For those  employers ordering Vermont country criminal records as background checks for their employment screening program, please take note of the modifications to the reports…

A recent adjustment to our Vermont Search provider has resulted in a minor change to how we report “Consecutive Cases” found in Vermont.

Consecutive cases are found within the “Lead” case docket, as the court does not index consecutive cases separately.  Previously consecutive cases were reported as additional counts within the Lead case.  Going forward we will be reporting these consecutive cases as separate cases instead of counts.   Based upon this change, you may now find additional case(s) reported then were supplied previously.  All charge and sentencing detail should remain the same; you will simply receive an increase in case numbers.

I was just reading an article in the Los Angeles Times where the California State Workers Compensation Insurance Fund is planning to lay off 1,800 employees or thirty percent of its workforce. Tom Rowe, Chief of Staff of the State Compensation Insurance Fund says they are severely overstaffed.  This is the fund that is the insurer of the last resort for California Employers.

According to the article, Rowe was quoted as….

“The positions being eliminated are in areas where business processes have changed significantly enough that work has been substantially reduced,” Rowe said in a companywide email. “We spend more operating the company than we do on benefits to injured employees.”

The layoffs are expected to save State Fund about $350 million a year.”

For sometime the California Workers Comp issue has been a work in progress.  At one time Workers Comp insurance was prohibitively expensive in California.  If it wasn’t killing businesses then it was certainly causing some to consider moving to other states where the insurance premiums were costing a lot less, annually.   But eight years ago, the State of California revised its Workers Comp policies.  Among other things, the State instituted what amount to an HMO where state supported medical care facilities determined the veracity of a workers comp claim and the extent of damage.

Until then, there were many questionable  or outright bogus workers comp claims.  The allegedly injured employees would go to attorneys of questionable discrimination and file claims for extensive injuries that required much compensation and lengthy periods for recuperation.   As the former head of marketing for an investigative group at the time who specialized in workers comp claims, we saw enough sub rosa video where the poor, injured worker who could not lift their arms above their heads were discreetly photographed lifting and moving sofas, playing tennis, uprooting trees from their yards.  Or  secretly working other jobs while they collected money on their workers comp claims.

The California reform reduced workers comp insurance by at least twenty-five percent or more and made it tougher on the suspect employees to prove their cases.  Of course, some attorneys and action groups protested that seriously and honestly injured workers were not collecting the fair share of what they should be compensated for injuries on the job.  In some cases, there was a degree of validity.  In other cases, well…I’m sure you know the story.

When you are conducting background searches as part of your employment screening program, you should be aware that workers comp background searches are not to be used as a pre-employment screening instrument.  You, as  a recruiter or as an employer, may want to determine if your job applicant is prone to filing workers comp claims, if they are prone to actual injury, or as in many cases prone to claiming injury.   But, again, you cannot use workers comp background checks for employment screening purposes.  You must first offer your candidate the position and only then can you conduct a workers compensation search.

But be aware.  With some states it is relatively easy to gain access to an employee’s workers compensation history.   But in other states they can put you through hoops where it may not be worth your while.  In some states, your applicant’s release form is enough to get the ball rolling and the workers comp records will return anywhere from a couple of days to a week.  But…the big but…in other states, you have have to file a special notarized form, or you might have to snail mail your request.  The results are then snail mailed back.  Eventually.  Or, in some states you may not have access at all to your employee’s workers compensation records.

As I more than hinted before…is there much cheating regarding candidate’s and possibly bogus workers compensation claims.  As head of marketing for an investigative group, I once did a brief statistical review of when most claims were filed.  It was skewed so that a great many more workers comp claims were filed in the spring and summer months when the weather was nicer.   I guess you can take it from there.

Having been burned by an embarrassing and disturbing  sexual assault incident, Match.com has agreed to conduct background checks on its members.   According to the article in the Daily Pilot a woman was raped on her second date with a Match.com partner.  As it turns out, the assailant had six prior sexual assault convictions.   So much for meeting the man of your dreams.

