Once upon a time, a college degree was a ticket to success.  If you had a diploma, a sheepskin, if you will, you could easily find a job.  You would make more money.  You were almost guaranteed a promising start to a career.  Not so much anymore.

An article in the Huffington Post points out that if you are a college graduate and lose your job you may be in the same dire straits as an employee with a mere high school diploma.  In short, all that money for school, all those student loans, and you still may be home living with your parents with the big event of the day being your mother’s grilled cheese sandwich.

Given that most employers like to hire candidates that already have a job, the market it even tougher.  The longer you are out of work, the tougher it is to find a job.  Which is why I guess I notice sales clerks at department stores, and others who look bored working menial jobs, appearing far too skilled for that job.   Sometimes I ask what they did before.  I hear everything from school teacher to engineer.  And, of course, this being Hollywood, some were formerly in show business, which has encountered its own particular share of downsizing.

Consider that a full thirty five percent of unemployed college graduates, including those with advanced degrees, have been out of work for over a year.   That is the same approximate percentage as those unemployed workers with high school diplomas.

Welcome to the modern world.

So, as I remember, parents and everyone telling us how that college diploma was the ticket to prosperity.  Now it may only entitle you to food stamps.

Welcome to the modern world.

Criminal records background checks are not a one size fits all.   While most employers do conduct criminal background checks as part of their employment screening program, the idea is to use them wisely.  Wisely, in this case, means don’t be indiscriminate to where you can get yourself in trouble with the  Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).   Pepsi Beverages just found its blanket policy, regarding criminal records background checks, cost them a hefty $3.1 Million in settlement fines.

According to the more recent regulations implemented by the EEOC, a candidate’s criminal convictions must reflect some relevance to the job for which the candidate is applying.  According to the general EEOC guidelines, and I am simplifying, it may not be relevant for a candidate applying for a position in the motor pool, if he was convicted of a non-violent crime.  But a job applicant convicted of financial fraud wouldn’t be eligible for a position in the financial department.

A blanket policy that excludes everyone convicted of a crime is not considered a warranted employment policy.   And, worse, if the applicant was merely arrested or charged, but never convicted, the EEOC has ruled that excluding that candidate from consideration can be discriminatory.    The contention is that many of those with convictions are racial minorities, and therefore such a blanket policy can prove discriminatory.   There is also the matter of the age of the crime, how long ago someone was convicted.  Then consideration should be given for the severity of the crime.

In the recent case where the EEOC sued Pepsico, the article in the Associated Press reports….”

“EEOC officials said the company’s policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants. The policy barred applicants who had been arrested, but not convicted of a crime, and denied employment to others who were convicted of minor offenses.

Using arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal if it’s irrelevant for the job, according to the EEOC, which enforces the nation’s employment discrimination laws. The agency says such blanket policies can limit job opportunities for minorities with higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.”

This is an imperfect world and there will always be discrimination of some kind.  The trick is to limit that discrimination as best as we humanly can.  And then, sometimes there is overcompensation and the results may appear unfair to the employer.  In all, hiring employees with criminal convictions can best be viewed like a work in progress.  And like all works in progress, we can expect any number of changes.

According to a survey published on the Staffing Industry Analysts website, employers will be hiring more contingent or temporary employees.  The report notes that the estimate is a 26% increase in contingent workers over last year.   Not bad, although contingent workers tend to get paid less than staff employees.   Also, seldom are contingent workers entitled to the same benefits as staff workers.   So essentially, it’s a new way in a down economy to cut labor costs, especially for seasonal work or the kind of job that doesn’t require ongoing presence.

Most of the temporary hires will come through the restaurant, hospitality, or retail sectors.  That should be of no surprise to anyone.

For those employers hiring contingent or temporary workers, you may want to conduct background checks.   The basic employment screening package for temporary hires usually consists of the Social Security Trace, the Nationwide Criminal Database Search, and possibly the predominant county where the applicant is residing.  If the applicant is driving, then Motor Vehicle Driving Records (MVRS) may be  in order.

The survey was culled from 236 contingent buyers and form 187 of the larger companies that collectively hire more than a million employees.

