Helping Prevent Headaches
One Applicant at a Time
Is salary history part of your screening process
May 29th, 2012Do you as an employer ask for salary history as part of your hiring process? If so, do you use that information to make your decision on whether or not to hire someone? It seems like such a small detail, but could bring problems for an employer depending on how such information is gathered and used.
Asking for salary history is well within an employer’s legal rights, and most job applicants are happy to provide such information. If you are using a third party employment screening service to gather such information, however, you must have written pre-approval by the applicant. And if the figures you find come into play when deciding not to hire that person, you are required to let them know, as according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act they have a legal right to explain or correct any errors or information you’ve found.
While a job applicant is not required to share salary history, some employers have found that asking for it ends up serving as one way to judge character, because lying about one’s salary history is an easy one to catch.
New federally mandated cutoff levels increase drug test positives in workforce
May 22nd, 2012In 2010 the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lowered initial and confirmation cutoff levels for amphetamines and cocaine, and added additional substances including heroin and ecstacy, to their drug testing protocols for those in safety-sensitive positions, including bus drivers
In part because of the new lower cutoff levels, there has been a 33 percent jump in cocaine positives in the safety-sensitive workforce, according to new data by Quest Diagnostics. Amphetamines positives among this group also rose by nearly 26 percent, continuing an existing upward trend, but also likely boosted by better detection related to the new, lower, federally mandated cutoffs, experts say. The findings are based on 1.6 million federally mandated, safety-sensitive workforce drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and December 2011.
Workers subject to these new requirements include private-sector workers for whom routine drug testing is mandated by the DOT as well as those federal employees in testing-designated positions.
Among the 4.8 million tests in the general U.S. workforce from January to December 2011, amphetamines positives are up 16.7 percent from 2010 (0.66% vs. 0.77%) and up 75 percent since 2007. Cocaine positivity is up 8 percent from 2010 (0.25% vs. 0.27%) in the general workforce, also partially driven by some private sector employers adopting the new federal standard.
The upward trends, while still a very small percentage of the workforce, underscore the importance of drug testing as part of the employment screening process, especially for those with safety-sensitive jobs.
In 2010 the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lowered initial and confirmation cutoff levels for amphetamines and cocaine, and added additional substances including heroin and ecstacy, to their drug testing protocols for those in safety-sensitive positions, including bus drivers
In part because of the new lower cutoff levels, there has been a 33 percent jump in cocaine positives in the safety-sensitive workforce, according to new data by Quest Diagnostics. Amphetamines positives among this group also rose by nearly 26 percent, continuing an existing upward trend, but also likely boosted by better detection related to the new, lower, federally mandated cutoffs, experts say. The findings are based on 1.6 million federally mandated, safety-sensitive workforce drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and December 2011.
Workers subject to these new requirements include private-sector workers for whom routine drug testing is mandated by the DOT as well as those federal employees in testing-designated positions.
Among the 4.8 million tests in the general U.S. workforce from January to December 2011, amphetamines positives are up 16.7 percent from 2010 (0.66% vs. 0.77%) and up 75 percent since 2007. Cocaine positivity is up 8 percent from 2010 (0.25% vs. 0.27%) in the general workforce, also partially driven by some private sector employers adopting the new federal standard.
The upward trends, while still a very small percentage of the workforce, underscore the importance of drug testing as part of the employment screening process, especially for those with safety-sensitive jobs.
EEOC creates new guidelines for employers using criminal records in employment screening
May 17th, 2012Last month the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to create new Guidance regarding employer use of criminal records under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Criminal background checks have become increasingly popular as a means for employers to, among other things, lessen the potentially tragic and expensive claims of failure to supervise or negligent hiring.
In the past the EEOC had at least partially disavowed criminal checks except in very limited industries because they were considered to be disproportionately negative for certain minorities.
The new EEOC guidance reiterates the four factors used to determine whether an employer’s hiring and other employment decisions and policies relating to criminal background checks violate the law:
- Convictions as opposed to arrests
- The nature and gravity of the offense or conduct
- Time that has passed since the offense
- The nature of the job held or sought.
It also provides specific examples of criminal background policies which the EEOC believes violate Title VII.
The EEOC also suggests employees who undergo criminal background checks should be told that they were denied the job because of a criminal conviction, and that there would have to be an opportunity for that applicant to demonstrate either that the screen was inaccurate or to state why they should not be denied the job. The employer would also have to review any additional information provided by the prospective employee regarding the conviction or their credentials.
There are many more details about the EEOC’s new guidance. We suggest every employer read the full guidance at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm.
Yahoo CEO latest to get caught padding resume
May 15th, 2012Well, it has happened again. This time it’s Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson whose resume was found to be padded. Thompson, who was hired by the internet giant in January, has two degrees listed on his resume: A bachelor’s degree in accounting from Stonehill College, and a degree in computer science, which would make sense given his history in the workforce – Thompson previously was an executive with Paypal. Unfortunately, he doesn’t hold a computer science degree.