Most online dating sites promise to some extent that you will meet your soul mate.  They boast of special filtering systems so that one prospect will be accurately matched with another, according to mutual tastes and behavior.  So with the promise of the perfect romance, even marriage, as the lure, it is difficult for a dating site to require background checks, just in case Mr. Perfect is an ax murder or, as in this case, a convicted sex offender.   How one filters out gold diggers may be another story.

In this economy, there are the usual gold digging predators, looking to con the unsuspecting, the overly romantic, the terminally naive and gullible out of their money.  And then there are the sexual predators.   They know how to work the Internet and the dating sites.  They are good at pushing buttons on the unsuspecting.   After all, people are on dating sites with high hopes and the desire to escape the lonely nights and find a decent relationship.  This is a natural impulse and it’s a shame that some, more than a few, want  to take advantage of the hopefuls that are out there.

But then life is what it is and in this poor economy and with the sensibility being what it is, the truly romantic are perceived as fair game by far too many.  At least Match.com is taking steps to help prevent such a terrible incident from happening again.

Here is a refreshing and informative article on background checks.  Robin Paggi, on Bakersfield.Com, has written a how to for those who wish to conduct employment screening.  Rather than delve into the potential dark side and discriminatory practices sometimes associated with background checks, Paggi gets to the point in listing employment screening procedure.  She takes note of possible negligence issues when you don’t conduct background checks or consider such background searches as employment verification as waste of time.  In that context, Paggi points out the possible dangers involved with “negligent hiring.”

Robin Paggi lays it out in an easy to read and coherent framework.    This article is the second of three installments.  Having missed the first installment, I intend to go back and read it.   I look forward to the third installment from the Human Resources Professional from nearby Bakersfield, California.  Read the rest of the article at this link

Sex offenders need not apply to Match.com for a membership.   Since the reported sexual assault, Match.com will be conducting background checks on its membership.  An article in the Gothamist describe the unsavory and violent ordeal a woman experienced having agreed to go out with a man on Match.com.     The article said the man had six separate convictions as a sex offender.

I wonder if these types roam around from one online dating service to another, in search of prey.   Many are quite charming and know all too well how to push the right emotional buttons on women in search of a paramour.     If nothing else,  most sex criminals understand a successful pervert knows how to exude that special kind of charm.

Match.com President, Mandy Ginsberg wisely issued the caveat, “We want to stress that while these checks may help in certain instances, they remain highly flawed, and it is critical that this effort does not provide a false sense of security to our members.”   Definitely words to live by.   There is more to searching for sex offenders than merely looking up a name.  I would think, too, is the new member to an online dating site actually signing up in his own name?

The article asks what becomes of people with similar names as convicted sex offenders.   The sex offender registry is, after all, populated with numerous people of similar names.   I don’t know how it will be handled through Match.com, but when we at Corra Group conduct a sex offender background check we isolate the person using his first last and middle names as well as his date of  birth.  We will draw up his social security trace to see where has lived and if his former residences reflect where the sex crimes initially took place.   At the very last, we will obtain a photo of the person and ask our clients if this looks like their guy.

It is one thing to conduct the background check.  But once there are results, especially with something as serious as s sex offender, it is necessary to do the additional research.   On one hand you don’t want to allow a sex offender to slip between the cracks.  But on the other, you don’t want to accuse someone just because they have a similar name as the one turned up in a sex offender background check.    That’s an unfair price to pay for a genuine guy with a similar name, just exploring the dating sites in search of a little love.

Since the shooting incident in Arizona where suspected shooter, Jared Loughner, that left six people dead and even more wounded,  and Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords fighting for her life, gun sales and background checks have increased in Arizona.  According to some reports, firearms purchases were up some sixty-odd percent as those gun buyers fearing stricter gun laws stocked up.

