Tag Archives: Background Checks

Boston Schools Broaden Employee Background Checks

Posted on by
Reply

In January, Massachusetts’ Governor Deval Patrick signed the Act Relative to Background Checks bill into law. This law now allows the school systems to perform national criminal background checks on employees. Previously, employees were only screened for crimes committed in the state of Massachusetts.

In February, a Boston Herald investigation revealed that a man with two previous drunk driving arrests plus multiple breaking and entering convictions was currently employed to drive a van for a public high school. As a result, the Boston area began performing a sweep of background checks on their current employees. The results have been shocking.

The area has 9,000 school workers, and currently one-third of the background checks have been completed. So far, 11 “support” staff” employees (non-teachers) have been placed on administrative leave due to their criminal records. Some of the employees had a history of serious offenses that included: felony kidnapping, drug possession, assault, and unlawful ammunition possession. Of the eleven staffers with previous offenses, none of them had ever been charged with a sex crime.

Prior to this year, a school review board only turned down job applicants who had been convicted of serious crimes. Now, more consideration is being given to those employees who’ve also been charged with a crime, but had a non-conviction. The panel realized some individuals who made plea deals that resulted in non-convictions should be turned away as well.

Visit www.verifyprotect.com for more information about our employee background screening solutions.

Follow Verify Protect on Twitter

Family Wants Social Media Background Checks After Workplace Shooting

Posted on by
Reply

Last summer, a supermarket employee in New Jersey walked into his workplace and killed two employees before shooting himself. It was later revealed the gunman had posted this chilling question three years prior on his Twitter account: “Is it normal to want to kill ALL of ur (sic) coworkers?”

In the wake of this tragedy, family members of one of the victims are now lobbying for legislation that would require an employer to review a job applicant’s social media history as part of their background check before hiring them. Aptly named “Cristina’s Law” after 18-year-old victim Cristina Lobrutto, the bill contradicts new legislative proposals by state and federal lawmakers seeking to protect an individual’s right to social media privacy.

This year, thirty-five states currently have legislation pending that would prohibit employers from requesting an applicant’s social media password as a condition for employment. Maryland, California, Washington, New Jersey, Illinois are some of the states that have already passed such laws. Similar legislation also prevents colleges and universities from requesting social media personal information.

Advocates of Cristina’s law argue that if employers had seen the New Jersey shooter’s previous Twitter posts, he never been hired by the supermarket chain. Opponents of the law argue that reading one’s social media history is the equivalent to asking for their personal diary or reading private emails. Lawmakers voting to prohibit social media screenings feel that a basic criminal background check should be sufficient.

So what do you think? Should employers be able to consider social media posts before hiring applicants, or is this a violation of privacy?

Visit www.verifyprotect.com for more information about our employee background screening solutions.

Follow Verify Protect on Twitter

Here’s a checklist for when to request a credit check

Posted on by
Reply

All these new Equal Employment Opportunity Council guidelines on background checks have caused many employers to reevaluate the way they conduct their employment screening, as well as the justifications for each type of report they request on every potential new hire. While that is a positive outcome, and the desired one, from the EEOC’s standpoint, it has caused some employers to be a bit confused about just what is acceptable and OK in regards to the various types of background checks they’d gotten accustomed to using without question for just about every hire.

So when is it acceptable (and a very good idea) to request and use a credit check as part of the employment screening process?  Here’s a checklist:

  • When the position you are hiring for involves access to confidential financial information.
  • When the employer is a bank, credit union, or other financial institution.
  • When the position in question is a law enforcement officer, emergency medical personnel, or a firefighter.
  • When the position of employment requires a financial responsibility to the employer or a customer. Responsibilities might include authority to issue payments, collect debts, transfer money, or oversee contracts.
  • When the employer can demonstrate that the information is a valid and reliable predictor of employee performance in the specific position of employment.
  • When the position of employment involves access to an employer’s payroll.

Follow Verify Protect on Twitter

New survey says more employers doing fewer credit checks

Posted on by
Reply

A recent Society for Human Resource Management survey found that more than half of respondents to a recent Society for Human Resource Management survey said they don’t use credit checks in the hiring process. That’s an increase from 2010, when 40 percent of organizations reported not using credit background checks. In 2004, 39 percent said they did not use such background checks when hiring.