Workplace bullying can manifest in a variety of ways.   A recent article on CNBC describes how bullies will manipulate situations in order to make their employees  look inferior or inept.   The article cites how many employers do not even become aware of bullying conditions in the workplace until departing employees list their complaints at the exit interview.

When thirty-five percent of the American workforce, some 54 million, in all, admit to experiences where they are bullied in the workplace, then the conditions are more pressing than most will admit.  In a larger company, the bullies interact with fewer people and can go unnoticed for longer periods of time.  In a smaller company, of course, a bully can touch upon everyone.   It doesn’t take all that long for the staff to realize they have a jerk in their midst.

Close of t seventy percent of the bullying is gender harassment.  Surprisingly, or not, female bullies target female employees. Most bullying practices are not so much physical aggression as psychological.  Verbal abuse plays a large part of it.

The article reports a 2010 survey from Zogby International….”According to the Zogby survey, 45 percent of those who have been bullied at work say they suffer stress-related health problems, including panic attacks, clinical depression, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress. And they use paid time off frequently for “mental health breaks,” creating a heightened burden for smaller companies that need all hands on deck.”

I am old school.  I believe in dealing with bullies in general, the best solution is to kick their butts so they realize it is best not to bully people.   Over the years, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, in general that seems to get the job done.

However, not everyone can fight a bully on the bully’s own terms.  Especially in terms of the workplace.  You can’t go scuffling out in the parking lot.  It may be entertaining for a moment, but it does tend to freak people out.  Plus there are the liability concerns.   So even if the entire office staff gangs up on the bully, while it may be justified, and it may get you a whole lot of satisfaction, it is just not done so much in this modern age of ours.

According to an article on WEAU.com, there are tips on dealing with workplace bullies.  As workplace bullies can be deleterious to your business, rapid dispatch is highly recommended.  I have written about workplace bullies before.  One such article was Background Checks May Weed Out Bullies in the Workplace.  I have been interviewed about workplace violence and the bullies that go with it.   Still, a bully is of a certain makeup, and dealing with it takes more than mere advice.

According to the article, this is something to think about…”If you’re in a workplace culture where bullying or negative behavior is just how they operate, it’s very difficult to change that and at that point it’s like do you want to stay here and try and fight a battle you probably won’t put a dent in or do you just want to leave the organization,” she says.  ’”Marshall says a shocking 70 percent of bullies are bosses, and that’s what makes reporting bullying such a tough issue for victims.”

Bullying bosses are tough to deal with.   Bully bosses can be also known as jerks.  There are few other terms I would apply to define them, but civil decorum prevents me from doing so.   However, for those employers who are concerned about workplace bullying, I refer you to the Workplace Bullying Institute where you may find tips on how best to deal with the bullies in your office.

There are a number of employers who rely almost solely on criminal database searches as background checks for their employment screening services.  This is not a great idea.   There are definite advantages to database searches, as they can provide  employers with a quick review of their candidates.    In general, criminal database searches return instantly, which allows the employer to examine any potential criminal records and decide whether to move forward with additional background checks or whether they deem the candidate ineligible for hire.    In a tough economy, the initial criminal database search can be hold down the additional costs of further pre-employment screening.

If you are a manufacturer and you are hiring people in mass to load trucks or perform menial work, the criminal database provides you with a quick review of your job applicants.   Most laborers don’t want to stick around and wait for an extended criminal records to come back.  If you don’t hire them quickly, they tend to move off and find a job elsewhere.  So in that respect, the criminal database search gives quick results and enables the employer to make a timely decision.

We have several clients who hire actors and such–this is Hollywood, after all– to work weekends as waiters and bartenders, valets, and what not, for corporate and private parties and gala events.   It is usually the last minute until the candidates are  actually recruited, interviewed, and, finally, vetted.   There is really no time in these situations to wait the days for the country criminal records to turnaround.   So the recruiter runs the nationwide criminal database search and makes sure the job recruit is neither a sex offender, stalker, or has committed any serious crimes.   Once cleared, the recruiter assigns them to the venue.    So where speed in hiring is of the essence, it is often necessary to go with what you can.

