Hiring and Social Media

While social media outlets appear to be changing the way employers identify and recruit job applicants, the impact and long-range implications of social media on staffing functions remain unclear. According to the 10th Annual Sources of Hire Study released by CareerXroads on March 17, 2011, more than 88 percent of employers responding to a survey reported that they consider social media to be a part of their overall direct-sourcing efforts.

The question seems to be just how integral social media sites are to employers’ recruiting functions. And the answer to that question appears to be: All over the board, according to Gerry Crispin, principal and chief navigator for CareerXroads, a recruiting and staffing consulting firm in Kendall Park, N.J.

In the Sources of Hire survey, respondents were asked to list the percentage of new hires who were identified by or who used social media in some way to get their new jobs. The survey responses varied widely, indicating that most employers are still trying to understand how social media outlets are used in recruiting and hiring efforts, Crispin said.

“Some of the respondents stated that social media played a part in only 2 or 3 percent of their new hires, and other respondents reported that social media sites were used in some way in 50 to 60 percent of their hiring decisions,” he said. “When you have numbers that widely divergent, I think it clearly shows that employers are struggling to understand the real impact of social media.”

Crispin and other staffing professionals say social media is here to stay and will have a major impact on the way employers identify, recruit and hire job applicants.

“We are just starting to understand the effect of social media, and I believe social media has the potential to fundamentally change the way everyone communicates, not just as individuals but also the communications of business,” Crispin said. “Look at it this way: If you asked hiring managers or recruiters now if they use a telephone or e-mail in their hiring decisions, they’d probably think you’re crazy for asking such a dumb question. But ask the same question 60 or 70 years ago about phones, or 20 years ago about e-mail, and you would get a much different answer. I think the same applies to social media and the impact on the way we communicate.”

Crispin said that staffing experts and businesses have only begun to understand how to use social media effectively, and that the landscape of social media is changing just as rapidly and radically as the technology that supports and makes social media outlets possible. He advised recruiters and HR managers to be wary of anyone who claims to be an expert on how to use social media in recruiting and hiring efforts.

“We are all students here and are just beginning to learn how it will work,” Crispin said. “Someone who claims to have all the answers most likely won’t.”

Other results of the Sources of Hire study include that almost two-thirds of job openings are filled through internal hires and referrals. Referrals were the No. 1 source of hires; 27.5 percent of jobs were filled through referrals made by co-workers and colleagues. The study revealed that employment websites and job boards account for nearly one-quarter of all external hires made by the survey respondents.

“Some experts and news articles have claimed that job boards are dead or dying. I think our study’s results clearly dispute that claim,” Crispin said.

Crispin said that the study shows clearly that there is not just one source of hire for employers. Employers must use all or some of these sources to identify and recruit the best job applicants. But the combination of these sources and how employers use them depends on the organization, he said.

“What might work for one company won’t fit well with another, so employers need to find what works best for them,” Crispin said. “The purpose of our study is to help point employers in the right direction so that they can make educated choices when developing their hiring plans.”

By:  Bill Leonard– a senior writer for SHRM.

So whether you use social media in your hiring practice or not, it is a must to contact Info Quest, for a pre-employment background check.

Background Checks on Contractors

Score one for Background checks.  Info Quest, Inc. can help you with all of your employment screening needs.

Supreme Court: NASA Can Impose Background Checks on Contractors
 By: Chloe Albanesius 
Government contractors who work on federal space projects must comply with extensive background checks if they wish to remain on the job, according to a Wednesday decision from the Supreme Court.

The decision ends a case brought against NASA by California Institute of Technology contractors, who accused the space agency of violating their right to “informational privacy” with their intrusive questionnaire.

“There are no meaningful distinctions in the duties of NASA’s civil-service and contractor employees, especially at [the Jet Propulsion Laboratory], where contract employees do work that is critical to NASA’s mission and that is funded with a multibillion dollar taxpayer investment,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

The background checks in question asked the workers if they had “used, possessed, supplied, or manufactured illegal drugs” in the last year. If they had, they were required to provide details, including information about treatment or counseling. Employees were also required to sign a form that allowed the government to obtain personal information from schools, employers, and others. References were also asked about the employee’s “honesty or trustworthiness” and if they had “adverse information” about the person.

