Employment Screening - Merchants Information Solutions, Inc.

More Help Wanted

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:38:00 +0000

There continues to be a small uptick in the hiring. The effects of the Great Recession continue to dampen the economy but employers are now beginning to hire in greater numbers. December 2011 saw an increase in the number of online postings for positions (93,800 more postings than in November 2011, as reported by the Conference Board). While the increase is certainly a robust increase it must be tempered with the knowledge that November postings were down signficantly (down 76,000) as were October (down 14,000).

It seems that the wild gyrations of the stock market gaining several hundred points one day and losing those gains the next, are paralleled in the employment market. There would be greater cause for celebration were there a consistent increase in job postings. One should also bear in mind that as large as the increase in job postings was for December, there are 9.4 million more unemployed than there are advertised positions. It would take 10 more months of identical increases in openings to erase those job losses.

With the holiday season behind us, the seasonal employment that goes with it is likely to worsen the job prospects as employers let go the seasonal workers. Still, a gain is a gain and we'll take all we can get as we work toward a more stable and stronger economy.

Be Careful of What You Post!

noreply@blogger.com (J. Crismon) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:55:00 +0000

Social media sites have garnered a great deal of attention in the last several years. You know it's a popular thing when they make a movie about it. So it's no surprise that many of us have accounts on more than one social media site. For some people, posting status updates quite regularly is a normal part of life. You want to tell your friends how you're doing and what's going on in your life. That's what the sites are for.

Keeping all this in mind, has it ever occurred to you that what you post may be keeping you from getting those jobs you're applying for? Think about those pictures of you partying it up last weekend with your friends. They didn't exactly catch you at your best, did they? Well, you're only human. You have the right to live it up now and then, especially if it's not on company time and doesn't affect your work, right? The real question is, should what you post on social websites be used against you in applying for a job? Two Senators from Minnesota see some real issues with this.

Senators Blumenthal and Franken of Minnesota have recently sent a letter to a company who harvests such social media data to help companies get a better, more personal look at just who is applying to work at their company. While the company claims it is looking for content that displays "racially insensitive, sexually explicit, or demonstrates clearly illegal activity," the Senators feel that there is a possibility the information harvested may not be accurate and could pose harm to individuals seeking employment, not to mention violate your privacy. You can read the press release about it, along with the full text of the letter, here.

While it is not certain exactly where this will go, it does bear mentioning that one should be mindful what they post. Companies are watching what job applicants are posting online as just one method of pre-screening. That may not be a big deal for someone who already has a job and is quite comfortable where they are. But, layoffs and corporate down-sizing can happen all too suddenly. Think about your next employer when you post. Would you want them looking at your social profile?

Hiring Employees with Ideal Characteristics

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 00:26:00 +0000

When hiring, we may wonder if there are essential characteristics of an ideal employee. The answer is yes, although perhaps our concern should be more the cost if we hire a not-so-perfect candidate.

Hiring decisions may be made solely due to resumes or degrees earned, but a more common approach nowadays is a well-rounded approach; an in-depth employment screening process. Not only are resumes and diplomas considered, but also background checks and even behavioral assessments. All of these key ingredients can help in our analysis of seeking employees with particular characteristics that will help us in our specific business. The people we hire can either build up our company or help us lose our business. We need to know what we’re looking for as this is a huge responsibility.

It’s true we want to motivate our employees, but honestly aren’t the best employees those who are self-motivated and don’t require us to constantly cheer them on? Pre-screening will help us to pre-select and then training to motivate isn’t do or die. So let’s examine some general characteristics of ideal employees.

Visualize opportunity and change. We all know those people who see difficulty in every situation and then there are others who grasp on and only see opportunity for change and improving a situation.

Responsible and results oriented. They’re always willingly accountable and focused on what needs to be accomplished. These employees admit their mistakes and fix them. They work independently, following directions and getting along with others.

Motivated and optimistic. They’re always improving themselves and encouraging those around them. These candidates have a proactive attitude, having the initiative to go after their goals. They smile and only complain when necessary to make positive improvements. This ultimately promotes themselves and the company when they please the customers and improve the business. It shows self-confidence and a keen willingness to work.

Honest and ethical. Basically putting in an honest days work, doing the best for the team and not slacking. So don’t work too slowly or get to work late and leave early. Don’t steal materials or time from the company. A good example of what not to do was demonstrated in a recent story in the Los Angeles Times. The Olive View - UCLA Medical Center staff is under investigation for accepting gifts from nursing home employees whose goal was to have Medi-Cal and Medicare patients referred to their services. This certainly can’t reflect well on the Olive-View - UCLA Medical Center. Read the story here.

So with all these character traits in mind, what’s the cost if we hire the wrong guy? The greatest cost could be your company’s reputation but also the time, mistakes, and then having to train their eventual replacement. So hire the right person at the beginning, not the end.

Swimming, Sexual Misconduct & Screening

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:52:00 +0000

This past Wednesday, April 21st, USA Swimming announced their new seven-point plan which was brought about by the unchecked sexual misconduct within the coaching environment. The hope is that now athletes can report abuse in a simpler manner, clearer rules will also be set for proper conduct, and more thorough background checks will be conducted within the employment screening process.

