by Nick Fishman

Pick up any major U.S. paper today and you’ll see that Major League Baseball Umpires are less than pleased with the methods MLB has used to conduct background checks. They have alleged that investigators are making inquiries with neighbors of the umpires which preclude the neighbors to believe that the umpires are engaged in such activities. Questions have included whether the umpires have ties to the Ku Klux Klan or if they have been known to grow marijuana. MLB has denied has denied any wrong doing.

See Umpires questioning tactics in MLB background checks found in today’s USA Today for the complete story.

Here’s my take. First, the type of investigative work MLB has employed to vett their umpires is far beyond that which your average employer utilizes. That doesn’t make it wrong. That makes it much more in-depth, time intensive and costly. Knowing the embarrassment caused to the NBA when it was revealed that one of their referrees was tied to a mafia gambling ring, they have a vested interest in knowing everything they can about the people they employ to protect the integrity of the sport. Furthermore, if they are not involved in these activities, why would they have a problem with these questions? Lastly, if they don’t want to be subjected to these checks, they always have the option of seeking alternate employment.

HOWEVER

If, in fact the investigators crossed the line and intimated that the umpires were involved in the activities they were asking about, they were flat out wrong and should be held accountable. We should have more details in the next few days and weeks and hopefully will be able to make that determination at some other time.

by Nick Fishman

The President of Washington-based Dollarwise payday stores, Charles Seil was operating his business from a prison cell over the summer. A pretty cool trick if you ask me, but the State of Washington didn’t think so when it found out after the fact. In fact, they revoked his license after getting an anonymous tip that he plead guilty to watercraft homicide and had been serving time.

Now, Mr. Seil was not an employee of his company so I doubt he would have instructed his people to run recurring background checks on him to allow for continuous employment, however if the state, which issued his license didn’t get this anonymous tip he’d still be operating his business. What could the state have done?

We’ve written much about the concept of Continuous or Recurring Background Checks recently:

Background Checks for Current Employees

Well, they did perform a background check to issue the license. However, that background check was conducted well before this incident took place. If the had a program in place to update the information, they could have caught this.

The same concept applies to any employer. It’s great that so many organizations see the value in conducting background checks in order to make an informed hiring decision. But, that check doesn’t guarantee that something hasn’t happen since the time that the applicant hired.

Check out the links above for some suggestions on how to effectively screen your current employees.

by Nick Fishman

The beautiful island of Bermuda is one of my favorites with majestic pink sand beaches and the clearest blue waters I have ever seen. If you close your eyes, you can just imagine this tropical paradise and forget about your cares.

Unfortunately, the people of Bermuda are learning a lesson that many have learned long ago: being on a small island or in a small community where everybody knows one another cannot insulate you from harm that can be caused by not performing proper background checks on job candidates.

Are Your Kids in Harm’s Way is a story taken from a local Bermuda newspaper and details a story about a woman who abused children while operating a day care center. This woman had a criminal past and could have been prevented from caring for children had anyone performed a criminal background check.

The problem is that stories such as these repeat themselves all over our country and all over our world. People think that they are immune to such activities because they live in small communities. Unfortunately, many need to live through an experience such as this to realize that this logic cannot stand.

by Jason Morris

In the past my articles have centered around industry issues and identity theft. I just came across this article on Yahoo and thought it was very interesting. I think this type of case could make it to the U.S. Supreme court as it could have ADA and possible EEOC implications. Obviously, drug screening and substance abuse testing in the workplace is a hot issue today and certainly a service offered by employeescreenIQ. My passion for this particular issue could be argued on both sides. I am a strong supporter for substance abuse testing in the workplace but also understand and support the Americans with Disabilities Act. I am not sure where this one will go, but it will be an interesting ride nonetheless.

Medical Marijuana users can be fired: California Supreme Court

By Adam Tanner Thu Jan 24, 6:14 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Companies can fire employees who use marijuana for medical reasons even if California law allows such use because federal law prohibits it, the state’s Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

“Under California law, an employer may require preemployment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions,” Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote.

More

by Nick Fishman

employeescreenIQ president, Jason Morris and I have agreed to participate in the National Association of Professional Background Screeners’ (NAPBS) Legislative Fly-In in Washington DC the first week of March. The intent of the event is to raise awareness of the association and the issues that affect CRA’s and those that utilize background checks in their hiring process with our nation’s legislators. I’ve always had a fascination with politics, so I look forward to participating. I’ll keep you posted on what issues are discussed and who we meet with.

