Some employers may have read about new rules that went into effect July 1, 2010, that potentially affect the accuracy of employment verifications.  For employers concerned about the new rules, the small pledge is that it does not affect how and when an employer receives a background report.  It also does not impact a standard response to a request for a past employment check. At most, it may only affect certain limited employers in their role as a “furnisher” of in rank to third parties as defined by the federal Honest Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). 

For example, it has been suggested that the new rules could potentially impact an employer that is utilizing a  third party air force firm that routinely collects employment data such as payroll data or makes an employment database.   

The new rules are at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/07/R611017factafrn.pdf. They stem from the Honest and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)of 2003, which among other things, provided consumers a means to obtain emancipated yearly credit report from the credit bureaus. The new law also required federal agencies to implement new rules aimed at promoting the “accuracy” and “integrity” of in rank that “furnishers” grant to consumer reporting agencies.  A “furnisher” is a party that provides in rank.  The main thrust of the new regulations is aimed at organizations such as banks, fiscal institutions and credit card firms that grant data to the credit bureaus that are used to make consumer credit reports. 

Although ESR cannot grant legal advice and it is possible that future clarifications may come out from the Federal Trade Commission or other sources, it certainly appears that the regulations do not affect an employer that simply responds to a standard request for a past employment check, and does not impact employers at all that are users of background reports.

Please contact Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at www.ESRcheck.com if you have any questions. 

Source:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/07/R611017factafrn.pdf

According to a report on TDN.com, (The Daily News Online), officials in Lewis County, Washington have approved a pledge requiring all contractors hired by the county for $100,000 or above to verify the employment eligibility of their staff through the regime’s E-Verify Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification system.

E-Verify – a emancipated, Internet-based system used to determine if employees are with permission eligible to work in the county – compares the names of staff with their Social Security numbers and verifies in rank on the Employment Eligibility Verification forms (“I-9” forms) employees must fill out against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Social Security Administration (SSA) databases.

TDN.com reports that Lewis County was already using E-Verify for contractors paid with federal funding, as mandated by a federal ruling, and also that the county auditor recently started using E-Verify to check the citizenship status of new county staff.

But, some critics felt the $100,000 threshold mandating E-Verify usage was too high, saying contractors using illegal staff would still be able to bid up to $99,999 on county projects without having to use the E-Verify Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification system, TDN.com reported.

With over 200,000 employers currently using E-Verify and many believing that E-Verify should be mandatory, E-Verify Designated Agents are helping businesses with in the employment eligibility verification process. Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading national background check provider and authorized E-Verify Designated Agent – can help employers virtually eliminate errors, improve the accuracy of their reporting, protect jobs for authorized staff, and help maintain a legal workforce.

For extra in rank about the E-Verify Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification system, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php.

Source:

http://tdn.com/news/disorder-and-regional/article_5087aea2-7e4f-11df-ba97-001cc4c03286.html

The U.S. Citizenship and Colonization Air force (USCIS) – the regime agency that oversees with permission recognized colonization to the United States – has announced that “huge changes” are coming to E-Verify on June 13 that will enhance the electronic employment eligibility verification system’s “usability, security, accuracy, and efficiency.”

According to ‘E-Verify Redesign’ web page at www.uscis.gov/e-verify_redesign, the newly redesigned E-Verify will feature a clean and modern top, simple and intuitive navigation, and clear and simple language. Some new features of E-Verify – a emancipated, Internet-based system that verifies in rank on an I-9 form against regime databases to see if the employee is with permission eligible to work in the U.S. – will include:

• Home Page: E-Verify’s new look home page welcomes users by name and displays user IDs and last login dates and times to enhance security. The new E-Verify home page also features: an E-Verify User Manual link; a new ‘case alerts feature’ to alert users when they are required to pocket action or when there is an update in the status of a case; and an superior E-Verify news section.
• Simple as 1-2-3: Most verifications of an employee’s employment eligibility with the redesigned E-Verify demand only three steps. The process of entering the employee’s Form I-9 in rank has been streamlined to make it simpler and reduce typos and other mistakes that regularly cause tentative nonconfirmations.
• Case Results: The redesigned E-Verify features “can’t-miss case” results showed prominently on screen. Only the last four digits of Social Security numbers are showed on screen for extra privacy and security.
• Close Case: The redesigned E-Verify features simple-to-follow steps to closing a case – the last step in the verification process – with clear directions to guide users.

