With the economy in a slump and unemployment on the rise, people are getting more and more desperate to land that hot-job…or any job at all. This desperation leads to people doing things they wouldn’t normally do, including lying about their skills, experience, and past jobs on their resumes.
According to a survey done by Accu-Screen Inc. “approximately 43 percent of resumes and job applications could contain false information”. 55% of the 161 HR professionals surveyed said they have discovered outright lies on resumes or applications when conducting pre-employment background or reference checks.
Among the other trends cited in the report seen on the SHRM website:
• Use of social networking sites to screen individuals. The social network revolution has changed many communication channels. Sites such as Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn contain a wealth of personal information—good and bad—that allow hiring professionals to view home pages in order to gain additional information about job candidates.
• Screening of Outside Contractors. With more outside sources being used by staffing managers to fill positions, this is sure to be a hot topic in 2009.
• Screening Existing Employees. Recurring background checks on current employees are becoming more common. Continuous employee screening can help employers stay abreast of a person’s personal activities that can play a role in the individual’s employment standing.
• Complementing Local, National, Criminal Records Database Searches. A national criminal database search shouldn’t be the sole method used to perform a criminal background check. Hiring professionals must confer with their screening company to make sure the provider is using the best method of conducting county records searches as its primary information source, coupled with researching a national criminal database as a secondary source.
• State Focus on Developing Privacy Procedures for Public Records. In the age of identification theft, states are taking measures to protect their citizens’ personal information. These measures can affect how quickly and how much information employers can obtain.
• International Screening Growth. The complexity of the international privacy laws, in addition to the accuracy of international records, has created several issues for employers. As the world is beginning to embrace the concept of background screening beyond the United States, employers are faced with so many issues regarding the legal procedures of the countries in which they are conducting background checks, especially concerning privacy laws.
• State Mandates and the Electronic I-9 Process. Filing I-9 forms electronically speeds up the process and improves the accuracy of verifying a potential employee’s citizenship and right to work. More than 85 percent of paper I-9 forms are filled out incorrectly. With such a large margin of error, states are beginning to mandate the electronic I-9 process.
• Adjudication Modules. Some hiring managers use adjudication modules—grids or charts that dictate specific reactions to convictions for identified crimes—to assist them in the hiring process. The modules are perceived as a helpful tool to use during the employment review process. A pitfall for developing an accurate adjudication module is that different jurisdictions define crimes differently. These inconsistencies result in a flawed system and possible employer infractions of discrimination law.
• Educating the Marketplace About Background Screening. Even though hiring and selecting a background screener is a small portion of their overall duties, it is still important to keep current on the industry and the integral role it plays in mitigating an organization’s liabilities.
When most people think of religious discrimination the usual denial of accommodation by the employer comes to mind. A situation that arose with Kelly Services in California puts a different meaning to the term. In the recent case of Noyes v. Kelly Services, an employee was turned down for a promotion and filed a lawsuit charging reverse religious discrimination under the California and federal antibias laws. She claimed that she was discriminated against for not being part of the same faith that the manager belonged to. The woman claimed that after having applied for a promotion she was turned down in favor of someone who had been there six years less, and lacked the masters degree in business administration that the plaintiff held. As proof of this bias the plaintiff pointed to the last six promotions by the manager, five of which were members of the same faith.
The Courts found that:
(1) although Kelly Services argued that the promotion decision was consensus-based, the other managers couldn’t recall reaching a consensus, and one stated that the manager ultimately made the decision;
(2) His actions prevented full consideration of the woman for the job by the other managers;
(3) He favored Fellowship members and the co-worker in particular (for example, paying the co-worker a higher salary for the same job she held and frequently hiring Fellowship members as temporary contractors and giving them management jobs).
The case went to a jury which awarded the employee $647,000 for economic and noneconomic losses, in addition to a whopping $5.9 million in punitive damages.
Workplace favoritism can be an expensive issue, Here are some tactics for avoiding similar problems as seen on BLR.com:
Have clear policies to govern how promotion and hiring decisions are made.
Make sure the promotion selection process includes oversight and review by upper management and/or human resources.
Provide training for managers on the policies and procedures governing promotions.
Get all your policies and desktop training for employees at HRSentry.
In a recent case the Supreme Court put more pressure on employers in age discrimination lawsuits by placing the burden of proof on them. In the past employees have had to prove that age discrimination took place, which led to the dismissal of Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. With this new ruling the courts have flipped the burden of proof onto employers, who now must prove that the age discrimination did not take place. What this essentially means is that managers must keep detailed documentation behind every firing to show the “disparate impact” was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” Previously, courts in similar cases ruled it was up to employees to prove there was bias.
