EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

Say hi to Charlie. Charlie is a Mini-Goldendoodle and one of my best friends in the whole world.  So besides the shameless attempt to show you a picture of my dog, I wanted to tell you a story about why service and quality continue to remain a driving force behind people’s buying decisions.

Last month, my wife took Charlie to a well-know groomer here on the North Shore of Chicago.  He needed a haircut but she explained that she only wanted them to trim him.  The last time the groomed him they gave him a doggie crew cut (it wasn’t pretty).  And for the price of $60 they gladly assured her that Charlie was in good hands.

You can imagine her surprise when she picked him up later in the day and he looked like a shaved lab rat with scurvy (sorry, in an effort to maintain Charlie’s dignity, I refuse to post pictures).

The owner was there so she asked why they would have ignored her instructions.  His reply was “Relax.  It’s just hair.  It will grow back.”

I promise I’m getting to the point.

Well, he was right.  It was just hair and it would grow back, but that really isn’t the point.  This seemed like a ridiculous response and one that was not made with quality and customer service in mind, so I decided to call him myself.  If we were just looking for the cheapest, low quality product, we certainly wouldn’t have brought him to this particular groomer.  And while I didn’t expect a refund, a simple apology would have been nice.  I left a friendly voicemail explaining the nature of my call and all I heard was crickets.  He never called me back.

This experience made me think about how this correlates to the background screening industry.  To me, the same principal applies.  Anyone can do a “background check”.  The question is whether the end result can make a difference. Is it a quality background check that actually protects your organization and is it a service organization that can help you make sense of it all.   If you want a good product, there are No Shortcuts. (Great pun, no?)

I know that when people stop caring about quality and service that it’s time to get out of this business.  I know that any service-based business better pay attention to these things or someone else will.  Case in point, our neighbor took their dog to the same place for boarding and when they picked him up, the dog needed forty stitches to close a gash in it’s leg.  The same people never realized there was anything wrong with the dog.

Continue Reading

I think we can all agree that going back to school sucks.  As a little kid I remember the dread I felt waking up for the first day of school and knowing that my summer was officially over.  Even as an adult, I get that same feeling for my kids.  So, it was with great anxiety that I put my fourth and first graders on the bus last week. (If you are a regular on this blog, you know what comes next).

Enter, my annual rant on school background checks.

You know, it’s a blessing and a curse to be in this business.  You can help a lot of great organization minimize the risk of hiring the wrong person.  You can also help these organizations validate that their candidate is the right choice.  Over the years, I have been exposed to some of the worst things people in this world can do.  And just when I see what I think is the most disgusting and heinous behavior, something else comes along that sets a new low.

To me, the worst offenses are those that deal with the abuse of children; whether physical, mental or sexual.  So you can imagine my feeling of helplessness when I know that I am powerless to help the schools (whether my own kids’ schools or any other) to perform comprehensive criminal background checks.  The states have created a false sense of security by mandating statewide criminal background checks for school employees.  Most states can’t even mandate that all their counties report information in to them.  And even so, the information passed on might not be up to date, accurate or comprehensive.  Further, what happens if a school employee committed a crime outside of the state for which they seek employment?

One need not look very far to find an incidents of abuse in schools where the district swore they ran background checks.  It happens all the time.  And when it does, the school either is, or acts surprised that the state check didn’t reveal past convictions.  Then, they inevitably blame the lack of proper funding to remedy the situation. What could be more important than protecting our children?

So, even though I know that it will fall of deaf ears, here is my advice for conducting the type of background check that should be used in schools.  First, all school employees from the Superintendent, to the teachers, to the janitors, to the bus drivers should be checked.  The background check should consist of a county criminal background check in each county that the candidate has resided and under each name they have used.  Next, the school should perform a National Sex Offender Registry check (for obvious reasons) and a National Criminal Records Search which can identify criminal activity committed outside the counties where someone has lived.  And then if they still want to conduct a statewide search, they can feel free to do so.

I know that as a parent, I would feel much more comfortable that our schools have done everything they can reasonably can do to protect our children and provide them with a safe learning environment.  We live in a crazy world and overwhelming majority of our school employee are there for the right reasons.  But unfortunately, there are always those that have other intentions and until they cease to exist, we need to take steps to ensure that they never step foot in a school.  Taking the steps I listed above would significantly mitigate the possibility of it happening and the schools should do everything in their power to take advantage of the tools corporations have been using for years.

