Categories
Background Checks Human Resources Miscellany Personal Background Checks Relationships Uncategorized

Have Your Job Candidates Committed Violent Crime?

We found this article on the New York Times.

Violent Crime in Cities Shows Sharp Surge

Violent crime rose by double-digit percentages in cities across the country over the last two years, reversing the declines of the mid-to-late 1990s, according to a new report by a prominent national law enforcement association.While overall crime has been declining nationwide, police officials have been warning of a rise in murder, robbery and gun assaults since late 2005, particularly in midsize cities and the Midwest. Now, they say, two years of data indicates that the spike is more than an aberration.“There are pockets of crime in this country that are astounding,” said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, which is releasing the report on Friday. “It’s gone under the radar screen, but it’s not if you’re living on the north side of Minneapolis or the south side of Los Angeles or in Dorchester, Mass.”Local police departments blame several factors: the spread of methamphetamine use in some Midwestern and Western cities, gangs, high poverty and a record number of people being released from prison. But the biggest theme, they say, is easy access to guns and a willingness, even an eagerness, to settle disputes with them, particularly among young people.“There’s a mentality among some people that they’re living some really violent video game,” said Chris Magnus, the police chief in Richmond, Calif., north of San Francisco, where homicides rose 20 percent and gun assaults 65 percent from 2004 to 2006. “What’s disturbing is that you see that the blood’s real, the death’s real.”The research forum surveyed 56 cities and sheriffs’ departments — as small as Appleton Wis., about 100 miles northwest of Milwaukee, and as large as Chicago and Houston. Over all, from 2004 to 2006, homicides increased 10 percent and robberies 12 percent.

Aggravated assault, which is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by a means likely to produce severe injury or death, according to an F.B.I. Web site, increased at a relatively modest 3 percent, but aggravated assaults with guns rose 10 percent. And some cities saw far higher spikes.

Homicides increased 20 percent or more in cities including Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Hartford, Memphis and Orlando, Fla. Robberies went up more than 30 percent in places including Detroit, Fort Wayne, Ind., and Milwaukee. Aggravated assaults with guns were up more than 30 percent in cities like Boston, Sacramento, St. Louis and Rochester.

Seventy-one percent of the cities surveyed had an increase in homicides, 80 percent had an increase in robberies, and 67 percent reported an increase in aggravated assaults with guns.

This study relies on numbers from cities, rather than yearly F.B.I. totals, which are typically released in the fall. The group collected similar numbers last year, and those numbers were largely borne out by the data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Police chiefs say the trends in aggravated assaults are particularly alarming. They are often considered a better gauge of violence than homicides; the difference between the two is often poor marksmanship or good medical care.

“Had we not had some of the trauma rooms we have here in Rochester, our homicide numbers would be higher,” said Mayor Robert Duffy, who served as a police chief for seven years.

While murder rates hit 11-year highs in places like Boston, police officials note that they are not seeing the highs of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when crack cocaine fueled spikes, particularly in large cities. Some cities like Denver and Washington had declines in homicides.

Still, the overall trend is mirrored in other places not covered by the report. New York City, for example, which had enjoyed remarkable declines and seemed immune to the rising murder rate elsewhere in 2005, reported a 10 percent increase in homicides in 2006. In Chicago, which had been cited as another model of declining violence, homicides rose 4 percent from 2004 to 2006.

Police officials say the violence tends to happen among young men in their late teens and early to mid-20s. In some cases, it is random. But in many cases, it is among people who know one another, or between gangs, as a way to settle disputes. Arguments that 20 years ago would have led to fistfights, police chiefs say, now lead to guns.

“There’s really no rhyme or reason with these homicides,” said Edward Davis, the police commissioner in Boston. “An incident will occur involving disrespect, a fight over a girl. Then there’s a retaliation aspect where if someone shoots someone else; their friends will come back and shoot at the people that did it.”

In Richmond, Chief Magnus said he would often go to the scene of a crime and discover that 30 to 75 rounds had been fired. “It speaks to the level of anger, the indiscriminate nature of the violence,” he said.

“I go to meetings, and you start talking to some of the people in the neighborhoods about who’s been a victim of violence, and people can start reciting: ‘One of my sons was killed, one of my nephews,’ ” he said. “It’s hard to find people who haven’t been touched by this kind of violence.”

Many chiefs blame the federal government for reducing police programs that they say helped cut crime in the 1990s. But they also say the problem is economic and social. “We seem to be dealing with an awful lot of people who have zero conflict-resolution skills,” Chief Magnus said.