The implementing of this plan all began when one brave 15-year-old San Jose swimmer confided with her pastor of the abuse she’d endured over a 10 month period at the hands of her swim coach. Julia went from outgoing to withdrawn, counting the days until college, but then she thought of the possibility of other future victims and that’s when Julia spoke up. She’d been molested over 150 times both at her school and at out-of-town swim meets. This was the start of the disentanglement of over three decades of sex abuse by 61 year-old Andrew King. King had jumped from one swim team to another, narrowly avoiding the law but always leaving behind fear and doubt. The courage of Julia initiated a strong case against King and put him in jail for 40 years. Julia and her parents are seeking damages and also alleging carelessness in hiring Andrew King. They’re suing not only King, but also San Jose Aquatics, Pacific Swimming, and USA Swimming. In the past 10 years, 36 coaches of USA Swimming have been banned from the sport for life due to sexual abuse allegations. A plan should have been put into place long ago (Read the full story here).

What is this 7 point plan proposed by USA Swimming?

Develop and disseminate comprehensive guidelines addressing acceptable coach behavior.

Enhance the system for reporting sexual abuse to USA Swimming and law enforcement.

Review USA Swimming’s Code of Conduct, as well as those of other top youth organizations.

Review USA Swimming’s current background screening program and determine if enhancements can be made.

Produce stronger communications to member clubs, which are responsible for hiring and employing coaches, regarding pre-employment screening, and the responsibility associated with hiring club employees.

Evaluate the process for sharing coaching history records with member clubs and other youth organizations.

Educate athletes, parents, coaches and club leaders on this important issue.

Go to UsaSwimming.org to read the full article.

This is a sad example of how child protection safeguards failed due to lack of enforcement and clarity. As business owners and managers, there’s a lesson here for us also. It’s vitally important that we use all the safety measures before we hire anyone and then maintain a system of accountability. How nice it would be to live in a world where everyone was honest and abuse of any kind was nonexistent. But we don’t, so our safeguards must be a thorough employment screening process prior to hire and then perhaps even a revamp on our rules and code of ethics and finally a method where inappropriate behavior or abuse can be easily reported.

Disrespectful Employees

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:31:00 +0000

Etiquette. Isn’t that something our mothers taught us when we were young? And something we may now be trying to instill into our children. But etiquette goes far beyond the kitchen table. As adults it branches out to all areas of our lives from social etiquette to driving etiquette and even to work etiquette. Those that lack work etiquette in an extreme way are generally labeled as disrespectful employees, although lack of work etiquette may be mere minor infractions such as a cell phone ringing obnoxiously during a meeting or a distracted employee whose eyes are averting elsewhere when we’re sharing information. Many times etiquette starts with the boss, encouraging cohesiveness and a general respect among him/herself and the employees. The employees will then be more prone to treat others around them similarly. Our attitude can have a profound affect on those around us, whether for good or bad. I always like to go back to the driving example. When someone cuts us off, we’re angry, and sometimes we then cut someone else off to get back ahead. We may think it’s about pecking order, but that’s exactly the mindset we must escape to run a unified business with respectful employees. We can move up, but not in a pecking type way, and not by being oblivious to those around us and their needs.

What can we do as employers to increase our odds of having a respectful work environment? We need to do our homework and it begins with the first step of employment screening. Interviews, background checks, behavioral assessments -- all part of the employment screening process -- can give us much information on how a potential candidate may view himself and others. His actions both during the interview process and in the past can show signs of etiquette and respect or disrespect to those around him. But then again, when potential workers are looking for a job, they tend to put their best foot forward. So it’s crucial even after we’ve supposedly hired the most polite people around to follow up with etiquette rules in our work environment. And it’s really not about a formal setting, serving tea and crumpets in the lunch room at exactly high noon, but rather having good manners. Good manners in the work environment -- and in fact anywhere in life -- is putting oneself in other people’s shoes, gaining insight on the other’s perspective. Here’s a list of some minor bad manner office traits.

Hallway Meetings. Everyone is on a schedule so unless it’s a break or scheduled meeting, don’t chit-chat with co-workers for a prolonged period unless you know they have time to spare. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard friends complain of co-workers who’ve interrupted their train of thought countless times during the day.

Pungent Smelling Food. There are some things that can be offensive to the nose. Take note when eating your tuna sandwich in an enclosed area.

Gadgets and Texting. There’s nothing wrong with these things but it’s all in the context. Many people find texting and emailing rude when they’re conducting a meeting. And text talk is for friends off the job. Text-shorthand isn’t for the boss.

Small infractions such as these can cause resentments among the employees that can linger and affect the bottom line: The Business. According to Christine Pearson, the coauthor of The Cost of Bad Behavior, 48% of badly treated employees have deliberately reduced their work productivity and 12% have quit due to ill-mannered behavior of those around them. These surveys conducted by Pearson and her colleagues also found that the bottom line cost to employers was around $50,000 per employee for offensiveness at work.

Take a look at this youtube video demonstrating some bad behavior at work. It provides the motivation to teach some etiquette training at work (Watch the video now).

Hiring & Retaining Employees

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:04:00 +0000

As a hiring manager, you have a two-fold purpose: Hire good employees and retain them. So the first step would be to hire correctly. How is this done and what are your goals as an employer? Employment screening is all part of the process. A work history on your candidates is not just a desire, but necessary. Is the candidate's work history stable? And have they retained a job for at least a year? If not, why? You want employees with integrity that measure up to your standards. References can be checked. Behavioral and Psychological assessments can be conducted at this point along with background checks. These are all essential elements in the hiring process.

Once the hiring is complete, it's only just begun. We all want employees with motivation who are responsible for their actions -- a bit like parenting. And like a family, it's only as successful and happy as each member. It's a team effort. So what can we do as employers to have employees that are naturally motivated and responsible?

Have a Respectful Environment. As children we learned that to be respected we must be respectful. So we must show integrity and set the example, treating all employees equally. What we don't respect will leave us -- whether it's a spouse, business partner or employee.

Give Clear Instructions. Employees will then know exactly what's expected of them -- their responsibilities and the policies of the business.

