These new laws indicate a growing trend that restricts employers from accessing applicant’s and employee’s personal online content.
In April 2014, Wisconsin became the 13th state to adopt a social media password protection law and subsequently, Tennessee has signed similar legislation.
This Tennessee law, which took effect on New Year’s Day 2015, is called the Employee Online Privacy Act of 2014 (S.B. 1808) and contains many similar prohibitions found in similar state laws but has some restrictions that even small employers must comply with.
This new legislation commonly prohibits an employer from requesting applicants or employees disclose their passwords for personal internet accounts.
But TN law makes some finer amendments including prohibiting an employer from requiring that applicants or employees “add the employer to the employee’s or applicant’s list of contacts associated with a personal internet account.”
Employers are also prohibited from requiring applicants and employees to “permit the employer to observe their restricted online content after they have access an online account.”
The full bill can be obtained here: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB1808.pdf
What the legislation does not prohibit is asking applicants to change their privacy settings so an employer can have permission to access a social media account.
Philip Gordon of Mondaq reports that, “In addition, the law broadly prohibits employers from taking any adverse action against employees, failing to hire applicants, or otherwise penalizing an employee or applicant for not permitting access to their personal online account in a manner prohibited by the statute.”
As of now, it is unclear how the new Employer Privacy Act laws will be enforced.
by Thomas C. Lawson, CFE, CII
It is common knowledge that in-house and third-party benefit plan administrators regularly run across lost benefit plan participants for reasons such as an expired forwarding address file, death,etc.
Since 1988 the need to locate missing people who terminate employment and have benefits due from a qualified p an has increased significantly. These past employees leave without a forwarding address, an address expires because they move often, or perhaps they die.
Other contributing factors to this problem include shortened post office forwarding order times, both the IRS and SSN abandoning their letter-forwarding programs, and in many cases mismanagement by administrators.
For years ERISA, as the guiding statutory body, was loathe to provide enough incentive for administrators to do more than simply be aware that they had unresolved matters with their missing participants.
Title 29, Part 4050.4 became recognized as the savior to those hard-to-find folks who had to wait for an administrator to get them an updated statement, a distribution, or their plan termination papers.
Title 29, or what has become known as the diligent effort requirement, has dramatically stimulated the need for administrators to increase their efforts to identify and locate missing participants.
Plan terminations cannot be effected; distributions cannot be made until administrators clearly demonstrate a diligent effort in locating missing plan participants.
In the event the companies are unable to locate the missing people internally, the law is very clear. To meet the more stringent ERISA requirements, companies are required to perform actual third-party due diligence in an attempt to locate a lost plan participant. This endeavor demonstrates to both the IRS and the PBGC that every reasonable effort has been made to locate the missing participant before surrendering the plan.
Neither the PBGC or the IRS publishes specific guidelines as to what constitutes a diligent effort; but with the advent of EmployeeLocator.com, and its systematic, proven results in locating missing plan participants, an industry standard has been created by which these governing boards can more easily determine if a diligent effort has been made.
However, if you have the time and resources to conduct these searches on your own, you can use credit reporting agencies, internet search tools including social media, or do yourself a favor and use our commercial locator service.
APSCREEN set a standard for thorough background checks starting in 1980 to the aerospace industry, and Lawson discusses his journey and how the employment screening industry has developed over the years.
Also discussed was the subject of what “keeps Lawson up at night” regarding the background check industry and what employers need to know about the difference between companies who are reselling raw data and those that are professional employment screeners.
Lawson gives insight into the kinds of questions employers need to think about when hiring an employment screening company. The discussion covers critical components of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regarding sections 613 and contemporaneous notice vs. 607 which requires “maximum possible accuracy” in the screening process. He also discusses the FCRA 613 ruling that requires a consumer report containing public records to be “complete and up-to-date.”
Lawson breaks down the 3 components of contemporaneous notice including:
1. consumer consent to do a background check,
2. if adverse information is discovered in a background check, that the consumer be notified by mail, and
3. the adverse action notice that requires consumers be sent a letter notifying them if their application was denied due to information on a background check.
He also talks about the most important part of a thorough background check and that is the process of Positive Candidate Identification.
This is extremely helpful information that you can access right now by listening to the recording here: DriveThruRadioHR
If you have questions about any of this information, or want to discuss your screening policy with Tom Lawson, just call 800 277-2733.
by Thomas C. Lawson, CFE, CII
Ban the Box – Recently questions have arisen concerning how the background check process will be affected by ban-the-box laws such as the August 13, 2014 enactment of the San Francisco City and County’s ordinance which precludes employers of 20 or more employees from including a request for criminal history disclosures in their employment application forms.
