by Natalie Beck

I find it difficult to accurately convey my thoughts on this story as I think the title speaks volumes by itself. And, quite honestly, I’m extremely dumbfounded that almost seven years after 9/11, this type of oversight on the part of a major airline has even occurred.

We cannot stress enough how important it is for employers to conduct background checks on their employees. Furthermore, it is equally important to screen those who are working for your business in any capacity – volunteers, contractors, part-time, seasonal, etc. For the safety and security of your employees, customers, students, friends, and/or family that enter the confines of your business, you just have to know who you have working for you. You are taking a very big risk if you don’t.

Afghan Hijacker Found Working as Cleaner at Heathrow Airport

FOX News - Friday, May 16, 2008

An Afghan hijacker who won the right to live in England is working at Heathrow Airport in London as a cleaner in the British Airways training center, the Daily Mail reported.

Nazamuddin Mohammidy, 34, was among nine hijackers who in 2000 diverted an Ariana Airlines flight with 160 passengers on board to Stansted Airport in Essex, England.

The group, armed with guns and hand grenades, claimed it was fleeing the Taliban and threatened to kill all the passengers unless they were granted asylum. It took four days for the hijackers to surrender.

Mohammidy appeared in court this week after police pulled him over while he was driving a car around the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow, the Daily Mail reported.

At first authorities thought he was an unlicensed cab driver but were shocked to discover he was one of the hijackers and had a British Airways pass on him.

More

by Jason Morris

A Verifier article written by our own Andrew Cashman.

By Andrew Cashman

When working with criminal records every day it’s easy to forget that what we know, understand, and analyze isn’t always as easy for employers to understand. With so many different terms used in the judicial process we know why. Here at employeescreenIQ we like to make our criminal reports simple to read by following a strict formatting process. We also use side-notes to try and explain abnormal terms or phrases. We hope that this article further assists you in understanding some of the scenarios surrounding a non-conviction.

I do have to explain and disclaim that the use of “usually,” “almost always,” and “most of the time” will be frequently used in this writing since most of the time there is almost always an exception to a rule, usually! We’ll now dive a little deeper into the confusion.

There are multiple terms that tell us a criminal charge is a non-conviction. The terms used in any given court jurisdiction around the country can vary while essentially meaning the same thing. The following terms are examples of commonly used court rulings that mean a case is a straight non-conviction, or a non-conviction without stipulations:

• Not Guilty
• Dismissed
• Nolle Prosequi (Nolle Prosse)
• No Bill
• No True Bill
• No Action
• Acquitted

More

by Jason Morris

Mon, 05/19/2008 - 10:16pm — jensthang

“A recent survey by ExecuNet, a networking organization for business leaders, found that 83% of executives and corporate recruiters research job candidates online, and 43% have eliminated a candidate based on search results. Even if you’re not in the market for a new job, it’s a good idea to take the opportunity to clean skeletons out of your digital closet.”

More

by Natalie Beck

The Houston Chronicle has unearthed documents attesting to the Houston Police Department’s lack of oversight and security in their own precinct. It appears that the Houston PD hired individuals that either had criminal records or no background checks conducted on them and allowed them access to secure areas of the building. Within a six month time period, it was discovered that 30 guns, among other items, were stolen from the department’s property room. You would think that a police department that has sworn to protect its citizens could adequately protect themselves from the very thing they lock people up for every day. Let’s hope that other police stations around the country are doing a better job of securing their facilities from those who do not belong there.

Click here for the story

by Nick Fishman

Warning! Crooks and thieves are getting more creative in finding ways to commit identity theft. See warning below issued from The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

FINRA Warns Job Seekers About Online Classifieds Scams Aimed at Identity Theft, Financial Fraud

WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) today warned investors about a new scam involving online job classifieds that fraudsters use to carry out identity theft and financial fraud.

In the Investor Alert Beware of Online Job Classifieds Used to Steal Your Identity, FINRA describes the latest variation of the identity theft tale. Stock traders, posing as employees of a made-up Latvian brokerage firm, appear to have stolen personal information from individuals who thought they were applying for a job through the popular classifieds website, Craigslist (www.craigslist.org).

“Investors should always be on their guard for identity theft tactics when conducting any activity on the Internet,” said John Gannon, FINRA’s Senior Vice President for Investor Education. “Investors should make sure that anyone who is asking for a Social Security number or other personal information is running a legitimate business before they decide whether to give out such sensitive information.”

According to a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), these traders allegedly used the job applicants’ Social Security numbers, dates of birth and other information to open up online brokerage accounts. Applicants were told that the firm would need this information to conduct company “background checks” – because the firm would be entrusting them with the firm’s money. The traders appear to have communicated with their unwitting applicants only by email or fax.

After “hiring” several individuals, the firm allegedly sent funds to those individuals’ personal bank accounts using wire transfers from Russian bank accounts and a Western Union money order. The individuals were instructed to wire those funds from their bank accounts to specific account numbers – which corresponded to brokerage accounts opened with their personal information, without their knowledge.

