Month: August 2012

Categories
Background Checks Criminal Records Human Resources Miscellany Staffing Uncategorized

Penn State Implements Background Checking Policy

I guess this comes under the category of better late than never.  Although, in fairness to the University, sometimes even when you run background checks on job candidates, you can’t prevent them from discovering their own social and criminal flaws once they gain employment.

According to Security Director News….”Penn State University has implemented a new policy that requires current employees in “sensitive” areas, as well as all future final job candidates and third-party employees, to undergo criminal background checks.

The policy change comes in the wake of Jerry Sandusky’s recent conviction on charges that he sexually abused several children during his 30-year career as Penn State’s assistant football coach.”

The background checking policy will apply to all new job applicants and all current employees deemed to be in sensitive or critical positions who have access to different areas where serious security breaches may occur. Those who have access, keys, to different buildings or have access to controlled substances are some of those current employees who will be subjected to background checks.

Now, if negative information is returned through employment screening procedures, it’s imperative that officials must act upon it accordingly.   So we don’t see another Jerry Sandusky incident.

Categories
Background Checks Criminal Records preemployment screening Uncategorized

City Compliance and Workplace Violence

The City of Buffalo is struggling to comply with the Department of Labor Standards concerning workplace violence.   It should be noted Buffalo is not the only city trying to come into compliance with guidelines that will help prevent violence in the workplace.  As workplace violence is a growing concern, what with liability issues, terrible press and the horror of dealing with a violent situation, small wonder the Department of Labor is encouraging cities as well as private employers to implement better methods of prevention.

According to an article in the Buffalo News….”n a six-part citation, the department’s Public Employee Safety and Health Bureau finds that the city did not:

* Have a policy on workplace violence prevention, including a plan for employee training.

* Examine past incidents of workplace violence to see if there were patterns.

* Examine existing policies and the physical workplaces to see if they contribute to the risk of violent incidents and have a plan for how hazards will be addressed.

The state imposed a series of deadlines from May through August for the city to be in compliance with the law. So far, the city has met them and has not been fined, said Human Resources Commissioner Patricia P. Folts, who was appointed last September, succeeding Karla L. Thomas.

“It would be serious if they weren’t trying to comply with the law, but they are,” said Michael F. Drennen, who represents about 445 clerical and professional city employees as president of Local 650, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

As part of the state’s directive, the city is surveying employees, asking them where they think they could be at risk on the job.

Drennen noted that City Hall lacks metal detectors and security personnel, with few exceptions, and that many city employees deal with the public and other employees in what can be tense situations, with few, if any, safeguards for employees.”

Categories
Background Checks Criminal Records Economy Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

Did Workplace Bullying Lead to Suicides?

In a bad economy and a tight employment market, employees can’t adopt the old Johnny Paycheck song and tell the boss man to “Take This Job and Shove It.”  Tough to find another gig.  So the person with the job sometimes has to endure the the indignities thrown in his or her direction.   They can be harassed, physically and psychologically, or they may be forced to endure the invective of a manager or fellow worker who has long lost any sense or perspective.

I have written about workplace bullying.  One such article is entitled, Study Shows Workplace Violence on Federal Sites.   In all, no matter what study you read, whether you review domestic reports on workplace violence or reports from international concerns, it’s not a pretty picture.  Workers are wedged into their jobs and sometimes feel there is no escape.

Was this what happened at France Telecom.  According to a recent article in the Mail Guardian, the Chief  Executive of France Telecom may be responsible for workplace bullying.  At any rate, there has been a spate of suicides at France Telecom,  The Chief Executive has stepped down under pressure, after some 35 workers killed themselves.  According to the article, it was reported that the Chief Executive dealt with it perhaps less seriously than he should, referring to the workers taking their lives as a “suicide trend.”

According to the Mail Guardian…”Some workers left notes blaming unbearable work pressure, bullying and “management by terror” while scores of other staff, from senior technicians to staff who worked processing bills, were saved as they attempted to kill themselves. One worker was found unconscious after taking an overdose at her desk.

Unions complained of a culture of fear and depression, where managers did not take staff mental health seriously. Some union officials said the company had intentionally created a stressful work environment to push employees into quitting in order to reduce its labour force and thereby cut costs.”

Pretty messed up.  The investigation is ongoing.

Categories
Background Checks Economy Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Recruiting Staffing Uncategorized

The Times Editorial on Employment Screening Background Checks

Last week,  the New York Times ran an editorial regarding employment screening and how employment background checks are often inaccurate and cause otherwise innocent people their chances for employment.   The editorial requested that the supervising agencies get a tighter control around the CRA’s or Consumer Reporting Agencies.    Upon reading the editorial, more than a few recruiters and employers, to say nothing of Consumer Reporting Agencies,  had their proverbial bowels in a uproard.

According to the Times Editorial…”Background reports often list the same offense many times, making it appear as if the applicant has an extensive record. Worse still, companies sometimes fail to do the basic checking necessary to distinguish among different people who have the same name.

………..The federal government clearly needs to step in. It should require companies to be federally registered, outline standards for accuracy, make sure that job applicants have a reasonable time to respond to erroneous reports and seek monetary and other penalties from companies that flout the law.”

This is an excellent point.  But the Fair Credit Reporting Act already recommends standards.   For any criminal record found in a database search, both employer and CRA should order the country criminal records search to verify where the information on the database is accurate.  As databases are just that, databases, they are far from perfect instruments.  As such, all information should be carefully reviewed and then verified.  As the county criminal searches are the most accurate, it is incumbent to order the country criminal search and compare information.   If the county criminal records verify the information on the criminal database search then the employer has valid grounds to consider the criminal records.

But often records have been sealed or expunged.  If this is the case, then the CRA is not supposed to report any records and the employer should not consider records found on a database.  As well as records being expunged, sometimes the sentence has been reduced or the candidate as completed court ordered community services, detox programs, or anything else that would cause a reconsideration of the initial charges.  If the charges were dropped or the sentence reduced, this must be considered.

And most importantly, with common names, make sure that the records shown on the database can be legitimately confirmed that they belong to your candidate.  Often database searches will not reveal the date of birth or any identifiers that enable the employer to compare with its candidates.   Joe Brown can be your Joe Brown or one of five thousand “Joe Brown’s” with criminal records.   On one hand any employer wants to be aware of a candidate with criminal records.  But on the other hand, the employer does not want to accuse an innocent party.

Finally, the CRA must have researchers  who actually know how to read.  A dying art in some places as more schools, even college persist in sending out into the workforce hordes of functional illiterates.   Read and compare identifiers.  Is there a date of birth match, a middle name match?   Is there an address match?    Is the spelling correct?

Of course, it’s been our experience that certain recruiter and employers are content to just go with a criminal database search.  When reminded it’s incumbent upon them to conduct the county criminal search, some just shrug it off.   Be it budget consciousness or impatience to move on to the next candidate, recruiters and employers can pass over this vital aspect of background searches.   Simply put, most just don’t want to spend the money.

And that’s a mistake.  Bottom line, it’s a few bucks to verify database hits with county criminal records searches.  It’s money well spent that can prevent serious liability issues.