0

I found this blog posting this weekend.  This is a great commentary on an article written in Business Week last week.  In my opinion, and the opinion of the blog author, the article was not an accurate portrayal of the background screening industry.

See Below:

BusinessWeek has an in-depth article this week on business checks and the accuracy of those records.  Its a thought-provoking article that suggests that background checks are a “Wild Wild West” where nothing is regulated.  Moreover, despite the headline that question the accuracy of background checks, the article itself doesn’t contain any statistics or studies to show that. Rather, they use anecdotes to make the point.

But when you look at the article, I was struck by one paragraph that’s buried deep in text:

The company [ChoicePoint] conducts 10 million background checks annually and estimates it has about 20% of the U.S. market. “The number of complaints vs. transactions is very low,” says Katherine Bryant, vice-president for consumer advocacy. The [Federal Trade Commission] has logged 695 complaints against ChoicePoint since 2005, some of which related to [a single] identity-theft episode.

So, for those doing math at home,and if these numbers are to be trusted, there is a 0.000023 percent complaint rate over the last three years filed with the Federal Trade Commission for background checks conducted by ChoicePoint.  That doesn’t strike me as a huge issue whatsoever.

More

Continue Reading

0

Good friend Barry Nixon from the National Institute of Workplace Violence and Kim Kerr from Lexis Nexis (yes, a competitor albeit one who crafted a great web post) just wrote a great article that was published by HR.BLR.com about how to develop a background screening policy for your organization. Readers of this blog might recall the Kim and Barry were kind enough to include a chapter on International Background Screening that was written by employeescreenIQ in their recent book Background Screening and Investigations: Managing Hiring Risk from the HR and Security Perspectives. Please see the lists they developed for implementing a policy and the resulting benefits.

Benefits of Implementing a Background Screening Policy

  1. Proactive Management of Risk: Risk management is fundamentally about choosing to accept a risk, mitigating the risk, or reducing the risk, and a background screening policy is a clear step to reduce the organization’s risk.
  2. Due Diligence and Legal Compliance: A well-crafted background screening policy will position an organization to exercise due diligence, which ultimately will help it avoid the negative consequences of being out of compliance or breaking the law. This helps the organization avoid unnecessary cost and the distraction of resources to address legal issues.
  3. Improve Hiring Processes: Background screening provides for the collection of relevant information and verification of the accuracy of the information, which helps an organization to be equipped to make better hiring decisions.
  4. Protection of Information: One of the side benefits of implementing an effective background screening policy is that it forces an organization to pay close attention to how it protects individuals’ personal information, which ultimately reduces the likelihood of the organization having a breach in its data and all of the commensurate problems associated with it.
  5. Reduce Cost and Improve Profitability: An organization that proactively manages its risk, avoids costly employee problems and lawsuits, has an efficient hiring process, and protects individual personal data will reduce its cost of operations, thus improving the flow of dollars to the bottom line.

Read the full post here . . .post

Continue Reading

0

We found this post on HRResouce.com about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) enforcement efforts to ensure that employers are hiring legal, documented workers: I-9 Audits Return, Verification Expands.  The post was so informative that we didn’t mind the plug for the author’s services at the bottom.  See excerpt below:

ICE had openly abandoned the use of audits and administrative fines for employers’ technical noncompliance with I-9 procedures on the theory that employers seeking to make money from knowing employment of illegal workers will just build such fines into their cost of doing business. Instead, ICE has focused its limited but rapidly increasing worksite enforcement resources on raids and prosecutions in order to achieve the maximum deterrent effect through well-publicized convictions of managers and companies and seizure of company assets, as well as business interruption losses from removal of large numbers of workers.

These actions are part of a larger no-nonsense enforcement strategy articulated with increasing clarity by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who has started making State of Immigration speeches describing the multifaceted efforts by the department’s various components to rebuild confidence in the government’s willingness and capability to conduct practical immigration enforcement, while working administratively to streamline and expand legal immigration under existing law and continuing to prove the case for more comprehensive reform. “We are not going to have a silent amnesty,” Chertoff has stated.

It’s not new news that ICE’s efforts are gaining momentum and the ball seems to be rolling towards a federal mandate on E-Verify or alternative Electronic I-9 Confirmation programs.  You just wonder if it will ever happen.  Getting the federal government to agree on anything right now is no small task and with upcoming presidential elections, the political landscape could undergo a major shift.  Who knows?  We’ll just wait on the sidelines and keep you informed.

Continue Reading

0

I read a really funny article on ERE yesterday by a recruiter from Disney that wrote “A Candidate’s Guide to Recruiter-Speak”.

See excerpt below:

Every industry and profession carries with it its own distinct jargon. In fact, it is the measure of recruiters’ worth to be able to pick up on the unique lexicon of the positions for which they recruit.

Being able to spout off the verbal equivalent of Google Adwords also preempts most candidates’ assumptions that as recruiters, we’re slightly above amoeba but slightly beneath bonobo monkeys on the evolutionary ladder. (The monkeys do admittedly win by default, though like recruiters, they have been known to eat their young, although most of us do this figuratively through the invention of the concept of “entry-level” employment.)

There’s been a lot of attention paid to the banalities of “corporate speak,” those words such as synergy, deliverables, scalable, and, my personal favorite, paradigm shift, which sounds suspiciously like a Led Zeppelin cover band or a Tom Clancy novel.

Additionally, there is a preponderance of words that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever to anyone outside of a specialized functional area.

