Background Checks and their Projected Unfairness

One great controversy is how background checks can adversely effect minorities.   Although I may be imbued with sage-like wisdom, this is one challenge that I have no intention of solving here.   What I do find interesting is a recent Eve Tahmincioglu  article where for MSNBC.Com she writes  Background Checks Can Offer Bad History Lesson.

Tahmincioglu invokes the travails of three people who have several things in common.  They are out of work.  They belong to minority groups,.  And they were subject to background checks by prospective employers.   The writer cites that one person did have a record, but for the past  17 years he has been working as a counselor for the New York Department of Corrections.  Another employment candidate may have not been hired because her background check indicated a poor credit report.    The third candidate partook in a peaceful protest against an insurance company and feels this one act may have impacted her employment records.

Tahmincioglu writes the following–

“Many job applicants long have thought such background checks are unfair, yet they are growing in popularity thanks to technology making it easier to dig up dirt. But there is a growing backlash against the practice, including at least two major two lawsuits, and there are changes afoot at the state and national level.”

I agree with Tahmincioglu that the past histories of these candidates, according to their background checks may have caused employers to decide unfairly against hiring these candidates.  If her reporting is accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is not, then there may be some questions about compliance and legality regarding how far in the past can an employer regard historic background checks as being valid points of consideration.   These concerns can vary from state to state.

I would also note that background checks are only reports and not recommendations.   If the background checks are returned and they are accurate then this is merely information the employer can and will use to determine who is qualified for employment.    If the reports are accurate, then the employer isn’t accusing innocent parties of  criminal histories and other behavior that never really occurred.    If the background checks are inaccurate, then this is another matter, entirely.   But assuming the information is accurate in the background check, the employer may be biased in hiring persons with past criminal records or behavior the employer deems unfitting.  But essentially, barring all legal constraints, the employer may regard the background report at its own discretion and ultimately hire the employment candidate it believes is most qualified.

There are any number or reasons the employer may reject a job applicant.  In this very tough economy, employers in certain sectors often have a very large pool of talented employment candidates.   They will choose the individual who they best will believe is the most qualified for the job.   Some employers have told me, whenever possible they would rather not hire  applicants with bad credit history as they find themselves besieged by phone calls from various creditors, wishing to either contact the delinquent employee or garnish his wages.    For any employer, dealing with his own creditors may be bad enough in this challenging economic period, but dealing with his employee’s creditors may be a  a burden culminating into a matter of choice where time is best spent elsewhere.

Yes, the hiring process may be unfair.   And Tahmincioglu cites some exceptional cases.   By any means, not all situations are clear cut examples of laudatory redemption.   Because, when considering bias and coercion,  it is also unfair to discredit background checks.  Without background checks there is the markedly increased possibility that  employers may hire convicted felons, sex offenders and other less disagreeable applicants who may later  prove a danger to the workplace.

While background checks are no guarantee against workplace violence, they do assist in vetting out the potential problems.   With employee theft on the rise, and with workplace violence always a concern, it would seem illogical to prohibit employers to conduct adequate background checks.  Because it is the employer who ultimately must deal with his workers subjected to violence or the losses and destruction from employee theft.   It is the employer who must spend money for litigation and liability concerns, must contend with the public embarrassment of loss and injury, and with the knowledge someone was hurt on the job.

So, all compliance standards  notwithstanding,  denying the employer the right to decide who is the most fitting for the job, deprives the employer of its essential rights.  Simply put, the background check is only a report and as such it can be interpreted differently by different employers.   Different employers will view it within the perspective of conforming to the criterion of their hiring standards, or not.

It should be noted that when an employer does hire an employee with a questionable record,  and when that employee does hurt someone, commits sexual offenses, harassment, or steals, it is the employer who is questioned and criticized for its lackadaisical practices.   The employer is the one who pays the price.  Among the questions invariably asked on these occasions is–why didn’t the employer conduct background checks?  Why weren’t they reviewed carefully, and why was the employee not properly vetted?

Why indeed?

Background Checks for Those Who Work With the Vulnerable

Recently, more and more states and public service agencies have mandated background checks for those employees who work with the vulnerable.    The vulnerable may be regarded as the elderly,  youngsters, and those who are infirmed or physically or mentally impaired.   In fact, even the states and public service agencies who did order background checks despite economic constraints and budget cuts have for the most part expanded the level of the background checks they are now conducting.  Too many embarrassing situations where someone hired to assist the elderly or young made headlines as a ex offender, thief, or drug addict.   Not very good for public relations.

