by Jason Morris

This is another example of a law that could hamper an employers ability to run a thorough background check. Read our other postings on this subject you may be surprised to see our position on the subject.

Don’t sanction secrets

By Boston Herald editorial staff
Saturday, May 24, 2008 - Updated 2d 23h ago

When it comes to reforming the state’s criminal records law, Gov. Deval Patrick can’t win for losing.

His bill aimed at smoothing the path to employment for ex-offenders is bogged down in a Legislature that can’t seem to find agreement on just what those reforms should look like - or whether they should make any changes at all. The co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee told the State House News Service last week that the proposal is hitting “a lot of roadblocks.”

Advocates for ex-offenders, meanwhile, continue to criticize Patrick for backing a measure they say doesn’t go nearly far enough. They staged a four-day march and a State House rally on Thursday where they called on Patrick to do more on behalf of ex-cons who have moved beyond their checkered pasts.

When both sides are kvetching it can be a sign of a good compromise. On this rare occasion we hope that’s not the case.

That’s because the criminal offender record information law, known as CORI, is an important tool for employers who have a right to information about the criminal backgrounds of their prospective employees. Tinkering with it to curtail access to that information is simply the wrong way to go.

Patrick’s bill would shorten the length of time before a felon can petition to have a criminal record sealed from public view - from 15 years to 10. For a misdemeanor, it would go from 10 years to five. In both cases the individual must have maintained a clean record in the intervening years.

A competing bill pushed by advocates would shorten the waiting periods to seven years for a felony and three years for a misdemeanor. But no matter how you slice it the “reforms” call for keeping secrets from those who have a legitimate right to know who is keeping their books or caring for a vulnerable senior citizen in their charge.

More

by Jason Morris

A triple threat, a hat trick, a triple double, how about three strikes and you are out? As an avid sports fan reading an article about sports at the University of Tampa the sports cliches are just poring out.  The negligent hiring doctrine lays out a simple rule; “If you could have known, you should have known!”  This case however brings a multi-pronged suit to the University of Tampa.  Aside from the obvious, Negligent Hiring, we also have Negligent Retention and Negligent Supervision.  I won’t regurgitate the reasons, you will see that in the article.  I will however stand on my soapbox and say “I told you so.”

No one is immune from a lawsuit.  We have been saying it for years, organizations are liable for not running thorough background checks.  Screening your employees is the simplest way of avoiding a very expensive lawsuit.

This story is a classic text book case. The Case should raise the standard of care when Colleges and Universities make decisions about why, how and who to screen.

Former Cheerleader Suing UT for Hiring Coach Who Raped Her in 2004

Complaint says background check and his prior arrests should have led to red flags

By: Charlie Hambos

A former cheerleader is suing the University of Tampa for negligently hiring her former coach, who pleaded guilty this year to raping her in 2004.

She says the university erred in its background checks and supervision of the cheerleading coach.

Heather Wienclawski, a former Spartan cheerleader and economics major, says she could not finish her studies at UT because she was raped by Thomas Andrew Hall, who had previous battery charges including one on a police officer, when he was hired part-time at UT.

More

by Nick Fishman

I read a really funny article on ERE yesterday by a recruiter from Disney that wrote “A Candidate’s Guide to Recruiter-Speak”.

See excerpt below:

Every industry and profession carries with it its own distinct jargon. In fact, it is the measure of recruiters’ worth to be able to pick up on the unique lexicon of the positions for which they recruit.

Being able to spout off the verbal equivalent of Google Adwords also preempts most candidates’ assumptions that as recruiters, we’re slightly above amoeba but slightly beneath bonobo monkeys on the evolutionary ladder. (The monkeys do admittedly win by default, though like recruiters, they have been known to eat their young, although most of us do this figuratively through the invention of the concept of “entry-level” employment.)

