by Nick Fishman
For you ATS enthusiasts out there, Kronos announced this morning that they have acquired Deploy Solutions. This acquisition goes well with their 2006 purchase of Unicru who also specialized heavy in retail. Consolidation reigns! See release below.
by Nick Fishman
I realize that our government is so large that often things slip through the cracks, but how can it happen that the General Services Administration let contract workers have access to their information systems without being subjected to a background check?
IG: GSA contractors get system access before background checks
This excerpt from the article says it all: In its audit, the IG said current safeguards do not guarantee that officials will complete investigations before granting access to agencies’ information systems. Even security measures mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, which requires credentials for all federal employees and government contractors after they have undergone a background check, does not offer that protection.
In this day and age, information systems are a treasure trove to those with nefarious motives. How can our government not recognize that and take our security more seriously? Shouldn’t there be some accountability here?
by Jason Morris
I found this story very interesting and a great tie-in for background checks.
CHARLOTTE, Tenn. - A Dickson County woman wanted by police turned out to be the real victim.
Police arrested Brandi King for allegedly failing to appear in Maury County court on a shoplifting charge.
by Nick Fishman
Hayes International just completed its 19th Annual Retail Theft Survey and I found the results to be very interesting. See in particular some bullet points related to employee theft. Remaining highlights of the study can be viewed by clicking the hyperlink above.
Employee Theft
• In 2006, survey participants apprehended 66,507 dishonest employees, an increase of 6.57 percent over 2005’s apprehensions.
• Dollars recovered from dishonest employee apprehensions totaled over $56.6 million in 2006, a substantial increase of 16.44 percent over 2005’s recovery dollars ($48.6 million).
• One out of every 27.9 employees was apprehended for theft from their employer in 2006. (Based on comparison data of over 1.85 million employees.)
• The average dishonest employee case value in 2006 was $851.44, a 9.26 percent increase over 2005 ($779.27).
by Nick Fishman
Beware colleges and universities. If you end up getting called out in this blog for failure to protect your school, it is only a matter of time until you change your tune. Last month we highlighted an incident at Colorado University where a school employer with a criminal past stabbed a student. No background check was conducted. This blogger was the first to tell you about it (maybe not) and the school quickly announced that their non-screening days were over.
So it was no surprise to me when the University of Kansas said that they will reconsider their policies on conducting employee background checks after we called them out earlier this week. (Please feel free to clap for me while I am patting myself on the back).
Seriously, it is a wonder to me that in this day and age any organization, corporation or academic institution needs to be convinced that employment background checks are a good idea. Not conducting them is simply mismanagement and neglect of the organization itself, its employees and the people they serve. It does seem that the last bastion of those putting their heads in the sand are our nation’s universities and it is time for change.
by Nick Fishman
Check out this story I recently found in the New York Times: Mortgage Office Manager Charged With Identity Theft and Grand Larceny.
Since these people owned the mortgage company, having them conduct background checks on themselves really wouldn’t have helped, but it is demonstrative to employers of what an employee could do with sensitive data.
by Nick Fishman
Many universities thrive on their time honored traditions and pride themselves on staying true to the pillars of their foundations. One such foundation that is beginning to crack at schools across the country is the tradition of not thoroughly screening university employees for past criminal convictions.
One place that is clinging to the past is the University of Kansas, where they freely admit that their background check consists of a Sex Offender Search and asking the applicant of they have been convicted of a crime.
I’ll let the article speak for itself. Anyone think this is a tradition worth saving?
by Jason Morris
by Jason Morris
I am an avid user of Digg and today they had a funny posting. CNN Fortune is listing the 10 dumbest job-interview moves! Enjoy!
by Nick Fishman
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article entitled Silence Is Golden Rule For Résumés of People Who Have Broken It. It talks about a book written by author Wendy Enelow which seeks to educate ex-convicts how to mislead employers with their resumes. One example is of an applicant who put on their resume that they spent the last four years working for State Use Industries. This happens to be the state of Maryland’s prison industry arm.
While I don’t necessarily like the fact that people are being taught to fudge resumes, I think that this serves as an interesting case study. First, employers need to vigilant in checking references as well as conducting criminal background checks. Second, the author of this book should be careful about the advice she provides. Yes, people with past convictions often times have trouble finding gainful employment. This is a problem. However, even if the resume with misleading facts gets past the first stage, the employee still needs to answer the question on the job application as to whether they have been convicted of a crime. If they answer “yes”, they are still in the same boat they were in before sending the resume. If they answer “no”, they have now falsified an application which is usually grounds for termination. If the company runs a thorough background check and, or conducts employment verifications, they are going to find this information.
The author also says the same advice applies to people who have experienced extensive illness which has caused them to have gaps in employment. Maybe I’m naive, but lying and misleading about such gaps seems like bad advice. Why not write a cover letter explaining the gap? Again, if the employer feels like you’ve intentionally covered something up, who wins?
Admittedly, I have not read the book. Just the article as it was presented by the Wall Street Journal, but I certainly hope that the author of this book explains the shortfalls of engaging in practices such as those mentioned.
