Month: April 2009

Categories
Background Checks Business Research Economy Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

Philly Offers Employers Money to Hire Ex-Cons

Suppose a city was giving out money and nobody showed up to claim it.   That is not exactly the case with Philadelphia’s new employment program.   But close enough.

According to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the City of Brotherly Love offered employers a $10,000 tax credit for three years for each former felon that employer hired.   This was an initiative to help reduce the crime rate in the city of my birth.  But…not takers.

There are some speed bumps with this initiative.   The first being the company that does the hiring will be publicly named.   Some employers balked at that.   The second, and probably the more significant, is that the employer would have had to pay the ex-offenders 150% of the minimum federal hourly wage,  which would be more than  than some companies pay their union workers.   They believe, and justly so, that it would be bad for morale and a dozen other things to pay union workers less than the ex-offenders.

The employers must pay out $2,000 in tuition support and vow to remain in Philadelphia for at least five years.   Other employers claimed they had considered the proposal but since they are laying off and not hiring, the tax credit initiative doesn’t come at the best of economic times.  If the economy turns around, some said they would consider hirin ex-offenders.

What will be interesting is how background checks will be conducted.   Surely there is no surprise the employment candidates will have criminal records.  But then what is the threshold for hiring?   There is a notable difference between hardened felons and someone with a misdemeanor or two.

I’m all ofr giving people a second chance.   The Philadelphia tax credit does show…well…initiative.   But when no one takes you up on getting a $10 thousand tax credit something is wrong with the proposal.  Maybe it is time to revise it and make it more attractive.   And then when the economy turns around, employers may go for the program

Check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks Business Research Economy Healthcare Employment Advice Human Resources Miscellany Personal Background Checks preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

Added Restrictions on Hiring Skilled Immigrants on H-1B’s

This is a tough call.   With the economy on the down slope and economic recovery not expected until sometime in 2010, at least, employees are faced with tighter restrictions on the hiring of immigrant workers requiring HB-1 Visas.  These visas are generally awarded to skilled workers, often in the engineering, technology and financial sectors.   In the past there have been more applications for the H-1B  than the quantity of visas extended.

There were 85,000 H-B1 Visas made available last year.   To qualify, an immigrant should demonstrate desirable skills and have graduated with no less than a bachelor’s degree.   Such prospective employees are desirable for their skill sets and education and have done much to support the American workforce during better times.

So now with the economy in the  doldrums employers are under pressure to hire American citizen first.  It had been argued by some that there is no shortage of American workers.   There are a plethora of American computer programmers seeking jobs.  There remains a need for heath care workers, pharmacy assistants, nurses, and such.

Somewhere, given the economy there will be a natural balance between skilled foreign workes and domestic employees.   The balance may find stasis far more easily than the unskilled and undocumented workers trying to find jobs in this recession.

Then there is the issue of fraud.   There are employers who have brought in foreign workers under misleading skill sets.    The application for the H-1B declares the foreign employment candidate is being considered for a more intensive position while in fact they are being hired for a much lesser job . As many of 20% of the applications are rife with fraudulent and misleading informaton.    Immigrant officials now claim they are keeping a more watchful eye on applicants for H-1B’s.  They have beefed up their fraud unit from a mere dozen officers in 2004 to more than 650 at present.

We suggest that the fraud units intensify background checks.  The background screening process should include the international education verification to be sure these applicants do in fact qualify under the H-1B proviso.

In all, this is always a tough question to address.  Who to let in?  Who to keep out?   The wrong choice can either flood the job market where those on H-1B’s typically arn $12,000 less income per year than domestic employees.   On the other hand, we can refuse admittance to some very talented people who in the long run may prove terrific assets to the American economy.

Categories
Background Checks Business Research Economy Miscellany preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

French Labor Trendsetting–Employees Favor Bossnapping

The french have always been trendsetters when it comes to fashioon and cuisine.   Anyone who has visited Paris detects a noticeable difference between the fashions statements of the French and Americans.   They have it down better.   French women can do more with a scarf than other women around the world can do with an entire wardrobe.

So now here is a new form of trendsetting.  Bossnapping.   Bossnapping is a term embraced by the media where the French employees lock up their bosses for days at a time in order to negotiate or coerce, you pick the term, better layoff packages from the company.    Basically, the boos becomes the workers’ hostage until better layoff terms are met.   Here, where we mostly do a lot of grousing and then seek some logic explanation for our economic decline, we can only shake our heads at such craziness.

