Categories
Criminal Records Economy Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Recruiting Staffing Uncategorized

Background Checks Can Help Avoid Employee Data Theft

It is tough times out there for any business.   While the global economy has been with us now for a decade or two, there are employers still making adjustments.  It is understandable.   Employers are hiring job applicants from all over the country if not from around the world.   Each business is competing to gain substantial market share while trying to sustain during a difficult economy.

The last thing an employer needs is for employees to be robbing and stealing from them.   It is one thing maybe to steal pencils and paper, and quite another to swipe proprietary data and sell it to your competitors.   According to an article in Network World,  a new survey has revealed that 35% of those questioned believe that employees have provided sensitive information to competitors.   While some of the information was also chalked up to human error, the majority belief was that employees were responsible for the theft and transference of sensitive data.

Nearly two thirds of the IT personnel involved in the survey  admitted to having accessed information that was not relevant to their role.   While the IT group seemed to be the biggest offenders, Human Resources snooping sensitive data coming in a distant second.   As to what  type of data that IT staff snooped on varied according to geography.   A third of of UK respondents  listed accessing HR records first, compared to 28 percent of US respondents, and 38 percent of US respondents choosing to sneakily access the customer database first, compared to just 16 percent of UK respondents.

Whle firms have taken a variety of precautions, this, in-house sabotage had increased from 20 percent last year to 27 percent this year.   Not good,   Especially during an intensely competitive period in a bad economy.

While background checks  are a long way from the cure all, checking an employment candidates criminal history as well as conduct reference background checks will help weed out the undesirable job applicants.   The background check is designed to give the human resources personnel and the supervisors and overview of someone’s criminal and civil past as well as an overview of their performance.  by conducting professional reference verifications on the job applicant, and employer can better determine if the person drew suspicion with respect to any data theft or snooping.

Compared to the embarrassment and the liability factors involved with in-house snooping, and when compared to the potential business loss from data theft, the background check is a cost-effective alternative.  Many employers try cutting corners and do not order a comprehensive series of background checks for their preemployment screening program.   It is being penny-wise and dollar foolish.  It is always best to know what you may be getting into, before you encounter  a very rude awakening.

So check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks Criminal Records Economy Human Resources Miscellany preemployment screening Staffing Uncategorized

The No Background Check Security Card Background Check

a rather substantial security firm in the Dallas area was just fined $10,000 for hiring unlicensed security guards and not conducting adequate background checks on its new employees.  Several of the security guards had criminal histories.

Of course, as with most embarrassing and costly situations, this whole business came to light when authorities accused one of the guards of attempting to steal two safes from a facility.   Given that this Security Firm, I usually don’t like to name names,  has contracted out with the Dallas Cowboys, the State Fair of Texas, and the Sixth Floor Museum,–the site where Lee Harvey Oswald shot President John Kennedy, for those hazy on their history–any such charges of negligence can prove not only embarrassment but detrimental to business overall.

According to the article on the Dallas Morning News site, the Security Company had previously received citations for not properly registering some 38 security guards who were working on the fairground.   Texas law stipulates that security agencies s have five working days from the date of hire to conduct a pre-employment background check.  In that same time frame they are mandated to  fingerprint new employees and file paperwork with state officials.   The company must renew the registration of each security guards every two years. That being said,  two companies said they were satisfied with the company’s work and would use them again.  So that is definitely a positive note for this company.

However, if you are a business and you have to wait until your are cited and fined, then maybe your customers will not prove so loyal.   If your clients expect your to be fully compliant and if they expect you to conduct background checks to assure your employees are qualified and are free of criminal records, then it would make sense to get this all down up front.  Waiting can cause pain and damage to your business.   In this case, according to the article, the Security Company claims they grew too fast and had such a demand for their services that they could find qualified staff.     This is on one hand an enviable situation, a rapidly growing business, but it can also prove a precarious situation.  If you are not compliant, and you do not practice due diligence, than that rapid growth can just as easily reverse itself, leaving you with a rapidly shrinking company.

So…check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks

Another Police Department May Have Hired Despite Records on Criminal Background Checks

This is simply amazing to me.   It appears that once again another police department in a major city may have hired convicted felons in spite of the criminal records on their background checks.  It is either that or nobody bothered to review the background checks as they were returned.   So now we have criminals pursuing criminals, which in the abstract may be a good idea as the new employment hires may have a better understanding of the criminal mentality.  At least, that is what we can glean from a television show.

