Archives for March 2016

Despite an unemployment rate at its lowest level since 2007, hiring is becoming increasingly complex. For many years, employers have been subject to a variety of laws as they attempt to engage qualified candidates, and the wave of “ban-the-box” legislation sweeping the country is introducing even more regulations into the hiring process.

But in spite of the added complexity, employment screening (emp screening) continues to have a significant impact on outcomes for businesses of all sizes. What risks arise when employers don’t adequately screen potential workers, and how do recent legislation and existing laws impact the process?

The dangers of making bad hires

Even one ill-advised hire can significantly increase the risk of negative consequences, including compromising sensitive data, theft, reputation damage and even physical injuries to customers or other employees.

With unemployment low and talented workers becoming more difficult to find, speed and efficiency in the hiring process are critical. Pre-emp screening has long provided a trusted method for assisting employers with making critical decisions in hiring.

The effects of recent legislation

As of mid-2015, “ban-the-box” legislation was in effect in 18 states and 52 municipalities across the United States. The ban-the-box movement seeks to remove questions about past criminal offenses or convictions from initial job applications.

But for some employers — especially those in highly regulated industries — the new laws represent a Catch-22. Hiring practices also must comply with local, state and federal rules that may prohibit employment of workers with criminal histories in certain positions. And for companies operating in more than one jurisdiction, compliance with potentially conflicting laws can create increasing complexity in the emp screening hiring process.

The role of consumer protections

Additionally, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and similar state laws already affect the information that employers may gather during an emp screening. Under the FCRA, employers must follow a defined process that allows job applicants to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information that results in a decision not to hire. Some of the new ban-the-box rules conflict with those requirements, adding another challenge for employers.

An important role for emp screening

Failing to uncover pertinent background information for potential hires can have devastating effects for modern companies. At the same time, a complex regulatory climate is creating challenges for employers. Prudent hiring managers increasingly are working with knowledgeable professionals who can effectively navigate the nuances of emp screening.

Disclaimer: The information on InstantCriminalChecks.com is governed by our Terms of Use and is never intended as legal advice.

Across the United States, more than 1 million private security guards keep a watchful eye over venues as varied as sports arenas, hospitals and retail stores. With no federal standards in place for licensing or security guard background checks, oversight authority is left to the states.

Several recent incidents involving security guards have drawn attention to screening, training and oversight procedures at the state level. Concern about training, licensing and security guard background checks also has helped fuel the recent introduction of some 90 state bills seeking tougher regulations.

Requirements for security guard background checks vary

Most security guards do not carry weapons, but those who do have raised regulatory antennae recently. In 2014, a joint investigation by CNN and the Center for Investigative Reporting uncovered a low level of accountability, along with insufficient oversight of armed guards. Nine states did not carry out criminal background checks on security guard applicants, the investigation found, and 27 did not check for applicants’ inclusion in a federal database that would prohibit them from carrying a firearm.

Several recent incidents have stoked sentiment for strengthening regulation of the industry. In Iowa, a security guard is accused of fatally shooting a woman, and a Kentucky guard allegedly took bribes to ignore thieves who stole more than $100,000 worth of whiskey from a distillery. A man in his 60s also died of a head injury following a violent confrontation with a contract security guard at a Virginia hospital.

Training and potential legislative solutions

Under current regulations, 41 states and the District of Columbia require licensing of security guards, but training standards vary. South Carolina, for instance, requires four hours of training plus four additional hours for security officers who carry guns. In Alaska, security guards must undergo 48 hours of initial training and another eight hours for those who carry guns. Nine states do not license security officers, although some cities within the states do require licensing. In 22 states, no training requirements exist for unarmed guards, and 15 require no training even for guards who carry weapons.

Dozens of bills have been introduced this year at the state level to beef up licensing and training requirements. None of the bills that would’ve added significant teeth to regulations has been enacted so far, however.

Implementing business safeguards

Many private security guards are contracted through agencies, while others are hired on by individual businesses. With requirements for security guard background checks, training and licensing varying so significantly by state, it’s wise for business owners to ask questions and implement their own systems for thoroughly screening background checks and training these key team members.

Disclaimer: The information on InstantCriminalChecks.com is governed by our Terms of Use and is never intended as legal advice.