In addition, the traders allegedly used stolen user IDs and passwords to gain unauthorized Internet access into existing brokerage accounts of unsuspecting victims. Using the new and existing brokerage accounts, the traders used sophisticated strategies to trade and manipulate the prices of a number of thinly traded stocks – at a handsome profit.

The FINRA Investor Alert issued today recommends that job seekers take the following steps to protect themselves from similar scams:

• Be suspicious of anyone asking for your personal information. According to Craigslist, many identity theft scams that have appeared on their website involve one or more of the following: an inquiry from someone far away, often in another country; use of Western Union, Money Gram, cashier’s check, money order, escrow service or similar instrument; and, a refusal by the other party to meet face-to-face before consummating a transaction.
• Know who you are doing business with. Independently verify whether a potential employer in the securities industry is legitimate before handing over any personal information. Today’s Investor Alert details a variety of online resources for verifying the authenticity of brokers and brokerage firms, investment advisers, insurance agents and insurance companies and non-U.S. financial institutions.
• Don’t Respond to Emails Requesting Personal Information. Legitimate companies will not ask you to provide or verify sensitive information through email. If your financial institution actually needs personal information from you or your statement, call the company yourself — using the number in your files or on your statement, not the one the email provides! Also, never click on links embedded in emails, no matter who the sender claims to be or if the address in the email looks right. These links may actually take you to a spoofed or fake website. You should always type in a web address yourself, directly in the web browser address bar.
• Ask questions. When an individual or entity asks for your Social Security Number, ask the following questions: Why do you need my SSN? Will you accept a different form of identification (such as a telephone number, driver’s license or passport)? If “no”, why not? How will you use my SSN? How do you protect my SSN and other information from being stolen or misused? What will happen if I don’t provide my SSN?
• Order a copy of your credit report. It’s a good idea to check your credit report every year. Look for accounts you did not open and any unexplained transactions.
• Review your account statements. This is your last line of defense. If you are victimized, the sooner you catch it, the better. Regularly review your online account information for unauthorized trades, cash withdrawals, or any other unrecognized activity. Do the same as soon as you receive each monthly or quarterly statement. Immediately report any suspicious activity to your brokerage firm.

Individuals who believe they’ve become a victim of identity theft should respond quickly. Valuable tips and step-by-step instructions are available on the Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Website and on FINRA’s online Identity Theft Checklist. Individuals who become victims of a brokerage firm identity theft scam should contact FINRA’s Complaint Center, the Securities and Exchange Commission or their state securities regulator.

by Jason Morris

SHRM recently had the opportunity to testify in front of the U.S. House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security.  I even had the opportunity discuss the Johnson Bill (H.R. 5515) with the SHRM Manager of Public Affiars a few months ago in Boston at the SHRM HR Global Conference.  SHRM is really pushing acceptance of this bill for a myriad of reasons, most notably the level of Non-Confirmations in an admittedly imperfect system.  According to SHRM CEO, Sue Meisinger:

“New Employee Verification Act” (NEVA).  H.R. 5515 would create a new, more secure, accurate, and reliable employment verification system.”

“The employers we represent are fully committed to the hiring of only work-authorized individuals through an effective, efficient electronic employment verification system,” said Meisinger. “We believe effective employment verification is the lynchpin for true immigration reform. We also recognize that the current employment verification system is in need of real reform and is inadequate to meet current and future demands.”

Workforce Management has an interesting take on the debate.  The ‘Father’ of the E-Verify system, Rep. Ken Calvert, R-California called on SHRM to end their negative advertising campaign against E-Verify.  According to Workforce Managment:

At the hearing, Calvert defended his creation, testifying that 92 percent of employees put into the system are immediately approved and less than 1 percent successfully contest a nonconfirmation.

About 61,000 employers voluntarily use E-Verify. The law that established the system expires in November. Calvert has introduced a bill that would reauthorize it and mandate that all 7.4 million employers sign up over a seven-year period.

Most of the input at the hearing came from people who were concerned that such an expansion of E-Verify would overwhelm the Social Security system.

After mulling it over for a couple days, Calvert issued a pointed statement on Thursday.

“While I appreciated the opportunity to testify, it was clear that the hearing, as evidenced by the second witness panel, was slanted against E-Verify,” he said. “The fact remains that E-Verify is the only tool available for employers, who are required to hire a legal workforce, to check the veracity of identification documents presented by a new employee.”

Then the shot across SHRM’s bow: “There are certain interests that simply do not want employment verification. That is why they will denounce E-Verify and assert that there is a perfect system out there somewhere, when in fact there is no perfect system.”

In my opinion they are both right.  Having spent four years in Washington every March lobbying on behalf of our industry I see both points.  employeescreenIQ has written several articles and blogs on this subject.  E-Verify is far from a perfect system.  The database needs a lot of work and verification standards need updating.  The TNC’s (Tentative Non Confirmations) are causing a lot of heartache for various industries.  Personally, I really like H.R. 5515, I think it simplifies the system and makes it easier for organizations to comply.  However, hearing from legislatures in D.C. there is little support for H.R. 5515 and little money allocated to scrap what is in place and create a whole new system.  I think you will see a re-vamp of E-Verify and a more accurate database in the coming years.  I think H.R. 5515 is a great push to make this happen. I have been wrong before so lets wait and see what happens.  I commend SHRM for their efforts, its doing a lot of good on both fronts!

by Jason Morris

A little resume fraud news from a Canadian blog on Trust in the Digital Era.