With the workforce aging as baby-boomers near retirement, the issue of age discrimination is becoming increasingly prevalent. With this type of discrimination on the rise, employers need to address the situation before it becomes a problem. According to Aging Workforce News, “A Hewitt Associates survey of more than 140 mid-size and large employers has found that 55% have already evaluated the impact that potential retirements could have on their organization and 61% have developed or will develop special programs to retain targeted, near-retirement employees. Even though only 21% believe that phased retirement is critical to their company’s human resources strategy today, 61% believe so when looking ahead 5 years.”
To learn more about age discrimination, the impact on businesses, and what you can do about it visit the Department of Labor, AARP, or one of many events such as the Aging Workforce Summit.
In the United States workers compensation went into effect during the early 1900′s. During this time the legal system was experiencing significant growth which led to increased protection of employee rights. These employee rights laws started out very industry specific, with the manufacturing industry leading the way. As a result, states that supported high risk industries experienced the adoption of such laws earlier than those that relied on other industries such as agriculture. It is partly the industry specific nature of these laws that have made it a state law instead of federal law. By 1948 every state and US territory had adopted some form of workers compensation law and would continue to develop it as time went on.
State workers compensation laws have been developed with two things in mind. The first was to provide guaranteed coverage for the employee to ensure that they will have adequate means to live if they are injured on the job. The second purpose for the laws is to protect the employer from being suited and losing everything because of an injury. The idea is that the system provides a structured plan to support the injured employee without causing undue hardship to the employer.
To help reduce the cost for your organizations workers compensation coverage there are several action steps you can follow:
Action Steps: The best contacts and resources to help you get it done
Find your state specific workers compensation laws:
Every state has its own set of rules and regulations for workers compensation. It is important for you to look in all states that you do business in as coverage is differs state to state. I recommend taking a look at your states individual workers compensation laws to ensure you are aware of these different conditions. A great resource for this is WorkersCompensation.com, click on a states link to see the specific regulations.
Get a free quote:
Use one of the many online services to get a free quote on what your insurance cost would be. It can be helpful to use two or three different services while researching to get a good idea of the industry average. I recommend visiting Insurance Finder or the quote request page at WorkersCompensation.com. These will provide some numbers to work with while looking for the proper insurance provider for you and your organization.
Visit the US Department of Labor:
While most regulations in the workers compensation laws are state specific, there are certain conditions that apply on a national level. These include coverage to injured employees for medical bills and lost wages. The most common difference is the waiting period for payment and how much of the wages are replaced. I recommend checking out the Department of Labor for more information on these topics. As of next year the Department of Labor will be handing responsibility of reporting on these matters to WorkersCompensation.com, who has become the leading resource for national workers compensation coverage.
Become Educated:
One of the biggest reasons for lawsuits pertaining to workers compensation is a direct result of a lack of knowledge! Protect your organization by becoming educated on this important law. I recommend visiting HRSentry and signing up for the free online webinar on May 20th at 2pm. For anyone seriously interested in learning the ins and outs of workers compensation, Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Family Medical Leave Act, this is a must. It will be presented by a wonderful presenter and human resource professional, Brenda JM Sabin, CBP check it out.
Educate Employees
The final step to any successful workers compensation plan is making sure your employees understand it. I recommend including the specifics of your workers compensation plan in your employee handbook. This allows employees access to this information and keeps all levels of management on the same page. For more information on this topic visit my “Importance of Creating an Employee Handbook” lens. Another great resource for this and all Human Resource related needs is the HRSentry Solution.
In businesses across the country employees carrying their personal computers into work has become more and more the norm. Supporters of this have been saying for years that it allows them to get more done during the day by helping them to relax and feel a sense of increased familiarity. IT however see’s a much different side of this trend, one that troubles many experts.
According to MySecureCyberspace, “despite taking precautions to secure computer networks, organizations can still be at great risk if they lack measures that protect them from their own employees, a danger known as the insider threat. According to a computer crime survey by the FBI, 44 percent of organizations reported insider attacks in 2005, out of 2,066 organizations surveyed.”
The issue of insider threats are becoming increasingly common with 40% of employees surveyed by In-Stat reporting that they purchase laptops for work on their own. When these devices(including PDA’s and cell phones) connect to the organizations networks they can allow viruses and other security problems in.
Use “Access Control Lists” to police the amount of information and data that employees can access.
Adopt policies that forbid the use of work computers for personal use.
Use encryption internally as well as externally to prevent unauthorized access.
Have tight controls over how employees use computers. For example, some organizations restrict email attachment sizes and run port scans that check what network software is running on employees’ computers. They may monitor the Internet activities of their employees and prevent access to some Web sites.
Conduct stricter background checks on job candidates.