Performance Evaluations.This provides feedback to the employees so they can have clear goals of where they need to improve while also appreciating their skills that they've developed thus far. Even train and teach your employees so they are continually learning and growing. This can be done through classes, books, and training videos. Once again, employees will feel respected as resources are invested in them.

Rewarding and Disciplining. It's critical that employees are rewarded with positive remarks, bonuses or raises or all of the above. Don’t delay. Recognition can be an integral part in fueling motivation. And of course, the other end is disciplining. Disciplining must be consistent with specific guidelines. This holds the employees accountable for their actions, both good and bad. Praise your employees for all eyes to see, but correct them behind closed doors. This goes back to point number one: Respect.

All of these points demonstrate to the employees that they are important to the team and when we feel important, we're motivated which keeps us at our jobs.

A nice example of this can be found when Charles W. Gehring joined LifeCare Alliance in 2001. He was in a tough spot, facing a company with financial deficit, a decrease in profits and an organization not too keen on change. Valuing employees and thus employee retention was one key thing he improved upon. Read the story, Making Changes, here.

Questions to Ask when Screening Employees

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:55:00 +0000

Hiring begins well before we actually have an employee report to work: It starts in the pre-employment phase where we must take the opportunity to ask crucial questions to our potential candidates. This enables managers to determine whether the applicants have a good job-fit and are ethical and honest with their answers.

These pre-employment screening questions can be separated into different categories: Previous employment history, drugs, mental health, alcohol and criminal background. What are examples of the types of questions to be asked?

In all cases, regardless of which questions you ask, or how you phrase the questions; you will need to get independent source of information on these issues. It is unwise to accept the candidates' responses at face value as they may withhold, distort, or embellish their past.

Previous Employment History -- Supplement with Employment Verification

What is your previous employer's name and address?
What was your salary?
What was your job title and what were your responsibilities?
Why did you leave your previous job?
Why is there a break in your employment history?
Have you ever been fired or disciplined in previous jobs?

Drugs -- Supplement with a Drug Test / Behavior Survey
In this category, caution must be taken as to what questions you should and should not ask. For example, you wouldn't ask if the candidate is currently taking prescription drugs or if they've ever used illegal drugs beyond a relevant time period. Nor would you ask if the potential employee has ever been addicted or treated for drug abuse. But here are some examples of questions you can ask:

If a drug test were positive: Are there any medications you're currently taking which would cause such a positive result.
Are you currently using illegal drugs, or have you done so in the last two years?
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for illegal drug abuse?

Mental Health -- Supplement with Personality Test
With mental health, there are also certain questions you shouldn't ask such as, if they've ever been treated for mental health troubles or sought out treatment when overwhelmed with stress or even if they are currently looking for medical services. However here are examples of questions you can ask relating to stress:

Has stress affected your efficiency at work?
Has there ever been a time when you couldn't manage work-related stress?

Alcohol -- Supplement with Drug Test / Behavior Survey
If the job involves driving equipment or vehicles or operating machinery, you'll want to know about drunk driving convictions as it establishes a pattern of behavior. You should also ask about being at work while under the influence (drinking just before or during work hours) as this can have a significant impact on efficiency, productivity, judgement, reasoning, and safety.

Criminal Background -- Supplement with Criminal History Report and Behavior Survey
The main question here is whether they've ever been convicted of a crime which would be relevant or impactful to the position for which they are applying. For example, if hiring for a position where the candidate would be in contact with cash or physical goods (warehouse worker, delivery driver, stock clerk, retail clerk, etc.) knowing that they have a previous conviction for theft (particularly a recent conviction) would be highly relevant, but a citation for jaywalking would not. If the applicant had a history of sex crimes against children, that would be relevant for positions involving contact or association with children.

All of these questions can provide insight as to what motivates the potential employee. Do they go beyond what's expected? Have they learned from past mistakes? These are crucial clues for an employer. Insights such as these can prevent many problems in the future for employers. Think through the questions you want to ask during the pre-screening phase. It takes a little more time initially but could pay off in time and money in the long run.

US Immigration Hires Known Fugitive

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:01:00 +0000

Embarassment is the word of the day for the US Citizenship and Immigration Service Division of the US Department of Homeland Security. According to news reports the USCIS has hired a known fraudster and fugitive from the law. The New Jersey Star-Ledger reports that Tahaya Buchanan, 39, formerly of Newark, NJ was arrested this past summer in July when a DeKalb county patrolman noticed an outstanding warrant for her arrest.

Back in March 2005, Buchanan was the owner of a Range Rover vehicle. According to the report, Buchanan hid her vehicle in an Irvington, NJ (just west of Newark) garage owned by her Aunt. She then reported the vehicle as having been stolen and filed an insurance claim with her insuror. When her Aunt's garage caught fire the following month, the fire department came to put the fire out but the hidden Range Rover was discovered as a consequence of the blaze.

Her insurance company launched a probe into her claim and eventually denied the claim and followed up with a criminal probe that resulted in a November 2007 indictment of second-degree insurance fraud. The following month a warrant for her arrest was issued when she failed to appear in court. On January 8, 2008 she was listed in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a criminal infomation clearinghouse utilized by law enforcement agencies across the country.

Buchanan, believed to be an USCIS employee while in Newark, put in for a transfer to Georgia and received the requested transfer. No details are available on what officials as USCIS knew at the time or steps and protocols are involved in evaluating a transfer request.

After Buchanan arrived at the USCIS Atlanta, she presumably obtained housing and established herself in the Atlanta area making no attempt to conceal her identity as there is no report of the use of any alias.