Until then, I’ll keep holding my breath.

Continue Reading

Oh don’t mind me.  I’m just playing word association with the following phrase “EEOC Meeting to Discuss Use of Criminal Records”.  Feel free to send in your own suggestion for my word cloud above.

Why the sarcasm?  Where to start?  We asked earlier this week if the EEOC was willing to have an honest and open dialogue on employers’ use of criminal background checks. We got our answer pretty quickly.  If the list of those who would testify wasn’t answer enough, check out the press release which the EEOC distributed just hours after the 4 hour meeting was concluded.  The key word here is “distributed” since it was clearly “written” well before the meeting.

Instead of listening to both sides of the issue, the EEOC paraded out a cadre of individuals damning the use of criminal records in the hiring process.  No one was there to talk about the liability employers face.  No one was asked to talk about the victims of violent criminal activity in the workplace.  No one was called on to talk about the mounting losses employers shoulder due to internal theft.  Oddly, no one was there to discuss the nation’s largest consumer of employment background checks, the U.S. government whom the last time I checked, the EEOC was a part of.

They favored testimony from the Department of Justice who offered the Blumstein study on the point of redemption as ironclad and unimpeachable rather than as a limited study, based on limited criminal activity, based on a limited geographical area.  They listened to testimony that the FBI’s database only includes about 50% of all criminal records.  Never mind that those in our industry use far more accurate methods to conduct criminal background checks.  They heard testimony that talked about employers running roughshod over applicants’ rights and ignored that fact the the FCRA and state laws provide protection.

According to those in attendance, here’s where it stands.  There are two EEOC commissioners who think that the commission should overhaul their guidance on employers use of criminal background checks.  There are two commissioners who either think that the current guidelines are sufficient or should be slightly modified.  And there is one commissioner who seems to be in the middle and will most likely be the ultimate deciding factor.

In the meantime, the EEOC has allowed a 15 day comment period on the issue.  Perhaps they’ll consider opinions counter to theirs’ then.  I’ll be holding my breath until then.

Stay tuned.  We have definitely not heard the last of this issue.

P.S. Once the smoke clears out of my ears, I’ll publish some of the materials that were provided to the EEOC in support of criminal background checks.

Continue Reading

According to The Baltimore Sun:

“New security screening procedures will be tested at O’Hare International Airport starting this summer to allow pilots to speed through checkpoints without undergoing scans or pat-downs, officials said.

It’s a first step toward transitioning to a more logical risk-based screening and away from the current system of treating pilots and passengers as equal potential security threats, according to the Transportation Security Administration. 

Expedited screening of flight attendants, who undergo less rigorous security and background checks than pilots during the hiring process, will occur later, officials said.”

Really?  Hasn’t the TSA learned anything from the recent incident at Miami International Airport where an illegal immigrant from Guyana was found working as a flight attendant?  This person was able to get this job using a stolen identity and his deception was not uncovered during the background screening process – it only came to light after the identity theft victim attempted to apply for food stamps and was denied because government records matched his SSN to the airline job.

I think before the TSA grants less rigorous security to airline personnel, they need to work with the airlines to ensure incidents like this don’t happen! 

New screening will let pilots fly through security

Continue Reading

I’ve been thinking about all of the legislation (both enacted and proposed) and hearings designed to blunt the efficacy of background checks lately.  Issues such as the “proper” use of criminal records, credit reports and efforts to “ban the box”.  And my pervasive thought is that this legislation is both hypocritical and championed by populist sentiment. These laws consistently rely on a small minority of abuses and anecdotal evidence.

Do we really think for a second that our politicians, whether Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner, don’t perform thorough background checks on their employees?  And do we think that those background checks might be even more stringent than what the average employer would require?  The same can be said of the EEOC.  Now, they would counter by saying that they have a need to know this information about their employees before making an informed decision.  And I would wholeheartedly agree with them.  Does anyone question what they can and can’t use and what is fair game and what is not?  Trust me, the biggest abusers of onerous and burdensome background checks is our federal government. Private sector practices pale in comparison.  Lastly, why are the same people who are calling for curbs on background checks the same people that are regularly calling for mandatory background checks when things go wrong?  You can’t have it both ways.