Most criminal database searches will report the sex offender registry as well as felonies and misdemeanors in most states.  Often the OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) reports to the database searches.  This search  is the excluded party database and can indicate whether your employment candidate is on the various watch lists and his prohibited from working or doing business in the United States.

But criminal databases are fraught with difficulties.  As each state reports to a database at its own discretion, results form each state will vary.  Some states are more comprehensive when reporting records than others.  Virginia, for example will report almost everything, including traffic records.  West Virginia reports only the sex offender registry.  Some states are quite comprehensive and  report the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Administration Office of the Courts, while other states report one of the other, usually from the Department of Corrections.  With certain states, different counties will report criminal records as well as the reports from the DOC or AOC.  Some states, like California, only the counties report and not the overriding agency.

Often databases aren’t current.  The records are not updated.  Either the state fails to supply the updated criminal records information, or the database vendor is remiss in addressing the currency.   One can find a felony listed in the the database record that has been reduced to a misdemeanor.  Or there are times when the sentence was deferred until the defendant fulfilled certain obligations.  This has not been reported to the databases.   There is also the issue of expungement.  The database still shows criminal records, while research at  the county courthouse level will not produce any records at all.  (Often you may find these discrepancies with State Criminal Non-Database Searches, which are put out by the Highway Patrol, Department of Public Safety, State Police, whatever the agency.   With the economic downturn and states being broke, criminal records updates aren’t what they should be.)

Employers are best advised to utilize criminal database searches as a supplementary background check.  To assure greater accuracy, employers should rely on either the state criminal non-database searches, or more importantly the county criminal searches.  County criminal records background checks are always the most accurate, especially when they are pulled by hand from the county courthouse.  Some counties throughout the United States provide Internet and portal access, but sometimes there are discrepancies.  We have found where case numbers do not belong to that particular person of a common name.  We have found where the case numbers are not case numbers at all and don’t even follow the proper format.

For practical reason and for legal reasons, the FCRA included, it is highly advisable to conduct county criminal records.   At the very list when hits or criminal records are found on the database  searches and are within the parameters of state and FCRA considerations, the employer is wise to order those county criminal records to verify the veracity and currency of those particular records.   Let’s face it, employment screening is a double edged sword.  You probably don’t wish to  hire someone who can pose a danger to your business.  But then you don’t want to deny a job applicant based on inaccurate criminal records.

As noted earlier, we have clients who in order to watch their bucks conduct the nationwide criminal records database search to ascertain an overview of their employment candidate.  Based on that initial report, they will move forward, searching the counties and states where the applicant resided during the past seven years or so, and verifying any criminal records that appeared in the database search.   And then in many cases, such as federal contractors and various compliance cases, the contracting party or government mandates the nationwide criminal database search as well as other criminal records as part of their compliance program for individuals hired for a contracted project.

So there are any number of reasons to order the criminal records database search.  Just don’t view it as a stand alone instrument.   It could cause problems.

A reminder to all employers that there will be modifications to Californian Employment Laws.  The new laws go into effect the first of the year.

Corra Group urges all California employers that before conducting background checks for employment screening purposes, please red the new laws very carefully.   This is especially true for California employers considering employment credit reports as background checks.

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE UPDATES   NEW LAWS EFFECTIVE 01/01/2012

LIMITATIONS ON CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS REGARDING CREDIT REPORTS

Bill AB 22 prohibits an employer or prospective employer from using a consumer credit report for employment purposes, unless the position of the person for whom the report is sought is any of the following:

A managerial position

A position in the state Department of Justice   A position as a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement job   A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained   A position that involves regular access to the bank or credit card information, social security number, and date of birth of any one person other than for the routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment   A position in which the person, is, or would be, a named signatory on the bank or credit card account of the employer   A position in which the person is or would be authorized, on behalf of the employer, to transfer money or enter into financial contracts   A position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information, including trade secrets   A position that involves regular access to cash totaling $10,000 or more during the workday

This new law also requires that prior written notification be given to the employee or prospective employee identifying the specific basis for use of the report pursuant to these provisions.