It was not until July 2009 that her outstanding arrest warrant came to light, and this from an alert patrolman rather than from her employer, the US Goverment. Subsequent to her arrest, she spent a week in jail before she was release and USCIS officials yesterday claimed no previous knowledge of her fugitive past.

It seems strangely ironic that her employer, a branch of the US Goverment that is closely associated with law enforcement would be so completely unaware of one of their own being a fugitive from the law. It's clearly an embarassment.

"It’s amazing they couldn’t find her. Good Lord," said Kevin Kerns, the office chief of staff at USCIS where Buchanan still works as an analyst.

Ana Santiago, a spokeswoman for the USCIS, said, "The USCIS is looking into this matter. USCIS has zero tolerance for any type of employee misconduct or criminal activity."

Assistant Essex County Prosecutor Michael Morris said, "We found it surprising, alarming that an employee of the Department of Homeland Security is a fraudster, and we do not understand how she could have remained employed there with an open criminal warrant for her arrest remaining on the interstate system without being discovered."

The Cost of Employee Theft

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:24:00 +0000

There was a recent article published by a reporter at San Antonio, TX station that identifies the current cost of employee theft at $52 Billion.

The cost of these thefts are ultimately born by all of us in the form of higher prices for the goods and services that we buy. The retailers and service providers will increase their prices to us in order to offset the losses they suffer from disreputable employees. This has been, and continues to be, a significant problem. The current difficult economic times seem to bring out the worst in the folks who are already susceptible to ethical lapses.

At a time when customers are unwilling to accept higher prices, retailers and service providers are having their profit margins squeezed. A better approach is to make sure that employees that would steal from their employers do not get hired. This is best accomplished through a combination of background screening (reports criminal convictions) and behavioral testing (disclosures of recent past and propensity for future theft).

Employment Screening: The Benefits & Choices

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:27:00 +0000

In the past, hiring people into our businesses was not such a complicated prospect. We'd see a need for a new employee, advertise, and then receive the applications. So far it's still similar to today. The difference is in the second phase. Years ago, we'd mull over our list of potentials, interview a select few or more, perhaps call some references and then call them in to join our work family. Our world today is more complicated and unfortunately not as safe. An interview and calls to a few references doesn’t cut it anymore, but rather the whole hiring process entails something more complex to match our increasingly multifaceted world. Pre-employment screening is crucial in the hiring process in today's world. At a minimum, we can screen out the criminals. So in corporate America, pre-employment screening has become a standard risk-management tool.

As an employer, there are choices to be made. Do we want to do the screening ourselves or do we use third-party companies? For many companies, pre-employment screening seems like too much work and because of this, there's been a rising movement towards efficient third-party businesses whose main function is employee screening. With a fee, these third-party companies will screen our potential candidates for us, enabling us to have more information during the hiring process. The main benefit of a third-party specialist is efficiency. Many specialized companies can provide these services much more cost-effectively than the businesses hiring. Why? The employer wouldn't need to use staffer's time and resources for the screening, including software programs and training. Training which would also mean understanding state and federal laws when acquiring information and background records. And when considering the ramifications of hiring a bad employee, a screening firm's cost is minimal. So how do we go about finding the best screening specialist for our company?

Choose a professional partner, not just the cheapest vendor although price is important. As when choosing any professional partner, use the same criteria. Are they reputable, reasonably priced, competent and ethical? Or any other criteria that is important to our company. View their website and contact references for further verification.
Does the screening specialist have a full understanding of hiring and screening laws? Are they committed to only sharing the legal information? Are they compliant to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). So are they a consumer reporting agency (CRA)? Or in other words, do they understand the FCRA with its appropriate state laws, including what's legal to report and how to respond to complaints.
Are they members of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS)? If so, it's a demonstration of commitment to this industry's code of conduct -- a professional stamp of approval and a must if seeking a reputable company.
What's the customer service like? Do you have someone specific working with your company or is it more generalized? Take into consideration your specific needs.
Cost. Are you they putting their money where their mouth is? Do they have the knowledge and expertise that match the pricing.
How are the staff trained? Is it clear how data is collected?
Are there policies in place that protect confidentiality of background reports?

When running a business, hiring is an obvious important component. If hiring competent employees is important to us, it should be equally essential to us to work with competent employee screeners.

Deviant Employees May Be Costing You

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:00:00 +0000

Workplace deviance can be defined as voluntary behaviors by employees that defy the company's policies or rules. When we think of deviants, we may picture a peeping Tom -- such as a case that occurred in Nashville, Tennessee when an employee at the Abercrombie & Fitch store filmed a woman in the dressing room. Now the woman in the dressing room sues the company for negligence and for allowing employee, Kenneth Applegate ll, to have a camera at work.

These are the obvious deviant behaviors which could cost our company a lot of money -- not to mention grief for clients or coworkers. But in the workplace, deviant behaviors encompass so much more, including deviance directed at the organization or other individuals whether they may be co-workers, managers and even clients.

Workplace deviances directed at the organization

Stealing. Employee theft and the financial costs are ever-increasing.
No effort at work.
Lying about work hours.
Sabotage.

Workplace deviances directed at individuals

Rude behavior.
Hostile behavior.
Belittling others.

The employees that are the victims may quit or stay and have increased stress. This stress could in turn cause less productivity and lost work time due to psychological or physical torment.

So how are we to protect ourselves or even predict such deviance within our employees? We'd need to look at personalities, including impulsive behaviors and ethical integrity, and examine particular destructive situations. What does our employment screening process entail? Many companies use behavioral assessments and psychological integrity testing as part of their pre-employment screening. This may help predict those who are prone to abuse standards of suitable behavior.