Other jurisdictions throughout the U.S. have passed similar laws which seem politically motivated since they do little more than to formally install the original Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) criminal history use guidance document and recently updated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and EEOC joint guidance documents as local law.
Essentially these ban-the-box enactments serve as the basis for emphasizing what the EEOC guidance documents have already stated which is to drive home the need to carefully adjudicate the use of criminal histories in the hiring process. Even though ban the box may seem redundant; that does not mean they should be ignored.
What most of these laws draw out first, and what employers must pay close attention to, is compliance with the posting requirements which can vary among jurisdictions.
Most jurisdictions already have aftermarket complaint poster suppliers who address the new posting language. Check with your local or state Chambers of Commerce to see if they offer pre-printed posters which meet the posting requirement.
The next hazard for employers and what seems to be more easily ignored, or simply missed by many human resources departments, is that the criminal history disclosure request resides best in a standalone consent form which provides legal consent for the background check and not in the employment application.
Many are loathe to remove such requests from their application forms but if you don’t and you hire a candidate within a ban the box jurisdiction, your acts will be ripe for scrutiny by plaintiff’s attorneys.
Omitting this component from the employment application is not only a best practice, but is now mandated under these ban-the-box laws, which are growing in popularity. It is still up to the human resources professional to comply with the law even when the pathway to legal definitions and practical applications appear to be dimly lit.
So what do you do if you use a proprietary background check consent form that requests a criminal history disclosure?
With most of the ban-the-box laws there is definitely confusion about whether or not a background check consent form may include requests for criminal history disclosure in ban-the-box jurisdictions.
That confusion is exacerbated by the almost universal statutory language stating that criminal history disclosure requests are prohibited from inclusion on employment applications which background check consent forms are clearly not.
Naturally some plaintiff’s attorneys will argue that consent forms are part and parcel to an employment application and corporate council may agree or not.
EEOC and FTC/EEOC guidance documents, as well as most of the ban-the-box laws, clearly separate the process of seeking consent until only after the first interview and/or conducting the background check only after a conditional offer of employment is made.
In summary, the best practice is to remove any reference to a criminal history in the employment application form and create standalone background check consent forms that either includes or omits the criminal history disclosure request.
Depending on whether or not you are in a ban-the-box jurisdiction, you can choose the appropriate forms. That way you are covered in both circumstances; which goes a long way to keeping the plaintiff’s bar at bay.
by Thomas C. Lawson, CFE, CII
Works’ Compensation Records – APSCREEN is constantly asked why we don’t sell Workers’ Comp records for employment screening purposes so in case you are using such records, or considering the use of same in your screening process, I will detail here why APSCREEN does not purvey Workers’ Compensation Records.
To begin, all Workers’ Compensation claims are private between the employer, employee and insurance carrier, so there is no publicly available history of claims in any database except the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s Claims History repository, which is an industry-supported enterprise and is ONLY accessible by member insurance companies.
When an employee’s claim is denied however, if the employee wishes to appeal the denial, it goes through the state system or (in California) the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB).
Only then does the case become public record, and because the public record dissemination policies differ in each jurisdiction (in California, for example, there are 24 jurisdictions) the records are at best, inconsistent and incomplete, which immediately qualifies them to be illegal for Consumer Reporting Agencies to report for employment purposes under FCRA Section 613(a)(2). This law requires that essentially any reported record that could affect a consumer’s ability to gain employment must be “complete and up to date.”
An employer may only use Workers’ Compensation information if an injury might interfere with one’s ability to perform required duties. However, under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers cannot use medical information or the fact an applicant has filed a workers’ compensation claim to discriminate or deny employment against applicants. (Section 42 USC §12101).
Further, any Workers’ Compensation information can only be considered after a legitimate job offer has been made.
It is critically important to remember that if you seek and obtain Workers’ Compensation records from a non-FCRA compliant background checker you are not actually reviewing the history of Workers’ Compensation claims … but instead only those claims that have been denied and where the denial has been appealed to a State Appeals Board.
That makes the search naturally incomplete for two reasons: namely; not all denied claims are appealed, and; public records dissemination is governed by local politics and so not all jurisdictions make all of their records available in the same manner.
Because of this, in the opinion of our counsel, it is illegal to report these incomplete records under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Section 613(a) (2) because there is no way to assure that the reported record is “complete and up to date.”