How should an employer deal with resume fraud?

The rise in résumé fraud can be traced to the rise in unemployment, coupled with tough competition among those competing in the labor market for what few jobs are available. Job seekers who don’t have a degree or specialized skills are inventing them out of desperation. For the employer, this translates into a significant problem since applicants who lie on their résumés often become employees who misrepresent issues on the job. It is estimated that résumé fraud costs employers approximately $600 billion annually.

More

by Jason Morris

The results were ignored? Whats the point!! Screening employees in Australia has been a hot topic “down under” over the years. From our research Australia, like the US, embraces the concept of employment screening.

Meagher defends disgraced doctor reference check claims

New South Wales Health Minister Reba Meagher has rejected suggestions she misled State Parliament by saying no background checks were performed on a far south coast disgraced doctor.

The State Opposition has released a diary note from a senior Health Department executive which it says shows one of Dr Graeme Reeves’ referees warning the doctor was not meant to do obstetrics.

The Opposition says the diary entry shows background checks were done on Dr Reeves, but were then ignored.

Ms Meagher has told Parliament she stands by her previous comments.

“The Opposition are being quite disingenuous with the way they are waving around a handwritten note … and trying to purport that in fact that is in some way an official record of a background check because it is simply not,” she said.

State Labor MP Mick Veitch has also been drawn into the scandal involving the disgraced doctor.

Mr Veitch used to be the deputy chairman of the Southern Area Health Service and its board minutes show that in 2002 he personally signed off on the appointment of Dr Reeves.

Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner says there are now even more questions to be answered about the appointment of the doctor.

More

by Nick Fishman

Thanks to our good friends at NAPBS for updating us on this recent announcement from United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) concerning the E-Verify program. You might recall that E-Verify is the former “Basic Pilot Program” that allows for Instant Confirmation of Employment Eligibility.

USCIS ANNOUNCES ENHANCEMENTS TO E-VERIFY PROGRAM Improvements Will Focus on Decreasing Mismatch Rates for Naturalized Citizens
WASHINGTON—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today improvements to the E-Verify employment authorization program that will reduce an already low mismatch rate, while also streamlining and increasing the effectiveness of the overall program.
Today’s announcement comprises the first two phases of an overall three-part enhancement for
E-Verify aimed at decreasing the mismatch rate for naturalized citizens.
“Less than one percent of all work-authorized employees receive a tentative nonconfirmation through E-Verify,” said USCIS Acting Director Jonathan Scharfen. “While this is a very small percentage, we believe every employee who is authorized to work in the United States should be instantly authorized by the program. We’re confident that the enhancements we’re launching today will help us achieve that goal.”
Starting today, the E-Verify system will include naturalization data, which will help instantly confirm the citizenship status of naturalized U.S. citizens hired by E-Verify employers. Naturalized citizens who have not yet updated their records with the Social Security Administration (SSA) are the largest category of work-authorized persons who initially face an SSA mismatch in E-Verify. Additionally, a naturalized citizen who receives a citizenship mismatch with SSA can call USCIS directly to resolve the issue (in addition to the option of resolving the mismatch in person at any SSA field office.)
E-Verify also will now include real time arrival data from the Integrated Border Inspection System. This additional data source will reduce the number of immigration status related mismatches for newly arriving workers who have entered the country legally.
USCIS also plans to initiate citizenship status records information sharing with SSA to further help prevent tentative nonconfirmations from occurring. This effort will improve the efficiency of E-Verify by providing to SSA with the most accurate and timely citizenship status information. E-Verify also plans to check against Department of State passport records in the near future to even further reduce mismatches.
More than 64,000 employers participate in E-Verify with approximately 1,000 new enrollments weekly. The Web-based system allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of newly-hired employees. E-Verify evolved from the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program originally developed in 1997 and made available to employers as a Web-based system in 2004. USCIS operates the program in partnership with SSA.
Additional details on the program are available on the E-Verify Web site at www.uscis.gov/e-verify.
– USCIS –

by Natalie Beck

It has been reported that an Australian doctor was hired to practice obstetrics although his background check stated there were restrictions to his license. Why conduct the background check if the results are immaterial to your hiring decision? There’s really no valid excuse for this company hiring this individual to practice medicine at their facility. A background check should never be just a formality in the hiring process. The results should be used for its intended purpose - to make sure that the person you are hiring can not only do the job but that they are the type of person you want working for your company. This company dropped the ball 100 times over.

Employer warned about mutilating doctor: NSW Opp

The New South Wales Opposition says it has proof a former doctor was hired despite a warning he was banned from practising obstetrics.

Dr Graeme Reeves allegedly mutilated and assaulted hundreds of women while working at hospitals at Pambula and Bega on the state’s far south coast.

More