Read the full article here . . .

He goes on to list these terms in a rather humorous manner, however one that if true doesn’t really speak well for the industry.  Funny is funny though and I can respect creativity.  Where I take exception is to the following excerpt:

Background check (n) Usage: “You’re our final candidate, but I can’t extend an offer until your background check clears.” Definition: A control imposed by corporations in order to slow recruiters’ ability to extend an offer for a period of time that perfectly coincides with a candidate’s extension and acceptance of other offers. Alternate definition: An industry whose practitioners continue to thrive despite the Internet’s abilities to perform the same functionality at a fraction of the cost.

It’s certainly okay to have a sense of humor, but the assertion that a thorough and accurate background check is only a mouse click away is either ill-informed or irresponsible. There are two many examples of others who are lulled into that same false sense of security and one need only follow the news to find regular instances of companies who said they performed background checks only to have a major incident in the workplace. Many times, these incidents could have been avoided by performing a proper background check.

There will always be a sense of concern among recruiters that they will lose good candidates when a background check takes too long. However, if you have the right screening partner they are doing a good job of explaining what is going on when delays occur. Check out a recent article I wrote on this very topic:

Background Screeners & Recruiters: We Can All Get Along

The author should reconsider the ramifications of relying on only an instant database search as the sole means of conducting a background check and what exposure that might cause his employer and any others who would believe his thoughts on what constitutes an effective search.

Continue Reading

0

I just saw this blog while doing some research.  I think the volunteers claim that the background checks are a violation of civil rights is ridiculous.  I didn’t take the time to comment on the posting but did read some interesting rhetoric and heated debate below the article.  “Its all fun and games till someone gets hurt”….my mom used to say this all the time!  The same people claiming that the background checks are unnecessary will be the same people complaining when something happens to a kid that a simple background check would have prevented!

Continue Reading

0

“A recent survey by ExecuNet, a networking organization for business leaders, found that 83% of executives and corporate recruiters research job candidates online, and 43% have eliminated a candidate based on search results. Even if you’re not in the market for a new job, it’s a good idea to take the opportunity to clean skeletons out of your digital closet.”

More

Continue Reading

0

A little resume fraud news from a Canadian blog on Trust in the Digital Era.

How should an employer deal with resume fraud?

The rise in résumé fraud can be traced to the rise in unemployment, coupled with tough competition among those competing in the labor market for what few jobs are available. Job seekers who don’t have a degree or specialized skills are inventing them out of desperation. For the employer, this translates into a significant problem since applicants who lie on their résumés often become employees who misrepresent issues on the job. It is estimated that résumé fraud costs employers approximately $600 billion annually.

More

Continue Reading

1

More often than not we write our blog articles about background checks in relation to employment. In my opinion one of the most important laws we have in place today is the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill while still flawed in many ways has brought the concept of background checks to the forefront. Officially called The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, it was signed into law by President Clinton in November of 1993. The act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

According to bradycampaign.org, a group devoted to prevent gun violence, the US Department of Justice has released some new figures.

The U.S. Department of Justice just released Brady background check figures for 2006, and they show continued success for this life-saving law:

  • Nearly 40% of the denials in 2006 involved individuals with felony records attempting to purchase firearms. (In fact, 6 out of every 1,000 applications in 2006 were made by felons.)
  • From 1999-2006, 183,714 NICS denials were appealed, or 15.5% of total denials during that period (almost 1.2 million), and of those appeals, only 65,695, or about 5.5% of total denials, were reversed.

More

Continue Reading

1

I came across this blog yesterday and thought it would be a nice addition to our postings. The writer focuses on how a candidate can still promote themselves on a resume even with things that are less than spectacular. She emphasizes that lying on a resume is a big no-no, being ethical and truthful is always the best route. When we launched employeescreen University, this is exactly the type of advise we want job seekers to take, especially knowing that a background check will be conducted!

Is Your Resume a Lie?

There was a high-profile story in the news recently, about the consequences of lying on a resume. Did you see it? Robert Irvine, the host of his own show “Dinner: Impossible” on the Food Network will not have his contract renewed next season. The problem, apparently, is that he fabricated parts of his resume. What a shame! Padded resumes are often the result of job seekers’ insecurities about some perceived weakness or lack in their qualifications. But, it simply isn’t necessary to lie. In fact, it is just plain wrong! Robert Irvine could have avoided this whole situation had he turned to an expert to help him frame the credentials that he did have in the most positive light, rather than faking credentials that he didn’t have.

One of the most frequent questions that I am asked by potential clients takes the form of… “I have a problem (or weakness) in my professional history in the form of XYZ. I’m afraid of how that will look on my resume. Have you ever dealt with this problem (or weakness) before? Do you think you could help me?”

More

Continue Reading

0

This is a blog posting I found written by a law firm in Cleveland that has an excellent employment practice, Kohrman, Jackson and Krantz.  This firm has written about background checks before and this just reinforces to me that they really have their ear to the ground!

Revisiting the facebooking of job applicants.

Continue Reading

All information contained on this website is provided by employeescreenIQ solely for the convenience of the site viewers. employeescreenIQ is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this website or otherwise by employeescreenIQ should be deemed as legal guidance or advice. Users are solely responsible for complying with all local, state, and federal laws relating to the use of any information provided on this website and any information products provided by employeescreenIQ. Users should consult with their own legal counsel if they have questions regarding their legal responsibilities or any information provided by employeescreenIQ.