take place across state lines. Much like the county courts, our Federal judicial system is segmented into different regional jurisdictions. These jurisdictions are referred to are “districts”. Federal criminal record searches are conducted by checking the federal districts where your applicant has lived over the past 7-10 years.

While everyone can benefit from this type of search, it is typically utilized for higher level executives, employees with access to company financial records and, or those in sensitive industries such as financial institutions. If you are considering this type of search, understand that there is one drawback. Federal records are often name-only matches that require a great deal of follow-up in order to conclusively determine that they belong to the subject of a search. This process can take up to two weeks to determine, and can no doubt delay your hiring decision. This is a drawback to be considered, but shouldn’t eliminate this important facet of a background check if the information found can save you from making a blind hiring decision.

More information about Federal Criminal Records checks can be found at www.employeescreen.com/preservices.asp

Continue Reading