EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

We were just notified by our I-9 channel partner, Form I-9, that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will be releasing the newest version of E-Verify on January 30, 2012 and that there will be new requirements in order to process requests through EmployeeScreenIQ’s system.

Please note that the new requirements will not affect those that use the electronic I-9 Form and then submit for E-Verify.

For those that submit E-Verify requests without the electronic I-9 Form,  you will see a few changes to the form and the data entry, but the overall resolution process will remain the same as it is now.  In general, DHS is now requiring that E-Verify requests indicate the specific List B and List C documents provided on the Form I-9 and, in cases where a Driver’s License is used in List B, E-Verify now requires the issuing authority, document number and expiration date to also be provided.

Again, the Form I-9 is unaffected, only the New E-Verify form is impacted by these changes.

Below are links to screenshots of the changes you will see on January 30, 2012.

The New E-Verify form will have some cosmetic changes.  To view an example, click here

You will enter the employee information as usual.  In cases where the employee has provided a List B and List C document for their Form I-9, you will select “List B and C Documents” in the drop down menu.  To view an example, click here

When the “List B and C Documents” option is selected, two (2) drop downs will appear, so that the user can specify exactly which List B and List C documents have been provided.  To view an example, click here

If the List B document is NOT a Driver’s LIcense, users only provide the List B document title.  We have provided an example where a US Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card and a Social Security Card are provided on the Form I-9, so the user simply reflects that information in the New E-Verify form.  To view an example, click here

If the List B document is a Driver’s License, then the issuing authority, document number and expiration date fields are also required.  (The form will automatically display these fields.)  To view an example, click here

List C will only require a Document Title to be specified.  To view an example, click here

After clicking the Process E-Verify button, users will then be prompted to review data as usual, check the affirmation box regarding the completion of the Form I-9 and click the Continue E-Verify Process button.  To view an example, click here

After clicking the Continue E-Verify Process button, everything else will work as usual.   You will receive the same results you are already used to seeing during the E-Verify process.

To learn more about EmployeeScreenIQ’s I-9 services, please check out http://www.employeescreen.com/employmenti9.asp

Continue Reading

Last year, the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks defeated the Miami Heat and won the league’s championship, to the delight of virtually every basketball fan in the country (with the exception of those in Miami who were actually paying attention).  It has become tradition for championship teams in a wide array of sports to be honored by the president at the White House.

Unfortunately, the Mavericks will be down a man on this road trip. One of the team’s guards, Delonte West has failed the security background check required by the White House security team because he was arrested after police pulled him over and discovered three loaded guns in his car.  Doh!

Given the propensity of athletes to run afoul of the law, I am shocked that this is the first time this has happened.

Wonder if Delonte will spend the down time with LeBron James’ mom, Gloria.  According to rumors, they might be an item.  Okay, that might have been a cheap shot at His Quitness but he started it with that classless press conference.

Continue Reading

I just read an interesting article in Workforce Management magazine which dealt with the dangers of texting (or emailing, or web surfing) while driving.

Raise your hand if you’re guilty.  I know I am and I know how stupid it is.

You want to know how big the problem is? Check out the following stats from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:

• A 2009 Institute telephone survey of 1,219 drivers 18 and older indicates phone use may be somewhat lower than government estimates. Drivers on average reported spending about an hour in the car each day, with about 4 minutes of that time on the phone.
• A 2009 Institute survey found that 13 percent of drivers of all ages have texted while driving, and this jumps to 43 percent among 18-24-year-old drivers.
• An Institute study found that among 18-24 year-olds — the group most likely to text — 45 percent reported texting while driving in states that bar the practice, just shy of the 48 percent of drivers who reported texting in states without bans.

Now here’s a snippet from the Workforce article which demands your attention.

“In one of the largest verdicts of its kind, a jury in 2001 awarded $21 million against Dyke Industries Inc., an Arkansas lumber company finding it liable for an accident caused by a salesman who was talking on his cellphone while driving to a sales appointment.”

As a result, many companies are drafting policies which prohibit the use of hand held cell phone use and texting while driving.  But here’s something else they can do.  There are many company’s that will check their job applicant’s driving record as part of an employment background check and will continue to do so throughout the tenure of their employment.  Most are interested in things like excessive speeding tickets, reckless driving, etc.  However, now it would also make sense to treat violations of hand held phone use and texting while driving laws as important offenses rather than a trivial dust up with the law.

Continue Reading

Labor and employment attorney, Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog fame posted an story about a recent opinion letter issued to the Peace Corp. on how to properly perform background checks on their volunteers.  The advice they provided is truly insightful as to what they might have in mind following their July hearings. Check out Jon’s post below. I have highlighted items to take note of.

The Peace Corps asked the EEOC for an opinion on the legality of its use of conviction and arrest records to screen potential volunteers. In response, the EEOC published an informal opinion letter, which offers guidance for employers who are considering using conviction or arrest [records] as part of their screening processes.

Conviction Records

• According to the EEOC, conviction records have the potential to have a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics. Therefore, employers should only use them when “job related and consistent with business necessity.”
• To ensure that applicants’ criminal history information is used in a way that is consistent with Title VII, the EEOC recommends that employers limit criminal history inquiries to convictions that are related to the specific positions in question, and that have taken place in the past seven years.

Arrest Records

• Arrest records are different than conviction records because of their inherent unreliability. For example, they are not persuasive evidence that the person engaged in the alleged conduct, and may also be poorly reported or updated.
• If employers decided that arrest records serve a useful purpose in screening applicants, their use should be limited to offenses related to the specific position.
• To account for the potential unreliability of arrest records, employers should also provide applicants a reasonable opportunity to dispute their validity.

