We are happy to announce that the clerk strike that we reported about yesterday in Santa Cruz County, California has been successfully resolved.
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.
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.
Bill would give felons second chance
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.
Interested in getting involved? Please email us at info@employeescreen.com
I alluded to something called the Office of Court Administration (OCA) in a post earlier this week concerning criminal background checks in the state of New York. The OCA is a topic that affects any employer that wishes to conduct a background check in New York. It is especially abhorred by those that primarily hire in this area.
The OCA was established in July, 2003 as a way to consolidate court records from each of New York’s Upper and Lower Courts. Many, including myself believe that the allure of doing so was to create a lucrative revenue stream. Upon it’s creation 16 counties including the New York City burroughs disallowed access to their records, instead directing those seeking public records to the OCA. Further, the lower county and municiple courts shut off access as well.
What is the OCA good for? The OCA is a one-stop shop for a criminal background check. One search will give will every felony and misdemeanor conviction for the entire state. Furthermore, results are usually reported within 24 hours. You would think employers would be bowing to the state for creating such a system.
Here’s the rub. The state decided to charge an access fee of $52.00 per name. Homer Simpson might say “DOH!”. This is by far and away the largest access fee charged in the country for obtaining a public record and can make the process of employment screening cost prohibitive for some employers. And by the way, that’s just the access fee. That doesn’t cover the fee employers pay to the Consumer Reporting Agency (background checking company).
Is there a way around it? No. If your applicant has lived in one of the 16 counties that has completely shut off access, this is the only game in town. If the applicant has lived in a county that does not block access, they can do a felony-only search in that county’s Upper Court. While this will produce felony records, misdemeanors cannot be identified without utilizing the OCA system.
Here’s a list of OCA-only Counties:
Allegany
Bronx
Cayuga
Cortland
Delaware
Fulton
Hamilton
Kings
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Orleans
Putnum
Queens
Richmond
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.
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.
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.
Another day, another state passing a law that requires employers to verifiy their employee’s work eligibility status. (Okay, this actually took place on June 29th, but I’ve been busy blogging
In addition to enforcing federal immigration laws, the state feels that this measure will discourage those doing business with the state from human traffiking and taking state deductions for undocumented workers.
What I find interesting about this measure is that they only require this of those that employ over 500 employees. Why? Do they trust that small employers wouldn’t hire illegals and are they just starting somewhere? Also, this should be an interesting test case for the state. What if these contractors now cannot find enough legal workers to complete the jobs the state has contracted for? Do they rescind this measure? Do they look for out-of-state contractors? Can they require out-of-state contractors to do the same? Will they eventually mandate this for all employers in the state of Georgia?
Who knows? We’ll keep following this story and update you from time to time.
Some trends take longer than others. Take for instance beanie babies, bell bottom pants, swatch watches, or cabbage patch kids. These things took off like wild fire. For better or worse, it seemed like everyone couldn’t wait to participate. Okay so maybe the trend for states to enforce employment eligibility laws isn’t setting world records for speed, but Arizona is now set to be the second state to pass a law that puts teeth into the enforcement of only hiring legal U.S. citizens and it is believed that Georgia is close behind. Arizona house bill #2779 threatens to suspend the business license of first time offenders and even includes a “death penalty”, permanent revocation of a business license for failing to verify work status on all employees. Of course, so far the state’s efforts are only being bolstered with a $100,000 budget, but if these efforts actually do take shape, employers in the state of Arizona better take note, and fast!
I was recently speaking with an employment attorney about states adopting such laws for the enforcement of a federal statute and she questioned whether the state could actually adopt legislation that mandates the enforcement. It’s a question I still haven’t been able to answer but one that we should most definitely follow up on.
In the meantime, should this trend continue, it puts further onus on the employer to ensure that their employees are working legally in this country. It dictates that they must spend more time making sure that I-9 documentation is filled out correctly, that identification be scrutinized and that the employer confirm the employees eligibility status with the Social Security Administration. With the threat of the aforementioned sanctions, failure to do this could really hurt . . . now.