These types of background checks have been mandatory for federal civil-service candidates since 1953, but contractors were not included in that requirement. A recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, however, prompted President Bush to order uniform standards for federal and contract workers in 2004. The Commerce Department subsequently ordered contract employees with long-term access to federal facilities to complete a standard background check by October 2007, and NASA modified its contract with Cal Tech to reflect the new rules. Those who did not comply would be banned from the JPL and be fired from Cal Tech.

As a result, the contractors at Cal Tech sued, claiming that the background-check process violated a constitutional right to informational privacy.

In 2008, an appeals court ruled in favor of the contractors, but the Supreme Court this week did not agree.

“The forms are reasonable in light of the government interests at stake,” Justice Alito wrote. “Standard background investigations similar to those at issue became mandatory for federal civil-service candidates in 1953. This history shows that the government has an interest in conducting basic background checks in order to ensure the security of its facilities and to employ a competent, reliable workforce to carry out the people’s business.”

Justices John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Alito’s opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas concurred; Scalia was concerned the ruling was too open-ended.

“It provides no guidance whatsoever for lower courts,” Scalia wrote, predicting a dramatic “increase the number of lawsuits claiming violations of the right to informational privacy.”

“In future cases … lawyers will always (and I mean always) find some way around today’s opinion: perhaps the plaintiff will be a receptionist or a janitor, or the protections against disclosure will be less robust,” he wrote. “This plaintiff’s claim has failed today, but the Court makes a generous gift to the plaintiff’s bar.”

Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in this case.

The bottom line:  Background checks can not be optional for any employee.  Need help contact Info Quest, Inc.

 

NYC Bus Crash–Could it have been avoided?

NEW YORK (AP) – The New York bus crash that killed 15 people on their way home from a casino has focused renewed attention on problems federal safety investigators have been warning about for years: Cut-rate bus companies. Driver fatigue. And the need for safer windows and roofs.

The cause of Saturday’s wreck is still under investigation; authorities called the driver in for questioning Tuesday. But officials said this much was clear already: Because of past offenses, his driving privileges had been suspended, and he shouldn’t even have been behind the wheel.

The National Transportation Safety Board is studying the crash to see whether new safety technologies that are available, but not required, might have made a difference.

It’s too early to know whether any of the safety recommendations would have made a difference. But the board has given the Transportation Department failing grades for its slow progress in implementing some recommendations, some of which date back more than a decade.

The bus ran off the road along Interstate 95 in the Bronx as it was returning to New York’s Chinatown from an overnight trip to a Connecticut casino. In a similar accident Monday night on I-95, a bus that had left Chinatown for Philadelphia crashed in East Brunswick, N.J., killing the driver and a passenger.

See the full article, click here.

A complete background check could have avoided the whole situation.  Contact Info Quest, Inc. for all your employment screening needs.

Background Checks

In this January 2009 newsletter we were looking for the silver lining as employers.  Well, as things are better now in February 2011, we still encourage you as an employer to continue to look for the silver lining.

Unemployment offices, web sites, call centers and computer systems around the country are having difficulty keeping up with the huge number of unemployment claims being submitted in the wake of the nation’s growing jobless rate. With dark clouds of unemployment on the rise (7.2% as of December 2008), if any silver lining is to be found, it would have to be for those organizations that need to hire employees. Large numbers of people looking for work mean companies can benefit by being more selective and particular in whom they choose to employ. Rather than take resumes and applications at face value, employers have the advantage of being able to screen and scrutinize their applicants’ information prior to making costly hiring commitments. While informed hiring has always been wise, it is now more economically prudent than ever. 

The Bottom Line:  Always screen employees.  Contact Info Quest for an explanation on our list of services.

EEOC Files Discrimination Lawsuit Based on Credit History Background Check

Some employment law attorneys have cautioned employers against using credit history as part of employment screening background checks since credit problems don’t have much bearing on job success and screening people out of employment offers due to credit may have a discriminatory impact.

For example, during a May 20, 2010 webinar, Reid Bowman, Esq., general counsel for ELT, commented, “[With the current infusion of dollars into the EEOC budget], the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is more energized with investigations and investigators with a renewed focus on systemic issues such as increased EEOC scrutiny on company background screening processes, for example – arrest and conviction records and credit cards – since they may have an adverse impact on certain population groups.”

