by Jason Morris

I came across this blog yesterday and thought it would be a nice addition to our postings. The writer focuses on how a candidate can still promote themselves on a resume even with things that are less than spectacular. She emphasizes that lying on a resume is a big no-no, being ethical and truthful is always the best route. When we launched employeescreen University, this is exactly the type of advise we want job seekers to take, especially knowing that a background check will be conducted!

Is Your Resume a Lie?

There was a high-profile story in the news recently, about the consequences of lying on a resume. Did you see it? Robert Irvine, the host of his own show “Dinner: Impossible” on the Food Network will not have his contract renewed next season. The problem, apparently, is that he fabricated parts of his resume. What a shame! Padded resumes are often the result of job seekers’ insecurities about some perceived weakness or lack in their qualifications. But, it simply isn’t necessary to lie. In fact, it is just plain wrong! Robert Irvine could have avoided this whole situation had he turned to an expert to help him frame the credentials that he did have in the most positive light, rather than faking credentials that he didn’t have.

One of the most frequent questions that I am asked by potential clients takes the form of… “I have a problem (or weakness) in my professional history in the form of XYZ. I’m afraid of how that will look on my resume. Have you ever dealt with this problem (or weakness) before? Do you think you could help me?”

More

by Kevin Bachman

I had the honor of representing employeescreenIQ at the 2008 Annual Employer Recognition Dinner in Columbus, Ohio Saturday night. We were chosen as one of the premier companies by The Ohio Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve and I was proud to accept the award on behalf of all our military employees.

We received the “Chairman’s Above and Beyond Award” because our policies accomodating our National Guard and Reserve employees far exceed our legal obligations. Thousands of servicemen and women across the state nominated their employers for this award. 753 companies in all. This organization, over the course of several months, whittled those nominations down to 23 winners.

It was a proud, formal affair attended by about 300 people, complete with a military band and a flag presentation. Men and women in uniform sought me out (and other winners) to personally thank us for our efforts. To be honest, I was a little awstruck. Many in the audience have seen combat recently. Compared to the comittment and sacrifice of these soliders, our contributions seem so insignificant. But I was repeatedly told I was wrong. I saw how appreciative these officers were toward employers who made their lives and their families’ just a little easier. It made me recognize we can all contibute, even if we don’t wear a uniform.

by Nick Fishman

This just in from the San Francisco “CRONIC”le (couldn’t help it): the Ninth District Court in San Francisco ruled that a city can’t require all job applicants to be tested for narcotics and must instead show why drug use in a particular job would be dangerous.

I would think that substance abuse is a societal problem and one that employers might choose to be concerned about. It not only affects the obvious things like job performance and company reputation, but some of the things we don’t think about everyday like the cost of healthcare. I can’t believe that the court would not at least allow (not mandate) the city to conduct substance abuse testing if they deemed it appropriate.

Read the full story here . . .

by Jason Morris

I wanted to let our readers know that I will be in Las Vegas speaking at the HR in Hospitality Conference on Tuesday March 18th! Please be sure to come to my session HFS3: Trends in Employment Screening: What Foodservice HR Professionals Need to Know

Please don’t throw any tomatoes! Looking forward to seeing everyone there!

by Jason Morris

As many of our readers know I am very involved with our industry international association, NAPBS. Every year for the past four years we have had a “Washington Fly In” to promote our initiatives and make our congressmen aware of our industry and laws that may be affecting it. This year I had the privilege of doing it again. Last week I spent three days in Washington meeting with various Congressional and Senate Offices in addition to a very productive meeting with the Department of Homeland Security.

Not much is happening during this session of congress due to the upcoming elections but it gave us an opportunity to focus on a few issues that are still pending; Immigration Reform, Privacy Bills, FCRA and the Fair use of Criminal Records.

