Month: May 2010

I read an interesting article on News One about background checks and how they may discriminate against Black America.   In fact the article was entitled “Are Background Checks Keeping Black People Unemployed?”  It is an interesting question.  And to answer the question directly, there are definitely inaccuracies.  Sometimes the innocent person is burdened with criminal records that are those of someone with a similar name.   I remember one case where the two persons who had the same name lived a mere eight miles from each other.

However, inaccuracies and discrepancies can usually be  circumvented.  It takes patience and at times additional research.   When researching criminal background checks, the best means of positively identifying or clearing a candidate is with the four main identifiers.  First name middle name or initial, last name, and date of birth.     This helps to reduce the chances of mistakenly reporting employment candidates with common names as convicted criminals when they are not.   The four identifiers narrow down the probability.   But even in the case of county criminal records searches, which re the most accurate of all criminal background searches, sometimes it is a name only match, with no date of birth.  Sometimes there is no middle initial or middle name.

Sometimes even county records come back with name only matches.   Researchers may then look for additional identifiers, such as the address history of the employment candidate.   Matching up previous addresses, by pulling dockets or even  copies of the complain is sometimes necessary.   Running the social security trace will provide the address history of the employment applicant for at least the past seven years.

If the job applicant disputes this report, then the background checking service can order certification from the courts that the record is valid.  This is where the county clerk puts the county court seal on the records, certifying their accuracy.  Or in cases where the records have been legally expunged but for untold reasons are still on the books, the job applicant can provide the necessary documentation.

In the case of criminal database searches, an employer is mandated by the FCRA compliance codes to follow up and verify with a county criminal records search.  Databases are good for what they are, but information is limited, and there are discrepancies.   With some databases, there are background checking services that will send back every matching name.   I think this is not only unfair but wrong.   There are ways to filter out the probables and vet the records.   It just takes some time.     That is also why it may be necessary to pull criminal records directly from the courthouse.

I should note that employment candidates of all races have been unfairly rejected when background checks show data that is mistakenly attributed to the applicant.  As I noted earlier, employers and their background checking services should be willing to go the extra steps to help assure that no job applicant suffers a case of mistaken identity.

As most employers order county criminal records as part of their pre-employment screening background checks, we always try to keep you apprised of any changes in the courts around the country.   As most employers know the country criminal records is an essential background check, especially when the records are retrieved directly from the court house.   These are not only the most exacting of criminal records but will also show any pending criminal cases, where other background checks, such as the state criminal searches and various databases will not.

As most know, some of the count courthouses throughout the United States are experiencing budgetary constraints.   Some courts, such as California Superior Courts, have a furlough system, where the courts are closed the third Wednesday of every month.

Employers also find the need for County Civil  Records Searches.  This background checks will reveal any civil action against an employment candidate, including law suits and pending claims.

With this in mind, we are apprising you that both the Jackson and Jefferson County Civil Courts in Missouri will no longer assess court fees for records retrieval.  As of now, all previous court fees are no longer in force.

We would also like to inform you that the Merrimack District Court, in Merrimack, New Hampshire, Merrimack,  has been closed from the end of business on Friday, 5/14/10 until Monday, 5/24/10, while they move into new offices. The court has  not been processing requests during this period.

The Merrimack District Court is open as of tomorrow.

Check them out before you hire.

A good many employers now monitor social networks both to see what their current employees are up to and as a background check for their preemployment screening program.    Some job applicants and employees are aware of this fact and are a little more judicious about what they post on social networks.   Others don’t seem to care and post some eye opening  remarks about wild drinking bouts and club dates, boyfriends, and girlfriends.

And some post about their employers.   They write about their bosses, past and present.   Not a good idea.   Since many employers will review the social networks as a background check to see what you are saying about your past employers, grousing openly about your job and bad  mouthing fellow employees and mangers, can cause you to be turned down for a position.   Whether this is fair or unfair, that is a matter of opinion.   But regardless of one’s personal sentiments, in a tough job market and with employers background checking social networks, you are reducing the odd of finding employment.

In this one case,  as posted in Yahoo News, a waitress was fired from her current job.  Why?  Because she went onto Facebook and complained about customers who stayed too long at their table, kept her working overtime, and only left what she considered a meager tip.    Apparently, the restaurant where she works has a policy about not disparaging customers on the social networks or in anyway embarrassing the restaurant itself.

Now we all love our social networking.  We like to receive information, keep in touch, and even contact those people who just texted us a distant twenty minutes earlier.   We like to talk about our parties, our kids, our dinner plans.  And we love to break on our social networks, and we also love to complain.  It’s a natural thing to do.  Here is a forum, an outlet, so we want to make use of it.

But then our social networks are being monitored and used a background checks for preemployment screening.  I have blogged about this a number of times, including an article entitled,  Employment Background Checks and Social Networking.   So for those lookiing for jobs in a bad economy and a tight job  market, take heed.  I realize it may be  tough not to blurt out the first things that come to your mind, but then nobody is really paying you to be cute on Facebook.   What you may be paid for, besides educaitona nd skill sets, is to show a little discretion.  So, be cool.

Because employers will check you out before they hire.

This is an interesting proposition.  According to an article in The Memphis Commercial Appeal may stop asking employment candidates about their criminal pasts.   In other words, no background checks will be re3quired for job applicants.   This practice would follow that of San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago.  The idea is to encourage those with criminal pasts to apply for work and to allow for those who have rehabilitated themselves to become gainfully employed.

To me, the obvious question is what about the ones who have not necessarily rehabilitated themselves.   Or when temptation allows, convicted felons may return to thievery, violence, or sexual offenses.  All on the city time and payroll, of course.  According to the article, the applicant would be allowed to apply for employment.  If the applicant was then offered conditional employment, then the human resources division can run a background check to review the applicant’s criminal history.  The offer for employment can then be withdrawn.

It’s fair.  In a way.   But then so often, and there have been countless incidents in state, city, and public service agencies, where those responsible somehow fail to conduct the necessary background check.  Or they do conduct the background check but by that time everyone is onto something else and the returned background search never gets reviewed.

So what this new process really amounts to is the intent to do away with the box that asks if someone has had previous convictions.   Therefore, the applicant will be more comfortable applying for the job and can conceivably move up through the vetting process without the burden of a past criminal record to stifle or influence his candidacy.   Again, this is fair.

However, in many cases when a candidate is asked if he was ever convicted of a crime and does not check the box, the employer then has grounds to reject his candidacy.  The candidate was lying.  And the prevailing theory is that if a candidate lies on his application, then what would he not lie about once he is employed.   So in removing the box you are in one way giving the truly rehabilitated greater access to employment.  On the other hand, the city is eliminating an easy grounds for rejection based on the fact the candidate lied on his application.   The burden to reject a candidate is therefore that much more difficult.

Clearly, I am of two minds toward this new course of action.   I do believe people should be given a second chance and be able to find work.  On the other hand, without the proper scrutiny, there is a lapse in the preemployment screening process and then the hiring party is making headlines.   Too often we read headlines where an employee is caught in a crime or commits a sexual offense or act of violence, and then, only then, do we suddenly learn they have a previous criminal history.