There have been more than seven hundred requests for background checks. According to the Star-Telegram more than seven hundred background checks by potential gun buyers.  In other states gun sales were also on the increase as their residents stock up on firearms. Thirty states in all saw increases in gun sales.    One has to wonder in a bad economy with jobs scarce who has money for an excess of guns?  But it is what it is and I will leave it to others to comment pro or con.

It is mandated that background checks be conducted on potential gun buyers to see if they are eligible to purchase firearms.  Among other things, gun buyers cannot have criminal records.   There is a push now for some form of psychological betting, after common belief subscribed to the fact that the most recent headline shooter, as well as others, are not all that balanced to legally purchase firearms.

I guess the economy does limit the gun buying.  One gun shop owner said they are buying stuff, but stuff on sale.  And business ain’t like when President Obama was first elected.  Such is life.

There are any number of reasons that people fall off the beam, turn violent, and start shooting up the workplace or,  for that matter, anywhere else.   None of the reasons are particular good reasons, although some in a psychological context are more understandable than others.     In an economic downturn, more employees are stressed out with concern for their jobs, their finances, and the general state of things.   small wonder workplace violence is up as is employee theft.   In tough times some people will make desperate moves.

But the shooting at Virginia Tech, fortunately, is an expectational instance.     A student, Cho Seung-Hui Cho, had a history of mental illness and despite any obvious concerns he cleared his background check and was permitted to by a firearm.   In 2007, Cho shot and killed 32 persons before killing himself.   It was a horrible tragedy.

According to an article in the Washington Examiner, a survivor of the shooting, Colin Goddard, called for  states to implement implement a system mandating a background check that includes mental health records, domestic violence arrests and felony convictions.    This to me is a logical package of background checks that should be required before handing someone a weapon.  While gun ownership has been validated not long ago by the Supreme Court, there are distinctions as to who is actually qualified for eligibility.   Simply put,  while most gun owners are responsible citizens,  some people are just too nuts to be in possession of a firearm.

There is always a balance between according someone is civil right and protecting society.  Sometimes background checks go a long way in preserving that balance.
.

There is an ongoing controversy about criminal records and pre-employment background checks.  Some are alleging discriminatory practices, while others argue in favor of employer rights to hire who they want.   This is not an issue that will go away soon, nor will it dissolve in water or be fully subjugated by legislation.  There are far too many variables for any of that.

With the credit report issue alone, where in some states employers may be prohibited from running credit reports as one of their background checks in their pre-employment screening program,   the language is such that a job applicant’s credit history must be relevant to the job in question.  So who makes that determination?  The employment candidate who will be working in the financial department or who has access to sensitive databases and proprietary information is the applicant who show logical relevance.  But what about the employee working in inventory who is willing to supplement his wage by stealing goods and services?  And then of course there is the issue we hear from employers, regarding how much time they should spend in a down economy in a competitive market, fending off calls from employee creditors, adjusting wages for garnishment and all the rest?

I realize there are people who don’t like to hear this, but this, nevertheless, is part of the paradigm, part of the working reality.   Some out there, presumably with bad credit and in need of a job of wished ill on me, truly, rather than recognize that many employers see these issues as the obvious impediments.

Then of course there is an issue of criminal records.  Bill Clifton writes about this in a recent article on Macon.com.    The article, entitled Time to Revisit Company Background Check Policies has some thought provoking information.  No doubt there are employees who discriminate or presume too much, acting against applicants with what not be entirely accurate information about the applicant’s criminal history or other behavior gleaned from a background check.

Clifton cites fact when he remarks, “the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position since 1985 that excluding individuals from employment on the basis of their conviction records has an adverse impact of blacks and Hispanics in light of statistics showing that they are convicted at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population, and that such policy or practice is unlawful under Title VII in the absence of a justifying business necessity.”

