John Zappe on ERE.Net wrote an interesting article, entitled  Consumer Confidence Improves But Job Numbers are Hard to Predict.   Are they ever?   Depending on who you talk to, where they live,the prognosis for the job market various widely.   It may stink in California and Nevada but show signs of life in the Houston and Atlanta.   Some of the Mid-West and Plains States have companies are hiring, but some of the more traditional industrial areas are having their troubles.

As Zappe writes, indicators are that for August 110,000 jobs were lost, but most of them through the continued layoff of Census Workers.  I July, some 71,000 private sector jobs were created.  I think this is the job sector that counts the most.   Zappe points to the ADP National Employment Report.  The Report is usually more conservative than the government’s and usually reports lower job figures.

Here is the synopsis of the ADP National Employment Report for August–The ADP National Employment Report

August 2010 Report

“Private sector employment decreased by 10,000 from July to August on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the latest ADP National Employment Report® released today. The estimated change of employment from June to July was revised down slightly, from the previously reported increase of 42,000 to an increase of 37,000. The decline in private employment in August confirms a pause in the recovery already evident in other economic data. The deceleration in employment was evident in the major sectors and by size of business. This month’s decline in employment followed six monthly increases from February through July. Over those six months the average monthly gain in employment was 37,000 with no evidence of acceleration.”

In the shorthand, the report indicates that the economic recovery may be slowing down.  Maybe.  But again there are sections of the country where factories are up and recruiting if not brisk is steady.   As for small businesses who are having trouble borrowing money to hire new workers and to upgrade equipment and such, it would be nice if someone could make available some funding.  It would be nice to see the small businesses of America hiring people again.   That more than anything would go a long way toward an economic recovery.

Here are Corra Group, as we conduct background checks for various businesses throughout the United States, we see companies are hiring.   While some of our clients are still pretty quiet, there are others who are moving forward and have intensive recruiting campaigns in operation.  In some cases there are companies who have been making do with skeleton staffs in order to survive, and now with their employees exhausted the employers see it as necessary to bring in additional staff.

Zappe points out that the job sites are posting more jobs that are available.  That should signify something.   But for now it is tough to say what is really going on.   If there is any conclusion that borders on the absolute…it is that there is at this time no real accurate way to predict which way the job market is going.   Everyday is a new adventure.e  Employers hope to survive, and employees hope to keep their jobs.  Or find one.

Apparently, American health care companies are not the only ones besieged with issues concerning employment hires who have somehow slipped through the cracks on their background checks.   A Canadian Hospital in Ottawa may have inadvertently hired an X-Ray Technician who may have been involved in a homegrown terrorist plot.

According to an article by Meagan Fitzpatrick, in  Politics and the Nation,  the Ottawa Hospital mandates that employment undergo criminal background checks at the applicant’s own expense.  The candidate is then offered the job on a conditional bias, pending the return of their background check.  Should it come back with criminal records,  the hospital is then required to determine the suitability of the hire.   Additionally, the Press Release put out by the hospital says,  ”Employees and volunteers who fail to advise their supervisor of any change that could negatively impact their criminal record are subject to dismissal from the hospital.”

Seems clear enough.  But as Fitzgerald attests in her article,  she is, “Pretty sure the charge of conspiracy to facilitate terrorist activity counts as a negative impact.”

I would agree.  So then where was the oversight?  Was it in the actual background check where no charges or criminal records were reported?  Or was it with a staffer or volunteer worker who  failed to review or somehow  overlooked this little glitch in the X-Ray Technician’s history?  And if so, was the oversight accidental or deliberate?    Hard to say.   But I am sure we will hear more on this.

Motor Vehicle Driving Records, or MVRs, are a key part of any pre-employment background check.  For trucking and transportation firms the driving records searches are must be conducted on every commercial drive at least once within a twelve month period.    Failure to conduct MVRs on a  regular basis can result in failure to meet compliance with the Department of Transportation or DOT.   This can result in fines and suspension of a business license.

Because the MVR background check is such an important component of the employment screening world and trucking industry, we at Corra Group try to keep you as current as possible on all changes in the industry.   Usually, this means the Department of Motor Vehicles in one state or another has increased prices, as many are wont to do in order to offset budget constraints in a tough economy.

In this case Oklahoma is modifying its parameters.  Please be advised that effective immediately the Date of Birth is now a required parameter for all Oklahoma MVR requests.

Check them out before you hire.

Looking for work. According to an article in the New York Times, then maybe you should be looking in China.  At least if you are a CEO or a “C” level executive.   This move is considered a reflection on the Communist Party’s unhappiness with the performance of some of the larger companies in China.

According to the times article the ad was looking to recruit candidates  for 20 senior management jobs in industries ranging from nuclear power to automotive and textiles. While some of the positions were restricted to Chinese nationals,  some of the ads were designed to solicit foreign applicants.    Several required proficiency in foreign languages like English and French.

There were also recruitment ads for junior executives.  These postings were for positions in mining, communications, construction, nuclear power and shipping.   The advertisement stated that the candidates are expected to “serve the reform and development of the S.O.E.s,” or state-owned enterprises, according to the Times.

The Internet biosphere erupted with various comments, not all flattering.   There were remarks about nepotism and how it is prominent in Chinese industrial culture.

