by
We have all seen news about drivers for riding-division services arrested for sexual assault by a passenger or committing another violent crime, and it is revealed that the employee has a long-standing newer-criminal record.
The first thing most of us think is, “Didn’t the company a criminal background check or other screening before hiring?”
Also consider this nightmare that two of my readers are undergoing right now:
“My wife and I are in the 80s and have a rental housing. Our property manager ran a detailed computer credit and background check of a potential tenant passing with flying colors and moving in. However, his deposit and tenant control jumped. We are dealing with a serial squatter! In just 10 minutes, our grandson – an IT College -Major – revealed a pattern of similar behavior that went back over 15 years! How can this be explained? “
Of course, companies throughout America are actually screening the background/prior employment, but at least 45% of these controls are essentially useless, according to California-licensed private investigators Riley Parker and Jane Parker.
They strongly maintain that, in addition to unreliable data, there are strict new federal and state rules of privacy over the past several years – making it much more difficult to discover disturbing things about a potential employee or tenant’s past – resulted in otherwise preventable criminal behavior.
Default Background Control does not promote security
I was contacted by Jeff Lebo, JD, who has been a general adviser to large, troopical, non-profit background search companies. His goal is to awaken the public to the risk of “standard” background/credit/screenings before hiring, “which does not provide security-long from it,” he says.
He notes that “one of the leading causes of preventable tragedy in the workplace and local communities” is the failure of the standard background or search before hiring to reveal past bad actions. “To be accurate, (background check) must be performed internally using primary source reports so that the employer remains the decision maker. Relying on the basis of background control of multibillion dollar means that you outsourcing your decisions on foster duty to devices that focus on maximizing the profits of shareholders, not protecting employees or the public, at the expense of life. “
Tragic results due to unanswered criminal stories
The results are a million dollars judge for negligent hiring and worse, children who were molested in camps and daycare of offenders with long criminal history who should have been exposed. We read about this so often. I have learned that employers believe they are getting thorough screening, but in reality they just receive reports from automated data pumps that do not include critical information.
To make things worse are several hiring managers, I have spoken with-as insisted on staying anonymous because they are not authorized to speak for their employers-dreams to rely on background control companies that use contracts containing liability for liability indicating their searches, are incomplete. Surprisingly, few companies had any interest in going back to established methods to get applicants to get job applicants by personally checking references, seeking legal registries, etc.
Lebo’s cynical view: “Despite knowing the risks, these organizations always choose the fastest and cheapest option. Even worse is that many people use salary and staffing companies for screening, which is like getting a foot doctor to perform open-hearted surgery. “
The parks agree and add that the investigative work that once made background control meaningful has disappeared, replaced by defective systems that leave businesses, schools and communities at risk.
I encourage anyone who doubts this to spend some time on the Lebos Website.
An approach that employers need to consider
New York-based job search and career coach Jeff Altman knows that online employment data is not always reliable.
“Given Opt-Out sites that can remove your identity and past (from online databases), an employer is much better at performing an actual, internal background check that talks to people who can verify independently what appears on a job application. This means being old -fashioned by checking references that otherwise you are limited by data that are not necessarily reliable. “
Altman has an effective way of reducing the chances of hiring someone with a dubious past:
“One way to scare people with red flags in their background is by telling them, ‘We will do a background check when you are at work and personally will verify your references. If you have given us inaccurate, false or misleading information about your application, these will be reason for immediate termination. ‘(Shady) People get scared and decide not to participate in your business as the threat of termination after hiring is huge.
“The person tries so hard to get a job, finally get one, and then a month later have to come home and tell their spouse and children that they were fired because they lied on the application. It’s devastating! “
Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield, California, and welcomes comments and questions from readers, which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993 or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1@gmail.com. And make sure to visit Dennisbeaver.com.