Corra Group recommends incorporating the reason for ordering a credit report into the release form signed by an applicant (a sample release is available upon request for your convenience). Should the reason for ordering a credit report vary on a case by case basis, a separate notification would appear more appropriate.

EMPLOYERS MUST TELL APPLICANTS WHERE TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY S PRIVACY PRACTICES

Under CA Civil Code Section 1786.16 (a) (2) (B) (vi), the release signed by an applicant should notify a consumer of the Internet Web site address of the Consumer Reporting Agency or, if the agency has no Internet Web site address, the telephone number of the agency, where the consumer may find information about the investigative reporting agency s privacy practices, including whether the consumer s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories.

California Civil Code Section 1786.20 (d) (1) states that a CRA must post on its Internet web site a statement entitled  Personal Information

Disclosure: United States or Overseas  that indicates whether the personal information will be transferred to third parties outside the US or its territories. There must be a separate section that includes the name, mailing address, email address and telephone number of the CRA representatives who can assist a consumer with additional information regarding the investigative CRA s privacy practices or policies in the event of a compromise of his or her information.

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE UPDATES   NEW LAWS EFFECTIVE 01/01/2012

LIMITATIONS ON CALIFORNIA EMPLOYERS REGARDING CREDIT REPORTS

Bill AB 22 prohibits an employer or prospective employer from using a consumer credit report for employment purposes, unless the position of the person for whom the report is sought is any of the following:

A managerial position

A position in the state Department of Justice   A position as a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement job   A position for which the information contained in the report is required by law to be disclosed or obtained   A position that involves regular access to the bank or credit card information, social security number, and date of birth of any one person other than for the routine solicitation and processing of credit card applications in a retail establishment   A position in which the person, is, or would be, a named signatory on the bank or credit card account of the employer   A position in which the person is or would be authorized, on behalf of the employer, to transfer money or enter into financial contracts   A position that involves access to confidential or proprietary information, including trade secrets   A position that involves regular access to cash totaling $10,000 or more during the workday

This new law also requires that prior written notification be given to the employee or prospective employee identifying the specific basis for use of the report pursuant to these provisions.

Corra Group recommends incorporating the reason for ordering a credit report into the release form signed by an applicant (a sample release is available upon request for your convenience). Should the reason for ordering a credit report vary on a case by case basis, a separate notification would appear more appropriate.

EMPLOYERS MUST TELL APPLICANTS WHERE TO FIND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCY S PRIVACY PRACTICES

Under CA Civil Code Section 1786.16 (a) (2) (B) (vi), the release signed by an applicant should notify a consumer of the Internet Web site address of the Consumer Reporting Agency or, if the agency has no Internet Web site address, the telephone number of the agency, where the consumer may find information about the investigative reporting agency s privacy practices, including whether the consumer s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories.

California Civil Code Section 1786.20 (d) (1) states that a CRA must post on its Internet web site a statement entitled  Personal Information

Disclosure: United States or Overseas  that indicates whether the personal information will be transferred to third parties outside the US or its territories. There must be a separate section that includes the name, mailing address, email address and telephone number of the CRA representatives who can assist a consumer with additional information regarding the investigative CRA s privacy practices or policies in the event of a compromise of his or her information.

In some ways avoiding the kind of  abusive and criminal sex practices that have been plaguing Penn State University is a fairly easy task.  It is a matter of conducting background checks not only for pre-employment screening but periodically to determine if your staff has been convicted of any criminal and sexual offenses.  But then what about the first timers?  Or, rather, those who were never caught?

Determining whether sex abuses are taking place, particularly in the employment environment is not always an easy task.  If you find candidates or employees on the sex offenders registry, then it’s the employer’s call to make.  But when nothing seems apparent, it becomes perhaps a matter on observing behavior patterns or establishing within your employment organization hotlines and clear channels of communication where other employees can report sexual transgressions or any other criminal malfeasance.

You don’t want your employees to serve as snitches.  And in determining certain behavior characteristics, you certainly don’t want to rush to judgment.   Before accusing an employee of sex offenses you have to be really sure of the evidence.   Evidence of this sort is gathered over time.  But the basis of that information is often tips provided by fellow employees.   Fellow employees are often disturbed by illegal behavior, but unless there is a clearly outlined system for reporting abuses, most will remain silent.  As a result employee morale tends to suffer and there is much consternation that justice is not being served.