Additionally, all states vary in their approach to what is contained and what is reportable in their Workers’ Compensation Board appeals reports.
In California for example, the WCAB may not reveal medical information and the employer may not rescind an offer due to a workers’ compensation claim history (CA Labor Code §132a).
Employers sometimes discover that applicants have not revealed previous employment where they had filed claims that were denied. In such situations, employers often terminate the new hire because it appears they falsified the application and that is the only legitimate use of the appeals information.
However, since the public record dissemination policies differ so dramatically from one jurisdiction to another, we believe that such inconsistencies provide ample opportunity for discrimination lawsuits and claims for violation of FCRA 613(a)(2).
In essence, since there is no public record repository that provides a candidate’s history of workers compensation claims, (only those that have been appealed) and because what is available is at best in our opinion, inconsistent and incomplete, any reporting of incomplete or inaccurate information by your background screening provider for employment purposes is statutorily forbidden under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
So if you use what is easily classified as fruit from a forbidden tree, you could be the proud recipient of legal papers served upon you by an aggressive Plaintiff’s attorney’s process server, at home during your second bite of that beautiful Filet Mignon you just barbequed up on Sunday afternoon.
Feel free to call me directly with your employment screening policy questions … 800 277-2733 and ask for Tom!
EmployeeLocator.com provides a very inexpensive way for you to meet ERISA, GATT, IRS requirements in locating lost plan participants.
The cost per report is $10 and you get your results within 24 Hours. There are NO sign up fees, NO minimums and we provide a written report by fax or email at no additional charge. It doesn’t get any easier than that!
We quickly locate current addresses, name changes, and living/deceased status for your lost plan participants and/or past employees.
The employeelocator.com report includes:
All attributable addresses for the subject
Social Security Numbers
Age/DOB…and everything else you need to prove a very thorough and diligent search to locate and identify your lost people.
Here’s what our customers are saying:
“APSCREEN’s employee locator service makes our lives so much easier. Our industry desperately needs this service!” –Judy Simons, TRI-AD, Escondido, CA”
“I just wanted to let you know that in a matter of a few days using your service, I’ve contacted 19 of the 20 lost participants I’ve been trying to locate for some years! It makes my life so much easier and some of the participants I’ve contacted were thrilled to learn they had benefits they didn’t realize they had. Thanks for a great service. I’ve recommended it to many others.” — Randy M. Backous, Cretex Companies, Inc., Elk River MN
by Thomas C. Lawson, CFE, CII
Many background-check platforms are web-based and the amount of interactivity required by the end user during the screening process can vary significantly between vendors.
Higher-standard employment screening firms opt to process the work in the middle. You enter the information at the beginning and then log on to retrieve the completed report typically prompted by an e-mail or text.
The recent movement in the screening industry to eliminate paper entirely in the screening industry is dangerous to the end-user and to the consumers upon whom the background checks are being run.
The paperless push requires the applicant to electronically sign (eSign) all background check consent forms online to integrate the consent and screening process into one of the many web-based applicant -tracking systems (ATS) available to the HR community.
The perceived benefit to human resource departments is the savings in labor costs for large, high-volume hiring environments as well as the ability to outsource more HR functions.
In reality, the labor savings and efficiencies are significantly precluded by the legal risk associated with automated processing if recent case law and the increase in Plaintiff attorney actions against the background screening end-users and providers, alike are any indication. Not to mention under the letter of the law, under the FCRA, etc. anything other than a written consent is illegal.
According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA Sec. 604, a2) and in California, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), as well as the statutes that govern background checks (consumer reporting) in most states unanimously call for consent to be based upon the “consumer’s written authorization.”
Nowhere does it say, “upon the consumer’s electronic authorization” or, “consent may be conveyed via eSignature.”
They all say that a background check may only be obtained only by a consumer’s written authorization. Under the law that means that an applicant must sign an appropriate consent form with a “live,” “holographic,” or “wet” signature.
The reasoning behind this is simple: When a person electronically consents, there is no way to prove that the person upon whose signature appears electronically is actually the person who issued the electronic consent.
The extremely weak defense under the Electronic Signatures Act of 2001, or the eSign Act, and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) is that one can attempt to prove that the Consumer intended to sign it based loosely on the surrounding actions of applying for a job.
That means that Billy Bob could have consented to John Smith’s background check, while Billy Bob was applying for a job under John Smith’s name as part of Billy Bob’s identity theft strategy.