Ethical behavior -- whatever the personality -- is what makes the smartest sense when running a business. Lack of ethics can cause a lot of damage from the manager down. When employers hire negligently -- they lack an employment screening process -- or are discriminatory in their practices or even produce products that are sub-standard, these can all equal big legal judgments. If we expect ethical and non-deviant employees, then our organization has to set the tone -- at a minimum.

Employee Theft

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:49:00 +0000

A 21st annual theft survey conducted by Jack L. Hayes International reported that shoplifters and dishonest employees were apprehended in record numbers by US retailers. In this survey, 22 large retail companies participated with over $570 billion in retail sales in 2008. Of these 22 retailers, shoplifters and deceitful employees stole over $6 billion and of that $6 billion; more than $182 million was recovered. 72,120 stealing employees were apprehended in 2008, recovering more than $69.8 million. Employee apprehension was up 3% and recovery up 9.9 % from 2007. One final interesting statistic: for every 30 employees, one was apprehended by their employer for theft (Read all the results here).

The story of two brothers from Crookston, Minnesota who worked at the Wal-Mart Supercenter is a perfect example. Trent James Olslund, 39, and his brother, Todd Scott Olslund, 40 were both charged with felony theft. Between the two of them, they admitted to stealing about $3500 in merchandise (Read the full story here).

So apprehending the thieving employees was up, but maybe a better statistic would be that employee theft was decreasing. According to the the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they've estimated that American businesses may pay as much as $50 billion annually due to employee theft. And this isn't just due to shoplifting. Small businesses can fail, but 30% are a direct result of employee theft. What about repeat offenders? Apparently 75% of all employees steal once -- a staggering statistic I think -- but 50% of those do it a second time. Who knows about the third, fourth or hundredth time?

So we may wonder, what do employees steal and how do they do it? Shoplifters, it's pretty obvious, depending on the merchandise and whatever they can get their hands on and sneak away with. In a business, perhaps that's a different story. There are resources and supplies of a business -- from pencils to gas, and copper pipes to furniture. And then there is electronic theft: embezzling money, information of company data, and even time.

What's the solution? It seems employers definitely need to be more proactive -- prevention rather than mopping up the mess. The key here is to hire employees with integrity, but it's not quite that simple. People are complex; dynamics and situations change, but we do have tools that can help increase the odds in our favor.

Employment screening. This can help predict the potential of a greedy hand, incorporating drug screening, behavioral assessments and criminal background checks.
Employee education.
Audits.
Job rotations.
Procedures of anti-theft policies which can include rewards for reporting theft.
Surveillance cameras and even just the perception of detection. If someone thinks they're being watched, the chances are they won't steal.

No employer can protect himself completely from employee theft, but he can do his best to prepare and prevent which may, in some cases, save his business.

Drug-Screening in the Workplace

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:14:00 +0000

Pre-employment drug screening is one of the important aspects of employment screening. There are numerous reasons to implement this type of screening when seeking out new candidates.

Safety. Employees need to be alert and focused -- not under any drug influence -- especially if part of their job requirement is to operate hazardous equipment or drive commercial vehicles.
Absenteeism. Health problems have been correlated to drug abuse which can result in sick leave and thus less work gets done -- a burning hole in the pocket for the employer. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), several studies link workers' marijuana smoking with absenteeism, tardiness, job turnover, accidents and workers' compensation claims. This type of abuse can affect the brain, heart, lungs and basic mental functioning in daily life. In 2007, 14.4 million Americans used marijuana at least once in the month before they were surveyed. You can get all the statistics for marijuana abuse at the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Studies of marijuana abuse offer one such example of the hazards of drug abuse in the workplace.
Insurance Premiums. Health insurance premiums are on the rise and as noted above, health problems have been correlated to drug abuse.
Cohesiveness within the Company. Drug abuse can cause mood swings, violence and low productivity. These aren't character traits anyone would desire in a coworker whether they're a drug addict or not.
Criminal Activity. Drug abuse can encourage stealing and abusers may also be more prone to commit sexually-related crimes when under the influence. In 2006, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), National Institutes of Health, released a report showing how effective treatment of drug abuse can save communities money and reduce crime.

A successful business is one where we make a profit reasonable to the efforts put forth. And according to the Small Business Administration as cited by the National Drug-Free Work Alliance (NDWA), companies lose about $7000 per drug-using employee per year. Is that worth it? If not, then a pre-employment drug screening test is a necessary step when considering potential candidates.

Faux Nurse of the Year

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:24:00 +0000

Imagine having a loved one going into the hospital for a medical procedure, but never leaving or even surviving. The odds are stacked against the patient perhaps, but you have trust that the qualified doctors and nurses are doing all that they can. They have the education required, but yet still your loved one dies. Of course it's devastating. But imagine if that qualified medical professional was in fact not qualifed at all. What if they were merely masquarading as a doctor or nurse? If someone died under their supposed care, the effect would be far more than grieving for the loved one. I think it would be closer to an irate sense of betrayal, questioning how this could have happened even if the puppeting medical professional gave his layman's best effort.

Sometimes the fault may lay in our own laps. We've all heard the stories of people going to foreign countries for cheaper medical procedures, usually to do with weight-loss or plastic surgery. It's such an incredible deal that the client doesn't dare question the credentials because it does indeed seem too good to be true. And then, several months later, they are the next subject of a primetime news show -- woman goes to foreign country to beautify and ends up scarred for life. What if, though, we stay in our own country, go see a registered nurse at our local doctor's office, and then find out she's a complete fraud.

