3Back to Articles
Calling a Halt to the "Parade of Horribles" for the
Staffing industry
Excerpts
from a feature article on pre-employment background screening from the
November/December 1999 issue of the SI (Staffing industry) Review
Pre-Employment Screening:
A Vital Part Of Your Business
STOPPING THE PARADE
OF HORRIBLES
Les Rosen, attorney-at-law
and President of pre-employment screening and credentials verification
firm Employment Screening Resources (Novato CA) says, "Screening
companies discuss the Parade of Horribles that can occur
if a firm does not engage in pre-employment screening." These include:
- Lawsuits by
employees or third parties
- Workplace violence
- Unqualified
employees
- Lost business
and customers
- Theft, embezzlement,
or property damage
- Negligent hiring
exposure
- Sexual harassment
difficulties
- Financial losses
- Fraudulent
claims
- Time wasted
in recruiting, hiring, and training.
STAFFING AND
PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING
Rosen mentions the
special challenges to the staffing industry, " Many staffing firms
are reluctant to test, for two reasons, first, in the competitive environment
of staffing, with smaller margins, staffing firms do not want to incur
the cost. The second issue is turnaround time. Staffing companies need
to make placements immediately. If they have to wait for a criminal
record, they can lose the applicant to a staffing firm down the street
that does not do backgrounds, or they can lose a day or two worth of
placements. For these reasons, many staffing firms only screen when
their client makes it a requirement of the placement."
This is a mistake,
according to Rosen, "Firms that do not screen are playing a game
of Russian roulette with their future."
" A staffing
agencys worst nightmare is sending out a temporary worker or a
candidate for permanent placement who has a criminal record. Should
that person harm a coworker or member of the public, the staffing company
will certainly be sued," Rosen continues.
Under current Due
Diligence legislation, "The staffing agency would have little legal
defense when the attorney for the injured party argues that if the staffing
company had been willing to spend just a few dollars to know who they
were hiring, the criminal act would not have happened. Unfortunately,
it is just a matter of time before staffing companies will face that
nightmare, because statistically, approximately 10% of all job applicants
have criminal records that would affect employment decisions."
In a worst-case
scenario, says Rosen, a disaster could lead to the loss of the company.
"There are staffing companies that no longer exist because they
provided employment to people on parole for serious violent offenses
who re-offended in the workplace, resulting in disastrous civil litigation."
SCREENING BENEFITS
There are numerous
reasons to screen, and any number of benefits. According to the experts
we spoke with, employers typically engage in pr-employment screening
for four reasons: (Note: the following is from Employment Screening
Resources literature on background screening)
1. To discourage
applicants with something to hide. In this case, just having a pre-screening
job program discourages job applicants with a criminal background
or falsified credentials.
2. To eliminate
uncertainty in the hiring process. Many employers have learned the
hard way that relying on instinct alone is not enough.
3. To demonstrate Due Diligence.
Employers have a reasonable duty of care in the hiring process. Failure to
exercise the duty of care can lead to lawsuits for negligent hiring.
4. To not only
discourage the wrong kind of applicant, but encourage the right applicant
to be open and truthful. This introduces honesty into the application
and interview process. Employers find that just having a background
program will encourage application to be more forthcoming about their
history.
SERVICES OFFERED
The companies we
spoke with all provide substantial resources to those staffing companies
that wish to implement a screening program. Rosen says, "Background
companies typically offer criminal record checks for both county courts
and federal criminal courts, driving records, credit reports, social
security tracers, educational verification, employment references and
verification, workers compensation records (subject to ADA rules) and
judgments, liens, and bankruptcies."
WHAT ARE THE
LEGALITIES?
For the great
majority of companies that do not work with the government, Due Diligence
is the most applicable regulation. Says Rosen, " The primary
legal inducement [for employers] is Due Diligence. Every employer
has a reasonable duty of care in whom they hire. An employer breaches
that duty of care when the employer knows or should know facts that
would warn a reasonable person that the employee presents an undue
risk of harm of third parties or co-workers in light of the work to
be performed. By engaging in a background check, a staffing agency
demonstrates that it has taken reasonable steps to insure that a job
candidate is safe."
The main legislation
regarding background screening is the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Under
the FCRA, when an employer uses a background screening company to
prepare a report, it must follow several steps.
The employer must
clearly disclose to the applicant in a separate document that a report
is being prepared. The disclosure cannot be buried in the fine print
in an application.
A signed release
is required before checking records such as criminal convictions or
pending criminal cases, driving records, credit reports, or educational
credentials.
An additional
notice is required when a background firm checks references, such
as asking previous employers about job performance.
If an employer
intends to deny employment based upon information in the report, the
job applicant must receive a copy of the report and a notice of legal
rights.
If an applicant
believes the information is wrong, the applicant can inform the screening
agency, which must remove or correct inaccurate or unverified information.
Applicants have
the right to inspect their files.
Says Rosen, "
For a job applicant, honesty is always the best policy. Negative information
honestly disclosed in an interview with an explanation may well have
no effect [on the hire].
However, if the
employer discovers that information through a third party, then the
lack of honesty may be the reason for not getting the position."
|