In essence, with no way to absolutely confirm that a given person consented to a given background check, every time you accept an electronically signed consent, you are risking that a consumer’s identity may be under threat from an identity thief. You can’t know otherwise without comparing signatures.
There are those who argue that the eSign Act and UETA alleviate the need for a wet signature. But in both of these laws, which were essentially developed in an effort to stimulate internet commerce, there is a little attended-to component that subjects the laws to other statutes which may have overriding determinants as to the importance of live signatures versus esignatures. (res adjuicata).
What that means is that the eSign Act subordinates itself to laws like the FCRA and the ICRAA, etc. where the superseding statute specifically identifies the need for a given requirement, such as the FCRA’s and the ICRAA’s call for a consumer’s “written” authorization.
In defense of these statutes, the eSign act and UETA are terrific for contracts and transactions but not for consent. Mainly because the requirements to use esignatures for consent purposes are designed to be cumbersome in order to protect the consumer; as they should be when dealing with such sensitive issues and where such a consent triggers so many activities that if used outside the scope and context of their intended purpose could have dire consequences to the consumer.
It is also important to understand that the requirements for even using esignatures for contracts are rigorous and most of the requirements are so onerous that getting a wet signature just ends up being a whole lot easier.
Evidence of this is most telling is the escrow setting where all of the electronically signed documents that occur at the outset of a real estate transaction are cleaned-up during the final escrow process by getting live signatures on the documents authorizing various consents in the process of buying the real estate and qualifying for a mortgage.
Signatures are gathered at the close of escrow mainly to eliminate the eSign Act and UETA requirement that a consumer using electronic consent at any time may withdraw that consent, which can prove troublesome.
Now even if your background check provider in its haste to get the latest technology to you complies with all of the eSign Act and UETA requirements, the law clearly states that anything other than a written authorization is illegal.
Simply put, if you rely on electronic consents to authorize your background checks you run the risk of successful Plaintiff actions against you and the company for violation of the written consent rule no matter how aggressively your provider wants to assert that an electronic consent is valid. It isn’t and the law is very clear on the subject.
Any number of Plaintiff’s attorneys out there will gladly prove that to you and sue the employer for violation of the FCRA and ICRAA law specifically with respect to a written signature on a background consent form.
They call that area of practice “unauthorized access” and those cases are very common evidenced by the now famous case of 1400 Plaintiffs versus First Student (et al.) http://www.ssrplaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1314705.html
The Consumer Attorney’s (Plaintiff’s) Bar aggressively pursues these cases mainly because they are winners since there is no actual way to prove that a person gave their consent to perform a background check via an electronic consent.
Additionally, and even if electronic consents for background checks for employment purposes were legal, the prove-up for Defendant compliance usually favors the Plaintiff because there are so many things that can go wrong in the esignature compliance process no matter how compliance-minded an employment screening provider is.
The burden of proof is on the employer in this case, not the applicant, and any good defense lawyer will tell you that when the burden of proof is on you, the potential for defeat is exponentially greater because proof is subjective especially when you are dealing with potentially 12 different personalities on a jury.
You may want to re-think your paperless consent strategy and opt for the legal method of gaining written consent to run your background checks because the paperless process is just too legally risky.
Until legislation is introduced that supersedes the written consent requirement under the applicable laws, it is crystal clear that the law requires you get a consumer’s live signature in order to run a background check no matter what the proponents of using the eSign Act and UETA assert.
Find out more about our employment screening services here
by Thomas C. Lawson, CFE, CII
A Global Homeland Security Search checks a compilation of domestic and international sanctions lists (see below). Individuals or organizations included on these lists may be involved in terrorist activities, money laundering, illegal imports, fraud against government agencies, violations of federal banking regulations, drug trafficking, etc. This search was developed as a response to The Patriot Act and the War on Terror.
A Global Homeland Security Search is sometimes called a Global Homeland Security Background Check or a Terrorist Watch List Search.
A Global Homeland Security Search helps an employer with Patriot Act Compliance and OFAC Compliance. A Global Homeland Security Search provides an anti-terrorism element to a Comprehensive Background Check. For Patriot Act information, see Background Check Laws: Patriot Act.
What are the Weaknesses of a Global Homeland Security Search?
As with all database searches, A Global Homeland Security Search is incomplete by nature. It is only as reliable as its last update. The fight on terrorism and crime around the world changes every day. Because agencies that submit information to these lists work at their own pace, any list is outdated to some degree at any given time. There is no list that includes all individuals or organizations that are suspected of terrorism and crime around the world.