But of the French polled, fifty percent said they disapproved, while 45 percent said they did approve such action.  When blue collar workers were asked, 56 percent of them were all for it.   Can the guillotine be far behind?

Bossnapping is but one more sign of how much anger there is to the alleged powers that be who most deem responsible for the economic downfall.  In the United States it is evidenced on a million blogs and then of course during the bonus offering at AIG.   People were more irate, it seemed over the $154 million for bonuses than they were over the entire economic collapse.  That’s becuase the bonus debacle represented a focal point for all the rage and hostility.   Still, we aren’t bossnapping.  Not year, anyway.

Will that happen here?   Have the French started a trend that will ultimately build momentum and carry acorss the pond?    It is doubtful.   We have little history of civil unrest with the exception of a few glaring instances.   The sixties come to mind.  and of course that little thing called the American Revolution.    But now when we anger it seems we take it out in a variety of ways other than civil unrest.  some of ar e constructive.  Others are not so much.   And we are slow to anger.  The thing is once that anger gets rolling and finds a voice,  few can match our own brand or social restiveness.

But for now, let’s hope this is one trend that started in France that doesn’t find fashion in America.   Rather than bossnapping, I think we can all settle instead for a godo french meal, or a a decent outfit.   That tastes better or looks better.   It makes more sense.

Categories
Background Checks Business Research Drug Screening Economy Healthcare Employment Advice Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

Drug Tests as Part of an Employers Preemployment Screening Process

Drug tests are increasingly becoming part of an employer’s preemployment screening suite of background checks.   While some employers are still reluctant to conduct background checks as part of the preemployment screening process, many more are faced with several conditions that mandate they do so.   For many, it is a fact of life whose time has come.
Mainly, larger corporations mandate drug testing to avoid the liability factors that accompany employees challenged by substance abuse on the job.  To short hand it, if a drunk or stoned employee acts up on the job, the company is liable for any injuries or damages.   The inebriated employee is more prone to violent outbursts and lack of judgment.   Every year they hurt people and even kill people, aside from the injuries they cause to themselves.
The inebriated employee lacks the necessary motor skills.  Amazingly, most will insist they are just fine and ready to go, living in the denial that resulted in substance abuse in the first place.  They can become obstreperous and unpredictable.   Their appearance often suffers.   Clients become suspicious.   Surely, their presence results in a drop in morale among the other, sober workers.
Small businesses who have been reluctant to conduct drug tests on their employment candidates, find they are being compelled to do so if they desire to enter contracts with large corporations.  Defense and security related industries, especially, but other multi-nationals issue to newly contracted businesses a list of background checks that any contracted employee must first pass before being allowed on the site.   Many contractors, from the painters to the IT Consultants will find their employees undergoing drug tests before being allowed to work onsite in hospitals or other healthcare environments.
If you own a small business and are informed you must have all your contract workers undergo background screening and drug tests, sI realize it can be confusing.  Since you are unfamiliar with the world of either drug tests or background searches, you should often ask for specifics..   It is best you request a list of background searches the contracting business is mandating    You should find out if the hiring business desires five or ten panel drug tests.   he ten panel, obviously, searches for more drugs during the specimen review.   In the case of most healthcare agencies, they will require the ten panel drug test.
Other companies, mainly trucking and transport companies, will need for their drivers to undergo Department of Transportation (DOT) compliance.   The DOT requires a ten panel drug test but with a split specimen.   Where the non-DOT reviews a single specimen, the DOT Drug Test entails the examination of two individual vials of urine.  Most trucking and transport companies are required to have their drivers undergo drug testing once a year.
Whether you are conducting drug tests for your own business or for compliance reasons with a larger firm with whom you just won a contract, you are wise in insisting your candidates undergo the drug test within three days of your request.  This keeps them honest, because they will need more time to get the illicit drugs out of their system.   With some drugs abstinence combined with flushing chemicals your candidate can buy at the local head shop may render negative results.   So remember, time is on their side.   Don’t give them too much of it.
Lastly, any drug collection service has a Medical Review Officer (MRO) to examine what may be false positives.  False positives are just that, when a legitimate drug mimics an illegitimate drug in the urine.     Some drug collection services charge extra for the MRO and some don’t.  Be sure to ask so there are no surprises.
With the economic downturn and liability costs being so dear, it should come as no surprise that more businesses are insisting their employment candidates undergo drug tests.   The sober candidate, as noted before, is less prone to erratic behavior, and less vulnerable to blackmail or employee theft of sensitive databases and proprietary information.   In a time when you need employees producing on all cylinders, the last thing you need in your office are those deluded by a higher calling.
Check them out before you hire.