So, there are two things in here that provide some insight as to where they are going on this.

• Employers should only use information from the past 7 years.  This jibes with California laws, but most other places throughout the country do not place time restrictions on convictions that can be considered.
• Employers should give applicants the opportunity to dispute the information on arrest records.  Now, like you, my first thoughts were that they have that right as part of the Adverse Action process.  However, based on some remarks that I’ve heard from those in attendance at last week’s NAPBS conference, this is something they would want before the adverse action process begins.  So, they want a “pre-pre-adverse action” process?

Continue Reading

Just as I was about to abandon my summer of EEOC bashing, I came across this story in USA Today which demonstrates why precluding or limiting employers’ ability to conducting criminal background checks can have disastrous consequences.

Orlando Hotel Worker with Criminal Record Accused of Raping Guest

In Orlando, local NBC affiliate WESH 2 News reports that a hotel guest says a hotel employee used his master key to get into her room and rape her.

The victim said he raped her while she begged him to stop, the TV station reported yesterday afternoon.

Police arrested Irving Gifford, 38, a hotel employee who lives at the hotel – and who, it turns out, has been in state prison seven different times, according to the story, citing Florida Department of Corrections information. WESH 2 News raised the issue with the hotel:

Hotel management refused to tell WESH 2 News if they knew about Gifford’s criminal history, why he had an all-access pass to rooms and whether they run background checks on workers.

More

My guess is that they did not run a background check.  Of course, we don’t yet know what these convictions were for, but small time criminals don’t serve time in state prisons 7 different times.  If they had known about these records, there is no way this person would have been access to guest rooms.

Continue Reading

Just a thought . . .

Does anyone really care about the candidate experience and how it can impact recruiting efforts?  It’s hard to say.  We recently published our annual Trends in Background Screening survey and 80% of the respondents indicated that the candidate experience was a either very important or important in deciding which employment screening partner they chose.

The inspiration of this random thought was derived from the May issue of Workforce Management magazine (I’d share the link to the story, but WF insists on your being a member in order to see their material).  Editor Ronald Alsop was reflecting on the following quote he once heard, “Ford must be a good company because my neighbor likes working there”.  He was trying to persuade employers that allowing candidates to post information about their work on social networkings sites had a net positive effect for corporations.

He conducted a study in which he found that, “84% of respondents considered word-of-mouth messages from employees credible, compared with 75% for media coverage of a company and 70% for PR and advertising spiels”.

But if it was so important to employers why would the HR media continue to convince employers of this fact.  I’ve seen story after story after story over the last three years talk about the virtues of a good candidate experience.  I’ve also heard a number of people in the recruiting and talent management space completely dismiss the concept.  If the concept had caught on why, are we still being deluged the same stories trying to convince us of it’s importance?  Wouldn’t it just be an accepted fact?

I don’t have an answer.  Just my random thought for the day.

Continue Reading

Quick and easy isn’t always safe and legal. Check out our satirical video on national criminal background checks and how they can put your company in hot water. Remember, a quality employment background check is accomplished by searching records at the county courts! You can always use a national database search to complement a county criminal record search.

Continue Reading

Be sure to download your copy of EmployeeScreenIQ’s Top Background Screening Trends for 2011. Here’s a short video below which previews our findings.

Continue Reading

Oh the weather outside is frightful . . .

I know we are past the holiday season, but this song has never been more appropriate than now for the winter from hell.  And it’s only February 1st, yikes!

Personally, I’ve already been delayed 4 hours each way on a trip to Kansas City and just had to cancel a trip to Houston due to a blizzard that will be barreling down on the Chicagoland area by tonight.

So, why are we talking about the weather?  Besides the fact that I love to play Al Roker (and complain about my travel woes), the winter storms we’ve seen since December are wreaking havoc on background checks.  Why?  Because every day the weather is causing courts throughout the country to close.  Just last week alone, we had court closures in New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C.  Check out the Court Delays section of EmployeeScreen University.  But it’s not just the courts.  Businesses also close when the weather turns treacherous.

So if you’re playing at home now, we’ve got courts and businesses closed.  Score 2 for the weather and none for employers that are waiting for criminal records and employment verifications and references to come back.

They’re dubbing this latest storm as the “worst winter storm in history”.  We’re expecting 18″-24″ of snow here in Chicago over the next 24 hours.  Wonder how long our courts will be shut down for.

Stay tuned.

Continue Reading

My wife and I saw an unbelievable movie last night called The King’s Speech which was based on the true story of British King George the VI’s (played by Colin Firth) determination to overcome a speech impediment.  Okay, that didn’t do the movie justice, but trust me it was a great movie that will likely sweep the Academy Awards this year.

Anyway, the main character has struggled with a debilitating stutter for his entire life and finally finds a speech therapist who is able to help cure his condition.  Immediately, Dr. Lionel Logue insists on being called “Lionel”.  After years of therapy, the prince is annointed to king and is to accept the throne in front of the public at Westminster Abbey.  The Arch-Bishop responsible for the ceremony is introduced to Dr. Logue and decides to look into his credentials.  Upon completion of the background check, he informs the king that Dr. Logue is not,  in fact a doctor.  Now, he explains that he never claimed that he was a doctor and that regardless of whether he was or not, he had successfully treated the king.  And of course, this being a movie everything ends happily.

While the movie is based on a true story, I am not sure if there was ever a controversy over Lionel Logue’s credentials.  However, true or not it does raise the issue of how important it is to know the qualifications of those we choose to employ.  It also depicts what reference credentialing might have looked like in the late 1930′s.

Pretty interesting stuff.  And in my maiden voyage as a film critic, I give it two thumbs up!

Continue Reading