There’s been a lot of attention paid to the banalities of “corporate speak,” those words such as synergy, deliverables, scalable, and, my personal favorite, paradigm shift, which sounds suspiciously like a Led Zeppelin cover band or a Tom Clancy novel.

Additionally, there is a preponderance of words that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever to anyone outside of a specialized functional area.

Read the full article here . . .

He goes on to list these terms in a rather humorous manner, however one that if true doesn’t really speak well for the industry.  Funny is funny though and I can respect creativity.  Where I take exception is to the following excerpt:

Background check (n) Usage: “You’re our final candidate, but I can’t extend an offer until your background check clears.” Definition: A control imposed by corporations in order to slow recruiters’ ability to extend an offer for a period of time that perfectly coincides with a candidate’s extension and acceptance of other offers. Alternate definition: An industry whose practitioners continue to thrive despite the Internet’s abilities to perform the same functionality at a fraction of the cost.

It’s certainly okay to have a sense of humor, but the assertion that a thorough and accurate background check is only a mouse click away is either ill-informed or irresponsible. There are two many examples of others who are lulled into that same false sense of security and one need only follow the news to find regular instances of companies who said they performed background checks only to have a major incident in the workplace. Many times, these incidents could have been avoided by performing a proper background check.

There will always be a sense of concern among recruiters that they will lose good candidates when a background check takes too long. However, if you have the right screening partner they are doing a good job of explaining what is going on when delays occur. Check out a recent article I wrote on this very topic:

Background Screeners & Recruiters: We Can All Get Along

The author should reconsider the ramifications of relying on only an instant database search as the sole means of conducting a background check and what exposure that might cause his employer and any others who would believe his thoughts on what constitutes an effective search.

by Jason Morris

This story seems very Sci-Fi, but very important to our future! Under this landmark legislation employers are unable to use genetic information to discriminate against employees.  Not that I ever saw the day coming but I guess I have a sense of relief knowing that employment background investigations will not include an analysis of your DNA.

President Bush Signs H.R. 493, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

Read the release from the White House Here

by Jason Morris

Something always bothered me about these commercials, I knew I smelled something fishy! Company CEO, Todd Davis dared consumers to steal his identity. Mr. Davis took this dare a step further, he put his Social Security Number out there for the public to see. It now appears Mr. Davis and his company are being sued in three states because his “lifelock” doesn’t work! To take it a step further, it has been found that Mr. Davis’ identity has been compromised so many times he has over 20 drivers licenses in various states.

I know what you are saying; Why is a background screening company writing about a story like this? Its simple, all the privacy legislation and identity theft news was kicked off a few years ago because of a data breach in our industry. There are now several areas of the FACT Act that require us to help consumers when they are victims of these crimes. Identity theft is a serious matter, consumers are out billions do dollars every year and services like this are not making consumers lives any easier!

The best thing you can do to ensure you are not a victim is check your credit report at least once if not twice yearly. The FTC has some great resources to further protect yourself. If you feel you are a victim, contact your attorney immediately.

ID-protection ads come back to bite pitchman

by Jason Morris

I just saw this blog while doing some research.  I think the volunteers claim that the background checks are a violation of civil rights is ridiculous.  I didn’t take the time to comment on the posting but did read some interesting rhetoric and heated debate below the article.  “Its all fun and games till someone gets hurt”….my mom used to say this all the time!  The same people claiming that the background checks are unnecessary will be the same people complaining when something happens to a kid that a simple background check would have prevented!

by Jason Morris

We were just notified about this from the Executive Director of NAPBS®. The good news is NAPBS® has been successful 100% of the time when these issues arise. This Bill was passed 46 to 17 by the Rhode Island House.

We have written about these issues many times before. We support ex-offenders and their rights to enjoy gainful employment. In fact, GOSO (Getting Out and Staying Out) is one of our corporate philanthropy’s. We just think employers have the right to know! Employers have the responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for their employees, customers and vendors. Its a slippery slope when putting forth legislation such as this. My hope is that the RI Senate quashes this effort, if not, a Veto from the Governor is also possible. Please take the time to write to the RI Legislatures about this issue!

