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.

For those who conduct the Illinois State Criminal Non-Database Search as part of your preemployment background checks, we want to alert you that there will be a significant delay in the turnaround time.   The Illinois State Police, Bureau of Identification today that their server had a major crash on Saturday, August 21, 2010.     It will take a week at least to install a new server.    Until they can return searches that are backlogged in the system, it will take even longer still

So, all in all, it will be some time before the Illinois State Criminal records will be returned to full service.  For those employers in need of conducting background checks in Illinois for the time being you may want to consider running County Criminal Records Checks.    The County Criminal Records have not been affected by the server crash.

In the meantime, we will let you know when full service for the Illinois State Criminal Records has been restored.

Thanks partly to the economic downturn, employee theft is up big time.  I don’t know for sure if people are so strapped financially they make desperate moves by stealing property databases, cash, and serious amount of inventory, or if there is a trendy concept floating about that that declares we should forget about ethics and grab what we can.  Either way there is some pretty ugly stuff going out there and employee theft has gone far beyond a few pens and a stapler.

In fact, The Australian Associated Press reports in one article that in one case in Australia, the prosecutor intoned that the serious theft by one of its former employees forced a prominent retailer to go out of business.  That seems like a whole lot of stealing.   the accused was a bank signatory and had access to the company funds.  She allegedly transferred some $20 Million out of the company account and into her own.    She then allegedly used the money to buy property, cars, jewelry, and clothes.

The woman has pleaded guilty to the charges.  She said she committed the theft because it was easy to do.  She may be looking at eight and twelve years in prison.  But her former  employer, retailer Clive Peters,  has been put into bankruptcy,  the results of both the theft and an economic downturn.

If you are an employer the last thing you need are employers who consider themselves stealth partners who will rob and steal their unfair share.  while background checks are no guarantee you will filter out all the potential office thieves, they do go a long way in determining the ones with unsavory pasts.   There is the matter of previous criminal records, and then there are the professional reference verifications that may flag any potential trouble.  there is also the background check where you run the social security trace to see if the new job candidate is actually working under his real name and social security number.   Credit reports may determine who may be in desperate straits enough to consider stealing.   While credit reports may not be relevant to most employees, they may determine your best employment candidates for the financial roles or those who have access to your sensitive proprietary databases.

I realize these are tough economic times and decent people have bad credit and most would never consider stealing to make up their losses.  But some will. And some will do so anyway, if only to aggrandize themselves with the finery they believe they so richly deserve.  I have written about employee theft on several occasions.  It is a subject that constantly pops up int he new releases.  On such article I published was entitled, Employee Theft Can Get Out of Hand.   Run background checks for your preemployment screening needs.  Call references.  Perform due diligence.  Check them out before you hire.  Or you may regret it after.

Motor Vehicle Records Driving Reports or MVRs are a critical background check.  Transportation and Trucking companies require them to meet with Department of Transportation or DOT mandates.

It is no secret that the Departments of Motor Vehicles or DMVs have been raising prices in most states.  In an economic downturn it is certainly one way to raise prices.   So with that in mind, please be aware that the New Mexico State DMV will be raising its MVR pricing.  Effective September 1st, 2010, new Mexico Driving Record abstracts will increase from $4.95 to $6.50 per abstract.

So please make note of this pricing increase.

Over time recruiters have been pressed to be increasingly stringent about their employment candidates and their respective college degrees.  Be it undergraduate degrees or graduate degrees,  a great many companies want their job applicants to have graduated from he top ten schools at the top of their class with the top references and ratings.    Even those employers recruiting from the bulk of private  and public colleges and universities require grade point averages 3.0 or better.   But then there is reality, which like in a great many cases the hard facts of life are often avoided.

Michael Brandt of Bright Move makes some interesting points on his blog article entitled, C’s Make Degrees, Are you Filtering Good Candidates With GPAs Below 3.0? He writes that the National Association of Colleges and Employers claim in a recent survey that 63% of the recruiters used 3.0 GPA as the cutoff point for interviewing candidates.   He writes that  while good grades may be necessary in math and science areas, do they really indicate how well a graduate would do working as a sales person.    He notes that the graduate with a 2.5 at Harvard may be a lot smarter than the graduate with a 4.0 graduating for the local community college.    He writes of community and business networking involvement and how the leaders are usually highly invested in joining clubs and organizations.