Just recently, on August 6th, 2009, a Connecticut woman was charged with reckless endangerment and criminal impersonation charges. Betty Lichtenstein, a 56 year old woman from Norwalk, staged a dinner by the fictitious Connecticut Nursing Association where she was supposedly honored as the Nurse of the Year in 2008. She may have gone undetected if a patient hadn't complained which is when the Medicaid Fraud Control unit began its investigation. Betty Lichtenstein was indeed not a nurse, in fact she'd spent $2000 of her own money when she'd staged the whole dinner. Read the full story here: 'Nurse of the Year' charged with not being a nurse.

Perhaps if a more judicious pre-employment screening process had taken place, Betty Lichtenstein wouldn't be playing Nurse of the Year. Fortunately there were no deaths under here care -- as far as I know -- and fortunately she was caught before her layman's best care caused even more damage.

Shooting Averted in Employee Termination

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:12:00 +0000

Reported in MyStateline.com was an incident in which a long time employee was about to be let go. The economic situation makes for difficult decisions that can affect anyone regardless of position or tenure.

The employee in question, Guadalupe Cabrera Miranda, was employed by California Waste Stations and had left his home with a loaded gun. He had left a note to his family stating that the morning would be the last time he would be seen alive. He had left to attend his employment termination appointment. He was angry with his employer and presumed to be ready to forcefully make known his anger over the decision to let him go.

One of his children read the note and called the police. The police intervened before Miranda arrived at the worksite and took him into custody. It is very likely that his child is responsible for saving his life, and potentially the lives of several others.

Angry Employees: What Are They Costing You?

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:41:00 +0000

Here is a little story to provide some background to the question.

July 14, 2009, Gainsville TX

An employee of a local Jack in the Box was failing to meet minimum performance standards. The boss pulled him aside and informed him that his performance on the job was inadequate and that he was being fired.

The employee (now a former employee) didn't react well to the news and proceeded to smash two cash registers, headset equipment for the drive-thru, a shake machine, and several meals intended for customers. When the police were summoned, he fled to avoid arrest.

The estimated damage to the restaurant was $1,500. There is no way of knowing what damage was done to the reputation of the restaurant in the eyes of its patrons, especially those who were present when he lost his temper and began damaging equipment and scattering food.

This prompts the question of what is the cost of employees who choose to vent their frustrations on their employer? Sometimes they cause damage as in this case. At other times, they choose to steal. They can threaten, injure, or even kill fellow employees and/or customers. However, they choose to express their anger and frustration, it will be expensive for the employer.

Prevention is the best answer. It is the best answer because the homicides, assaults, thefts, and vandalism that might have occurred never do in the case of prevention. Prevention is the key.

Positive Jobs Outlook

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:03:00 +0000

In a post earlier this month, I shared my views that now is the time for companies to kickstart their hiring programs. There is an abundance of talent looking for a good opportunity. It is (presently) an employers market with more job seekers than jobs. That, however, will not last as the economy continues to improve.

Already some of the best talent available is being snapped up. Too many companies have missed the green flag and are still acting as though the yellow caution were being displayed. It is time to step on the accelerator pedal and pass the competition.

As evidence of this I offer the latest news from the Conference Board. They publish the results of a survey of online job sites and the number of positions advertised or Help Wanted On Line (HWOL) ads. With May just concluded, the conference board has reported that there has been a sizeable net increase of advertised positions (250,000 more than April).

The future of the economy is still uncertain (always has been, always will be) but the green flag is out. Drivers who miss it will be passed by those that see it.

Going Postal -- Violence in the Workplace

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:39:00 +0000

Many of us are familiar with stories of workplace tragedies: A disgruntled employee unleashes his fury by shooting at fellow employees and managers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), out of 5,657 total work fatalities in 2007 in the United States, 864 of these fatalities resulted from workplace assaults and violent acts. Everyone's heard of going postal. How do you avoid your own industry becoming a popular moniker for that sort of behavior? Will the next one be going automotive, going finance, or going semiconductor?

So what exactly is the definition of violence in the workplace? It's any act where a person is intimidated, threatened, abused or assaulted in the workplace. The warning signs of violence can include chemical dependency, personality disorders, impaired ability to function and other disturbing behavior. However many of these incidents can occur with no warning, but it's the responsibility of the company to do as much as possible to avoid such situations. We watch the stunned survivors on the evening news, completely unaware that this calm employee had a violent side. While there are hundreds of these incidents occurring each year, there are also expensive lawsuits being filed: Negligent hiring lawsuits.

As managers and business owners, what can we do to avoid these negligent hiring lawsuits? The best we can do without a crystal ball is to use all available tools to help in smart hiring practices such as pre-employment screening procedures and background checks. Avoiding liability means hiring people with no violent behavior charges in their past. We may rationalize that this is a small problem that wouldn't happen to us, but let's go over some facts provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): a government agency in the Department of Labor to maintain a safe and healthy work environment. Homicide is the second leading cause of death in the workplace.

Assaults and threats of violence number almost 2 million a year.
Most common assaults are simple assaults, 1.5 million a year.
Aggravated assaults: 396,000/year.
Rapes and sexual assaults: 51,000/year.
Robberies: 84,000/year.
Homicides: nearly 1,000/year or 864 as quoted above.
The economic impact of workplace violence cost employees $500,000 in 1,175,100 of lost work days each year.
Lost wages: $55 million annually.
Lost productivity, legal expenses, property damage, diminished public image and increased security: billions of dollars.

The last bullet is motivation enough. Going Postal, sadly, is still popular decades after the phrase was created. And while we can't predict all employees' behavior, we certainly can put more strategies in place now to know who we're hiring.

