County Criminal Background checks are a vital component to just about any preemployment screening program. But as noted before, states are broke and some are forced to close the county courts at least once a month. Of course, when you are trying to hiring people and you need the return on these important background checks, delays can be annoying. Nevertheless, reality is what it is, and it is fair to say we all have to adjust with the time. And the bad economy, and the budgets that go along with it. Oh well.
So here are some of the county court closings, coming up in the near future. Please make a note of these–
We would like to inform you of some changes within certain states and how these changes will affect your county level requests. Due to budget constraints in the Virginia Beach City courts a reduction in staff at the courthouse and shortened hours of operation have been imposed. That being said please expect delays for this county.
Also, Franklin County, Kentucky relocated their court house late last week; pending searches will have additional delays because of this. The state of Kansas will join Hawaii and California in the list of states experimenting with furlough days and because of this delays will occur on Kansas requests.
Lastly, In order to meet a budget shortfall of 3.1 million dollars, the New Hampshire Judicial Branch announced that all New Hampshire courts and judicial branch administrative offices will be closed on the following days:
Friday April 2, 2010
Friday April 30, 2010
Friday May 28, 2010
In the years Corra Group has been in operation, we find it uncanny that we can go for weeks and months without conducting a background check that will turn up a sexual offender. Then we will suddenly get a flurry of employment candidates who are convicted sex offenders. These convicted sex offenders, oddly enough, are not derived from anyone particular client, but form several clients in different parts of the country who are conducting preemployment screening checks around the same time. It’s is something in the cosmos kicks in and suddenly we have background screening returns on several sex offenders.
When it comes to sex offenders, some people are more sympathetic than others. I should say perhaps maybe more compassionate than others. But since a majority of the sex offenses are against women and children, most employers and their work staff take a dim view of sex offenders seeking employment. Hiring a convicted sex offender can be toxic to the workplace. Simply put, many women despise a sex offender and more than a few men wish to inflict anything from verbal abuse to bodily harm. In all, hiring a sex offender is difficult at best and your employee morale can sink faster than a diving submarine. One employees learn a sexual offender has been hired, often that new hire becomes the central top of conversation. Your work staff is distracted as its focus is transferred from their responsibilities to something that hits them on a gut level.
Sexual offenders can be elusive. They can move around from state to state and not be detected for many months and even many years. In the case of one man, he spent twenty nine years as a fugitive. According to an article in the Orange County Register, the man assaulted three girls in the mid-seventies but wasn’t arrested and convicted in 2006, after being picked up in Florida. He now faces new criminal charges.
I would like to say this is a rare occasion, but not really. Not all that long ago we had one convicted sex offender applying for a job in a city park where children played. His perfect hunting ground. The city was about to give him this rather menial job, until they conducted his background check and we notified them of his past criminal convictions. We had another who moved from one state to another, and when a background check turned up previous convictions for sexual offenses, the employment candidate was asked why didn’t you reveal these criminal records. He told the Human Resources manager he was trying to make a new start.
So this is what you are facing out there. It is something to take note of. As I noted earlier, not all employees will take kindly to an employer hiring a sex offender. It can diminish morale and may instigate workplace violence.
Increasingly, employers are monitoring social networks as part of their background checking and preemployment screening process. The review of an employment candidate’s social networks is considered a legitimate background check and is part of a growing concern for most employers as they search for “red flags” and various indicators as to why the job candidate may not be the right fit for that working environment.
Whether what someone posts on his social network is truly reflective of his behavior pattern is a matter of debate. Rightful debate, I might add. There are talented eccentrics out there, or merely playful young employees who may post items of questionable taste. But that doesn’t necessarily make them incapable of excelling in their skill sets.
Nevertheless, with the economy as bad as it is, and jobs scarce, employers are looking for that slight difference in acceptable behavior when comparing two or more otherwise qualified job candidates. According to a recent study, sponsored by Microsoft and posted on Media Post, Center for Media Research, there is a disparity in the number of job candidates who believe that their social networking posting will have a negative effect on their job opportunities and the recruiters and the HR people who actually consider them. According to the article, entitled, Your Life Could Be an Open Book, only 7% of the consumer believe their social networking behavior will have a negative effect on them. Meanwhile, 70% of the HR Manager and Recruiters have rejected candidates because of what they saw online.
Here is some of the article. Well worth reading.
This study explores the attitudes of consumers, HR professionals, and recruiters on the subject of online reputation. Highlights of the study’s findings include:
The recruiters and HR professionals surveyed are not only checking online sources to learn about potential candidates, but they also report that their companies have made online screening a formal requirement of the hiring process. Of U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed, 70% say they have rejected candidates based on information they found online.
Recruiters and HR professionals surveyed report being very or somewhat concerned about the authenticity of the content they find.
In all countries, recruiters and HR professionals say they believe the use of online reputational information will significantly increase over the next five years.
Positive online reputations matter. Among U.S. recruiters and HR professionals surveyed, 85% say that positive online reputation influences their hiring decisions at least to some extent. Nearly half say that a strong online reputation influences their decisions to a great extent.
Like I said, I may not agree with all the conclusions here, but there are certainly some valid points. More so, monitoring social behavior is a growing and even fundamental background check for preemployment screening. The employment candidate better start taking note of this. It is one background search that isn’t about to go away.
In any event, I urge everyone to read the article.
I have been blogging about background checks and gun shows for some time now. Before anyone gets itchy, I should add that I am not taking sides. I am engrossed in the machinations, the political and legal elements, and the overall dynamics concerning the viability of background checks for gun shows.
As gun shows are destinations where there is a quick point of sale, the dynamics of background checks is pretty interesting. Buyers at gun shows are buying in the moment and for a number of reasons do not want to wait for background clearance before taking home their purchase. Gun show vendors certainly don’t want to be bothered putting buyers through background checks as the buyer may become impatient and the vendor loses his sale.
Of course there are the legal rights issues, the public safety issues and the myriad other issues that have been argued long before I wrote this piece. In fact, I have written a number of blog articles, including one called Furor Over Gun Shows and Background Checks. Like I say, it’s an interesting subject and one inveighed with a good deal of controversy.
Minnesota decided recently not to move forward with its background checks for gun shows. According to an article in the Star Tribune, The House Crime Victims and Criminal Records Panel voted it down, 5-3. Obviously, this decision has added to the controversy. Those proponents for stricter gun control are pushing forward, arguing that while licensed gun vendors are mandated to conduct background checks on gun buyers, they are not doing so at the gun shows. Weapons advocates claim there is no evidence that guns bought at gun shows are responsible for any significant increase in crime.
One thing about this issues, it is not about to go away anytime soon.
