Like toothpaste in a tube, once you click “Send” on an Email you can’t get it back.  Ever type an Email that is disparaging to another person or company and then accidently sent it to that person or company?  Well, I have never done that one to that degree, but I just had it done to me.  After my initial anger, disbelief, and short bout of depression (lasted about 30 minutes),  I began to analyze the situation.

I, of course, used the situation to my advantage but I delved even further.  The sheer devastation that this could or may have presented to thier company caused me to pause and wonder how this could have been prevented from the senders stand point.  I do not want my snap emotional responses to end up like this persons.  So, I analyzed every word and punctuation.  Then I analyzed day and time of email and the situation.  The email was sent early in the morning on a monday apparently after a business trip.  I believe it was a business trip because the auto reply was the same for other people I included on the original email.  The original email was an attempt to get a response for someone, anyone because voice mails and email went unanswered. 

I was angered because I was referred to as a GUY and they did not even use my position or name.  I was also portrayed as a desperate vendor trying to retain a client (partly true, but my client asked us to get involed anyway and they knew this).  What threw me into depression was the fact that I was referred to as an “pain” and it was also intimated that we were already the “old” vendor.  Very hurtful email if sent to the wrong person, which it was.

I have been trying to think of what I did wrong (very common thing to do if you truely care about others) and could not think of one.  I only called and emailed two to three times in a two month period!  So, I began to think of this persons situation and how did they get to the point of getting up all over me.  For starters, it was a Monday.  Enough said about that, but I do know many people who like Mondays.  He must of had a ton of email being gone at some trip for several days and that can be a daunting task to get through all of them.  When in that situation people tend to delegate and task out stuff as much and fast as possible with little attention to detail (inter office detail can be worked out later, just get through them all).  The person the email was intended for was also on the same business trip.  So I imagine this was a buddy to buddy type of communication lacking tact and compassion of any type. 

Because I was trying to solicit a response, I had used some strong language as to competence and intent with a soft finish opening a door for communication.  This approach obviously worked, just not the way I would have wanted it to work.  How this works for me is that the person who was trying to throw me over the bridge are trying to gain my client (we are not in the same industry but we compliment each other).  This could have been a good situation to learn from each other how to best work for the client.  I do not believe this person has done a very good job for thier company because they apparently do not value the client more than they value themself.  Someone who can so easily disregard a positive potential will rarely have the advantage – in anything.  My guess is that this person has lost many opportunities that they do not even know about. 

In conclusion, if this person would have responded in a honest, humble fashion I would not have ratted him out to the client.  I may still have to work with them and I am sure there are great people in that company, but I will be wary until I see evidence to the contrary.  When you come in on mondays and after a vacation or business trip, have a couple cups of coffee, talk to a few coworkers about your trip or weekend and laugh a little before you settle into catching up on email.  You’ll have a better chance of doing it from a happy, grateful heart.

Thank God that was not me who sent the email (wouldn’t happen though, I have a happy heart)!

And you know, I have still not heard back from them and they know they sent it to the wrong person because I told them so.  If it was me, I would falling all over myself to fix this one.

     Ever have that client or department that needed that background done yesterday? Yeah, I get that one alot. So, how do you get that background done yesterday?  Prepare for it the day before yesterday by having a solid policy and direct connection to your customer service representatives. Lets face it, when it comes to the background industry the information returned is a commodity, but the firm that you deal with can greatly reduce turn around time and errors.

     It has happend many times where the information passed to us (Allied Information Resource, Inc.) may be suspect, but we have processes in place to verify and check the information given to us is usuable. If the information is not usable, then prompt communication will save time and provide a good background check/verification.

     Lets say that the information passed is perfect. Now timing is determined on when the information passed. Entering information into an online system is a good way to go. Faxing represents possible Client/Firm issues that can unfairly strain relationships for both parties.  Online is better because it lowers entry issues and both Client/Firm know when an order was placed.  Most importantly, it is the time of day that the order was placed.  Like everyone else, court researchers get up first thing in the morning, grab their orders and head out to the courts.  They sometimes go two and three times a day depending on work load.  Because the courts are a government office, they tend to close earlier and also have furlough days (due to current economic conditions). 

