Companies hire investigative service agencies or background screening agencies for a fee. Most do a pre-employment screening of some depth. Its purpose, to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant for the purpose of limiting possible liability associated with hiring them.
1)To expose possible criminal records the candidate may have.
2) To verify how accurate their educational credentials are.
3) If the candidate had or has issues with a previous or current employer.
It is important to know that a background check is not the same as a pre-employment screening and should not be used as the total source to pre-screen potential employees. If it is basic or in-depth screening there are several factors that should be considered and according to the nature of the position the applicant has applied for.
Pre-screen options, when possible, should always be one of two major factors in the hiring process. This is where you will make "the" decision, an informed decision or not depends on you and how much you value your company. The Federal EEOC has restrictions and guidelines, many states have their own restrictions that differ from the federal in regulating the hiring of new employee's. This adds possibilities of legal issues, punitive damages, damaged reputation with the courts as ill-responsible which now affect you ability to secure insurance. The court may even make you the example for other employer's, label you as a "risk" for willful acts (now it affects your ability to become insured). The BOJ reported One million per year become victim to violent crime while at work. This does not cover the other losses in revenue, company productivity, employee absences, etc.
Failure to conduct a background check could make you liable for actions that occur from an employee with a negative background. Not knowing does not relieve you from the legal liabilities of information you would have had access to from proper pre-employment background screening. Especially in today?s world, employer/employee violent attacks are rampant across the nation It is important that the employer consider the position for candidature while determining the type of search to opt for. Also, the employer should always use the same background screening options for all applicants being considered for the said position.
use the same background screening options for all applicants being considered for the said position.
The question, will your decision be an informed one or a costly one. No one can be 100 % sure 100% of the time but we can limit the liabilities to a minimum by being responsible employers. Avoiding or limiting third party liabilities, inventory shortages (42.7% of shortage are from employee theft, 12 billion annually in missing merchandise, fraud, cash, attributed to employee theft).
Can you afford the risk Don't let your company be the next victimized structure. Get Protected now! Don't work in the dark, be informed, stay Safe, contact us today for your pre-employment screening.
The most common requests include education verification, driving records, criminal records, background checks for sex offender registry, credential verification, credit history, reference checks, and the Patriot Act is fast becoming popular with an increase in both awareness and lawlessness.
Supreme Court Rules That Employer Could Be Liable For Adverse Employment Actions Even If The Decision maker Has No Unlawful Motive
On March 1, 2011, the United States Supreme Court held in Staub v. Proctor Hospital that if a supervisor performs an act motivated by anti-military animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
USERRA makes it unlawful for an employer to deny initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer, on the basis of a person's membership or obligation to perform service in a uniformed service. 38 U.S.C. 4311(a). USERRA further provides that an employer shall be considered to have engaged in prohibited conduct if the person's membership is a motivating factor in the employer?s action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such membership. 38 U.S.C. 4311(c).
In Staub, the employee was a member of the United States Army Reserve. The employee?s supervisors were hostile to his military obligations. The employee's immediate supervisor issued him a Corrective Action disciplinary warning for purportedly violating a company rule. Subsequently, another supervisor informed the vice president of human resources (HR officer) that the employee had violated the Corrective Action. After receiving this report, the HR officer decided to fire the employee.
The employee challenged his firing through the employer's grievance process, claiming that his supervisors had fabricated the allegations against him out of hostility toward his military obligations. After discussing the matter with another personnel officer, the HR officer adhered to her decision without further investigation. The employee sued, A jury found in favor of the employee.
Employers Need To Be Careful To Avoid Waiving The Protections Of Written Computer And Email Policies
The Ninth Circuit's June 18, 2008 decision in Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating and The Ontario Police
Department serves as a reminder that employers can inadvertently waive the benefits of such policies.
The plaintiffs sued both Arch Wireless and The City of Ontario, as well as some individual defendants. In pertinent part, the Court held that in light of the lieutenant's informal policy that he would not audit a pager if the user paid the overage charges, the plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their text messages as a matter of law notwithstanding the City's written policies to the contrary.
This case cautions employers that it is possible to lose the benefits of their written computer and email policies. Employers wishing to maintain their rights should ensure that managers and supervisors do not inadvertently undermine the policies by adopting inconsistent practices or making inconsistent promises to employees.
Occupational fraud is a global problem. Though some of our findings differ slightly from region to region, most of the trends in fraud schemes, perpetrator characteristics and anti-fraud controls are similar regardless of where the fraud occurred. Fraud reporting mechanisms are a critical component of an effective fraud prevention and detection system. Organizations should implement hot lines to receive tips from both internal and external sources. Such reporting mechanisms should allow anonymity and confidentiality, and employees should be encouraged to report suspicious activity without fear of reprisal. Organizations tend to over-rely on audits. External audits were the control mechanism most widely used by the victims in our survey, but they ranked comparatively poorly in both detecting fraud and limiting losses due to fraud. Audits are clearly important and can have a strong preventative effect on fraudulent behavior, but they should not be relied upon exclusively for fraud detection.
Employee education is the foundation of preventing and detecting occupational fraud. Staff members are an organization's top fraud detection method; employees must be trained in what constitutes fraud, how it hurts everyone in the company and how to report any questionable activity. Our data show not only that most frauds are detected by tips, but also that organizations that have anti-fraud training for employees and managers experience lower fraud losses.
Surprise audits are an effective, yet underutilized, tool in the fight against fraud. Less than 30% of victim organizations in our study conducted surprise audits; however, those organizations tended to have lower fraud losses and to detect frauds more quickly. While surprise audits can be useful in detecting fraud, their most important benefit is in preventing fraud by creating a perception of detection. Generally speaking, occupational fraud perpetrators only commit fraud if they believe they will not be caught. The threat of surprise audits increases employees perception that fraud will be detected and thus has a strong deterrent effect on potential fraudsters.
Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to fraud. In general, these organizations have far fewer controls in place to protect their resources from fraud and abuse. Managers and owners of small businesses should focus their control investments on the most cost-effective mechanisms, such as hot lines and setting an ethical tone for their employees, as well as those most likely to help prevent and detect the specific fraud schemes that pose the greatest risks to their businesses.
Internal controls alone are insufficient to fully prevent occupational fraud. Though it is important for organizations to have strategic and effective anti-fraud controls in place, internal controls will not prevent all fraud from occurring, nor will they detect most fraud once it begins.
Fraudsters exhibit behavioral warning signs of their misdeeds. These red flags such as living beyond one's means or exhibiting control issues will not be identified by traditional controls. Auditors and employees alike should be trained to recognize the common behavioral signs that a fraud is occurring and encouraged not to ignore such red flags, as they might be the key to detecting or deterring a fraud.
Given the high costs of occupational fraud, effective fraud prevention measures are critical. Organizations should implement a fraud prevention checklist similar to that on page 80 of the Report in order to help eliminate fraud before it occurs.
Covert USB Flash Drive Audio Recorder
Tiny USB Flash Drive With Built In Voice Recorder For 40 - 160 Hours Of Audio Recording.
Easy-To-Use 40 - 160 Hour Voice Recording Tool Plugs Directly Into Your Computer For Easy Playback
Fully Functional Flash Drive & Voice Recorder
USB Flash Drive Audio Recorder