With over 200,000 employers currently using E-Verify and many believing that E-Verify should be mandatory, E-Verify Designated Agents are helping in the employment eligibility verification process. Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a national background screening provider and authorized E-Verify Designated Agent – can help employers virtually eliminate errors, improve the accuracy of their reporting, protect jobs for authorized staff, and help maintain a legal workforce.

For extra in rank about the E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php.

Sources:

www.uscis.gov/e-verify_redesign

http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1739/former-ins-ice-heads-agree-e-verify-should-be-mandatory-for-employers

Two former heads of the Colonization and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Colonization and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appearing together on a National Public Telephone system (NPR) program agreed that the the E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system should be mandatory for U.S. employers, according to a transcript of the telephone system show available on NPR’s website.  

Appearing on NPR’s “Have a discussion Of The Nation” telephone system program with host Neal Conan, Doris Meissner, former INS Commissioner under President Clinton, and Julie Myers Wood, former Assistant Secretary of ICE under President Bush, were discussing the topic of colonization enforcement when the subject of E-Verify – a emancipated, Internet-based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) that allows employers to check in rank provided by employees on their I-9 Form electronically against records in DHS and SSA databases – came up.

Responding to a caller saying that employers have been able to spot Social Security numbers of staff for some years, Wood said E-Verify – which was initially called Basic Pilot in Commissioner Meissner’s time – has made substantial progress over the past couple of years and has evolved into a program that over 200,000 employers are using to check whether a name and Social Security number match and also, in the case of foreign nationals, to check the picture that’s used on a particular identification card.

“One of the things that many reckon would help is to make E-Verify mandatory,” Wood extra. “And I reckon the Obama administration should be commended for pushing forward with a Bush administration rule that requires federal contractors to be on E-Verify, and that is greatly expanding the number of employers that do get on E-Verify.”

When Conan questioned former INS commissioner Meissner whether E-Verify should be mandatory, Meissner responded: “A system like E-Verify should be mandatory. Until it is, we won’t have the kind of ability to enforce the law against employers that we need.” Meissner later extra: “Congress has to act. It’s got to be legislated to make it mandatory.”

In terms of encouraging employers to join E-Verify, Wood observed that very large companies are mandating for their subcontractors to join E-Verify. “In the case of a very large grocery store, for example, you have tens of thousands of subcontractors that have joined E-Verify just so they don’t lose their huge contracts.”

The full transcript of the program is available at: http://www.npr.org/templates/tale/tale.php?storyId=127562577

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a national background screening provider and authorized E-Verify Designated Agent – can help employers virtually eliminate errors, improve the accuracy of their reporting, protect jobs for authorized staff, and help maintain a legal workforce. For extra in rank about the E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/tale/tale.php?storyId=127562577

Noting that polling shows Americans reckon colonization laws need reform but Congress has yet to translate national sentiment into action, the leading voice of the American Meat Industry (AMI) – the nation’s oldest and largest meat and poultry trade association – believes the reauthorization and improvement of the online employment verification system E-Verify could be a huge step forward for comprehensive colonization reform.

In a guest editorial in the Austin (TX) American-Statesman – “The Importance of Employment Verification” – AMI President and CEO J. Patrick Boyle notes “E-Verify is the only electronic data-based system available to ensure that employers hire only those authorized to work in the United States” and that “like a merchant can swipe a credit card when a hold is made – and that hold is either authorized or not – E-Verify allows employers to verify the social security numbers of new employees after they are hired.”

Among the key points that Boyle makes in the commentary concerning the importance of employment verification and E-Verify – an Internet-based system run by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) using regime databases – are:

• E-Verify can be the grounding of border control in view of the fact that the system helps prevent undocumented staff from obtaining U.S. jobs, thus lowering the enticement for those staff to sneak into the county or overstay their expired visas.
• E-Verify can curb possible discrimination against staff by putting the onus on the federal regime to either grant or withhold permission for new employees to work after employers send data to E-Verify for employment verification.
• E-Verify can prevent the “Catch-22” situation U.S. employers face daily under current law – they can be fined if they hire an undocumented worker but also can be subjected to civil civil Civil rights charges if they probe an employee too much without cause – by taking the guesswork out of the hiring and offering employers a “safe harbor” from such prosecutions when E-Verify becomes mandatory.
• E-Verify can help the tens of millions of unemployed Americans and legal residents by ensuring their jobs are not taken by undocumented staff or that certain employers don’t undercut their wages by hiring undocumented staff.