    What does this mean?  Simple, early bird gets the worm.  Putting into place a routine where the background is placed as soon as possible, even before they leave the office.

Yeah, Right!

     I know quite a few people in the HR industry and your jobs are tough.  You may have ten people applying, a client on the phone and some background agency asking for more information and then there is the email piling up, oh and don’t forget to sell something while your at it.  The goal of an vendor should be to fit into your organization at your speed and the “at your speed” thing is critical.  If a vendor does not understand you then how can they help you.

How can I help?

Have you ever called an employment screening company and asked “how much for a standard background”? I know that you are expecting a 10 word or less answer and I have no idea how to answer that question to the satisfaction of the caller.

It is the question that is the problem. What is the problem with the question? I am glad you asked. That question can only be answered by asking another question. What is that question you ask? My, you are curious today. That question is ….. wait for it ….. “how much do you really want to know”? Within the law of course. That is not the best answer/question. There is a better question, so read on.

“Within the law” is the scariest statment known to HR and employment background agencies. It causes great pause and lowers your life expectancy. So how much do you want to know about your prospective employee. You want to know “just the right amount”! Well, what is that? I guess I should have been a politician. Okay, I’ll get to the point.

Background screenings should be approached from the position from which they are being put. A retail clerk would not have the same check as a truck driver or even an accountant. You may wonder what is the difference between an accountant and a retail clerk. They both work with money and have personal access to company assets. The background that you can perform on the accountant may include more personal detail, leagally, due to the size of salary. All of this is dependant on what you know about your state laws. A good lawyer or resource that watches state and federal laws surrounding employment is paramount in the employment business and that is everyone who employs people in the united states. I can’t speak for china, but I think a pulse is the only thing required for employment and that might even be a stretch (jusy kidding).

The long and the short of it is that you should have some information about the positions you are hiring for and what state they are working within prior to asking the standard cost of a background. You should also know more about your screening company and what are their resources. They should be a member of NAPBS. Not because NAPBS membership is important but because its resources to screening companies is invaluable. Your screening company may know its home state laws but needs help for national accounts where employees are being employed in other states.

To sum it up, lets do this together. We do not want a background to be a mystery cost nor what we do to be a mystery either. We cannot answer the standard background question to your satisfaction. If a backgorund search agency does not ask for what type of position and what state will they be working, hang up and call another agency.

Well, 2009 is over! I could not be happier. How about you? Let me know if you feel the same. I still feel uncertain about the economic, political, and social termoil that 2009 whipped up for us all.

The economy shows signs of life but there are still housing and employment issues looming and who can trust the numbers being put out. I guess we’ll all hold our breath until second quarter.

Politically, I could not be more disenchanted with the whole thing. It seems the game in Washington, DC to make us feel like they are solving problems while finding ways to make us pay more money into a system that seems to be fighting against us while lining their own pockets and this goes for all of them on the hill (republican, independant, democrat, and whoever). I would love to see a complete change this year when we vote in November.

Socially, what a mess. Pretty soon we’ll flinch when someone says Hi to a man named Jack. A lovely quote from a felon comes to mind “can’t we all just get along”. I guess I do not understand how blowing yourself and innocent people up will accomplish anything but pain and anguish. It is ultimately the most selfish thing anyone could do, but I guess they don’t care they are no longer here to hear the crying or see the seas of tears. I know my maker values all life and ours is not up to us to decide when it is over. In fact, that decision is supposed to make things worse for you.

So, with all this good news, what am I going to do about it this year. Economically, I am going to get out of credit card debt. I did the calulation, I should have retired already but the interest payments have kept me employed – bummer. Politically, I am actually going to study the people I vote for office. More work, but I can’t complain if I don’t walk the walk. Socially, I will love my family (they rock), friends (they rock too), and most importantly myself (I will be a rock) more. I will make more friends (where will I find the time or them?). I will volunteer. I have not formally done this and I look forward to it. I can no longer afford to sit back. I am beening called, as we all are, to step into the light, give honest humble thanks, pray, and have them answered. Welcome 2010, this year is going to be challenging and promises to stretch us all. Good luck and blessings to everyone.

Now, here’s a state that is standing up for their children. Good for you, WI!

Panel Backs Child-Care Reforms: Require criminal background checks on providers every three months, or sooner, if it was deemed necessary.