In Rochester, Mr. Duffy said his city had the state’s highest dropout rate — half of all students drop out— and the highest child poverty rate, with 40 percent of children under 18 living below poverty level.

“There’s a direct correlation between the kids who drop out of our high schools who get involved in selling drugs and who end up in homicides,” Mr. Duffy said.

As a police chief, Mr. Duffy brought in programs that had reduced crime in other cities: a project cease-fire to end gun violence, a Compstat data collection program to identify the areas of most stubborn crime. But it has not helped.

“We’re doing all the right things consistently, but we have not seen relief,” he said. “It takes much more than law enforcement.”

Corra knows business may be good but for more than a few times can be tough. Besides, people do some crazy things. Like commit crimes. Even violent crimes. Sometimes someone will commit a violent crime out of rage, hurt someone they hate, get it out of their system and never do it again. But then there are some who will do it again. Whatever triggered that mechanism, initially, can reoccur and trigger it again. And then, of course, you have your habituals, your bad seeds who feel justified in hurting others.In any event, you don’t want them in the work place. You don’t want man haters or sexual abuse artists near the women in your company. You don’t want someone with a history of violence committing additional felonies where you are subject to all sorts of liability issues, to say nothing of how awful you would fee if one of your workers was harmed.So have a pre-employment screening program in place. Run Criminal Background Checks, Social Security Traces, to verify that someone isn’t trying to find work under a different name or with someone else’s Social Security Number. You may also want to run a credit report to see how someone handles his personal finances. Financial frustration can lead to physical frustration, which can lead to violent offenses. You may also run a sexual offender’s registry background check, which is included with Corra’s Nationwide Criminal Background Database Search.Just remember, spend the few bucks before you are sorry you didn’t. Check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks Human Resources Miscellany Personal Background Checks Relationships Uncategorized

Scam Artists Could Be Ruining Your Business

We saw this article on Yahoo.com
MarketWatch
What 2 crooks told me over lunch

By Herb Greenberg

Commentary: “You cannot accept information at face value”

This column first appeared in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend.SAN DIEGO (MarketWatch) — My lunch with two crooks: “Hi Sammy, it’s great to see you.” Barry Minkow gave Sam E. Antar a hug as we walked to our table at a fish restaurant overlooking San Diego Bay. It was a Friday, and Antar made the trek to San Diego from Los Angeles, where he was visiting his son; a few days earlier, this convicted felon had lectured students and faculty at the Stanford Law School on how not to get taken by a crook like him.Antar was chief financial officer of Crazy Eddie, a New York electronics retailer that in the 1970s and 1980s claimed “our prices are inSANE” as it bilked investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars. He stayed out of jail by turning on several others, including his cousin, Eddie Antar, who was Crazy Eddie’s co-founder. Minkow, on the other hand, spent seven years behind bars after stealing more than $20 million from investors in the 1980s as founder and chief executive of ZZZZ Best, a once-hot rug-cleaning company whose books could’ve used a good scrubbing.”He’s an orthodox Jew and I’m a Jew who is a pastor,” cracks Minkow, who like Antar now spends time lecturing and working with cops to bust white-collar financial frauds. Minkow has reverence for Antar, who looks like Carla’s husband from the sitcom “Cheers” and who claims to suffer from a bipolar disorder and serious insomnia. (I can vouch for the latter because his e-mails and postings on blogs come at all hours, mostly in the middle of the night.) “Criminals don’t sleep,” he explains.A former CPA, Antar makes no excuses for his criminal past, referring to himself in e-mails, casual discussion and his Web site — whitecollarfraud.com1 — as a “low life” and “convicted felon.” Even the normally loquacious Minkow appears to enjoy leaving the talking to Antar, who takes no money for his speeches. “I don’t want to be held up on the pedestal of redemption,” he says. “I would rather people learn from my vile, ugly and vicious crimes. It is most important that they understand the ugly nature of criminality. My life is a mistake of history.”A mistake, maybe, but one other people can learn from. “Do not trust verify,” was his mantra as the meal began.Verify what? “Everything.”Even whether Antar and Minkow aren’t still scamming?

“Everything.”