According to Boyle, the AMI recently questioned Congress to mandate E-Verify use after urging industry-wide use for a decade. But, E-Verify needs changes including enhancing its room to eliminate border fraud, addressing a growing number of disorder and local laws, and phasing in any mandatory E-Verify system use over several years to allow smaller companies time to adapt.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a national background screening provider and authorized E-Verify Designated Agent – can help employers virtually eliminate errors, improve the accuracy of their reporting, protect jobs for authorized staff, and help maintain a legal workforce. For extra in rank about the E-Verify employment verification system, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php.

Source:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/boyle-the-importance-of-employment-verification-703919.html

The recent headlines dealing with background checks demonstrate that to some boundary, Americans are conflicted about the whole topic of background checks.

On one hand, as reported in past blogs by Employment Screening Resources (ESR), discrimination and privacy advocates believe that background checks are too forward and unfair. The EEOC has filed a test case alleging that a large national employer used credit report and criminal records to unfairly discriminate against members of protected groups. The disorder of Oregon and others are considering limitations on credit reports. Scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California have succeeded in taking their complaints all the way to the United States Supreme Court that regime mandated security checks revolving around background checks and entry into facilities are overly forward and an invasion of privacy. A recent study conducted at a foremost university suggested that after a relatively small period of time, criminal records are not a predictor of future misconduct.

Conversely, the recent tragic shootings at University of Alabama-Huntsville and Ohio Disorder University have lead to many to question if background checks should be even extra in-depth. Those shootings had horrific impacts on the victim’s families and the communities involved and questions have been raised if even extra background checks should have been done. 

In  the case of the Ohio Disorder University workplace violence, a top notch and highly respected background screening firm performed what appeared to be a standard entry level criminal record search and found what any screening firm would likely have found, which was no record. But, critics note that a 30 year ancient conviction for receiving stolen material goods should have been unearthed, even though ancient records have been ruined, and there was some confusion about the date of birth that should have been used.

Of course, to find a thirty year ancient prison record under those circumstances would naturally demand an employer to retain private investigators at the cost of many hundreds of dollars for all and every potential new hire, as opposed to public record background screenings. And ironically, even if the screening firm had located the 30 year ancient criminal record for a non-violent offense and was able to establish the record belonged to the shooter, any use of it would have been soundly criticized as unfair and discriminatory. It seems that employers cannot win either way. 

As it turns out, in the Ohio Disorder University case a past employment verifications may have raised the red flags that would have alerted the employer to pocket a closer look at the hiring choice.  It underscores that employers need to use a number of overlapping tools to evaluate a potential hire, and that no one tool, such as a criminal background check, can be used to make hiring decisions.  In addition, background checks are just one component of an overall workplace violence prevention approach.

The bottom-line is that background screening occurs at the intersection of competing and compelling societal interests. On one hand, no one wants to see workplace violence, or to have unqualified people get jobs with fake credentials. Safety, security and honesty are core values. On the other hand, society is also rightly concerned with fairness and privacy and as well as efforts to combat discrimination. The issue is reaching the right balance.

It is fascinating that nearly every time there is an objection because there is too much screening, there is regularly a call for even extra screening after it is revealed that some crime or offenses occurred or where an inappropriate applicant was hired without a sufficient background check. With all due excellent wishes to the JPL scientists, one would assume their position may be different if it always twisted out that a failure to perform background checks resulted in a terrorist hurting the U.S., someone with fake credentials being paid hired and obtaining access, or workplace violence occurring that could have been prevented.

Another impact of the recession is the likelihood of applicant fraud.  Fraudulent educational claims, or worthless diplomas from degree mills, are already familiar problem for employers, recruiters and HR professionals.  But, resume fraud took on an extra urgency in 2009 with the advent of air force that would really make fake employment references from fake companies.  The service apparently even included a phone number that an employer could call in order to reach a service that in fact would verify the fake employment.  Although statistic are not yet available, anecdotally it appears that some job applicants have been willing to resort to these extreme and dishonest measures to gain an advantage in the job market. 