The cautioning by attorneys to their clients has been warranted. On December 21, 2010, EEOC filed a nationwide hiring discrimination lawsuit against Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, citing that the company’s use of job applicants’ credit history discriminates because of race, according to an EEOC statement.

The EEOC statement said in part, “Since at least 2008, Kaplan Higher Education has rejected job applicants based on their credit history. This practice has an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race and is neither job-related nor justified by business necessity.”

These practices have resulted in the company violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to the lawsuit (Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-02882) filed by the Cleveland Field Office of the EEOC in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. According to the EEOC statement, “It is a violation of Title VII to use hiring practices that have a discriminatory impact because of race and that are not job-related and justified by business necessity.”

Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, said, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to eliminate practices that serve as arbitrary barriers to employment because of a job applicant’s race. Employers need to be mindful that any hiring practice be job-related and not screen out groups of people, even it if does so unintentionally.” Employers that use credit history as an employment-screening tool should track the final outcome of this case.

Not so sure credit checks will be a part of your screening process.  NO problem, but at a minimum you must conduct a criminal record check.  Contact Info Quest and we can help you with all your screening needs, including credit checks.

NLRB Action Alert! Make your HR Voice Count!

On December 22, 2010, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) issued a proposed rule requiring covered employers to post notices informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Unlike many federal statutes, the NLRA contains no statutory requirement to post such a notice. The proposed notice itself contains a detailed, selective list of employee rights conferred by the NLRA, information on how to contact the Board for assistance, and requires employers to post the notice or face certain penalties. Although the NLRB’s website contains complete educational information on rights and violations of the NLRA, the proposed rule does not provide complete or balanced information. The proposed notice, for example, is silent regarding employee rights under the NLRA to decertify or withdraw from a union, to seek relief for a union’s failure to represent employees fairly, or to object to paying union dues or fees for political purposes.

SHRM (Society for Human Resources Management) plans to submit comments to the NLRB and will invite all interested chapters and state councils to sign onto those comments. In addition, we encourage all interested SHRM members to make your voice heard on the proposed rule. It is important for federal rule-making entities to hear directly from the HR profession on issues that will have a direct impact on your workplace.

This and other NLRB and labor-related issues will be discussed in depth at SHRM’s Employment Law & Legislative conference, March 14-16, 2011 in Washington D.C.  To learn more about the conference’s focus on the latest public policy issues that will impact your workplace and to register for the conference, click HERE.

Action Needed By February 22, 2011

Make your voice heard!

Submit your comments by clicking on Regulations.gov. On this website, you should type your information into the form then make your comments in the section on the right and click the SUBMIT button. Comments on the NLRB notice proposal are due on or before February 22, 2011.

Please consider submitting your own comments or use the suggested language below to craft your submission.

Suggested Language:

     HR professionals understand and value the critical role of employees to the success of any workplace and we strive to make the most of employee talent in both union and non-union environments.

     As an HR professional, I understand employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to form, join, assist in or refrain from joining a union without threats, interrogation, promises of benefits, or coercion by employers or unions.

     I am concerned about the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) proposed rule requiring nearly all employers to post a notice under the NLRA for several reasons. The proposed notice is not a fair explanation of rights because it fails to inform employees of their right to decertify or withdraw from third-party union representation, to seek relief from a union’s failure to represent employees fairly, or object to payment of union dues or fees for political purposes. In addition, the rule proposes unfair penalties including finding a failure to post to be an unfair labor practice and suspending the statute of limitations for filing an unfair labor practice charge.

     Unlike many federal statutes that HR professionals implement on a daily basis, the NLRA itself does not require posting such a notice. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the NLRB withdraw this proposed rule.

Info Quest, Inc. strongly encourages all HR professionals to voice their opinion on the above issue.

Supreme Court Limits Workplace Retaliation

The Wall Street Journal reports from the Supreme Court a ruling that could help you as an employer of family members.  See what Sue has to say in the below article. 

By Sue Shellenbarger
In an era of growing openness about office romance, should you worry that problems in your own career will damage your romantic partner’s standing with the boss?

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that touches on  this sensitive area for couples who work together. In an 8-0 decision, the Court found that an employer can’t retaliate against an employee who has sued for alleged discrimination by firing his or her fiancé.