Running an Ethical Business Successfully

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:04:00 +0000

On May 7th, a Florida housekeeper stole over $100,000 in jewelry from a home where her duties were to clean the house of the homeowners, not clean them out. Homeowners are becoming leery of hiring just anyone to clean their homes and tend to their yards. Some are turning towards businesses whose motto and practice is one of trustworthiness and therefore whose representatives are hopefully those that can be depended upon. And this cautiousness can spread to all facets of business, whether to our bankers or mechanics. A cry for ethical workers can be heard among the mumblings of families where greed has taken the forefront to a sincere day's work. And then when those honest businesses are found -- they have loyal customers for life. A good recommendation from a friend -- even if the price of a product or service is higher -- is always a better sell.

What are some tips that business owners can incorporate to gain such a reputation and thus increase their business productivity?

Treat each person as if they are a potential customer, even if you know they'd never use your product. They may have friends or family that would. And remember people ultimately buy relationships so put all potential customers at ease.
Never hesitate to apologize for your mistakes and follow-up with corrections.
Be honest and upfront from the beginning, articulating the standards that your company adheres to.
Participate in employment screening, knowing exactly who you're hiring.
Employers set the example to their employees. If you want ethical employees, keep a high standard for yourself and have consequences for employees that violate the code.
Keep promises to customers even if it costs. Remember referrals don't come from dissatisfied customers.
Respect. If we want respect -- just as we tell our children -- treat others with respect. Treat customers, vendors, and employees with respect and loyalty will follow.
Be socially conscious, donating time and money to causes that are relevant to you. This sends a positive message to those watching.

People are seeking out honest businesses, so let that be a niche you fill. However hard it may seem at first, it will pay off in the end through loyalty from customers and your own personal fulfillment.

Running a business founded upon principles of ethical behavior requires strong leadership. As a business leader, you will need to set the example (which includes how you treat your employees) for the rest of organization to follow. You will need to define your company's core principles if they are not already defined, or perhaps refine them if they have already been defined.

Programs that are responsible for recognizing excellent employee behavior and rewarding them accordingly (often accomplished in performance evaluations and bonus programs) *must* include ethical behavior as a key component and few things have the ability to reshape behavior like reward systems. Don't forget to include a review of hiring practices and evaluation criteria of the job candidates. The hiring practices, procedures, and criteria will all need to be updated to reflect the company's updated core principles.

There is a competitive advantage in ethical behavior. The reward is long-term and can take some time to realize. Still, the reward is worth the effort and your customers, employees, and business partners will recognize and respect the success you will have achieved.

Now is the Time to Launch Your Hiring Program

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:16:00 +0000

The time is now. Now is the time.

The global recession that began some 18 months ago has done some severe damage to a lot of companies. They have had to thin the ranks of employees. In too many cases, companies have had to cut so deep that the people who were being let go, were the some of their star players.

The recession appears to have hit bottom. The financial markets are beginning to strengthen and the housing market is also showing signs of beginning the rebound. The job market, however, is still terrible. Unemployment figures were released this morning that shows the national unemployment rate at 8.9%.

However, there is a silver lining. The job market is a lagging rather than leading indicator, meaning that the markets improve well before the job market does. The monthly job losses are down (539,000 in April compared to 640,000 in March) but the job market is still in rough shape. The silver lining is that there is a brief window of opportunity for smart companies to take full advantage of a poor job market.

There are some very good people who are out of work and looking. Smart companies will recognize the upturn in the economy and seize the opportunity to cherry pick from the labor market those people who will help them go farther and faster than their competition when the economy is on the upswing.

In less than two months, the other companies will figure out that it is time to prepare for the future upturn and begin to hire accordingly. Right now is that time when the market has begun to turn but most companies are still sitting on the sidelines in terms of hiring.

If you execute now, the cream of the crop is available. If you wait another two months, many of the best will already be gone and race for top talent will have tightened. Now is the time to seize the opportunity. If you snooze, you'll lose.

Give Your Candidates a Copy of the Background Report

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:14:00 +0000

Background screening has become mainstream. That means that if you are looking for a new job, a new apartment or home to rent, or perhaps even just getting an insurance quote, the person on the other side of the desk will be running a background check first.

Occasionally, the candidate seeking a new job or new apartment will be unsuccessful. There might be many different reasons for failing to secure the new job or aparment. It might be that there insufficient income to afford the monthly rent for the apartment seeker. The job seeker might not have sufficient experience in the field. Often when unsuccessful, the applicant doesn't understand why.

Applicants who are left to speculate as to the reasons why they were unsuccessful in securing their desired apartment or job often wonder if it has something to do with their credit score, credit history, or reported criminal history. In the current economic recession, there are a lot of people out of work who need jobs. When these out of work job seekers suspect that their credit report or criminal history is preventing them from obtaining employment, many have chosen to address the issue through complaint to their state and federal representatives and senators. The representatives have been quite reponsive to these complaints and now several states have bills pending that would ban the use of credit reports as a component of the hiring decision.

Employers well understand the consequences of the loss of these valuable tools in the hiring process. In order to preserve these insight providing tools, employers need to be more proactive about sharing with the candidates (successful and unsuccessful) the contents of the credit, criminal, and related background checks.

Sharing with the candidates the background check is a simply a good idea. If there were a problem with a claim they make on their resume that is not supported by the facts, they could learn not to make unsupported claims (e.g. having a Harvard MBA when applying for forklift operator positions). If there were a problem with paying bills in full and on-time, the apartment seeker could begin to understand the consequence of those decisions and begin to act more responsibly in financial matters. If there were an unusual amount of traffic violations (speeding, reckless, running red lights, etc.) the job seeker applying for a delivery driver position should have the opportunity to understand the consequences of driving habits and make some changes there.

