The Huffington Post published an article decrying the overly discriminating policies of employers utilizing background checks as part of their employment screening program.   As is the case with many articles on this subject, emotion overrules a more pragmatic approach.   It is nice to take up the banner for the underdog and demand that everyone get a second chance.   But this is a tight job market and many employers will hire whom they see fit.  It is, after all, a business and as such the employer has the right to make its own determination about its hiring practices.

That being said there are laws in place that employers must obey.   Laws about ethnic background, gender, sexual preferences, etc., that if an employer ignores would prove discriminatory.   But then there are other considerations.  Some of these regard the inaccuracies found in such articles as that written in the Huffington Post.  The Post article may accuse employers of disregarding employment laws and the FCRA regulations, but it is unwise to make a case by inaccurately reporting the employment screening process.   Simply put, there are certain aspects that just aren’t accurate.

Here is what I posted on the Huffington Post in response to that article.   Word limitations prevented me from taking it further.   However, this is the thrust of my point…

As the co-founder of Corra Group, which specializes in employment screening, I would like to address certain misnomers within this article. Simple arrests are not recorded in employment background checks. Expunged records are just that, records that have been removed from the County Courthouse. A screening service should not be able to find any criminal records that have been expunged. If they are still found in the courthouse, the screening service is not supposed to report these records to its client. While criminal records may linger on the databases, the final word, is the county courthouse. If the record is expunged, it is either unavailable and not reported.

While I believe certain employers can be overly discriminating or even draconian with respect to their hiring practices, we as a background screening service discover recent and sometimes violent crimes, sex offenses and horrendous felonies that have committed by job applicants. These are crimes in which the other members of the workforce would be discomfited, should that candidate become their co-worker.

Should the employer hire people with violent records, and should that employee act out on the job, then it is the employer that bears the burden of responsibility. With workplace violence on the increase, should another employee be killed or injured, then liability falls with the employee. The same public that may be sympathetic ten minutes earlier, suddenly blames the “now negligent” employer for not screening its candidates.

Apparently certain employers discriminate in their hiring practices.  According to a recent report in the National Employment Law Project, or NELP,  their survey of Cragi’s Lit reveals that no hire policies are routine.   According to their Press Release, NELP posted the following–

That being said, most of our clients often do not take into consideration old criminal records. At least they don’t rule an employment applicant ineligible only because of a criminal past. Of course, violent felonies can give employers pause, but misdemeanors and infractions don’t seem to carry the gravitas that this report would intimate.   Most employers that we service are far more concerned about skill sets and employee reliability than distant infractions and felonies.  In certain industries, trucking, industrial, criminal records are fairly common and, frankly, certain employers wouldn’t have a workforce if they excluded job applicants with past convictions.

As I noted, violent crimes are another matter.   Employers when conducting employment screening will be much more discerning about violent crimes in an employment candidate’s background check.  The fear of course is not so much what the employee did in the past, but whether or not he would act out on the job.   Workplace violence is always a major consideration.  That being said, employees with violent criminal histories may not be the ones to act out on the job.  In fact, in some cases they become models of restraint, realizing any violent action, plus their past history would most definitely cause them to lose their jobs.

In fairness to the NELP  report, it does list prominent companies who advertise positions on Craig’s List and specify that those with criminal records need not apply.   Having no idea what the policies of these companies are, it’s not my place to give an opinion of their practices.  I do know that in most cases criminal records are neither violent or extensive.  They are often modest infractions.

I have known a few people who  when younger got themselves in trouble when they were younger and then straightened out their lives and went on to become reputable employees.   Some of these people became professionals, or key managers, professors and deans at universities.   It is hardly above the pale that someone messes up at one point and then turns around his life.   So denying people second chances, or denying them employment, doesn’t make sense.

It is not a perfect world, after all.  In case you haven’t noticed.

As one client said. ..”Hey, he was the best man for the job.  Had the skill sets I needed.   Because he did something fifteen years ago, what do I care?”

Employment screening is varied and depending on the types of searches will return different specific information.

The criminal search, especially the county criminal search,  will define a candidate’s criminal past.  While it varies from employer to employer and the type of position under consideration, suffice it to say that with most employers a violent criminal history will give them pause.  Major concern is how it impacts clients and also how it may affect other staff members.  Those with violent criminal records or serious criminal records, if they commit acts of violence in the workplace, leave the employer open to liability concerns as well as public embarrassment and the knowledge that someone was injured in the workplace.

There is also the issue of employee theft and corporate espionage that is on the increase.  Criminal records do not necessarily define a propensity for employee theft, but they may assist in determining the more proficient candidate, especially at a time when employers can select from a rather deep pool of candidates.