No doubt this is true.  But what is not addressed is the numerous cases where the applicant did have criminal records and acts out violently on the job, hurting other employees.  Then of course it is the employer who bears the burden of embarrassment, the presumed litigation and liability issues, the knowledge that the employer gave work to somebody who caused terrible havoc and damaged human lives.    I think of the recent Amy Bishop case where this college professor allegedly shot six of her colleagues, killing three, because she believed her tenure was to be rejected.   Only then did additional background checks, which were not conducted initially or had slipped through the cracks, revealed past aggressive behavior, including what at the time was declared the accidental killing of her brother while cleaning a shotgun.   She has recently been charged with murder for that shooting.

This is but one of the more egregious cases where an employee snaps out in the workplace and hurts or kills other employees.  Some have criminal records, and some do not.  What is the relationship between previous criminal records, and violence in the workplace or the increased possibility of workplace theft?  You tell me.  Is there not a certain amount of logic involved between someone with prior criminal records and repeated offenses?   Maybe.  Maybe not.

I am one who believes that a fair number of people out looking for work deserve second chances.  Coming from the sort of neighborhood initially were not everyone was nominated for sainthood,  I well understand can commit criminal acts and other indiscretions in their youth or in a tough economy, only to clean up their act and become decent and reputable citizens.  In fact, as a background checking service, we often receive calls from people who committed misdeeds in their early lives, cleaned up their acts and became reputable citizens, invested in meaningful careers.    They call telling us about a new policy involving background checks at their present employer, or asking, since they are out of work and looking for another job, if their previous criminal records will come back to bite them.   In most cases, it is a relatively minor offense that occurred so long ago that no employer should care.   Maybe some do, but I find that excessive.

Clifton refers us to two civic action groups and writes, ” The National Employment Law Project and the National League of Cities have also weighed in on the issue of criminal record checks. A report issued July 2, “Cities Pave the Way: Promising Re-entry Policies that Promote Local Hiring of People with Criminal Records,” urges all cities and private firms to “ban the box,” by removing from the job application any question seeking information about an applicant’s criminal history. Under this policy criminal background checks would still be required “for those positions where it is necessary to ensure safety and security at the workplace” such as law enforcement and teaching positions. According to this report, removing the criminal history question from the job application would also help “maximize the applicant pool — especially in major urban areas where nearly one in three adults has a criminal record.”

By banning the box, the job applicant would admit to no prior crimes, leading the burden of discovery on the employer.  The employer is then responsible for conducting a more thorough series of background checks at greater expense to assure that the employment candidate did not commit crimes in other than the more obvious geographic regions the employer would naturally be searching.   So then, on one hand this avoids an upfront prejudicial judgment against the job applicant’s qualifications, a good thing, but then it also leaves the door open for undiscovered criminal records that slip through a more limited series of background checks.    Should the now-hired employee commit acts of violence, or steal or harass members of the opposite sex, then it is the employer who is accused of laxity.

I am then reminded of the job applicant who moved from one state to another in search of employment.  The candidate had committed very severe criminal and sexual offenses against children and was listed on the sex offenders registry.   Despite the legal mandates, when he moved he did not register in the new state as a sexual offender.   He was just about to be awarded the job of parks sanitation operator where he would be cleaning up the city parks.   Where children are playing.   Luckily, his past was discovered.  When confronted about his not checking the box for prior criminal convictions and asked why he hadn’t registered with the state as a sexual offender, he responded, “I was trying to make a new start.”

Some may find his attempt to start a new life admirable.  I don’t.   If you think this sort of thing is rare or that it doesn’t happen with alarming frequency, then think again. Just read the news headlines  about public service and state agencies, law enforcement offices, that unwittingly hire convicted felons and sex offenders,  due to the failure to conduct  or adequately review employment background checks.

