We just published The Verifier XXIV, Fall 2011 Edition, a publication intended as an educational tool and information resource for human resource professionals or anyone interested in keeping abreast of recent employment screening and background check industry developments.

Highlights of this issue include the following:

Articles:

• Time to Streamline Your Background Screening Process? Check Out Our Latest Video
• No Shortcuts. Smarter Screening Equals Intelligent Hiring.
• Top Commercial Airline Flies High With EmployeeScreenIQ
• 2011 Background Check Turkey Awards
• Background Checks Gone Wild Hurt Us All

Announcements and Legislative Updates

• EmployeeScreenIQ Rated Top 5 Screening Firm in U.S.
• California Governor Bans Use of Employment Credit Reports
• EmployeeScreenIQ Announces Integration with Taleo Business Edition
• EmployeeScreenIQ Recognized as Fastest Growing Company

Check it out!

Over the past few years we have written countless posts about the EEOC and various State governments seeking to be progressive and give those with criminal records a second chance.  Their intentions are always good, however, we all know how this story ends.  I certainly don’t argue the merits of their ambition to make good for all in the world, but….the old adage; screw me once, shame on you, do it twice shame on me, seems to fit nicely here.

The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) has now come under scrutiny because they hired two men with previous criminal records.  Again, a valiant effort to progressively make the world a better place, but, as we have always said, not everyone is suited for every position.  Should these men have been placed in this particular job? Should they have been given a second chance? Not our call to make, however, I think the EEOC will have a position or argument if they make future decisions based on this situation.  Time will tell!

According to WPRI.com Eyewitness News; RIPTA hired two ex-convicts as drivers for their RIde program, which serves the elderly and disabled. The men had lengthy criminal records and had served time at the ACI. They said the men profiled in the piece are no longer behind the wheel of a RiDe bus, but it is unclear if they were given job placement elsewhere within the agency.

The entire story reminds me of an old quote by Albert Camus;
“The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.”

RIPTA puts brakes on hiring people with criminal records

The head of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority has come under fire after the agency hired two men with criminal records to drive buses transporting the elderly and disabled.

Chief Executive Charles Odimgbe described it as a pilot program that has been discontinued. He said it reintegrated former criminals into society.

Thomas Deller, chairman of the agency’s board, praised the program. But board member Maureen Martin told Odimgbe that hiring men with criminal records raises passenger safety issues.

The Amalgamated Transit Union accuses Odimgbe of undermining bus service through attempted cost-savings.

The board on Monday did not discuss the hirings, first reported by WPRI. Deller says the board will take up the question another time.

The Senate Committee on Housing will investigate.

” The bill, when signed, will allow a school district to deny employment, fire or refuse to hire someone who has a felony record — even if the conviction occurred decades ago and is not related to the job.”

This story is popping up all over my Google alerts and I felt compelled to post.  The above quote is from fdlreporter.com and refers to a proposed Wisconsin law that would ban all felons from working in schools.

Am I in favor of it? I think I am.  However, I’m not sure that this policy won’t be fought tooth and nail by folks such those at the EEOC.  Particularly, the part about the age of the offense and its relevance to the job.  This might actually be a case that just needs to be heard.

Would any of us entrust our children to schools who knowingly hired felons?  How about those who conducted substandard background checks and weren’t given comprehensive information? (Okay, that’s all schools.)

So is the EEOC willing to go to bat on this one?  We shall see.

Author’s Note as of 10/20/2011: There has since been an update on this story which can be found at http://www.employeescreen.com/iqblog/update-on-new-e-verify-law-in-california/

This comes from TLNT’s John Hollon.

For better or for worse, California always seems to want to go its own way.

So it is with the controversial federal E-Verify system that “provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers.”

While states such as Arizona, Louisiana, and South Carolina are passing laws to mandate the use of E-Verify as a check against illegal immigration, California is going the other way.

According to the Los Angeles Times, ” (state) legislation signed into law … prohibits the state, cities and counties from mandating that private employers use E-Verify,” forcing cities and other local municipalities that have been working to comply with the E-Verify requirements to reverse course and undo what they have previously done in order to comply with state law.

Gripes about reliability of E-Verify system

And the reason for the E-Verify ban in California, at least publicly, is the gripe that many have had about it nationwide — the unreliability of the federal E-Vertify system. According to the newspaper:

The state ban (of E-Verify) received broad support, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Farm Bureau Federation, which questioned the accuracy of the databases used by the federal system.

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), who introduced the bill, said he felt that mandatory E-Verify was an unnecessary burden on businesses.

“It was costly, time-consuming. It’s unfair for big businesses and definitely for small businesses,” he said. “Why make a flawed system mandatory?”

Fong said the system often misidentifies U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. One such worker is Jessica St. Pierre, 22, who said she was fired from her job at a telecommunications company because her name was not correctly entered into the E-Verify system. It took her four months to get another job.”

SHRM’s problems with E-Verify

The Society for Human Resource Management has lobbied for a national verification system, but has specifically criticized the reliability of E-Verify, outlining “problems with the system, including identity fraud — which poses substantial problems for employers who are held accountable for enforcing the law — mistakes in data accuracy and burdens on legal U.S. workers.”

In addition, “A SHRM survey showed that 92 percent of employers want to participate in an electronic verification program provided ‘the system is accurate, efficient and easy to use.’ ”

Despite the public pronouncements, California’s ban of E-Verify is less about the reliability of the federal system and more about a state (and a legislature) that is overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats making a political statement against imposing sanctions that might limit opportunities for illegal workers.