With criminal records, we retrieve felonies and misdemeanors.   You cannot list or consider arrest records.  You may not consider certain cases that are dated or less severe, and this is not only in accordance with the FCRA but with varying state codes.

County Criminal searches are the most accurate because they are pulled by hand from the county courthouse.

Federal Criminal Searches are used primarily for financial malfeasance and white collar crimes.  They are also part of the mandate for background checks that must be conducted by federal contractors in order to be compliant.

Credit Reports are again used by federal contractors to vet candidates for compliance purposes.   Credit reports are also used for those in the financial area to determine fiscal responsibility.  There are restraints on credit reports in different states and in general terms they should be conducted where the credit report has direct relevant to the job.  Financial and contract compliant being the two I noted.

Education verification will provide testament that the candidate is not lying and fulfilled the education necessary for certain skill sets.   It also serves to assure clients that the employee is prepared to service them and is both compliant and fluent in whatever discipline related to his or her education.

Employment verification, does just that, verifies that the candidate actually worked where he or she claimed.

The Social Security Trace will verify the candidate’s social security and provide the residential history upon which the criminal searches are conducted.

Federal Civil Searches will tell of any lawsuits.  Sometimes a  financial malfeasance case does not meet the criterion for criminal case and it then becomes a civil lawsuit in the federal courts.  This, again, usually concerns white collar issues.

County Civil Cases concern lawsuits on the local or county level.

A woman is going to jail for practicing nursing without a license.   According to an article  on the NBC Connecticut website, the woman staged a dinner where she honored herself as “Nurse of the Year.”   The Connecticut Nursing Association was the supposed responsible host for the Nurse of the Year Award.  Thing is, this organization does not exist.    Talk about some chutzpah.

As it turns out the women’s ruse wasn’t discovered until the doctor for who she was working for thought she had behaved unprofessionally.  He instigated an investigation that turned up the fact that his employee did not possess a nursing license.   Apparently, among other things, the convicted woman had been writing drug  prescriptions for herself.  So now she will be a guest of the state for approximately nine months.

I would like to think of this as a rare situation, a deviation from the norm.  It probably is.  However, on deeper levels the nursing and entire healthcare industry has been rife with complaints that those employees who have been hired have in their past convicted felonies, drug abuse issues, and numerous disciplinary actions taken against them.   The felonies included sex offenses, theft, battery, forgery…the list goes on.   Disciplinary actions have included anything from drug theft to abuse of the elderly patients or younger patients left in their care.

Pro Publica, the award winning media watchdog, has published numerous articles related to nursing and healthcare abuses.   The one article, a study in conjunction with the Los Angeles Times, about Nursing Abuses in California, earned them a Pulitzer Prize.  I have written about healthcare abuse on a number of occasions.   One such article was entitled, The Increased Need for Hospitals to Conduct Background Checks.  Others, in  fact many others have also written about abuses and shoddy practices in the healthcare industry.

Even state and public service agencies are hardly immune.   It seems at least once a week there is a new report about one state agency or public service organization being sued and otherwise embarrassed for hiring healthcare workers who are serious convicted felons or have committed abuses.   Usually, the employee in question is caught at committing a wrongful act and is subsequently investigated.  Then it is revealed either passed abuses, serious felonies, substance abuse issues.  Some healthcare workers are discovered on the sex offender registry.   These are people around the fragile and the vulnerable, including children.

You would think that after all this public exposure it would make sense to have a comprehensive employment screening program in place.   You would think that it would be prudent to conduct background checks on potential employees.   And you would think, if you did conduct background checks those responsible would review them thoroughly once the report was returned.   You know, as in read it and see whether or not you are hiring  a potential problem.

Even with the lousy economy it would be more economically feasible to conduct rigorous employee screening.   Yes, it may cost a few bucks, but it goes a long way in avoiding serious liability issues, including costly lawsuits, public embarrassment, and possible disciplinary actions from enforcement agencies.   But staffing groups, healthcare recruiters, and even hospitals have been remiss in conducting the necessary background checks and then reviewing them carefully once the reports are completed.   While some information for whatever reason slips through the cracks, in many cases the damning evidence is in the report.  Only no one bothered to read it or perceive it as a relevant issue.   It’s amazing.

So now we have advanced to the point where healthcare industry workers not only have a checkered past, or an expired license, a revoked license, taken away for disciplinary action.   But they may not have ever had a license at all.

So while we debate healthcare, its pros and cons, whether this new program will be working or not, perhaps we should also take a better look at the healthcare industry itself.    It could use some tightening up.    Because at the end of the day, where you are PPO, HMO, in a group plan or government plan, you want to be sure the employees assigned to take care of you will not end up causing any harm.