Monday, March 13, 2006
Firms' search for truth leads to new questions - Analysis of background checks shows employers how workers in their industry compare with others
Monday, March 13, 2006
Peter Krouse, Plain Dealer Reporter
Who's more likely to fail an employment-related drug test: People applying for jobs as construction workers or as teachers?
According to a report by InfoLink Screening Services Inc., those seeking education jobs are far more likely to test positive.
Infolink co-founder Barry Nadell is not sure why, though he said that being around more young people could expose people in education to more drugs.
But before you canonize the building trades, know that construction industry applicants are more likely to have a criminal background or a motor vehicle violation than those in education, not to mention the 14 other job categories included in the report.
Nadell can't fully explain the percentages contained in his company's findings. But he believes they are valuable because clients can see how their industry compares with others and whether they are doing pre-employment checks for the right things.
For example, if the available data show that an industry has a high percentage of "hits" in a certain problem area, companies in the industry that don't already screen for that problem might want to start. InfoLink used the results of its own client screenings in 2005, mostly pre-employment, to produce the data.
The idea of checking someone's background has been around as long as private detection, said Nadell, who quit his job in the insurance industry to help his wife, a former human resources specialist for the American Cancer Society, start InfoLink in 1994. InfoLink, based in Chatsworth, Calif., was recently acquired by Kroll Inc.
Digging into someone's past can save a company the time, money and embarrassment of hiring a bad employee or one who is being less than honest. In February, David Edmondson stepped down as chief executive of RadioShack Corp. after it was revealed that he had misrepresented his academic history.
In some cases, people with past problems go through staffing agencies to get jobs, thinking they are less likely to be checked out, Nadell said.
But an increasing number of companies are requiring staffing agencies to perform background checks, too.
With all that checking going on, the issue becomes how much background information to seek and what to do with it. Just because you can check somebody's credit history or workers' compensation history doesn't mean you should spend the dollars doing so, say those familiar with the legal and practical aspects of background checks.
Certain kinds of testing and checking are perfectly acceptable, said Scott Cohen, national practice leader of talent management at human resources consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide.
It may be logical to check the credit history of somebody who will be handling money, he said. But should, say, a movie theater do the same for a kid hired simply to take tickets?
Companies should consider relevancy when ordering checks and also be aware that drug tests can sometimes show a false positive, Cohen said.
At the United Way of Greater Cleveland, all job applicants go through criminal record checks, a drug test and past-employment verification, said United Way spokeswoman Jenna Snyder. The organization also might verify an applicant's education, depending on job requirements and other factors.
The InfoLink survey suggests that nonprofit applicants in general have a high incidence of discrepancies when it comes to verifying their employment and education, although Snyder said the United Way of Greater Cleveland's experience differs.
Among InfoLink’s nonprofit clients, discrepancies popped up more than 46 percent of the time when it came to verifying prior jobs and nearly 22 percent of the time when it came to checking out education.
But at United Way of Greater Cleveland, issues of any kind related to background checks arose only twice in the past two years, Snyder said, and that's out of 100 applicants. The hits were for criminal offenses.
Nadell could offer no explanation for the nonprofit percentages. Nor could Paul Gerhart, professor of labor and human resources at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. He also struggled to explain the high incidence of positive drug tests in his own profession.
"Maybe people in education think they can get away with it for some reason," he said.
Gerhart did say, however, that the increase in background checking over the past 20 years has been a positive step.
But how a company handles that information can have legal implications. Employers need to be concerned about "negligent hiring," said Meredith Watts, an associate at the Duvin Cahn & Hutton law firm. A day-care provider obviously does not want the liability of hiring a child molester, she said, but other situations are not that obvious. It might be OK, for example, for a company to hire somebody with a five-year-old drug conviction to deliver interoffice mail.
Similar issues apply when a background check turns up a problem with a current employee. A company can be liable for "negligent retention," she said.
At Mr. Gasket, a Brooklyn manufacturer of performance auto parts, the company policy is not to hire anybody with a felony conviction in the previous five years, said Alice Bissett, director of human resources.
Bissett said background screening has turned up only three or four such problems among 162 applicants in the past 3½ years. Mr. Gasket uses InfoLink Screening for its background checks, Bissett said, but not for drug testing.
The company checks only those areas it believes are pertinent to the job, she said. While everyone gets a drug test and a criminal background check, only those going into finance will have their credit histories checked. That's because someone who has a lot of debt could be tempted to embezzle if they are around company coffers.
In the same way, only those who will be driving company vehicles will have their driving records scrutinized. "It's all got to be job-related," Bissett said.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to collect too much data, she said, because employers are required to share all derogatory information with an employee. Something that had no bearing on a company's decision not to hire someone may be interpreted by that person as the reason for being passed over.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Peter Krouse, Plain Dealer Reporter
Who's more likely to fail an employment-related drug test: People applying for jobs as construction workers or as teachers?