But no matter what the reason behind the E-Verify ban, California’s legislative actions will surely reignite the national debate about immigration, E-Verify, and the long-standing inability of the federal government to fairly and consistently enforce workplace immigration laws.

For more of the Los Angeles Times story, click here.

About the author: John Hollon is Vice President for Editorial of TLNT.com, and the former Editor of Workforce Management. He has written extensively about human resources and talent management, including here at TLNT. Contact him at john@tlnt.com, and follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/johnhollon

It’s official. The state of California becomes the seventh state to prohibit employers from using credit reports to make employment decisions. California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 22 which will take effect on January 1, 2012. Like it’s counterparts in the states of Maryland, Oregon, Hawaii, Illinois, Washington and Connecticut there are some exceptions. Employers may consider a credit report under the following circumstances only if the candidate is informed that a report will be sought and they have obtained written permission:

• A managerial position
• A position in the state Department of Justice
• A sworn peace officer or other law enforcement
• A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained
• A position that involves regular access to confidential information such as credit card account information, Social security number, or Date of birth
• A position which the person can enter into financial transactions on behalf of the company
• A position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information
• A position that involves regular access to cash totaling ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more of the employer, a customer, or client, during the workday

On a personal level, everyone saw this coming. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed similar measures during his tenure on two occasions. And the rising tide of similar legislation in other states only bolstered the state assembly’s efforts to make this happen.

While I was once opposed to this type of legislation, I have slowly warmed to the concept. The truth is that employers that do not use credit reports for the exempted purposes probably shouldn’t have been using them to make hiring decisions in the first place.

Any employer that operates in the state of California and utilizes credit reports or might do so in the future should consider evaluating their employment screening policies.

Don’t know Ricky McCalenton?  That’s okay, neither do we.  Ricky is just an average guy in Cleveland, Ohio that recognizes the effectiveness of “Ban the Box” legislation.  He summed it all up in just one simple quote to the Cleveland Plain Dealer on a story they had written about the city’s recent legislation to remove the question which asks the job applicant to reveal any past criminal records.

“The intentions are real good, them saying, ‘I’m not going to look at your criminal background right now,” said Cleveland resident Ricky McCalenton. “But once I get you into the job site, and I do a background check, I’m going to have to fire you.’ So to me, honestly, I think they should have left it on there.”

The only thing I would quibble on is that any criminal record would be grounds for termination, but he gets it.

As far as “Ban the Box” legislation is concerned, it is certainly a concept that is picking up speed and one that we highlighted on our 2011 Background Screening Trends list earlier this year.

(Reuters) – Sen. Charles Schumer said on Sunday he would introduce legislation requiring major utility plants to run background checks on employees to help prevent security threats against power facilities.

Citing a recent U.S. Department of Homeland Security report that found insider sabotage at electric, gas, and water utilities was a significant threat to U.S. national security, Schumer said al Qaeda was known to be recruiting extremists to infiltrate and work in sensitive areas such as utilities.

“Power plants and utilities present a tempting and potentially catastrophic target to extremists who are bent on wreaking havoc on the United States,” Schumer said.

“Thorough background checks on all workers with access to the most sensitive areas of these operations are a must,” he said, calling the DHS report “a wake-up call that we must ensure those with access to our most critical infrastructure — and our power supplies — are not compromised by extremist influences.”

Currently only nuclear power plants are required to conduct FBI background checks on employees with unescorted access to facilities.

More

On July 13, 2011, Connecticut governor Daniel P. Malloy signed into law a bill which will prohibit most employers from evaluating a candidate’s credit report as part of the employment screening process.  The law is akin to a similarly a passed measure in the state of Maryland earlier this summer in that it carves out a number of exemptions and that it does not allow a private right of action.

According to labor and employment attorney Pam Devata of Seyfarth Shaw, “The Act also provides limited exceptions that allow employers to request or use credit information where a credit report is ‘substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.’  This exception generally applies to those positions involving money-handling and other confidential job duties. For instance, employers may request credit information for employees in managerial positions that involve the direction and control of the business; employees who have access to financial information; employees with fiduciary duties to the employer; employees who have an expense account or corporate debit or credit card; employees with access to an employer’s nonfinancial assets valued at $2,005 or more (i.e., museum and library collections, prescription drugs, and other pharmaceuticals); and employees with access to confidential or proprietary business information. Notably, where an employer chooses to request credit information pursuant to the substantial purpose exception, it must disclose its intent to do so in writing to the employee or applicant.”

Violators will be subject to $300 fine per incident but will not face a private action from offended parties.

Connecticut now joins a growing list of states that have adopted similar measures including Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland.

Employers note that this law will go into effect on October 1, 2011.

I know that mine might be an unpopular point of view in our industry, but I actually think that recently bills passed in Illinois, Maryland and Connecticut are effective models to curb the misuse of this background screening instrument.  While I believe that credit reports are an integral part of the screening process for some, it should not be a requirement for all positions.  Quite honestly, it is those that have been misusing these reports for positions where credit really shouldn’t be required that has caused the states to take these actions.  I feel like the exemptions that are carved out effectively allow those that should be conducting credit reports do so.  I also think that disallowing private action is fair to employers.

There, I’ve been holding that in for about a year. I feel better already.  Feel free to rip me and my position now.