There is also the issue of employer rights.   This is  a tough economy and the competition or what business there is is pretty fierce in just about every industry.  The more obvious issues of discrimination notwithstanding, it would seem that an employer has the right to hire employees he believes are the most qualified to help move its business forward or at least keep it afloat.   Given there is a deep job pool in just about every industry, it would stand to reason that the employer will be more selective about who it hires.   Most employers are in the business of business, and while they must regard the mandated compliance issues, few are in any mood to suffer from bad hires as punishment for a transcendental hiring policy.

There are those who have criminal records and those who are falsely accused of prior convictions.   It is important to make this distinction.   Those who were falsely accused or whose background check supported erroneous information deserve special consideration as they may have reasonable cause or proof of innocence.   But then the majority of the people complaining about criminal records actually  do have criminal records.   In a tough job market where employers can recruit from employment applicants who have no criminal records and pristine work histories,  then at what point must the logical choice prove insufficient?

Clifton writes…”The bottom line here is that credit and criminal record checks should not be used to screen out all applicants. A decision to reject an applicant as a result of a criminal history should only be made after conducting an analysis that includes the criteria set forth by the EEOC: (1) the nature and gravity of the offense; (2) the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence; and (3) the nature the job held or sought.”

With this, I agree.   Employers should maintain recruiting policies that are compliant with the labor laws.  And when it seems prudent, it doesn’t hurt to give someone a second chance.  Many people have risen to great heights, having been awarded a new lease on life.
“

In a tough economy an employer much watch its costs.  Part of this process relates to what you are paying for your goods and services.     In a volume business, the difference of a few cents can add up into serious numbers over the year.    So it pays in many ways to hiring sourcing personnel who know their stuff.

Maureen Sharib posts a most interesting article on ERE.net.   In Sun Tzu on Sourcing, Sharib demonstrates the relationship between the great war master’s requisite spies and a good sourcing agent.  I found the comparisons most entertaining as well as accurate.  In short, it was a fun read.

Of course, her writing lists the attributes Sun Tzu would assign to a good spy or a good sourcing agent.  Some of these attributes while being beneficial can also prove a double edged sword.   Before hiring a sourcing person, I would encourage background checks to be sure your employment candidate is what he says he is.   That he has the necessary skill sets and that he has been honest and fair with past employers.

Sourcing, after all, is one job where kickbacks from suppliers is not what I would term a foreign concept.   It is also wise to conduct reference background checks, if possible, to see if the sourcing specialist got his last job by usurping suppliers from his previous employer.   This again is not a foreign concept.   Going even by the dictum of Sun Tzu, the converted spy can easily be a double agent who has been turned on more than one occasion.

I encourage all the read Sharib’s article.   As one who is not entirely unfamiliar with the fields of intelligence and espionage, I got a kick out of her article.  Anyone who cites Sun Tzu and recruiting in the same article certainly has my attention.

Check them out before you hire.

Florida Governor, Charlie Crist, gave praise to a new law designed to protect the elderly and the young from malevolent care givers serving mainly the young and the old.   According to the Florida Newswire, House Bill 7069, mandates employees pass  state and federal fingerprint screening, equivalent to a level 2 background check, before they are eligible to work  with elderly, children and persons with disabilities in certain care settings.   The same holds true for health care employees working in residential or home care settings.  They must have a Level 2 screening before having contact with clients, or having access to client property, funds or living areas.

Governor Crist signed this bill into law earlier this year.   It is a good bill and shows that the State of Florida is determined to protect its more vulnerable citizens by requiring background checks on its caregivers.   I have written about this matter before, including one article entitled, Ongoing Need for Background Checks for Florida Caregivers.   This new law results from a review ordered by Governor Crist where select state agencies examined legal requirements for screening individuals who provide care to children, the elderly and persons with disabilities to review current background-screening policies.

There conclusion, obviously, was for more rigorous background checks.   We at Corra Group applaud Governor Crist and those who voted in favor of House Bill 7069.  This should add a little more punch to the background checks conducted on those who may consider malicious behavior toward Florida’s young and old.

Check them out before you hire.