Recent laws designed to curb the use of credit histories for employment screening purposes in Illinois and Maryland seem to emphasize my point about the populist sentiment.  Have you seen how many exemptions they include?  How many employers that aren’t in these exempted categories were running credit reports in the first place?  These laws appear to cow to public pressure without really changing things at all.  These exemptions weren’t included by accident.

So before designing laws that the government is not prepared to follow through on for themselves, it would be great to address some real solutions to these problems.   Why do 65 million people in this country have criminal records?  What programs can we develop that make it easier for employers to hire those that have truly been rehabilitated?

Continue Reading

Okay.  This must be some kind of record.  I had another thought in my head for the second day in a row and all I can think about is the number 65,000,000.

I read an article published in the New York Times which was largely unfavorable to employers’ use of background checks.  At one point the writer attempts to win us over by telling us that 65 million Americans have a criminal record.  The insinuation is that so many people have criminal records, it’s hardly fair that an employer would use such information to make a hiring decision.

Really?  Maybe it’s just me, but I think that is exhibit #1 as to why employers might want to conduct a background check on potential employees.  Her argument appears to be, that we should stop conducting background checks because everyone has a record.  Does she think we should shut down all of the prisons as well?

And while I’m at it, the title of the article cracks me up as well: “Internet Lets a Criminal Past Catch Up Quicker”.  What? Those with criminal records deserve a head start and the internet is just too darn fast?

Two thoughts in two days.  I’m spent.

Continue Reading

I had a couple thoughts rolling around in my empty head over the past couple of days and thought you’d enjoy some insight into my frontal lobe.

First and foremost, good riddance to Osama Bin Laden.  I’m sure both you and Adolph Hitler will enjoy each other’s company in a very warm spot for eternity.  I just regret that each of you were cowards in the end.  (Hitler killed himself and OBL used a woman as a human shield in his final stand.)

On t0 background checks now . . .

Issue #1

Continued news out of Brockton, MA where a student tutor was accused of raping an elementary school student.  All charges have been dropped due to lack of evidence.  Further, a CORI background check was conducted on the accused tutor and no record was found.

I hope that the school takes no solace in either of these two developments.  Their lack of proper protocol is still not excused.  They didn’t conduct a background check on this individual and it was later revealed that they failed to meet a statewide directive to rescreen all employees in 2010.

Further, I hope no one is satisfied that a CORI background check is sufficient to ensure thorough screening for school employees.  What happens if a potential employee committed a crime outside of the state of Massachusetts? (And why do I constantly need spell check to tell me how to spell Massachusetts?)

Issue #2

I wrote a post last week about my thoughts on employers’ use of social networking sites as part of the background screening process and I’ve thinking about the kind of person that has a public profile on Facebook or other similar social networks.  Thought I would express myself in an open letter (feel free to forward as you see fit).

To all mental midgets that are dumb enough make your profiles public:

You have no right to privacy when it comes to your pages.  I guess if you are dumb enough to allow the world to view your profile, you are probably the same idiot that posts the kinds of stupid things that would cause you not to get hired.

That’s all I have for now.  But I’m sure before too long another thought might emerge.  Stay tuned.

Continue Reading

A Brockton, MA elementary school student was raped (allegedly) by a college student tutor employed by the school.   This is one of the most hideous, disgusting and sickening crimes that we’ll ever see and probably the best (or worst) example of why background checks are so vitally important in the hiring process.

It is unclear as to whether the school screened this student teacher for criminal records or to see if they were a registered sex offender, but it has been discovered that while school employees were originally checked at the time of hire, the district failed to meet their requirement of conducting a new criminal background check in January of 2010.

The superintendent of the school claims that this was due to human error, but my goodness, isn’t this one thing you can’t afford to get wrong?

Read Full Story

Continue Reading

The Cleveland Cavaliers have played terribly this season with the loss of premadonna LeBron James.  Today they announced a great play, the hiring of Ted Williams.  Now, many of you die hard Cleveland fans might be saying to yourself; “Wait, they unfroze Ted Williams, one of the best baseball players of all time to play BASKETBALL????” Right on, he will likely play better than any of the scrubs currently running up and down the court!!

However, this is not about Ted Williams the famous Boston Redsox player currently frozen by the Cryonics Company, Alcor Life Extension Foundation.  This story is the latest internet buzz about a homeless man of the same name.

Employment screening is not always about denying people jobs who have an unsatisfactory history.  Many times its about finding the right job, for the right person.  This is a touching story of a man, down on his luck that was just given a HUGE second chance!