The survey also found:

  • Most employers focused on credit histories of two to seven years. Only 6 percent of organizations said that all years of credit history were equally important, a decrease from 17 percent in 2010.
  • Of the 34 percent of employers that conducted credit checks on selected job candidates, 87 percent did so for positions with financial responsibilities and 42 percent used them for senior executive positions.
  • More organizations saying that complying with state law requirements was among the primary reasons criminal records checks were done, up from 20 percent in 2010 to 28 percent today.
  • Fifty-eight percent of organizations allowed job candidates to explain the results of their criminal checks before the decision to hire was made.

The findings suggest employers are becoming more selective on the background check processes they use and are tailoring the vetting process to more acutely select the kind of background information most useful for each individual job description. This comes on the heels of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s new guidelines on criminal background checks.

Follow Verify Protect on Twitter

Foreigners in U.S. flight schools aren’t all given background checks

Posted on by
Reply

More than a decade after al-Qaeda terrorists who helped carry out the Sept. 11 attacks received flight training in the U.S., a government investigator has found that American officials aren’t doing background checks on all foreigners who apply to flight schools.

An unspecified number of the 25,599 foreigners who applied for U.S. pilot licenses between January 2006 and September 2011 weren’t given background checks by the Transportation Security Administration, said Stephen M. Lord, a director at the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s auditor, in written testimony for a U.S. House panel last week.

Foreigners who weren’t subjected to criminal background checks still received training and a license, Lord said at a House Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on the security gaps. According to Transportation Security Administration rules, foreign nationals looking to get flight training in the U.S. must receive a security threat assessment. That process includes checking applicants’ backgrounds for terrorist and criminal activities and immigration violations.

Mohammad Atta, the lead Sept. 11 hijacker, and some of his accomplices received flight training at U.S. schools. It’s surprising and frightening that so many years after the U.S. was crushed with the single worst terrorist attack, such background check policies would still have such weaknesses.

Follow Verify Protect on Twitter

Baldor Electric Co. settles hiring discrimination claim

Posted on by
Reply

Yet another company has been caught in a discrimination claim when it comes to background checks used during the hiring process. Baldor Electric Co. has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs discrimination claim based on their employee background check policy.  The company denied bias in its settlement. Baldor holds more than $18 million in federal contracts and is owned by ABB Ltd. in Zurich, Switzerland.

The Labor Department investigation determined that Baldor’s background screening process had a disparate impact on women and minorities. The result of those screening protocols was that 795 qualified women and minorities were not given the opportunity to advance to the interview stage of the hiring process. The company has been defending itself since the Labor Department raised the issue over Baldor’s 2006 employment applicant screening data.

EEOC guidelines on background checks causing a stir

Posted on by
Reply

We know we’ve written about this before, but there seems to be some lingering confusion regarding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent guidelines changes to the way background checks are used in pre-employment screening protocols. So we thought we’d try to clear it up.

In April, the EEOC issued new guidance for employers to use when considering arrest and conviction records in employment decisions. It determined that the use of an individual’s criminal history during the interview and hiring process could constitute discrimination and makes an attempt to discourage using the information differently based on an applicant’s race or national origin.

Some employers may have interpreted this in the broadest sense, doing away with criminal records checks as part of their employment screening processes because they’re scared of legal repercussions. But that’s not the safe way to go, nor is it what the EEOC intended. To remain fair and safe, employers should still conduct criminal background checks, but only consider convictions, not arrests. Arrest records are not proof of criminal conduct, so they should not be used as grounds for exclusion. Conviction records, on the other hand, typically serve as sufficient evidence that a person committed a crime. Use of these records by an employer makes good legal and business sense.

Let’s be clear, one more time: The EEOC cannot mandate that employers must refrain from obtaining or using conviction records, nor are its new guidelines trying to dissuade employers from doing so. They simply seek to ensure that such information is not used in a discriminatory way. Employers should not be using a blanket policy, such as “no felony convictions in the last seven years.” Instead, they should review each criminal background report on a case-by-case basis and make sure the company’s background check requirements make sense for that position.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

HR professionals should be cheerleaders for screening policy

Posted on by
Reply

Are you an HR professional who believes in the importance of background checks but can’t get the rest of your team on board the employment screening bandwagon? The human resources department often takes the fall for a bad hire, because they’re the ones who are charged with checking references and obtaining drug test results for new hires. But it’s not fair to blame HR when there is no clearly established system of checks and balances in place for prospective employees.