To read the rest of this article go to Yahoo.com

The scam artists listed in this article are legends of notoriety or even infamy. They are brand name scammers who made and possibly lost fortunes by playing one illegal angle or another. Corra has known people like these and for the most part they can be very colorful characters.But then these are the well known guys who are out of the scamming business. They are public figures. But what about the guy working in your business who is quietly running scams of his own. What kind of scams? They could be selling off your sensitive databases, diverting inside information to your competitors. They could be stealing sensitive intellectual property and peddling it to the highest bidder. You don’t think so? Thing again. The business section of the paper will often contain an article detailing one scam or another.That’s why Corra always recommends running a criminal check on new employees, and a credit check on job candidates and, periodically, on current employees with access to sensitive information. Education Verification is as important as Employment Verification to help ascertain if this candidate is going to be an asset to you company or a silent and deadly partner.

As Corra says, check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks Human Resources Miscellany Personal Background Checks Relationships Uncategorized

Sycophants Make for Obnoxious Employees

We found this article, which is an excerpt from Goldsmith’s book, “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There,” on Strategy + Business.com
The Favoritism Test
by Marshall Goldsmith

Learn to avoid the pitfalls of rewarding sycophants in the workplace.

I have reviewed custom-designed leadership profiles at more than 100 major corporations. These documents typically feature boilerplate language that describes the leadership behavior each company desires. Such chestnuts include “communicates a clear vision,” “helps people develop to their maximum potential,” “strives to see the value of differing opinions,” and “avoids playing favorites.”

Not one profile has ever included a desired behavior that reads “effectively sucks up to management.” Although given the dedication to fawning and sucking up in most corporations — and how often such behavior is rewarded — it probably should. Almost every company says it wants people to “challenge the system,” “be empowered to express their opinion,” and “say what they really think,” but there sure are a lot of companies that are stuck on sucking up.

Not only do companies say they abhor such comically servile behavior, but so do individual leaders. Almost all the leaders I have met say that they would never encourage such a thing in their organizations. I have no doubt that they are sincere. Most of us are easily irritated, if not disgusted, by derriere kissers. Which raises a question: If leaders say they discourage sucking up, why does it dominate the workplace? Keep in mind that these leaders are generally very shrewd judges of character. They spend their lives sizing people up: taking in first impressions and recalibrating them against later impressions. And yet, they still fall for the super-skilled suck-up. They still play favorites.

The simple answer is: We can’t see in ourselves what we can see so clearly in others.

Perhaps you are now thinking, “It’s amazing how leaders send out subtle signals that encourage subordinates to mute their criticisms and exaggerate their praise of the powers that be. And it is surprising how they cannot see it in themselves. Of course, this doesn’t apply to me.”

Maybe you’re right. But how can you be so sure that you’re not in denial?

I use an irrefutable test with my clients to show how we all unknowingly encourage sucking up. I ask a group of leaders: “How many of you own a dog that you love?” Big smiles cross the executives’ faces as they wave their hands in the air. They beam as they tell me the names of their faithful hounds.

Then we have a contest. I ask them, “At home, who gets most of your unabashed affection? Is it (a) your husband, wife, or partner; (b) your kids; or (c) your dog?” More than 80 percent of the time, the winner is the dog.

I then ask the executives if they love their dogs more than their family members. The answer is always a resounding no. My follow-up: “So why does the dog get most of your attention?”

Their replies all sound the same: “The dog is always happy to see me.” “The dog never talks back.” “The dog gives me unconditional love.” In other words, the dog is a suck-up.

I can’t say that I am any better. I love my dog, Beau. I travel at least 180 days a year, and Beau goes bonkers when I return home from a trip. I pull into the driveway, and my first inclination is to open the front door, go straight to Beau, and exclaim, “Daddy’s home!” Invariably, Beau jumps up and down, and I hug and pat him and make a huge fuss. One day my daughter, Kelly, was home from college. She watched my typical lovefest with Beau. She then looked at me, held her hands in the air like little paws, and barked, “Woof woof.”

Point taken.

If we aren’t careful, we can wind up treating people at work like dogs: continually rewarding those who heap unthinking, unconditional admiration upon us. What behavior do we get in return? A virulent case of the suck-ups.

The net result is obvious. You’re encouraging behavior that serves you but not necessarily the best interests of the company. If everyone is fawning over the boss, who’s getting work done? Worse, it tilts the field against the honest, principled employees who won’t play along. This is a double dose of bad news. You’re not only playing favorites, but also favoring the wrong people!

Leaders can stop encouraging this behavior by admitting that we all have a tendency to favor those who favor us, even if we don’t mean to.

We should then compare our direct reports on three measures.

First, how much do they like me? (I know you can’t be sure. What matters is how much you think they like you. Fawning is acting, and effective suck-ups are good actors.)