While the Cavaliers are struggling on the court this season without their former superstar, the organization is still making waves in the community. In perhaps one of the most amazing stories I’ve ever seen.

Ted Williams, who was previously homeless held up a sign every day telling the world about his “Golden Radio Voice”. Someone pulled off to the side of the road to speak with him and video taped the man, and he wasn’t lying. This guy has an incredible voice!

Apparently the Cleveland Cavaliers took notice after the Columbus Dispatch featured the man in the paper they and offered him a job and a house. Williams was on a local radio station, WNCI exclaiming “The Cleveland Cavaliers just offered me a full-time job and a house! A house! A house!”

He also added “I’ve been out there about a year; I just didn’t know anything like this would ever happen. There’s so many words. I’ve already been compared to Susan Boyle. I’m just so happy.”

It’s unclear what position the Cavaliers have offered Williams, but it is an incredible story of redemption after Williams threw his career away years ago admittedly due to drugs and alcohol.

“Just to get back to some normalcy and responsibility.. If I can get a job, whether it’s a $25,000 or even $18,000, I’d be happy. At least I know God has me where he wants me.”

Here is the video… it’s pretty incredible how this all went down.

Continue Reading

By now, everyone knows the LeBron James has decided to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat.  As a lifelong Cavs’ fan, I am stunned, disappointed and even a bit angry.  Don’t get me wrong, I left Cleveland 15 years ago so it would be hypocritical for me to begrudge him for leaving (for the record, I didn’t have a 1 hour show on ESPN to announce my decision).  It’s just the way he left.  Not having the class to tell the Cavs that he wasn’t going to sign with them, announcing his decision to leave the city that show him unconditional love and support on national television and leaving the Cavs no time to sign other big name free agents.

So I guess I’ll cope with this setback the way I often do, humor (or an attempt at such).

Let’s take a look at what LeBron’s employment background check might look like the next time he looks for a job:

Criminal Background Check: Guilty of Stealing the Hearts of the entire city of Cleveland

Motor Vehicle Record: Speeding out of town

Employment Verification: Check out Cavaliers’ owner Dan Gilbert’s reaction. Do we think he would offer a glowing reference:

Dear Cleveland, All Of Northeast Ohio and Cleveland Cavaliers Supporters Wherever You May Be Tonight;

As you now know, our former hero, who grew up in the very region that he deserted this evening, is no longer a Cleveland Cavalier.

This was announced with a several day, narcissistic, self-promotional build-up culminating with a national TV special of his “decision” unlike anything ever “witnessed” in the history of sports and probably the history of entertainment.

Clearly, this is bitterly disappointing to all of us.

The good news is that the ownership team and the rest of the hard-working, loyal, and driven staff over here at your hometown Cavaliers have not betrayed you nor NEVER will betray you.

There is so much more to tell you about the events of the recent past and our more than exciting future. Over the next several days and weeks, we will be communicating much of that to you.

You simply don’t deserve this kind of cowardly betrayal.

You have given so much and deserve so much more.

In the meantime, I want to make one statement to you tonight:

“I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT THE CLEVELAND CAVALIERS WILL WIN AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP BEFORE THE SELF-TITLED FORMER ‘KING’ WINS ONE”

You can take it to the bank.

If you thought we were motivated before tonight to bring the hardware to Cleveland, I can tell you that this shameful display of selfishness and betrayal by one of our very own has shifted our “motivation” to previously unknown and previously never experienced levels.

Some people think they should go to heaven but NOT have to die to get there.

Sorry, but that’s simply not how it works.

This shocking act of disloyalty from our home grown “chosen one” sends the exact opposite lesson of what we would want our children to learn. And “who” we would want them to grow-up to become.

But the good news is that this heartless and callous action can only serve as the antidote to the so-called “curse” on Cleveland, Ohio.

The self-declared former “King” will be taking the “curse” with him down south. And until he does “right” by Cleveland and Ohio, James (and the town where he plays) will unfortunately own this dreaded spell and bad karma.

Just watch.
Sleep well, Cleveland.

Tomorrow is a new and much brighter day….

I PROMISE you that our energy, focus, capital, knowledge and experience will be directed at one thing and one thing only:

DELIVERING YOU the championship you have long deserved and is long overdue….

Dan Gilbert
Majority Owner
Cleveland Cavaliers

So long LeBron.  Enjoy the Hurricanes!

Continue Reading