The Penn State sex scandal comes to mind because it is very much in the news and renders this subject open for discussion.   It is also a despicable act and the fact sex abuse was allowed to go on for so long makes it that much more reprehensible.   Add to it all that the suspected offender was using a children’s non-profit group to go trawling for his victims elevates factors concerning the premeditation and the elaborate scheming to ruin children’s lives for one’s own personal pleasure.

There is the issue at Penn State that certain staff members witnessed the illegal sexual activity and did nothing about it, or half-heartedly reported it to the school hierarchy without insisting it be investigated further.  In some states, like California, the fact that certain staff members failed to report it to law enforcement authorities makes them potentially criminally liable.  In Pennsylvania, as the law is described, this would not necessarily be the case.  So it is.    But, clearly mentioning it to the school hierarchy failed to inspire the kind of investigation necessary.   The suspect was allowed to continue raping and committing sex acts with underage children with relative impunity.

Now all this is bad enough.  But over dinner the other night, a friend and sports jock well into his middle age, told us that he heard talk about sexual improprieties.  While he played sports at Penn State and was somewhat affiliated still with its sports program, he hadn’t been on the campus for dozens of years.  Yet, he heard talk.  So if the whispers were loud enough to reach California, then most probably more than the few who came forward had heard talk at State College, PA, where Penn State is located.

So, again, it is a matter of establishing clear communications channels for reporting malfeasance in the workplace.  Reporting criminal offenses this severe, especially, should be encouraged.  The policy and procedure for reporting such offenses should be clearly outlined in the employee manual.     Before your place of business suffers the consequences of Penn State’s incompetent approach to this matter, get out in front of the problem.

As a background checking service, we can offer insight how hiring and continuing to employee sex offenders can be deleterious to the workforce.  Not only does office morale tend to drop, but fellow employees can become fixated on the issue.  If the employer doesn’t take action, then certain employees feel that they should take it upon themselves.  I guess this was definitely not the case in relation to the staff at Penn State.  And for that, the school will pay the price.

For Penn State, this is something that will not go away anytime soon.  As a result of this case, parents may prevent their children from going to the school.  This can result in a possible brain drain and a loss of revenue. For a university that prides itself on its sports program, especially football, recruitment may decline.  Donations from alumni and others may also diminish.  And the staff in place most live with the fact their silence resulted in the ruining the lives of dozens of kids.

I would venture this is tragic.  But more than tragic, this is too disgusting to dwell on its tragedy.   This episode could have been prevented.  But clearly, the athletic staff, especially, may have had their thoughts on other priorities.   Perhaps it was the code of protecting one of their own.  Even if he turns out to be a pervert.   Just grand.

Here is encouraging news.  Despite the economic downturn, ethical behavior in the workplace has not declined.  In fact, it may have even improved.    In a sense it could be said that hard times bring out the better nature in workers.  Maybe it’s the shared uncertainty and economic adversity, coupled with the need for commiseration.  It’s hard to say.

But according to an article by Dennis O’Reilly on CNET.com, “Forty-nine percent of respondents to the 2009 survey witnessed some form of unethical behavior at work in the prior 12 months, down from 56 percent of respondents to the 2007 ERC survey. It’s not surprising that misuse of company resources was the most common act, reported by 23 percent of the respondents.”

Those who did witness unethical behavior or reporting it more frequently.   The number of employees who observed unethical behavior and reported it increased by some eight percent.

Unethical behavior includes, email and Internet abuse, abusive behavior toward co-workers,  lying to employees,  conflicts of interest, and racial and sexual discrimination.

In our ongoing  efforts to update our website, we have recently added a new page for Iowa Motor Vehicle Driving Records or MVRs.    MVRs are an important background check for employment screening.  This is not just for the trucking and transportation industry, but all business sectors.

As we conduct a substantial amount of MVR background tracks we try to keep our clients as informed as possible.  Most state Departments of Transportation are making adjustments to compliance issues, increasing fees, or otherwise attempting to update and upgrade their systems.