Moreover, if there were not a problem with the behavior or capability of the applicant but rather an error anywhere on the background check and the employer or community manager were to have relied on the erroneous information, the job or apartment seeker would have been effectively denied the opportunity to discover the reason, discover the error, and challenge the error (there are provisions for correcting errors on credit and criminal histories).

Federal law requires that prospective employers or prospective landlords disclose that the applicant may obtain a copy of the credit/criminal history report used in the decision for this very reason. I recommend that employers and community managers go further than the requirement (to inform the applicant they have a right to receive a copy) and actually provide the copies as a matter of course.

For those who have made mistakes in their lives and are feeling the consequences, it provides to them the sure evidence of the results of their choices and the incentive to choose more wisely. That is a very good thing for all involved. For those who might innocently be impacted by an error, there is an even more compelling argument to be made, as they would not only be denied what they sought, but importantly, would be wrongfully denied.

So do the right thing and make sure that your applicants receive a copy of their histories. You'll be doing them a favor and be helping to reduce the chance that some lawmakers will act upon these complaints by enacting law that would deny to you, the employer or property manager, effective background screening.

Vetting Your Candidates -- Don't Forget the Executives

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:33:00 +0000

When seeking to fill an open line or staff position, nearly all HR professionals are very comfortable with running a full suite of background tests on candidates meeting the minimum criteria:
- Employment verification
- Education/Certificate verification
- Criminal History
- Civil History
- Credit Check
- Drug Test

Running this battery of checks has become de rigueur for line and staff positions. There are enough candidates with issues that running the full background screen makes perfect sense (and plenty of examples of the downside for failing to do so).

However, when it comes to filling an executive position, there seems to be a different attitude. When questioned about whether or not executive candidates are subjected to the same rigorous checks, the answer is frequently negative. Curiously, many HR professionals seem to operate under the belief (when considering executive candidates) that this group of candidates has already been thoroughly vetted and referenced multiple times in their prior positions that it would be unnecessary, unduly expensive, and off-putting to the candidate to conduct such checks.

The reality will just as frequently show otherwise. Executives have no particular immunity from lapses in judgement and are equally subject to human foibles as the population at large. Judging from the volume of while collar, and even violent crime in some cases, executives make serious mistakes that would disqualify a line or staff worker at approximately the same frequency as the line or staff worker.

To illustrate the need more pointedly, let's review a number of executives who committed no greater offense than to have fraudulently embellished their résumé's. These exec's lied about their education, experience, or both in order to secure an executive position. All of which could have been, and should have been, discovered by performing a standard background check:
- CEO David Edmondson, formerly of Radio Shack lied about degrees he never obtained
- CFO Kenneth Lonchar, formerly of Veritas Software lied about obtaining a Stanford MBA
- CEO Ronald Zarrella, formerly of Baush & Lomb lied about completing an MBA from NYU
- Judge Patrick Couwenberg, formerly of Los Angeles Superior Court lied about his education
- Head Coach George O'Leary, formerly of Notre Dame Football lied about his academic and athletic background
- CEO Jeff Papows, formerly of IBM's Lotus Development division lied about education and military service

In each case, the reward of getting the desired position must have seemed greater than the risk of getting caught in a lie about their education, experience, or service. To their respective great dismay, they were each found out.

There are many more such cases we might cite which go well beyond embellishing of the résumé. We could just have easily discussed the crimes of which executives have been convicted resulting in their dismissal and potential incarceration.

The point is, that executive candidates need to receive the same level of scrutiny in their vetting process that the line and staff candidates receive during vetting. More to the point, since the consequences of hiring (and then having to fire) an executive candidate with a troubled past can have a far more negative impact than the hiring of line worker, which is just all the more reason to approach the screening of executive candidates with same level of impartiality as the line worker.

Case in point is that of Kenneth Lonchar of Veritas. When news came out about the CEO Kenneth Lonchar having lied about his educational accomplishments, a Merrill Lynch analyst immediately downgraded the stock ($6 billion market cap) on the premise that if the CEO demonstrated his ability to lie about his own educational performance, what confidence should the market have that he could not, would not, or did not also lie about the company's financial performance.

The CXO club is a fairly private club. It is one in which members typically do not ask impolite questions of one another, such as "Did you really get a Harvard MBA?". Consequently, as an HR professional, you must insist that the same scrutiny be applied to executive positions as are applied to line positions and ask those impolite but essential questions. Don't make the career limiting mistake that the executive candidate has already been thoroughly vetted earlier in his or her career or that the executive search firm you hired was fully diligent. The job you save may be your own.

North Dakota Bill for Background Checks

noreply@blogger.com (R. Baldwin) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:05:00 +0000

ND legislators are considering passing a bill that would require background checks to be done on all daycare workers.

For more details, click the link below.
http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=26554

New Legislation in New York

noreply@blogger.com (R. Baldwin) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:10:00 +0000

As of February 1, 2009 the State of New York has amended section 380 of its General Business Law.

-New York employers must provide Article 23-A to their applicants that are subject to a criminal background check. Employers must give this document to applicants before they order the criminal search from a background screening company and when they receive a background screening report that reflects a criminal record.

-New York employers must also post a copy of Article 23-A in a conspicuous place.

Click here for a copy of Article 23-A New York Correction Law
http://www.labor.state.ny.us/agencyinfo/PDFs/CorrectionLaw%20Article%2023-A%20_4_.pdf

E-Verify Federal Contractor Update

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:31:00 +0000

Postponed!

A reprieve has been granted for those federal contractors (and sub-contractors) struggling to get all of the arrangements made to integrate with E-Verify. The new date for compliance is 20Feb2009.

Don't be late.