In the long run, worthless diplomas bought over the internet or scams to make manufactured past employment will probably be unsuccessful for the most part, provided that employers exercise some due diligence.  For fake culture, a competent background firm will typically verify first if a school is legitimate.  If the school does not appear on accepted lists of accredited institution, then a screening firm can review lists of known diploma mills and scams.  Screening firms will also verify if the official approval agency is for real, in view of the fact that fake schools have resorted to making fake official approval agencies.  

In addition, pulling of a fake job reference is being paid much extra hard.    A excellent background firm will not simply call the name and number provided by the applicant.  Professional screeners will typically independently establish if the past employer even existed, and locate a phone number independently of whatever number an applicant puts on their resume.   Employment Screening Resources, for example, goes through an wide course of action to verify that all past employer is legitimate and does not accept the applicant provided phone number.  

The bottom-line for employers in 2010 is taking extra caution to ensure you are hiring bona fide employees. 

(Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a leading national online employment screening background firm, is releasing the  ESR “Third Annual Top Ten Trends in the Pre-Employment Background Screening Industry” for 2010.   This is the Ninth of the ten trends ESR will be tracking in 2010.)

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) generally recommends against having background firms being paid in the middle of that special link linking the Recruiter and the Applicant.  It makes confusion, causes delays, and brings a background screening firm into discussions with the applicant – who may not even realize that a third party is involved. 

From many years of experience, ESR knows that background checks really go much quicker where the recruiter exclusively manages the preside over applicant link and obtains additional in rank when needed.  

This issue of applicant contact can come up in a number of ways.  

First, if a recruiter is submitting faxed orders instead of using the ESR online solutions, recruiters must know the process can be delayed if orders are sent that are indecipherable or incomplete. For example, screening firms regularly face problem in deciphering an applicant’s handwriting as to past employers or a Social Security Number. An eight and a three can straightforwardly look alike.  In view of the fact that a screening firm is not expected to read hieroglyphics or be a “mind reader,” the screening firm has to contact the recruiter to clarify the in rank. Some screening firms will make their best guess and if they are incorrect, the report is delayed even further, proving the ancient adage that “no excellent deed goes unpunished.”  Recruiters who review all applications for completeness, legibility and accuracy with the candidates before sending the applications to a screening firm will find their report is concluded much quicker.

Another example is an incomplete employment verification because the past employer has went, merged, or gone out of business.  If the recruiter still needs that to be verified, then someone needs to contact the applicant and question for things such as W-2’s, or names of past supervisors.  There are some recruiters who question their background firm to do this, even though it is the recruiter that has most knowledge about the applicant and has preside over contact.  

There are a number of complications that arise if the screening firm attempts to contact the applicant. 

1.  The applicant does not know the background firm, and is naturally loath to supply a Social Security Number or date of birth to a weirder over the phone, or send pay stubs to someone they do not know.  That typically means the applicant will naturally call the recruiter first anyway to find out what the situation is all about, which, of course, delays the screening process further. 

2. The background firm regularly has to engage in phone tag, requiring back and forth before the screening firm can connect with the applicant.  In view of the fact that the applicant has no link with the screening firm, an applicant does not always realize it is vital to call back, especially if the applicant is looking at several different job offers.  On the other hand, if a recruiter is in hot pursuit of an applicant, or the applicant is focused on being paid the job, it is likely that the recruiter will have a fantastic deal less problem being paid in touch with him/her to obtain the additional in rank or clarification. 

3.  The third issue is tracking.  The screening firm needs to track the status of the additional calls to the applicants and to deal with manifold applicants instead of a single top of contact.  Recruiters presumably already have an ATS or some other system to keep tabs on the progress of all job and all finalist (in view of the fact that typically only a finalist is being paid screened).  

4.  The last and most vital issue is when a screening firm calls the applicant, an applicant may now believe that the background firm is in some way involved in the hiring choice.  There have been applicants who have wanted to pocket up again selling themselves to a background firm’s clerical employee, whose only mission was to obtain some missing in rank and who knows nothing about the job.   Or, if the applicant in some way feels that background employee did not give them the attention he or she deserved, the applicant may be left with a negative impression of the potential employer or complain about the contact.   

For these reasons, many background firms typically prefer not to get themselves in the middle of the link linking the recruiter and the applicant.