(I know, we’ve used similar posting titles before, but I could resist.)

by Nick Fishman

THE DOCTOR WILL SEE YOUR CREDIT NOW

Here’s an interesting story which describes how the people who developed Credit Scores are in development of a “MedFico” score which will allow hospitals to assess a patient’s ability to pay their medical bills. I’m sure this will prove to be more than controversial.

With this development can an “FCRA” for Patients be far off? Do you think patients will be more prone to identity theft and claim they needed to do it in order to get medical attention? Can a patient dispute what is found on their record, say a scandalous plastic surgery? Can trading organs on-line to pay for medical bills be far behind (oh yeah! That’s been done)?

All these questions are making me dizzy. I hope my Doctor will be willing to see me even though I only have $20 in my pocket.

by Nick Fishman

Recent post I made on Xtra Cheezhead:

Is the state of our economy starting to freak you out? Let’s start by saying that I will not profess to know whether we are heading towards a recession, how long our current economic cycle will last and what the overall affect will be. However, it is safe to say that we can all see signs of a slow down. I’m more of an optimist in this regard and think that whatever pains we are experiencing now can and will be corrected shortly. If it hasn’t already, a slow down will eventually have an affect on jobs; specifically they won’t be as plentiful. If and when this happens employment screening is even more important than ever. . .

The remainder of this post can be found by clicking on the link below:
More Benefits to Employment Screening in Slowing Economy

by Nick Fishman

So I’ve been kind of ignoring the story of NASA workers who are objecting to background checks for the past couple months (I know, brilliant for the guy who’s supposed to be paying attention to these things). I figured it was just another story about employees that were claiming that their privacy is being invaded.

Well, kind of, it is. However, after finally reading through this AP New Release: Court Nixes NASA Background Checks, I get it. This section of the article is what got me to pay attention.

“The workers sued the federal government, claiming that NASA was invading their privacy by requiring the investigations, which included probes into medical records and questioning of friends about everything from their finances to their sex lives.”

I’m all for screening employees for things that might have a direct impact on their character or ability to perform a job, but information about their sex lives? Are you kidding me? I can’t see how that might have an impact on one’s ability to perform their job (unless they are trying to qualify for adult films {couldn’t resist}).

I can’t really speak to the objection about medical records. There are some jobs where that type of information is necessary and I certainly don’t object to the part about personal finances if that sheds a light on character and personal responsibility.

I’ll try to pay better attention in the future and keep you posted on this story.

by Nick Fishman

If your company conducts background checks on applicants in the state of Connecticut, state Substitute Senate Bill No. 1089 Public Act No. 07-243 affects you. Effective January 1, 2008 all Consumer Reporting Agencies (Background Screeners) must confirm criminal records found on those in the state of Connecticut (on a site provided by the state) before they can be reported to the employer. The CRA must also notify the subject of the report about the presence of the records being reported.

I am guessing that this is the state’s way of slapping the hands of those that utilize commercial databases as the sole means of searching for criminal records and, or those that perform shoddy background checks. I come to this conclusion, because if you are performing on-site record searches and validating the records you find (the best practice method), this requirement is a redundant step. Because databases can contain arrest records, expunged records and can even reveal records that do not belong to the subject of a report unless the required authentication takes place an employer could be using information it should not be in the decision process.

To view the full version of this statute click on the link below:

Connecticut Substitute Senate Bill No. 1089 Public Act No. 07-243

FYI, the site that the state is supposed to be operating in was not up and running at the time of this post 1/14/08 (14 days after the law took affect).

by Nick Fishman

At this point most of us that conduct employment background checks know that consistency is key in ensuring a compliant screening process. We’ve all been advised to make consistent hiring decisions when adverse information is present; that we shouldn’t conduct a background check on one candidate and not on another, etc., etc.

However, lost in that message of consistency is that you can and should vary the search criteria used for different positions within your organization. For instance, the search criteria for a company’s drivers would surely include a Motor Vehicle Record check. But is it necessary to perform that search for your administrative assistant? Well, if they are driving a company car or regularly drive their own car for work purposes, the answer is yes. If not, maybe that information isn’t important to an employer. Another example: an Education Verification might be in order for a company’s managers, but is it necessary to conduct such a search on their drivers? Probably not.

The point is that only you, the person making the hiring decision knows what is important to your organization. It might help to make a list of each position you fill and then to establish what screening criteria is important.

Now, back to consistency. Once you define the criteria for each position it is important that each person who gets screened for these positions is screened using that exact criteria. Furthermore, when adverse information is identified you should consider the information and how it might affect your candidate’s employment. Then make an informed (and consistent) hiring decision.