Posted by EmployTest - on Thu, Mar 25, 2010 @ 02:10 PM
Last week's Wall Street Journal highlighted a practice that's becoming more common these days: employment credit background checks for job applicants. Most companies perform some type of criminal background search, but the use of employment credit checks has never been widespread.
As the article illustrates, these employment credit checks can uncover the financial problems that the unemployed are dealing with: unpaid bills, late on mortgage payments, past due credit cards and more. So these people are caught in an unemployment Catch-22: They can't get a job because of their poor credit history, which was caused by them losing a job in the first place.
Is this fair to perform an employment credit check on these people? Absolutely, because if you don't, then your company could be found liable for lack of due diligence if the your new star turns out to be a thief. Such searches are necessary for employees that will have any type of financial management position where they have access to money or sensitive information.
But what about employees who don't have access to such money or information? More information is usually better when making a hiring decision. It's better to know what your company will be getting. And if you know about a poor credit history, you can give the applicant a chance to explain the circumstances that created that history. Employment credit background searches are just like any other type of background search: you don't want to do it, but you need to do it to protect yourself, your employees and your clients.
Posted by EmployTest - on Thu, Feb 18, 2010 @ 09:08 AM
$190,000 is a lot of dough. According the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, that amount is the median loss by small businesses that are victims of embezzlement or employee theft, as recently reported in The Wall Street Journal.
And more than half of the Certified Fraud Examiners recently surveyed said that occupational fraud has inceased in the past twelve months.
Is there a foolproof, ironclad way to prevent such losses from occuring? Probably not, if your business is of any significant size. But there are some steps to take during the interviewing process to identify applicants that have a pattern of problems or are potential risks.
Most important is a background search. But not the quick, $9.95 search that's plastered all over the internet. What you need is an in-depth search to include all counties where the applicant has lived and all aliases that they might have used.
The cheap-o background searches only look at national databases and these can have older information that hasn't been updated. Or some county criminal databases don't report to the national ones (or are slow to report criminal activity). But the county level criminal databases are much more accurate. Search where the applicant currently lives and then also any other counties they recently lived in.
If the job description requires handling of money or access to sensitive financial information, then an employment credit search should be required.
Is this a guaranteed way to prevent fraud? Certainly not, as your firm will also need checks and balances internally to head off such activities. But these in-depth background searches will help you weed out the potential bad eggs before they get a foot in your door (and your company's wallet).
Posted by EmployTest - on Mon, Sep 14, 2009 @ 03:40 PM
The 2009 Liars Index, as compiled by Jude Werra (President, Jude Werra & Associates, 262-797-9166), is published as a percentage of executives who are misrepresenting their academic credentials on their resumes.
The index for the first half of 2009 is more than 15%, meaning that at least 15% of executives are not being forthright about their academics on their resume. This is a 39% increase from the previous period (last half of 2008) and 19% higher than the previous 2 year rolling average.
Are all executives lying on their resumes? Of course not and the vast majority are giving a full (and accurate) disclosure. But some of them are lying. Just like your hourly and professional positions. Most applicants don't lie. But some do. Truth is, you probably can't tell the difference between the liars and non-liars. And if other companies are using pre-employment testing and performing background screens (and you are not), then you may be one that's hiring the liars.