I tend to agree with Brandt.   Like Brandt, I base my perspective on personal experiences.  Over my own career I see how grades may favorably impact some industries while they have little or nothing to do with others.  In conducting education verification background checks for quite some time, I have gotten a sense of how many 3.0 GPAs may actually exist in this world and what that means at the end of the day.   I have read enough history and the biographies of world class performers to understand that more than a fair share were, frankly, terrible in school.  Some of the more notable names in American industry were high school dropouts.   Some were college drop outs.   Bill Gates comes to mind off the top of my head, and he fared pretty well, all things considered.

Conversely, I see people with excellent grades who are everything from ineffective to incompetent out in the real world.     You see a lot of people who have excelled at academics but he falter in the trenches.   To take a test, that may be one thing.  To sell a product or to lobby someone or move them around, that may be quite another.  Sometimes you need the brightest kid in the class, and sometimes you need the one who can wield the ax.  Sometimes you need the one who may appear the slacker of all time but can in his daydreaming conceive of that one great idea that becomes the game changer in your industry.   In this case, Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein comes to mind.  Two academic slackers who managed to make a small dent in history.

In some ways that the recruiters set the bar for a 3.0 GPA show more their own conformity to pigeonhole than anything else.   Dumb in many ways.  Now most recruiters are under pressure from their managers or their clients, the end employer, to search according to a given criteria.   But at the end of the day it reflects more on the lack of imagination or more so the lack of determination to drill deeper to find a recruit.    It is largely paint by numbers, where true performers and natural creatives may be passed over in favor of the same-same kind of employment candidate.    This one has almonds, this one doesn’t.

So the issue becomes, despite all common theory and practice, does recruiting graduates with only a 3.0GPA or better really assure you of the top candidates with the greatest ability and the great potential?   Or does it just show you that someone knew how to take tests better than some of the others?  Good question.  Or maybe not.  Maybe for the sake of expedience, for convenience and so not to further burden or empower–depending how you look at it– the human resources managers or recruiters we process job applicants much the same way we process chickens or anything else in our mass production lines.

I would love to hear from those out there who dig deeper to find their finer candidates.    Maybe there are still some who do not filter out potential job candidates because of a C average.  Employers who look for character and personality, the ability to makes friends and network.   Employers who look for the creative types, the innovators and the rest who are maybe not the safest choices but at the end of the day may be the best of choices.    Like anything else, recruiting according to the total package may take more work, but then it may be much more rewarding.

There is much controversy and many legal battled are taking place in the states that have legitimized medical marijuana.    As most of the laws were defined pretty loosely,  there is a debate regarding the employee’s rights to come to work having imbibed some medical marijuana and the employer to determine whether that same employee is fit to work on the job.  Some employees have been fired for not passing their drug tests as the medical marijuana is shown as a positive on the results.  Employers maintain these employees do not comply with the no tolerance drug standards and are potentially a hazard on the job.

As I said, there are a number of cases in the courts.  It has been an ongoing issue and I have written about his on a number of occasions.   One such article is entitled, Employee Background Checks and the New Medical Marijuana Laws.

All in all…it’s a very tough call.  We shall see how that moves through the courts and the legislatures.   It will be awhile before any of this is resolved.

Now that California is considering the full legalization of marijuana, different business groups are getting nervous.  According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, employer concerns center around, among other things, that stoned employees may not be up to operating dangerous equipment.   If they do hurt themselves or other employees, then there are considerations about liability, bad publicity, and the concern for injured workers.   The California Initiative is known as Proposition 19.

Employers claim that even bus drivers and truck drivers will be able to drive while high.  Proponents of the initiative believe that some employers are just using this as an excuse to fire employees who test positive for marijuana.   Employers also contend they would not meet the compliance standards for the Drug-Free Workplace Act, and this may deny them access to federal funding and federal funding.

Early on I realized that one of the background checks that would certainly be among the list for pre-employment screening would be the medical marijuana permit.   Because once marijuana is legalized, or once those who have the permit are able legally to come to work high, you can be sure there will be copy cat advocates, employees without the medical marijuana card also coming to work stoned.   I guess you would be able to tell how stoned everyone is by what they buy from the Roach Coach during they ten o’clock break.  I do believe if the law is passed, then employers may wish to run Motor Vehicle Driving Records or MVR searches to see if their employees have been stopped for driving while intoxicated.  A DUI may be evidence that helps to prove that employee is not qualified to work stoned in a dangerous environment as they tend to smoke more than good judgment would ever allow.