The current E-Verify program run by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration is due to sunset (expire) this calendar year. All signs point to it being renewed. Currently there is a bill supported by SHRM introduced by Congressman Sam Johnson (3rd Dist. - TX) called H.R. 5515 the New Employee Verification Act. The current program, E-Verify is not perfect but it is a good system and is getting better every day. Based on the feedback I received the Johnson Bill is unlikely to go anywhere and will likely die in committee. NAPBS fully supports the re-issue of the E-Verify program and is working with the Department of Homeland Security on ways to improve the program through designated agents.

Other noteworthy bills include:

H.R. 3316 - Identity Theft Protection Act of 2007 (Representative Carolyn Malony)

I had the pleasure of meeting with a few actual members of congress and several senior staffers and chiefs of staff. It was a very productive trip, many of the individuals we met with remembered us from past years. Its important to keep up our lobbying efforts. Many times bills are introduced with unintended consequences for our industry. NAPBS has done an exceptional job at keeping our initiatives on the forefront of their legislation.

by Nick Fishman

Dinner: Impossible television chef, Robert Irvine was fired from the Food Network for fudging his resume. Oh the humanity! C’mon. Can’t anyone tell the truth? I’ve actually watched this entertaining show and the opening mentions the British chef’s accomplishments including that he cooked for Britain’s Royal Family. Unfortunately, I guess this wasn’t true.

Am I surprised someone lied on their resume? Not really. We find a 56% discrepancy between what someone puts on their resume and what we find when we conduct education and employment verifications. Am I surprised that the Food Network didn’t know this before they promoted this television show? YES! As a fan of the show, I can say that the absence of that credential would not have dissuaded me from watching.

Read the full story in USA Today

by Jason Morris

Ahh, the Washington Post, one of my favorite newspapers!  Today they posted a story from the perspective of an HR Consultant.  A good quick read! Look for future posts on employeescreen University from the perspective of various HR Professionals.

By Kenneth Bredemeier

Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, March 14, 2008; 12:00 AM

Ever wonder if a potential employer actually checked your references before extending an offer? It can vary from company to company. But when hiring mistakes are made, however, and a new employee turns out to be incompetent, one is left questioning management’s reason for hiring such a person.

This worker suspects his references weren’t checked and wants to know if the practice has become a thing of the past:

What’s the difference between reference checking and employment verification? I’m almost certain that my employer did not call any of the references I listed. I am, however, pretty certain that they did contact the HR department at my previous company in order to verify employment.

 More

by Jason Morris

I found this blog posting and thought it was an interesting perspective from the job seeker.

Response to Lying on Your Resume

This article talked about the repercussions of lying on your resume. It is really difficult for me to think about lying on your resume…which is probably naive of me. I can understand the pressures of trying to make your resume more appealing to employers. I am currently experiencing the stress of trying to work on my resume for PA school. The article speaks about the fact that companies are now better at finding out when someone lies on their resume. Background checks are conducted to explain why an employee’s performance is not up to par.

More

by Jason Morris

As long as you keep reading them, I will keep posting stories about why employers should not use social networking sites when hiring people. Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks? is a legal blog the following story was written by Carolyn Elefant. Look for more in depth articles to hit employeescreen University in the coming months!

Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks?

As employers increasingly turn to social networking sites like Facebook to conduct background checks on job applicants and employees, a potential face-off is brewing regarding the legality of this practice, according to reports from Financial Week and The New York Daily News. Long ago, most employers stopped requiring applicants to submit photographs or inquiring about marital status or age to avoid accusations that they rejected a candidate for discriminatory reasons. Now, social networking profiles make this once off-limits information readily available, thus reopening the potential for liability. And demographic data isn’t the only concern for employers. Facebook profiles may also include information about employees’ political activities, a factor that employers are prohibited from considering under most states’ laws.

More

by Jason Morris

Not an article about background checks but a nice take on Workplace Violence.

ASSE Joins Brief to Support Employer Rights

March 12, 2008

The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) joined with ASIS International and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in recently filing an amici curiae brief urging the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm a 2007 federal district court ruling that found two so-called “forced entry laws” in Oklahoma unconstitutional. The Oklahoma laws would have prevented employers from setting workplace safety rules barring guns to be brought on employer property in a locked vehicle.