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.

Several times this week I was asked by clients how they can administer to their employment screening needs given the Medical Marijuana allowances in fifteen states right now.   The inquiring clients were from California and other states and wanted to know if they could refuse to hire someone who had tested positive on his drug test.  As employers use the drug test as a background check for both their own concerns and compliance reasons–where they have a contract with a larger entity or government agency–there is bound to be confusion concerning positive for marijuana.

So I am posting this article again.  While much is currently tied up in the courts, and while we won’t have any real resolution concerning employment screening and medical marijuana for a number of years, here are some guidelines I posted previously.  That article was entitled,  Advice About Updating Your Employment Drug  Test Policy.

Here is an excerpt–

there are three possible  reasons to update your company drug and alcohol testing policy

1. The impact of Medical Marijuana on your program;
2. ADA amendments that now impact your program; and
3. New DOT rules.

If you have not addressed these issues, you must do so. Here’s what is happening:

I have  written much about workplace violence.   Employers in the United States and around the world are experiencing growing concerns about workplace violence. I appeared on Professor Donna El-Armale’s show on the Cal State University Television Network.

I recently wrote…Added Security  After Workplace Shooting.  The list goes on.

Now here are tips from Safety.BlR.Com entitled, 4 Types of Workplace Violence.

Here is an excerpt from the article…

“According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, workplace violence comes in one of four forms. Some workplaces may be at higher risk of different types of violence than others, making it essential for companies to determine where their exposures lie so they can better mitigate their risks. The first type of violence is criminal intent, where the violence occurs as part of another crime such as robbery, trespassing, or acts of terrorism. Eighty-five percent of all workplace homicides fall into this category. Companies at higher risk of this type of violence are those that handle cash or drugs or who may be targeted by terrorists. The second type of violence is perpetrated by someone with a connection to the business, such as a student, patient, client, or inmate. The healthcare industry has a particularly high risk of this type of violence, as do police officers, prison staff, flight attendants, and teachers. While this category accounts for only 3 percent of workplace homicides, the majority of non-fatal violence is considered Type II. The third type of violence is worker-on-worker, which accounts for 7 percent of homicides in the workplace. All workplaces carry a risk of this type of violence, but that risk can be reduced by conducting criminal background checks. The final type of violence is carried out by someone with a personal relationship to a worker, and it accounts for approximately 5 percent of workplace homicides. This type of violence also occurs in all workplaces, but may be harder to prevent in those that are accessible to the public and/or only have one location.”

Workplace violence is a growing concern, not only in the United States but abroad as well.  Various background checks can help screen out the more volatile candidates prone to commit to workplace violence, but because violence can be brought on through external factors as well as internal actions, employment screening background checks can only go so far towards prevention.

I have written about workplace violence on numerous occasions.  One such article is entitlted, What’s the Most Violent Job in Seattle

Essentially, companies need to have  effective processing in place so that employees can report  real and potential threats of workplace violence and that clear channels of communications are established.  Getting out in front of workplace violence, where possible, is one of the more effective means of dealing with it.

Here is an interesting excerpt in an article from Associated Press…”Security has been increased at Southern California Edison following a shooting at one of the company’s offices on Friday. That shooting, which took place in the Los Angeles suburb of Irwindale, took the lives of four people and the gunman, who killed himself. A spokesman for Southern California Edison refused to say what new security measures were being put in place in the wake of those shootings or whether the security measures were being implemented throughout the company. Meanwhile, the investigation into the shootings is ongoing. All of the victims of the shooting were supervisors at Southern California Edison, thought it is not clear if any of them directly supervised the shooter.”

Of course this may be perceived as yet one more situation where the gates are closed after the horses are out of the barn.  But then, in fairness, there are numerous incidents of workplace violence that most likely could not have been prevented.  Better to take measures to prevent the next incident than to maintain the status quo.

Here are more issues to consider regarding how employers can best conduct background checks while observing practices that tend not to discriminate against any job applicants with criminal records.   As the EEOC is increasingly requiring that employers observe certain protocol when reviewing criminal records, it is wise to have set policies and to determine whether the criminal convictions  are truly relevant to the position.

It is also necessary to review the age of the conviction, it’s severity, and whether the job applicant has appeared to have cleaned up his act since his criminal activities.  Simply put, if the employment candidate has convictions in his distant past and background checks reveal he has had not criminal record ever since, then, depending on the records and their relevance, it may be discriminatory policy to deny eligibility for employment, based on those prior criminal records.

How severe were the crimes?  Were they violent crimes?   Do the crimes show relevance to the position being applied for?

Does the candidate pose a potential danger to other employees?

Has the candidate been a productive and contributing member to society?

Is the employer’s current policy a blanket policy and could it be considered discriminatory by the EEOC or other officiating bodies?

Just some thoughts to consider when hiring.

Workplace Bullying has been on the increase.  Not only in the United States, but in other countries as well, there are growing concerns about workplace bullying.  Nearly a third of the workplace experiences some form of workplace bullying.  Usually the infliction is psychological and not physical.  Nearly seventy percent of those who report workplace bullying say it comes from their bosses.

I have written several articles on this…one being…Dangers of Workplace Bullying.

Find below some interesting information about the study to be conducted….

According to an article in the Telegraph Journal….

Researchers from Canada’s University of New Brunswick are studying the effects workplace bullying has on men. Lead researcher Judith MacIntosh said that so far the study has found that men are dealing with very similar workplace abuse that women are known to deal with, including psychological harassment. She said the verbal harassment, intimidation, threats and rude comments can lead to an increase in absenteeism, reduced productivity and a high turnover. The high turnover results in increased costs to replace and recruit new employees, MacIntosh said, as well as costs to the company’s reputation. MacIntosh said the study will be ongoing for approximately six months.

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.

This was an article I wrote not that long ago concerning Medical Marijuana, the changing state laws, and how it may have an impact on employment policies.  Given the number of states that are implmenting medical marijuana laws, I thought it was worth revisiting.

The article is entitled…Advice About Updating You Employment Drug Test Policy.

Here is the heading…

Drug Testing is always a hot button issue.  It is a background check where, like with employment credit reports, people have strong opinions.  Employer zero tolerance drug policies have in recent years duked it out both in the courts and the workplace with the medical marijuana advocates.   Real issues regarding employees with legitimate reasons for using medical marijuana are contesting the harder edge policies on the part of most employers.

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.”