How Far Back Does a Global Homeland Security Search Go?
The information reported in a Global Homeland Security Search varies greatly. Each database in the Global Homeland Security Search has its own rules about the information reported.
How Long Does a Global Homeland Security Search Take?
Results for this search should be available the same day the order is entered into our online tracking system.
For more information call http://APSCREEN.com at 800 277-2733
What is Our Recommendation for Global Homeland Security Search?
We recommend a Global Homeland Security Search as part of a quality Comprehensive Background Check.
Note: Federal, state and local laws and regulations are rapidly evolving regarding employer inquiries into and use of applicant/employee criminal records. See Background Check Laws and Regulations and Employment Background Check Blog. It is the employer’s responsibility to stay current with changing legal requirements.
A Matter of Fact is not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice. It is important that employers work with counsel to develop an employment screening program specific to their needs. Employers should obtain legal advice concerning their legal responsibilities, and to ensure that background check documents, policies and procedures are in compliance with applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. For more see Legal Disclaimer.
What Other Criminal History Searches Are Available?
Additional criminal record searches available to help meet employer and job requirements include:
•County Criminal Records Check: checks county court records
•Federal Criminal Records Check: expands criminal records checks to federal offenses
•’Statewide’ Criminal Records Check and ‘Nationwide’ Criminal Database Check: are useful supplements to County Criminal Record Checks
•National Wants and Warrants: is an important supplement to County Criminal Record Checks
•Sex Offender Registry Check: is essential for health care, child/youth/elder care, teaching, residential management, hospitality, social services, and similar at-risk positions
•International Criminal History Records Searches: are also available
Aside from the obvious benefit of having access to all of the counter-societal repositories identified below, this listing exceeds all known statutory anti-terrorism, anti-money laundering and anti-fraud requirements. Those highlighted in yellow are those most requested, and those in Red are especially significant and provide a “one-stop shop” access into areas normally reserved for law enforcement and other levels of criminal investigators.
Alabama Medicaid – Suspended Providers,
America’s Most Wanted Fugitive List,
Australia Sex Offender Registry,
Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade – Sanctions List,
Australian Reserve Bank Sanctions List,
Bank of England Sanctions List,
California Medi-Cal – Suspended and Ineligible Providers,
Connecticut Dept of Social Services – Admin Actions List,
DEA Diversion Control Program – Admin Actions against Doctors,
DEA Diversion Control Program – Cases against Doctors,
Delaware Adult Abuse Registry,
Directorate of Defense Trade Controls – Debarred Parties List,
European Union Terrorism Sanctions List,
FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs – Debarment List,
FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs – Warning Letters,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) – Failed Bank List,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) – Enforcement Decisions and Orders,
Federal Reserve Board – Enforcement Actions, FinCEN – Enforcement Actions,
FINRA – Disciplinary Actions,
Florida Medicaid – Sanctioned Providers, Fugitive List,
Health Resources and Services Administration – Health Education Assistance Loan – Defaulted Borrowers,
Her Majesty’s Treasury – Consolidated List of Financial Sanctions,
Her Majesty’s Treasury – Investment Ban List,
Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) – Enforcement Actions,
HUD – Limited Denials of Participation List,
Idaho Medicaid Provider – Exclusion List,
Illinois Casino Exclusion List,
Illinois Office of Inspector General – Sanctioned Providers,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – Most Wanted,
Interpol Most Wanted,
Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) – End User List,
Kansas Dept of Health and Environment – Abuse Registry,
Kentucky Medicaid – Excluded Providers,
Maryland Medicaid – Exclusion List,
MIPT (Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism) Terrorism Knowledge Base,
Mississippi Medicaid – Excluded Providers,
Missouri Casino Exclusion List,
Monetary Authority of Singapore – Enforcement Actions, National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) – Administrative Orders,
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) – Most Wanted Fugitives,
Nevada Gaming Control Board – Excluded Person List,
New Jersey Casino Exclusion List,
New Jersey Dept of Treasury – Debarment List,
New York Office of the Medicaid Inspector General – Exclusion List,
New York Stock Exchange Regulation – Disciplinary Actions,
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) – Specially Designated Nationals List,
Office of Inspector General (OIG) – Health and Human Services Exclusion List,
Office of Inspector General (OIG) – Most Wanted Health Care Fugitives,
Office of Regulatory Affairs – Disqualified, Restricted and Assurances List for Clinical Investigators,
Office of Research Integrity – Public Health Service – Administrative Actions List,
Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) – Enforcement Actions List,
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) – Canadian Sanctions List, Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) – Enforcement Actions List,
Ohio Medicaid – Sanctioned Providers,
Ohio Medicaid – Suspended Providers,
Palestinian Legislative Council List,
Pennsylvania Medicheck – Precluded Providers List,
Politically Exposed Persons List,
SEC – Enforcement Actions,
South Carolina Medicaid – Excluded Providers,
Tennessee Dept of Health – Abuse Registry,
Texas Employee Misconduct Registry,
Texas Health and Human Services Commission Medicaid and Title XX Provider Exclusion List,
TRICARE Sanctions List,
United Kingdom Disqualified Directors List,
United Nations Consolidated Sanctions List,
US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) – Disciplinary Actions,
US Dept of Commerce – Denied Persons, Unverified, and Entity List,
US Dept of Labor – Forced and Child Labor List,
US Dept of State – Foreign Terrorist Organizations List,
US Dept of State – Nonproliferation Sanctions,
US Dept of State – Terrorist Exclusion List,
US Dept of Treasury – Primary Money Laundering Concern List,
US General Services Administration (GSA) – Excluded Parties List,
World Bank Listing of Ineligible Individuals
For more information call APSCREEN at 800 277-2733
by Thomas C. Lawson, CFE, CII
Everybody in the background checking industry misses the point about larger accounts.
Most reduce the price because they are tormented by the client to keep the costs low and the carrot to the salesman is the Plum account.
What nobody is paying attention to is that the product needs to stay the same, but by reducing the cost, either services are going to get cut (I have yet to see a vendor that will work for free, which is what the big companies essentially seem to want) or you will be doing most of the actual work without realizing it (read: SLICK SOFTWARE PROGRAMS)
The truth is that you cannot cut corners when screening your employees, and you need someone at arm’s length do it for you. If my expert witness testimony over the last 29 years and the laws on the subject of accuracy are any indication, spending more, rather than less is the order of the day.
Tragically, the background check business exploded through the cunning and technique of the best of the Suede Shoe boys, who sold anything they could to a hungry audience. Naturally, the lawyers and the government stepped in and the industry is finally cleaning itself up. Those of us here for the long haul had screamed from the mountaintops the need to do the job properly, which no one wanted to hear because it costs significant money to do that job right, and the audience just wouldn’t grasp the concept.
Enter APSCREEN’s business model.
Long serving the aerospace community, we learned from the beginning that there are no corners to cut, no shortcuts to take if you are helping your client hire someone who is going to design escape hatches on spacecraft. Oh, there are just as many pedophiles, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and the like in those ranks, just as in all employment levels, but in that environment, you simply CANT let them through the door, so cost is no object when vetting people that work in the public trust.
So how does a large company, get weaned off of $19 background checks when they haven’t had me testify against them for negligent hiring?
We figured it out, and it makes one hell of a lot of sense.
The challenge is daunting, but the solution actually was right there all along, and it is working in spades at my company and can work for you.
Let us create a team for your company that acts as your hiring office down the hall. We house them, employ them and give them access to all of our sources, capabilities, processes procedures, keep you complaint and on the cutting edge of employment screening .
Here is how it works.
Say your backgrounds run $100 each and you have 100 of them per week. To the salivating employment screening salesman, that is a half-million dollar per year account on its worst day.
So what if the costs to actually develop the raw data cost $32, it takes an hour to do it (another $30 because cheap labor spells incompetent background check) and the compliance, software, etc. is built-in. Add 20% to that to keep the vendor’s interest in your business and what you now have is better, more consistent screening at the highest level (not junk data checks) for $74, a 26% savings, right off the top for a better product, a team dedicated to your account rather than your background being put into the General Population with everyone else’s. (That means they know all of your nuances).
The hardest concept for most to grasp seems to be the $100 for the background check in the first place, and that is because the sleazy side of the background check industry (notice I didn’t say “employment screening” industry – the two are unrelated) has fooled American Business into thinking that they can get a good background check for less than that. Less than $100 is when you start calculating litigation costs, plain and simple, if my expert practice is any indication.
There you have it! If you want to reduce costs, have virtually your own in-house screeners that are better than anything you could ever create because you are not in my business and elevate the level of your background to that of the aerospace community give me a call, we’ll get it done for you!
Read more about Tom Lawson, Founder