In the case, Miriam Regalado, a quality-control engineer at a steel mill, filed sex-discrimination charges against her employer. Three weeks later, her fiancé, Eric Thompson, was fired by the same company.

The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Thompson’s relationship with Ms. Regalado made him eligible for protection under anti-retaliation provisions of federal civil-rights law. Those provisions bar employers from striking back against workers who file charges over alleged workplace violations.

In a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court cited the risk that “a reasonable worker might be dissuaded” from filing a discrimination claim “if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.” It was possible that injuring Thompson “was the employer’s intended means of harming Regalado,” the opinion said. The decision will deter employers from using retaliation against family members as an intimidation tactic.

The Supreme Court ruling comes amid a sharp increase in retaliation claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by employees who allege their employers illegally penalized them for filing discrimination charges.

The Supreme Court opinion did set limits, however, on what kinds of relationships entitle an employee’s associates to file suit. “We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the test,” the court said, but “inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so.” Beyond that, the legality of any employer’s act of retaliation “will often depend on the circumstances.”

Readers, have you ever seen workplace situations where a family member, spouse or partner is treated unfairly because of the actions of his or her loved one? Where should legal protections for associates of litigious employees end? Should friends be protected? Distant relatives?  Let us know what you think, add a comment below.

Info Quest Can Help you with all your employment screening needs.

Business Credit Reports

Know Who You Are Doing Business With Before Extending Credit

Protect your organization from bad debt and lost revenue. Rely On Our Business Credit Reports To: Pre-qualify prospective customers Prevent fraudulent orders Investigate UCC filings Compare Credit Scores Review tax liens, judgments and bankruptcies Verify business size Verify Ownership Make low-risk, low-dollar credit decisions. For More Information Contact Us

How to Handle Employee Drug Use in the Workplace

When an employee reveals that he or she has a drug or alcohol problem, employers have a number of options.

If the drug use is current and self-reported, the employer may terminate the employee, or place that person on a leave of absence to obtain treatment and return to work as a “last chance assistance agreement.”

Such an agreement usually requires the employee to enter a substance abuse treatment program, at his or her own expense.

If the drug use is found through a positive test rather than self-reporting, the employer may choose automatic termination of employment, an easier option that involves no discretion.

Such a rule may have practical implications, however, such as losing a prime employee when the drug use may be a one-time occurrence, or accusations of discrimination if exceptions to this rule are made.

Rather than immediate termination, employers may choose progressive discipline, ranging from verbal or written warning, to suspension, and finally to termination.

In cases of positive drug tests, a last chance assistance agreement may also be a viable option. U.S. Department of Transportation procedures contemplate such an action for certain federally regulated safety sensitive positions.  by Bill Clifton

Need Help:  Contact Us

Do’s and Don’ts: Protecting Your Business Against Employee Fraud.

Employee theft is surprisingly common and can devastate your business. Consequently, it is worthwhile to put an anti-theft program into place, which includes internal auditing and monitoring. By following a few Do’s and Don’ts you can minimize the risk of employee fraud.

THE DO’s

DO regularly review your financial statements.

DO deposit your cash and checks daily.

DO secure your blank checks and signature stamps.

DO carefully monitor a new employee who is responsible for buying goods.

DO periodically have an individual hand out payroll checks and confirm that absent employees are actual employees.

DO periodically compare payroll payees with employee records.

DO regularly review bank reconciliations.

DO distribute responsibilities among employees so that a different employee collects receipts, makes out deposit slips, reviews bank statements and writes checks.

DO periodically open your own mail and compare payments received with deposits.

DO periodically hire an outside accountant to audit your books.

DO require two signatures on checks over a certain amount.

DO review billing error complaints from customers.

DO require that original invoices be kept in the files.

DO maintain and monitor a list of your property that is subject to theft.

THE DON’Ts

DON’T allow accounting personnel to work longer than a year without taking a vacation.

DON’T sign blank checks.

DON’T hire employees without checking references.

DON’T sign checks for new vendors without verifying their name and association with your company.

DON’T allow transfers between accounts without verification.

DON’T sign checks without reviewing and canceling paid invoices.

This list is a great tool to follow, but before you hire anyone do a complete background check.