by Natalie Beck

Security precautions in the Canadian retail market are on the rise according to a new study by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Retail Council of Canada. More and more retail stores are employing the use of video surveillance and alarms in their stores in addition to strategically placing more employees on the floor to spot those who suffer from the “sticky finger syndrome.” These measures are being utilized to combat both internal and external theft.

I was a little disappointed to see only a sentence or two about conducting background checks on store employees as the study indicates that 33% of retail theft results from inside jobs. Of course, I understand that that wasn’t the intent of the article written about this study but if retail employers want to decrease the instances of theft in the workplace, it is important that they have information on what constitutes a good background check on a employee. You cannot go wrong with an address history search coupled with a comprehensive criminal records check. Throw a credit report into the mix if the person will be handling money. And don’t forget the sex offender registry search if your employee will be working closely with the public (especially children). Depending on the job type and/or job responsibility, there are always additional services you can add. Retail employers should want to make sure that the person they are hiring does not have theft conviction in their past. If 100% of retailers conducted comprehensive background checks on all of their employees (and not just the 48% that stated in this survey they conduct a criminal check before they hire a new employee), I’d bet you’d see the percentage of employee thefts drop considerably.

Click here to read the article

by Jason Morris

Does your employment screening firm hold the appropriate licensing in states such as Nevada? There are over twenty (20) states that arguably have Private Investigators licensing laws related to employment screening. Many don’t require you to be licensed if you don’t operate your business or have an office in their state. While others only require you to have a license in the state(s) where you do operate. Nevada is a rare exception. They require screening firms to be licensed by their state if you have any clients there and,or if you are performing any research there. This research could include contacting a University or Employer in Nevada by telephone for a verification. The law in Nevada is very specific:

In Nevada, no unlicensed person may “engage in the business of private investigator” or “advertise his business as such, irrespective of the name or title actually used.” N.R.S. § 648.060. Compliance with the statute and regulations is monitored by the Private Investigator’s Licensing Board (“Board”). N.R.S. § 648.030. The penalties for engaging in the business of private investigator without a license are stiff: (1) a first offense is a misdemeanor; and (2) second or subsequent offenses are gross misdemeanors. N.R.S. § 648.210. Accompanying fines range from $2,500 (first offense) to $10,000 (three or more offenses) per violation. N.R.S. § 648.165. Even a single act of private investigatory work by an unlicensed individual is considered a violation of the statute. N.R.S. § 648.063.

The Nevada board interprets the statute to require that a corporation obtain a license even if it operates through a licensed private investigator with whom it has entered into an independent contractor agreement. When posed with this scenario, a board official stated that the corporation would still be regarded as engaging in investigative activity subject to the licensing requirements. Many States have adopted statues specifically excluding Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRA’s). Ohio, our home state, is a great example:

Ohio Revised Code; Title XLVII, Chapter 4749; § 4749.01. Definitions (H) “Private investigator,” “business of private investigation,” “security guard provider,” and “business of security services” do not include: (3) A consumer reporting agency, as defined in the “Fair Credit Reporting Act,” 84 Stat. 1128, 15 U.S.C.A. 1681a, as amended, provided that the consumer reporting agency is in compliance with the requirements of that act and that the agency’s activities are confined to any of the following: (a) The issuance of consumer credit reports; (b) The conducting of limited background investigations that pertain only to a client’s prospective tenant and that are engaged in with the prior written consent of the prospective tenant; (c) The business of pre-employment background investigation. As used in division (H)(3)(c) of this section, “business of pre-employment background investigation” means, and is limited to, furnishing for hire, in person or through a partner or employees, the conducting of limited background investigations, in-person interviews, telephone interviews, or written inquiries that pertain only to a client’s prospective employee and the employee’s employment and that are engaged in with the prior written consent of the prospective employee.

When doing RFP’s for background screening companies or when you are simply giving your process a “chest x-ray” (Thank you Thomas Friedman - The World is Flat) , be sure to inquire if the proper licensing is in place. While we don’t agree with the law, and either does the industry association NAPBS, we have been unable to challenge it. In 2005, NAPBS did a position paper on the subject. The general consensus was that they agree with PI licensing laws for those in the field of Private Investigations. We don’t believe employment screening should fall under this umbrella. Without getting too technical, PI’s develop information about subjects. CRA’s are given written authority and verify information that is provided. employeescreenIQ is licensed in the state of Nevada to perform Private Investigations and thus Employment Screening. Is your provider?

by Natalie Beck

If this study doesn’t convince you to randomly screen your employees for alcohol use (or drug use, for that matter), I don’t know what will. This UK study provides some staggering information on employee alcohol use in the workplace that may leave some of you surprised. While it is great that employers are conducting pre-employment alcohol and drug tests on their employees, it is equally important to continually screen your employees to make sure they are not drinking before work and habitually using illegal substances. Alcohol and drug use are the predominant factors in decreased productivity, absenteeism, and workplace accidents.

Your employee was clean when they started the job, but how about now?

Click here for the study

by Jason Morris

More often than not we write our blog articles about background checks in relation to employment. In my opinion one of the most important laws we have in place today is the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill while still flawed in many ways has brought the concept of background checks to the forefront. Officially called The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, it was signed into law by President Clinton in November of 1993. The act was named after James Brady, who was shot by John Hinckley, Jr. during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

According to bradycampaign.org, a group devoted to prevent gun violence, the US Department of Justice has released some new figures.

The U.S. Department of Justice just released Brady background check figures for 2006, and they show continued success for this life-saving law:

• Almost 1.5 million prohibited purchasers have been denied at the point of sale since 1994.

• Between 1999 and 2006, 11,058 denied purchasers were arrested by the authorities after they attempted to purchase a gun, with 1,314 arrests in 2006 alone.

• Nearly 40% of the denials in 2006 involved individuals with felony records attempting to purchase firearms. (In fact, 6 out of every 1,000 applications in 2006 were made by felons.)

• From 1999-2006, 183,714 NICS denials were appealed, or 15.5% of total denials during that period (almost 1.2 million), and of those appeals, only 65,695, or about 5.5% of total denials, were reversed.

More

by Jason Morris

This is another example of why Nan’s Law should be implemented nationwide. I had the pleasure of speaking before the Pennsylvania State Legislature a few years back in support of this law, so far it appears nothing has happened with it. This story helps justify why background checks are so important, especially in the hotel industry. Its ironic that this article came out the day I returned from speaking at the HR in Hospitality Conference, I used similar examples in my presentation.

Sexual assault has spring breakers concerned about background checks

By: Dave Balut

Clearwater Beach, Florida - A hotel security guard in Panama City Beach is charged with sexually assaulting an 18-year-old woman on spring break and throwing her over a balcony. She survived.

But the attack has some spring breakers in Clearwater Beach wondering about their safety.

More