According to a report by InfoLink Screening Services Inc., those seeking education jobs are far more likely to test positive.
Infolink co-founder Barry Nadell is not sure why, though he said that being around more young people could expose people in education to more drugs.
But before you canonize the building trades, know that construction industry applicants are more likely to have a criminal background or a motor vehicle violation than those in education, not to mention the 14 other job categories included in the report.
Nadell can't fully explain the percentages contained in his company's findings. But he believes they are valuable because clients can see how their industry compares with others and whether they are doing pre-employment checks for the right things.
For example, if the available data show that an industry has a high percentage of "hits" in a certain problem area, companies in the industry that don't already screen for that problem might want to start. InfoLink used the results of its own client screenings in 2005, mostly pre-employment, to produce the data.
The idea of checking someone's background has been around as long as private detection, said Nadell, who quit his job in the insurance industry to help his wife, a former human resources specialist for the American Cancer Society, start InfoLink in 1994. InfoLink, based in Chatsworth, Calif., was recently acquired by Kroll Inc.
Digging into someone's past can save a company the time, money and embarrassment of hiring a bad employee or one who is being less than honest. In February, David Edmondson stepped down as chief executive of RadioShack Corp. after it was revealed that he had misrepresented his academic history.
In some cases, people with past problems go through staffing agencies to get jobs, thinking they are less likely to be checked out, Nadell said.
But an increasing number of companies are requiring staffing agencies to perform background checks, too.
With all that checking going on, the issue becomes how much background information to seek and what to do with it. Just because you can check somebody's credit history or workers' compensation history doesn't mean you should spend the dollars doing so, say those familiar with the legal and practical aspects of background checks.
Certain kinds of testing and checking are perfectly acceptable, said Scott Cohen, national practice leader of talent management at human resources consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide.
It may be logical to check the credit history of somebody who will be handling money, he said. But should, say, a movie theater do the same for a kid hired simply to take tickets?
Companies should consider relevancy when ordering checks and also be aware that drug tests can sometimes show a false positive, Cohen said.
At the United Way of Greater Cleveland, all job applicants go through criminal record checks, a drug test and past-employment verification, said United Way spokeswoman Jenna Snyder. The organization also might verify an applicant's education, depending on job requirements and other factors.
The InfoLink survey suggests that nonprofit applicants in general have a high incidence of discrepancies when it comes to verifying their employment and education, although Snyder said the United Way of Greater Cleveland's experience differs.
Among InfoLink’s nonprofit clients, discrepancies popped up more than 46 percent of the time when it came to verifying prior jobs and nearly 22 percent of the time when it came to checking out education.
But at United Way of Greater Cleveland, issues of any kind related to background checks arose only twice in the past two years, Snyder said, and that's out of 100 applicants. The hits were for criminal offenses.
Nadell could offer no explanation for the nonprofit percentages. Nor could Paul Gerhart, professor of labor and human resources at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. He also struggled to explain the high incidence of positive drug tests in his own profession.
"Maybe people in education think they can get away with it for some reason," he said.
Gerhart did say, however, that the increase in background checking over the past 20 years has been a positive step.
But how a company handles that information can have legal implications. Employers need to be concerned about "negligent hiring," said Meredith Watts, an associate at the Duvin Cahn & Hutton law firm. A day-care provider obviously does not want the liability of hiring a child molester, she said, but other situations are not that obvious. It might be OK, for example, for a company to hire somebody with a five-year-old drug conviction to deliver interoffice mail.
Similar issues apply when a background check turns up a problem with a current employee. A company can be liable for "negligent retention," she said.
At Mr. Gasket, a Brooklyn manufacturer of performance auto parts, the company policy is not to hire anybody with a felony conviction in the previous five years, said Alice Bissett, director of human resources.
Bissett said background screening has turned up only three or four such problems among 162 applicants in the past 3½ years. Mr. Gasket uses InfoLink Screening for its background checks, Bissett said, but not for drug testing.
The company checks only those areas it believes are pertinent to the job, she said. While everyone gets a drug test and a criminal background check, only those going into finance will have their credit histories checked. That's because someone who has a lot of debt could be tempted to embezzle if they are around company coffers.
In the same way, only those who will be driving company vehicles will have their driving records scrutinized. "It's all got to be job-related," Bissett said.
Sometimes it doesn't pay to collect too much data, she said, because employers are required to share all derogatory information with an employee. Something that had no bearing on a company's decision not to hire someone may be interpreted by that person as the reason for being passed over.