House OKs bill to destroy criminal records

By Katherine Gregg
Journal State House Bureau

PROVIDENCE — Advocates for convicted criminals scored a victory on Smith Hill yesterday.

Despite objections from the attorney general, the state police and the governor, the House voted 46 to 17 for a bill to quash and destroy the records of criminal cases in which the accused was given a deferred sentence, usually in exchange for sparing the state a trial by pleading no contest or guilty to a crime.

The bill, which is now headed to the Senate, calls for the automatic destruction of all such records at the end of the deferral period — which usually runs five years, regardless of how serious the crime or the criminal history of the offender as long as he or she stayed out of trouble in the interim.

The bill sailed through the House with no debate yesterday after a heated — but short-circuited debate earlier this week — in which proponents assured their colleagues it was aimed at helping people remove from their records youthful indiscretions that were keeping them from moving ahead in life, school and jobs, and opponents noted the bill goes much further than the state’s existing expungement law in that it is not limited to nonviolent crimes by first-time offenders.

Beyond that, critics argued that it could be used as a legal club to try to prevent newspapers from publishing facts that the public already knows about crimes — or perhaps should know — if they involve candidates for a job, including public office. Current state law bars people with certain felony convictions from obtaining state licenses to work in nursing, social work and auto repair: this would provide a way around that.

“So now we are rewriting history and telling the newspaper they can’t refer to something that everybody knows about?” Rep. Laurence Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown, asked rhetorically.

More

by Jason Morris

For some reason the Wall Street Journal re-printed an article I was quoted in a few years ago.  The article was originally published in August of 2005 before we changed our company name. The article focuses on the verification aspect of background screening.  The interview was conducted while I was Co-Chairman of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®).

Application Asks for Your Salary, But Is It Better to List a Range?

Originally published August 15, 2005

Question: I’m considering applying for a job that requires my salary history and requirements upon application. Do I “give away the store” before getting my foot in the door? And if I do apply, should I be exact, or can I give a range?

More

by Natalie Beck

The Governor of Georgia signed legislation today that will allow employees to keep firearms in their vehicles while parked on company property. Effective July 1, 2008, employers will not be able to restrict their employees from retaining firearms in their vehicles and will have no authority to search vehicles if firearms are suspected in an employee’s automobile. Of course, with any piece of legislation, there are exceptions to the rule. But from what I’ve read, it seems that most Georgia employers’ hands are tied. Granted, the legislation “generally protects employers from liability in criminal or civil action resulting from an occurrence involving the transportation, storage, possession, or use of a firearm covered by the law.” I don’t trust generalities – do you?

So, I take this opportunity to reach out to Georgia employers directly: Make sure you know who it is you are hiring. Conduct a thorough background check to make sure there is no history of violence in your employee’s past. The safety and security of those who work in and visit your offices (and even those passing by) is at risk.

Click here to read “Georgia Limits Employers’ Ability to Restrict Guns in Parking Lots”

by Jason Morris

By SHELTON GREEN
KVUE News

An employee of the Austin State School is now the focus of a state and local investigation after allegations arose Sunday that she sexually assaulted a resident of the state run facility.

The Austin State school houses three to four hundred residents with mental retardation.

A spokesperson for the state tells KVUE that Vester Saylee was hired in mid-March as an aide to the mentally retarded at the Austin State School.  She was 4-months away from completing her probationary period when the allegations arose.

The state won’t say if the alleged victim is male or female, but they did say that he or she was examined physically and psychologically the same day the allegations were made and on Monday they were reported as doing fine.

Apparently another State school staffer made the discovery and alerted the state and local police.

Cecelia Federov of the Department of Aging & Disability Services, the agency which oversees the state schools around the state says Saylee was put through an extensive background check which produced nothing.

More