Is this a trend or merely an occasional recruiting campaign?   It is difficult to say at this point.

Corra Group will be closed Monday, September 6, 2010 in observance of the Labor Day holiday. We will return to normal operation on Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 8 a.m. Pacific  Time.

Many government agencies will also be closed for the national holiday. Minor delays may occur for some search results related to background checks, including county criminal records and civil records.

Corra Group would like to wish everyone a happy Labor Day Weekend.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Of all the background checks we conduct at Corra Group none are more controversial than the employment credit report.    I have posted on this a number of times, one such report was entitled,  Follow Up on Credit Background Checks, discussed the ongoing issues of a tough economy and the attempt to limit employer usage of credit reports as part of their preemployment screening program.

When I have posted such articles about the benefits and pitfalls, I have often received negative emails regarding the fact that no studies have ever been conducted where poor  employee credit reports indicate whether or not an employee will have a propensity to steal.  Others claim it is unfair to pick on the less fortunate who have lost their jobs and suffered financial decline in the economic downturn.    some comments have excoriating us for promoting employment credit reports because we are only in it for the money.

Right now laws are being passed limited employer access to credit reports for job applicants.  Recently in Illinois, a new law was passed that was designed to limit employer use of credit reports to only those where the report would be relevant to the job itself.    Washington State, Hawaii, and Oregon, have similar laws on the books.   Here is a synopsis of the bill  known as IL-Public Act  96-1426, the Employee Credit Privacy Act.

“Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Employee Credit Privacy Act. Prohibits employers from inquiring about or using an employee’s or prospective employee’s credit history as a basis for employment, recruitment, discharge, or compensation with some exceptions. Prohibits an employer from retaliating or discriminating against a person who files a complaint under the Act, participates in an investigation, proceeding, or action concerning a violation of the Act, or opposes a violation of the Act. Contains provisions concerning waiver and remedies.”

However, IL-96-1426 does stipulate the following–

As an exception, the Act allows employers to use credit information where such information is related to a “bona fide occupational requirement” for a particular position or group of employees. The bona fide occupational qualification applies generally to those positions involving money-handling or other confidential job duties. For example, employers may use credit information for employees whose duties require bonding under state or federal law; have unsupervised access to cash or certain assets valued at $2500 or more; or involve access to confidential information, financial information, or trade secrets.

Okay, so now that we know that employers cannot use credit reports to discriminate against job applicants or employees, unless the credit report would somehow show relevance to the position itself, then there are obviously still a good many areas where the credit report would apply.  Any employee in the financial area, or anyone with access to sensitive data or proprietary information could be subjected to a credit report as part of the series of background checks being conducted on that candidate.   Those aware of corporate secrets, presumably in research and development or attached to special projects could be subjected to the credit report as part of their background check.    Employees with access to inventory, warhouse workers, truckers and such, it would seem would also be open to consideration.

So who really do these laws eliminate from the process?  There are some employees, surely.   There are stock people, clerks, perhaps, certain IT people, service and maintenance personnel.   Maybe I am mistaken here, but overall I can’t see where the law is very limiting.  Frankly, I believe this is a good thing.  Many employers have spoken to me, complaining that they have had to spend undesired time on the phone, talking to creditors trying to secure payments from loans in default or outstanding debt from different personnel.  There are the persistent phone calls where credits wish to garnish wages and the paperwork that entails.    Bookkeepers and payroll personnel must address issues of garnishment.

This is a very tough economy.   Employers must focus first on keeping their business afloat.  Otherwise, nobody will be working there, good credit, bad credit, or no credit.

These are demanding economic times for just about every business.   As such the focus must be on moving the business forward rather than addressing employee or job applicants’ financial troubles and lousy credit.   It is a shame that people are in dire straits and personal credit ratings, overall, have been reduced substantially.  Nevertheless, in this economy, especially, that is how it it.   No changing that around.

There is also the issue of an employer’s rights.   It is one thing where employer’s must be equal opportunity employers when it comes to such considerations as ethnic background, sexual preference, or gender.   It is one thing to perhaps not deny a handicapped worker a position.  But every employer is still welcome to make its hiring decisions on the merits of the employment candidate.

They will consider school sets, education history, what school the applicant attended, for what companies they worked for, previously.  Were the prestigious companies?  Did they go to the better schools?

These are all concerns for any employer.  Even one’s social networking profile is being considered as part of the preemployment screening program.  So what not credit?   What would make credit reports so special that they would show discrimination.

As for studies as to whether employees with bad credit  or have a greater propensity to steal, no there are not studies.   But then there are no studies for a great many things.  There are, however, common beliefs, which can even be referred to as common wisdom.  No one sees it as anything remarkable that employee theft has increased with the tougher economic times.  These are not people out of work, but working people who are stealing from the job.   So if in tough times employee theft is on the increase, there is a certain logic regarding bad credit, financial ruin and the increased probability of theft.    Maybe this is delusional, but a great many employers don’t seem to think so.   Which is why, among other reasons, they utilize employee credit reports as part of their background checking process.

As for what is and what isn’t salient where an employment credit report  can be ordered on a potential employee, I am sure this will eventually go through the courts.   It has to.  Someone will challenge it.   It’s the logical choice.