E-RACE and You
Recently, HR Morning carried an article titled: “EEOC warns about background checks.” It’s about the E-RACE program. Here’s a core paragraph.
“The EEOC program designed to combat discriminatory practices tied to background checks is called E-RACE (Eradicating Racism And Colorism from Employment). It started when the agency noted, in the last few years, a steep climb in complaints from applicants who said they were unfairly excluded from competing for a job because of information that showed up on a background check.”
The key word here is “unfairly.” If you’re using background checks the right way you should be in compliance with the program.
Here are some guidelines. Note that I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. But I have been around the hiring process for a while and I know that the key thing isn’t whether you use background checks, but how you use them.
Check everyone. If you’re just checking people of a certain race or gender or age or from only one part of town, it’s like hanging an “I’m discriminating” sign around your neck.
If you’re going to refuse to hire an otherwise-qualified person because of their criminal record, make sure the record is relevant to the job. Consider the nature of the offense and when it occurred.
If there’s a record, but it doesn’t point to a specific problem on the job, it still may point to character issues. Just remember that the background check alone won’t be enough.
Use what you’ve found as the starting point for […]
Preventing workplace violence
Labor attorney Todd Wozniak, writing in QSR (Quick Serve Restaurant) lays out a program that will help you reduce the threat of workplace violence, beginning with conducting background checks on all applicants. His article is titled “Violence in the Workplace.”
Wozniak starts by sharing a few stunning statistics. Did you know that assaults and violent acts account for 14 percent of workplace deaths? Did you know that workplace violence costs employers $36 billion a year?
Did you know that almost three quarters of employers have no formal program that addresses workplace violence? What about your company?
There are lots of reasons you should address the threat of workplace violence. A safe workplace is more productive. Morale is higher. And then, there’s the law.
As Wozniak points out OSHA requires an employer to provide a workplace that’s “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” Here’s how he suggests you proceed.
Do a diligent job of hiring, including background checks on applicants.
Create a threat management team.
Assess vulnerabilities on a regular basis.
Adopt violence prevention policies.
Conduct regular training.
Fire respectfully.
Ban weapons.
None of these things is rocket science. None of them cost a lot. The trick is to cover your employment situation from beginning to end, to have clear policies and procedures, and to make sure that you follow them diligently and consistently.
Check me out
Many of the stories I see about background checks have a familiar theme. “Background checks are a good idea, but I don’t want you to check on me.” That’s why a story out of Rapid City, South Dakota stands out.
The headline reads: “Ice cream vendors embrace background checks.” Here’s the lead.
Details of Rapid City’s proposed background-check requirement for ice cream vendors are still being hashed out, but truck operators say they won’t have a problem with the new rule if it is implemented.
The first question is: “Why do background checks on ice cream vendors?” They may not seem like a potential threat, but think back to the last time you were at a public park in the summer.
Remember what happens when the ice cream truck comes around. Kids beg parents for ice cream. Moms and dads hand over money and send their little darlings off to the truck.
You hardly ever see a parent who walks to the ice cream truck with their child. And that means that a vendor with evil intent toward a child may have the opportunity to snatch one up.
So Rapid City is drafting an ordinance to do a criminal background check on ice cream vendors. And the vendors, unlike some folks, say that’s just fine with them.
In fact, Keith Storm, one of the vendors only really has one concern. He hopes the process won’t be a burden, since he already went through a background check to sell ice cream around schools.
So here’s a hearty “Bravo!” […]
Check ‘em all
A story in the Muskogee Phoenix headlined: “Wanted: Students, not felons” describes how some colleges are now including criminal background checks in their application process. Here’s an excerpt.
Along with their grades and residence status, high school seniors face another important question on their college applications: ‘Have you ever been convicted of a felony?’ And many colleges, including the University of Oklahoma and nursing programs at Connors State College and Northeastern State University, back that question up with criminal background checks.
In other words, what happens is that the college asks an applicant if he or she has a felony conviction. If the answer is “No,” they proceed with the admissions process. If they answer “Yes,” the college runs a background check.
This strikes me as dangerous. In the interests of streamlining the process for people with no criminal record, they put those same people at risk.
Think about it. In common law as practiced in most of the US, a felony is a crime that carries a possible sentence of a year or more in prison. We’re talking things like battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug sales, embezzlement, grand theft, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.
It seems to me that if a man or woman has been convicted of a crime like that, they’re more likely to lie than a person without a criminal record. That’s why I’d like to see criminal background checks as part of every college admissions process.
My guess is that would discourage some felons from applying at all. It […]
Watching out for the weasel words
“Oh, the irony of the background check!” was the headline on a story in the Pocono Record in February. One of their readers offered the following.
A few months ago, I applied for a job at the new distribution center in Gouldsboro. I had the interview, got hired, passed the urine test, then they do a background check which they find a misdemeanor theft charge from two years ago, which was over some coins. I was accused of stealing, but since I was there, I could not prove I did not. Anyway, they told me they could not hire me.
Let’s look at this because it illustrates some issues about hiring that are important. Wording is a good place to begin.
The person refers to “misdemeanor theft charge from two years ago, which was over some coins.” Clearly he’s trying to put things in the best light. In the ad business those would be called “weasel words.”
It may have been a misdemeanor, but it was probably a conviction, not just a charge. Certain criminal databases, like SentryLink, that businesses use for background checks don’t note arrests or charges, only convictions. That’s how we interpret the Constitution’s principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
We don’t know how many coins were involved and we don’t know if they were currency or collectables. What we do know is that stealing was involved and the fact that it was two years ago is irrelevant.
If I’m the hiring manager, here’s how my reasoning would go. “We’re considering […]
Hello, I love you, let me check your background
To background check, or not, is online love’s latest question, at least according to the Salt Lake Tribune. The course of true love has never run smooth, but who ever thought it would come to this?
There have been plenty of stories lately about men and women using background check services like SentryLink to check out prospective dates. But now the battle has moved to the online dating services. According to the Tribune story:
The contentious issue of the moment – pitting one of the three biggest companies, True.com, against its major rivals – is whether online dating services can enhance their clients’ safety by conducting criminal background screenings of would-be daters. Last month, New Jersey became the first state to enact a law requiring the sites to disclose whether they perform background checks. True.com – the only large online dating service that already does such screenings – was elated by its successful lobbying and hopes other states will follow suit.
There are two things going on here. True.com is seeking a marketing edge and preying on the fears of people who might be considering using an online service to help them find a date or a mate.
Many people use online services like Match.com or Eharmony.com because they’ve exhausted the usual sources of dates. If you can’t find a date among the people at work, at church, at school or at a volunteer activity, what do you do?
There seem to be three choices. You can assume that dating is not in your […]