But real life is not a television show.   While I am all for forgiveness and giving people a second chance, the policy for law enforcement agencies and public service bureaus to hire people with criminal records on their background checks raises some interesting questions.  The first question that comes to mind is whether there will be added and costly liability issues, should this new employee with a criminal record have an altercation or be involved in some situation where a citizen is hurt, or contraband is missing.   Then there the added concerns for behavior patterns and the psychological impulses to take advantage of a newly found position of relative power.

According to NJ.Com, the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office is investigating the Newark Police Department with respect to new hires that had previous criminal records or who had otherwise failed their background checks.   According to the argument, while the Prosecutor’s Office understandably won’t comment on a current investigation, there are indications that certain persons in power exerted their influence to override the negative  recommendations from the  division that oversees background checks.  Let us say that some of the new and questionable hires may be relatives of officers  already on the force.    It should be noted that some of the employment candidates were rejected due to bad credit reports.   Law enforcement authorities will often run credit reports on any of their job applicants.  Nothing unusual here.

I have blogged about the lack of oversight in law enforcement agencies and public service groups in previous articles.  One such article is entitled, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Returns to Earlier Hiring Practices.

Of course, as with anything of this nature, there is more to the story.  Some of the elements included political and internecine rivalries, whistle blowers, and my old favorite, stonewalling.   But with all that being said, there is a lesson to be learned here, and that is to develop a uniform policy regarding background checks.  And then stick to it.  Whether you are a police department, a public service agency, or a private employer looking to hire, the key to conducting pre-employment screening is to develop and adhere to a uniform policy.

This policy and the types of searches may vary according to the level of position and all of its incumbent complexities.  Simply put, you may probably conduct fewer background searches for an entry or lower level employee than you would for middle management or senior executives.   With senior executives, especially those in the financial area, you would consider federal criminal and federal civil searches in order to examine the potential for any white collar crimes in your employment candidate’s history.  You may wish to conduct county civil searches to check for any lawsuits, past or pending that would result in embarrassing you, the employer. With lower level positions, these are hardly necessary.  Same criteria would apply to job applicants in healthcare or, say, IT.

They key in conducting background checks is to be uniform.  And then review carefully the reports themselves, giving them more than a simple once over.  It should go without saying that it seldom pays to acquiesce to undue pressures and to go against your best judgment.  If it doesn’t feel right, and if the record shows evidence of questionable behavior, than it usually pays to go with your gut.

Categories
Background Checks

Employee Background Checks and the New Medical Marijuana Laws

Before long, one of the background checks that will be part of the pre-employment screening program, at least in some states, is to see if your job candidate has a valid card to use medical marijuana.   We may be a long way from this becoming a requisite background check, but then again, maybe not.

According to Freep.com, a lawsuit may reach the Michigan Court of Appeals that may determine precedent for consideration of medical marijuana in the workplace.  A Wal-Mart employee  who was legally eligible to use marijuana filed a lawsuit against his employer, or I should say former employer, after he was fired because his drug test was a positive for marijuana.  Wal-Mart attests that it has zero policy for drugs and that anyone with positive results in their drug test will be dismissed.

The law in general is hazy.  This holds true not just for Michigan but in other states that have adapted medical marijuana usage.  While some states may indicate the pot user is not entitled to imbibe the drug on the job, the issues remains as to whether the employee can come to work stoned.   In related instances, the Michigan Depart of Civil Rights has cases on file where the job applicants complained that once they declared they were medical marijuana users the prospective employers would not hire them.   In these cases, the employment candidates had no other blemishes that would show up on their background checks.

There are issues on both sides of this very controversial concern.   On one hand, why can an employee who has been legally been sanctioned by the state to imbibe medical marijuana be fired for something that is legal?  On the other hand, doesn’t an inebriated person, be it drugs or alcohol, pose a potential danger to himself and fellow workers while on the job?   Tough call.   I have written on this blog about medical marijuana in the workplace a number of times.  One such article is entitled,  Marijuana Laws and the Workplace–the Ongoing Saga.

In all, there are some 20,000 medical marijuana users in Michigan alone.  Presumably, most need a job.   Like the rest of us, they need to put a roof over their heads, and they need to eat.  I would think they have to eat even more, as even medical marijuana probably gives them the munchies.   In any case, perhaps the Michigan Court of Appeals can establish a precedent to help resolve this issue.  Or, do we stay tuned for yet another episode regarding marijuana in the workplace?  We shall stay posted.