EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

ERE published a great article written by Sue Danborn from Volt Workforce Solutions about the diminishing value of a resume entitled The Devalued Currency of Hiring: The Resume. I of course dwelled on the part about employers not knowing what is true, what is stretched truth and what is fabricated. At employeescreenIQ, we find a 56% discrepancy ratio between what an applicant reports and what past employers or educational institutions indicate about that applicant when asked.

I’m certainly not anti-resume, but it is important that those who review them take them with a grain of salt and confirm the details that are provided. Check out Sue’s list of 5 Things a Resume Will Not Tell You:

• Is the candidate being truthful? A Society for Human Resource Management study of 2.6 million applicants in 2003 found that 53% of their resumes contained omissions or misrepresentations. Bogus degrees and certifications, length of employment, and levels of positions held are all areas that are commonly embellished. Since a resume is not signed like an application, many candidates feel they are just stretching the truth and not breaking the law by doing this. Several states have put through legislation to punish candidates who misrepresent themselves in writing when seeking employment.
• Is the candidate motivated to do this job? Yes, the candidate is unquestionably qualified, but he simply doesn’t want to do the work. The candidate is seeking a new challenge.
• Is the candidate driven to excel? Many candidates neglect to list their accomplishments on a resume. They detail every employer, task, and duty they’ve performed. Either because of humility or lack of knowledge, they neglect to include how their efforts benefited their employers. What did they really accomplish? They can deliver the minimum expectations, but will they excel? Is this the best candidate for the position, or is it just a convenient fill?
• Does the candidate have good communication skills? Did he write his own resume or buy it? Does he have good, natural, or learned communication skills or did someone coach him through producing this resume (and will that coach hopefully be accompanying the candidate to the job daily)?
• Will the candidate fit the culture? It’s almost impossible to gauge from a resume whether a candidate will be a good fit culturally for the company and the department. In some cases, the cultural fit may be more important than the skill match. bout

Continue Reading

(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.

Enjoy the article.

Continue Reading

It would seem that the Florida Department of Children & Families has a nightmare on their hands. They hired a spokesman for the organization that was recently arrested on Child Pornography charges, as documented by the Orlando Sentinal in their article DCF reviewing background check policy after spokesman’s arrest.

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.

Continue Reading

Not sure how to describe this one, but a recent headline in the Cleveland Plain Dealer could pose a nightmare for us all. Summit County Cases Proceeded Without Formal Charges. My wife actually found this one this morning reading our edition of the Plain Dealer, this one hits closer to home because we live in Summit County! When the prosecution virtually ignores the Grand Jury and Prosecutions Nolle Prosequi status and charges the individual anyway, where is the Due Process? How in the world would an employment screening company and, or an employer adjudicate the results of a background check when the case should not have been indicted in the first place? Food for thought, I know the answer but its a good starting point for some good old fashioned commenting to this post!! Comment away!

Continue Reading

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.

See Umpires questioning tactics in MLB background checks found in today’s USA Today for the complete story.

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.

Continue Reading

The President of Washington-based Dollarwise payday stores, Charles Seil was operating his business from a prison cell over the summer. A pretty cool trick if you ask me, but the State of Washington didn’t think so when it found out after the fact. In fact, they revoked his license after getting an anonymous tip that he plead guilty to watercraft homicide and had been serving 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?

We’ve written much about the concept of Continuous or Recurring Background Checks recently:

Background Checks for Current Employees

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

THE DOCTOR WILL SEE YOUR CREDIT NOW

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Well, kind of, it is. However, after finally reading through this AP New Release: Court Nixes NASA Background Checks, I get it. This section of the article is what got me to pay attention.

“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.

Continue Reading

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.

Our very own Rob Thomson recently wrote what I consider to be one of the best articles I have ever read on this topic, Employment Verifications: Less May No Longer Be More! Check it out. It’s worth the read and particularly relevant when you see a story I found today about a California police officer who was fired from his job in 2004 for Sexual Harassment. It turns out that his past employer (another police force) covered up prior activity including Sexual Harassment that would have preventing the officer from getting the job.

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.

Continue Reading