This lapse in employment screening seems particularly stunning given that it was such an upper-level position (the very top!) with such a public company. But skipping such a critical step in the pre-employment screening process – namely, that of education verification – is something that is commonly done, particularly with someone of Thompson’s stature and distinguished career. Collectively, people in human resources and others involved in the hiring process think ‘Why would he make up anything at this point? Surely someone else would have caught a lie by now.’ It can seem almost ridiculous to spend time and money verifying someone’s education credentials at that level.
But Thompson’s story is exactly why it’s critical to conduct a thorough employment screening every single time. Yahoo is now dealing with a public relations nightmare, not to mention upheaval within its ranks and among its biggest investors. Those are headaches no business wants. So do yourself a favor, learn by others’ mistakes, and be thorough and unbiased in your own screening protocols.
Don’t make assumptions when hiring seasonal workers
May 10th, 2012More assumptions are made about summer and seasonal workers than perhaps any other segment of the workforce. Think about it: If you hire seasonal workers in the summertime, how many of them are young adults? Do you assume what kind of past they have based on the way they dress or where they go to school? Do you assume they’re too young to have a criminal record? Do you assume, if they worked for you last summer, or perhaps several summers in a row, that they haven’t gotten into any trouble in the nine months since you last saw them? If a highly respected, returning employee has brought a friend, cousin or brother to apply for a job with you as well, do you assume anything about their employability based mostly on the personal reference given to you by your current (or former) employee?
Employers need to make intelligent decisions on their seasonal and summer workforce that are based on facts, not assumptions. Many employers don’t bother with typical employment screening processes for seasonal employees, believing it to be too much hassle and too much money to spend on short-term workers. But your business is worth being careful with employees all the time, not just certain times of the year or with certain types of positions.
As you begin advertising for summer positions, and as the job applications start coming in, along with familiar faces of past seasonal employees popping into your office to see about summer work, make sure you’ve got impartial employment screening practices in place, so that you can be sure you’re hiring the most trustworthy employees, not just the familiar ones, or the ones you assume will be best.
Woman fired over 40-year-old shoplifting conviction
May 8th, 2012A woman was fired from her customer service job at Wells Fargo Home Mortgage in Milwaukee recently for a 40-year-old shoplifting conviction, calling into question not just rules about background checks, but judgment calls regarding the policies that employers establish regarding what is turned up by employment screening tactics.
According to news reports, Yolanda Quesada was escorted out of the office where she’d worked full-time for five years and had been given recognition awards, service excellence pins and certificates of appreciation. The reason: A background check conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation had turned up two shoplifting arrests, both from 1972, when Quesada was 18. She admits she stole clothing from a Milwaukee department store on both occasions; she was fined $50 for the first, and placed on one year of probation for the second.
Quesada’s former role with Wells Fargo did not include the handling of money, but company spokesman Jim Hines said “Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust.”
Being bound by law to honor certain rules regarding the criminal records of employees or potential employees is understandable, but employers across all industries should use this example as a reminder to not only set fair practices in regards to employment screening, but to use good judgment and common sense when interpreting the results and comparing facts on background checks and criminal records with the tasks that the prospective employee will be in charge of. Every decision on the employment of an individual comes down to a judgment call; let’s use good judgment to hire good people.
Airport security badges issued before background checks complete
May 2nd, 2012Recent news reports that several new airport security employees were given their security badges before their background checks were complete raises concerns about whether other employers take short cuts on employment screening protocols that could compromise the safety of the public and/or fellow employees.
The Transportation Security Administration confirmed that some new employees were issued their security badges even though the third and final step in the background check process had not been completed. The delay was due to a backlog from a computer switchover, the TSA reported.
During the screening process, new employees are required to verify their identity. Then, they are matched to a terrorist watch list. If they are on the list, then they are tossed out. Next is a verification of a prospective employee’s criminal record. Finally, there is a security threat assessment conducted by the TSA. That check is pending for many of the new employees, but airports have been given the OK to grant the badges without that step being completed. The TSA has said security access is limited for those with the provisional badges, and there is no security threat in issuing the badges prematurely.
However safe the public is despite this lapse in protocol, the public relations nightmare it has caused is reason enough for all employers to make sure that their pre-employment screening processes are followed to the letter. No shortcuts should be allowed, for safety and financial concerns, as well as possible legal ramifications.
Failure to perform background check has $1 million price tag for Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York
April 17th, 2012It’s difficult to put a dollar figure on the value of background checks. But that got a lot easier recently for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. The value for them turned out to be $1 million – that’s how much a woman embezzled over a seven-year period while working as a volunteer bookkeeper at the famous St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan.
The bookkeeper was hired in 2003 before background checks were a routine part of the hiring process. If the diocese had run a background check on her, it would have discovered she had been convicted of grand larceny in one case and had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in another, according to an article in The New York Times.
This story should serve as a reminder to all those who still believe pre-employment screening is not worth the time and money it takes to conduct them. Criminal records and credit checks are a must for anyone who will be entrusted with the finances of your business. In particular all those who handle money, or care for others, should be thoroughly vetted.