According to an article in ABC News,  Australia’ ACT Government is extending background checks for people working with the elderly and children.   In all, there is increasingly a concerted effort to protect our more vulnerable citizens.   I will be happy when every government and public service agency invokes stringent background checks on all public servants and health care workers as part of the general preemployment screening program.   Given the rash of ugly stories, it is about time.

Employee Background Checks May Help With Training Efforts

Here and there you get the story that is funny at the outset but upon further review it is no laughing matter.  As I am an author and was in show business for a fair number of years, I do know a thing or two about dark humor.   I also realize that dark or gallows humor is typically based on some grisly reality that we only laugh at the avoid some of the pain.

CNN reported the case where a security card was suspended from a Hollywood Department store for taking his job much too seriously.  What did he do?  Well, apparently a deaf customer walked out of the story with what might have been an article he hadn’t paid for.  At least the alarm went off, which indicates that the person did have in his possession good that were not accounted for by the cashier.   However, the suspected shoplifter, being deaf, didn’t hear the alarm.  He kept right on walking.

Until an overzealous guard tackled the suspected shoplifter and put him to the ground, applying a stranglehold.   The incident was captured by video cellphone.  The suspected shoplifter’s lawyer is threatening to sue Forever 21 for excessive force.   Now bear in mind that the suspected shoplifter, Alejandro Rea ,was convicted twice before on misdemeanor petty theft charges, in 2002 and 2008, according to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office said.  And now because he resisted, Rea faces he faces felony second-degree robbery.  His alleged violent resistance to the security guard and his prior arrest record apparently played a role in the more serious charge, the lawyer said.

So what a mess.   Now perhaps there is an issue of training here.  Perhaps before tapping the suspected shoplifter, the security guard could have tapped him on his shoulder to get his attention.   Perhaps it terms of the security guard or security forces in general, besides the usual background checks it is necessary to provide sensitivity training, aptitude and psychological testing and other reports that would help employers best determine how well their candidates are fit for the job.  Granted, most security guards are in law paying positions, and often they have maybe a high school diploma.  So it would make sense the additional training would be helpful if not necesssary.

Now the store faces possible litigation if Rea’s attorney does move forward with a lawsuit contending that the guard used excessive force that was disproportionate to any shoplifting issues.    The offset cost of one successful lawsuit may go a long way toward conducting additional background checks on job applicants, in terms of criminal records, psychological testing, and sensitivity training.   Otherwise, an incident like this makes for embarrassing headlines and the possibility that someone  in the melee could have caused another physical harm.

Like I said, it’s almost funny for a moment.  But in a situation like this, nobody wins in the end.  Check them out before you hire.

Background Checks and the Great Pizza Employee Theft Caper

Freddie Wehbe, owner of Gator Domino;s,  was  gutsy enough to be forthright about employees stealing from him.  As the owner of eight Domino Pizza Franchises for Wehbe it can be difficult on the best of days figuring out if employees are stealing from him, which ones, and how much they are taking from the till.

In this case, according to the article on Gainesville.Com, Wehbe declared that one employee has stolen $10,000, having figured out a way to manipulate the pizza inventory and the sales receipts.   In short,  the thieving employee  was skimming but apparently was original in the way he plotted it out.     As the economic downturn continues, this would not be the first person to engage in employee theft.   Stats for employee theft have been increasing as more financially pressed employees turn to desperate moves.

The FBI considers employee theft as the fastest growing crime in America. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners has determined that seven percent of a business’ gross sales revenue is lost to internal theft or shrinkage.  The typical business can average losses more of $9 a day per employee due to fraud and abuse.

As for Wehbe, his Gator Domino’s now mandates background checks and drug tests on every employee.  I would also suggest the Motor Vehicle Driving Records, or MVRs as the driving reports can be great indicators of substance abuse issues and desultory behavior.   With drug tests, an employer is vetting those job applicants with substance abuse issues. Drug Tests an an increasingly significant part of an preemployment screening program.   More employers are resorting to these just to see what trouble they may be putting into the workplace.  Substance abuse, besides the on-the-job safety risks,  can indicate poor production and possible workplace violence.

Criminal background checks are obvious in vetting out the thieves with prior convictions.  but not all workplace thieves have prior criminal records, so it is increasingly important to utilize other background checks for an overall preemployment screening program.   As Freddie Wehbe learned, check them out before you hire.