EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

The debate about the use of social networking sites as an acceptable means for evaluating potential employees continues to grow. We remain opposed to this practice, but rather than write volumes on why we reject it, thought it made sense to provide a quick illustration.

Amy Polumbo was recently crowned Ms. New Jersey and seeks to become Miss America. As most young adults do, she posted non-pornographic pictures of herself with her friends on her private Facebook site. Yes, some were a bit risque, but overall they were benign pictures of a college aged woman having fun with her friends. Someone has gained access to these photos and threatened to blackmail her with them. Rather than give in, she decided to release them herself as you will see in her interview with Matt Lauer from the Today Show.

No, she wasn’t being considered for a job, but one person putting their own spin on these photos and attempting to portray Polumbo in a negative light threatened her ability to attain the position of Ms. America. It’s easy to draw a correlation to how such a thing can happen in the employment environment. It doesn’t even have to be a blackmail situation. All it takes is an Internet savvy individual browsing a social networking site and then whatever is found can be interpreted in many different ways.

Continue Reading

Who’s guarding the guards.  According to this article written by the Associated Press and posted on Yahoo private security guards charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks are both underpaid and not properly vetted.  Setting aside the pay scale, let’s address the concerns with background checks.  Yes, it is of major concern that these guards are not undergoing a thorough and effective check before they are charged with protecting us.  And yes, there should be regulations for doing so.  However, has anyone noticed that when the government starts to regulate in this area, they fall far short of the intended goal?  If you are going to regulate, then put some teeth behind the effort and require not just a background check, but a stringent background check that doesn’t involve an internet search at cheapinstantbackgroundchecks.com (made up company).  To do anything short of this is to create a false sense of security.

While I do agree with the premise that background checks should be performed, I have some concerns with the author of this article for the implication that "criminal records" should disqualify those seeking employment.  This is a slippery slope for any employer and an unfair practice.  Each record should be evaluated on its own merit or lack thereof and then considered for how the past transgression would impact the applicant’s ability to perform well with integrity.

Bottomline, there is no excuse for employing a security guard without executing a thorough and effective background check.  Without it you must ask "who’s guarding the henhouse". 

Continue Reading

Home Depot Rescreens Workers Sent into Homes.  This story posted by WCVB in Boston chronicles another instance where an inexpensive database search ended up costing a national organization far more than they anticipated.  Bottom-line, whatever short cuts they were taking in the background screening process didn’t reveal that they were hiring a violent sex offender and placing him in people’s homes.  Thankfully, no one was hurt, but if Home Depot had to do it all over again I’m guessing they would have spent the money to do a proper background check rather than trying to rebuild its image in a major US city.

Continue Reading