Second, what is their contribution to the company and its customers? (In other words, are they A players, B, C, or worse?)

Third, how much positive personal recognition do I give them?

What we’re looking for is whether the correlation is stronger between measures one and three or measures two and three. If we’re honest with ourselves, our recognition of people may be linked to how much they seem to like us rather than how well they perform. That’s the definition of playing favorites.

And the fault is all our own. We’re encouraging the kind of behavior that we despise in others. Without meaning to, we are basking in hollow praise, which makes us hollow leaders.

This quick self-analysis won’t solve the problem. But it identifies it, which is where change begins.


Corra knows that sycophants are not necessarily the best workers. They may spend more time sucking up than actually working. As with many other things, there is a dark side to a person being overly complimentary. Honesty is often the first victim. Besides who needs someone running behind you, telling you how wonderful you are when either you already know it or you know it is for obvious political gain.Aside from an extensive interview and perhaps psychological profiles, there isn’t much you can do to determine if you are about to hire a sycophant. Maybe it’s an indicator if he leaves a greasy slime on his chair when he leaves–just kidding.We think personal reference checks may be helpful. And, of course, sometimes when someone is being overly nice, he is hiding something from you. So always run a criminal search, and we always recommend an education verification. When people lie, they lie about education most often.As Corra says, check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks Human Resources Miscellany Personal Background Checks Relationships Uncategorized

Bio Science Can Mean More Jobs for Larger Cities

We found this article on Inc.com
Big Cities Tops for Bioscience Jobs

New York, Los Angeles, and other big metropolitan centers are cashing in on a booming bioscience industry producing everything from medical devices to livestock feed.

By: Leslie Taylor


Bioscience is becoming an increasingly attractive field for companies and cities alike, according to a new study.

In 2004, 1.2 million people worked in the bioscience industry at more than 40,000 businesses. While bioscience firms were located in almost every state, the top locations for employment in the biosciences are New York and Los Angeles, according to the study prepared by Battelle on behalf of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

“Nearly every large metropolitan area in the United States is actively pursuing bioscience-industry development,” Patrick Kelly, vice president of state government relations for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said in a statement. “The biosciences not only have the potential to create high-skill, high-wage jobs, but the industry is also developing technologies that can improve the quality of health-care and agriculture, and help meet our nation’s growing energy needs.”

One-third of people employed in the biosciences work in the field of medical devices and equipment, and another third work in jobs related to research, testing, and medical laboratories. One-quarter of bioscience jobs are in the drugs and pharmaceuticals industry, while the rest (8 percent) come from the field of agricultural feedstock and chemicals.

Nearly 200 of the 361 metropolitan statistical areas, or MSAs, studied in the report specialize in at least one of the four primary bioscience sectors, and 25 MSAs in the United States have more than 10,000 people working in the biosciences sector. Besides New York and Los Angeles, which ranked first and second in employment, other metro areas with high employment in the biosciences include Philadelphia (No. 3), Chicago (No. 4), and Boston (No. 5).

“We’re seeing significant interest from state and regional development authorities in the biosciences,” Kelly said.

The report profiled seven regions — Boulder, Colo.; Durham, N.C.; Flagstaff, Ariz.; Kansas City, Mo.; Madison, Wisc.; Philadelphia; and St. Louis — which are investing to recruit and develop new biosciences businesses in their region by creating the research base, talent pool, capital markets, and commercialization capabilities that such firms need.

“This report shows that the biosciences are a key driver in the development of regional technology-based economies throughout the United States, offering a way for regions to diversify their economies,” Walter H. Plosila, vice president of the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, said in a statement.

Corra realizes that larger cities could always use new industries that will offer more jobs. Additionally, developing regions in order to continue their growth need to attract diverse industries. With Bio Science being one of the buzz words for industrial growth in the twenty first century, it is small wonder that opportunities will abound.

New jobs in expanding cities can mean new personnel who emmigrate from other parts of the country and different parts of the world. They are not people with whom HR Managers are familiar and sometimes their histories are a little more difficult to trace.

That is why Corra encourages background screening. Human Resources should always run criminal background reports on new employment candidates as well as education and employment verification. The Social Security Trace is always wise in order to verify the social security number is balid and actually belongs to your employment candidates.

As an HR Manager, you may be flooded with candidates seeking work in this exciting new and constantly developing industry. So pick the best of the lot. Run background checks. As Corra says, check them out before you hire.