If you’ve been at this awhile, chances are you already have employment screening protocols in place – it just might not be formal “policy” yet. In order to get your employer to adopt a formal policy, you might have to do the legwork. But that’s still worth it, if it means you will avoid trouble down the line – legal or otherwise – thanks to a bad hire that slips through the cracks.

First you’ll need internal support for the practice, so educate key decision makers and stakeholders about the benefits of pre-employment screening. Point out benefits like the ability to make intelligent and informed hiring decisions, having a safer workplace and enjoying the efficiency of a more productive workforce.

Next, put together a draft of a formal policy. Include the different types of screenings for the different positions at your company. Then based on the kinds of screening reports your company needs, research to find the best available professional screening service to meet your needs. Doing the work up front for this very important policy will benefit everyone in the long run.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

Screening only one facet of avoiding, or catching, a criminal

Posted on by
Reply

The headlines on the Jerry Sandusky trial are a clear indication that there needs to be more than background checks in order to protect children from predators. For those not familiar with the case, Sandusky is the former Penn State assistant football coach who is currently facing 52 counts tied to what prosecutors say was his sexual abuse of at least 10 boys over a span of 15 years. The state says Sandusky met many of his alleged victims through The Second Mile, a charity for underprivileged youths that he founded.

Avoiding the hiring of someone with a criminal record that could pose a threat to your company or your employees is one thing. But catching a criminal is another, and a background check doesn’t always reveal one. Sandusky, though his trial is ongoing and he hasn’t been convicted of any crime yet, had no criminal record leading up to this recent arrest.

Last week the national Amateur Athletic Union (AAU), one of the nation’s largest volunteer sports organizations, announced aggressive actions to implement the measures put forth by two independent task forces. The first steps include requiring that all adults involved in AAU activities – from volunteer coaches to AAU staff – undergo detailed background checks. The second is adopting clear policies and procedures designed to ensure that young athletes are never left alone with individual adults. And the third step is requiring all AAU volunteers and staff to report any incidents of suspected child abuse to law enforcement and to officials of the AAU and related sports clubs.

The action was prompted after child sexual abuse allegations were lodged against an ex-president of the group, according to news reports. In total, there are 42 recommendations for changes in AAU policies, procedures and protocols, all designed to make young athletes safer. The recommendations cover six broad subject areas: culture, protocols, screening, participation, training and reporting.

The fact that screening, employment screening and volunteer screening, is only part of the recommendations is a good indication that every employer and every organization across all industries should have a multi-tiered system in place for preventing – or at least catching — such abuse.

Follow VerifyProtect.com on Twitter!

Clearing up myths about background checks

Posted on by
Reply

With the use of background checks increasingly in the news, employees and job seekers across all industries are becoming more wary of what details about their personal and professional histories are being researched, reviewed and used against them during the hiring process.

The vast majority of employers use fair, unbiased measures to help them determine the best applicant for a particular job. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t a slew of misconceptions out there regarding employment screening. Here are a few of the most common misconceptions, which all employers should be aware of as you journey through the hiring process.

Myth 1: Background check policies are the biggest reason the unemployment rate is so high. This is untrue. Background checks do keep the occasional applicant from securing the job, but background check policies are put in place to ensure the best applicants are hired and retained. The goal is to hire, not to keep a position unfilled.

Myth 2: If you have a criminal record, you won’t be hired. While having a criminal record could pose some difficulties during the hiring process, that depends on how long ago the crime was committed, the nature of the conviction, among other things. According to one survey, less than 10 percent of applicants with criminal records are denied employment.

Myth 3: Employers factor in your credit score when deciding whether or not to hire you. Not true in most cases. Credit checks are typically done when the job in question involves handling money and keeping track of finances. Even so, most employers use what’s called an Employment Credit Report, which does not include a credit score.

Myth 4:  Applicants aren’t given a chance to correct or argue findings. Actually, by law employers are required to give job applicants a copy of their background check and allow them to clear up any misinformation.

As with most areas of business, communication is key. Make sure your policies are clearly stated, and strictly followed. And give prospective employees the chance to clear up any misinformation that might have been uncovered during the process.