For the full story, follow this link: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/68932652.html

In a recent article of the Sun Sentinel, it highlighted the inconsistencies in background checks for those working with our most vulnerable populations of people, children and the elderly. This was specifically directed at Florida, though I have seen this in many states. They are not only inconsistent with their practices, but it appears they are also relying solely on fingerprinting that can take weeks to return and has proven to have inaccuracies in its information.

With the availability of criminal background checks from a consumer reporting agency, there is no excuse NOT to check backgrounds. County and state level checks, in conjunction with the fingerprinting, will provide a thorough investigation on an applicant.

I’m not sure about you, but I certainly don’t want to send my children to a day care provider, nor have my grandma relying on care providers in her assisted living home, that haven’t thoroughly checked its employees.

Find the entire story at http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-felons-house-speaker-b101209,0,7464346.story .

A resource for HR professionals in case they didn’t know.  This seams a little early for major elections but this refers to all voting days.  HR beware!

State-by-state list of employee Election Day rights.

This one made me think.  I have mixed feelings about the people who are sueing T-Mobile for back pay and OT because they were working outside normal hours on business.  On one side, if T-Mobile was requiring them to work after hours AND punished them for not working then they did push the envelope and should be in hot water.  On the other side, the culture of the young working professional is as such.  They perform these functions (working after hours, answering emails, responding the customers through their mobile devices) as a large part of their lives.  They are communicating with clients and potential clients through social media.  Why these professional do this is because most business is client driven and the clients know this all to well.  The most responsive and social business professional usually gets the deal.  Most of the time, it is not price the client is buying but the person.  T-Mobile must have really pushed this too far for them to get into this deep of trouble, but then I wouldn’t put anything past a lawyer and a disgruntled employee.

Dangers of letting non-exempt workers go home with cell phones.

Just thought you might want to know.  Useful if you are doing business with the Feds.  I am sure the list will expand in the near future.

Who has to use E-Verify? Complete rundown.

Question
We’re thinking about having a question on our job application asking if the applicant has ever been charged with a crime.

Is it legal to ask? Can the question cause problems?

ANSWER -> Answers to tricky HR questions: OK to ask about criminal charges?.

If you’re not careful you’ll miss the subtlety of the syntax of the answer.  Just as lady justice is blind, a charge does not mean a conviction.  A charge has no bearing on guilt just as guilt has no bearing on the conviction. Notice that guilt is really not part of the equation between charge and conviction. Guilt is ours to own and take up with our maker – the real victim. Whoa, that was deep – sorry.

I knew it!  I have seen this coming.  Whether or not this will be a movement remains to be seen.  The following is an article regarding the restriction of credit reports for the purpose of employment.  While in the past the credit report was a decent resource for trends of potential employees, it is just not so in our current environment.  I am for “the more information the better” but I am on the fence for the credit reports at this time.

I am not talking about the legality of obtaining and using, but that the credit report is not going to be a good measure of the trends of potential employees.  The credit card companies and banks have gone on a rampage.

They are lowering balances (if not closing all together) accounts without or very little notice and nothing you can do about it.  These payoff programs offered by the credit card companies offering to pay the last $500 of an account is another case of sleight of hand with your credit score.  They kind of close the account by continually lower the “available amount” as you pay the card off and then finally close it at the end.  Anyone who watches their credit, knows how much this hurts them.  Banks are no better, they get saved by the feds and you get harassed at the dinner table if you’re a week past due these days and try getting a loan to shore up a bad period of income.

All of this action hits your credit report at some time or another and does not accurately represent a person when applying for a job.  Layoffs, pay reductions (if you’re lucky), unpaid furlough and mandatory vacations among other reasons has put many good people in situations they have not created themselves but will pay for in their credit reports.  I personally feel credit reports are a hazard to hiring processes until they figure out how to sort out their “formulas” for their scoring system.

Enough of my ramblings, below is the original article and contact information.

By John Canalis, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/23/2009 05:15:13 PM PDT
Updated: 09/24/2009 07:52:26 AM PDT

A bill by a Norwalk assemblyman would bar employers from checking the credit histories of most job applicants.

Legal in California when prospective employees grant consent, credit inquiries are an increasingly common component of pre-employment background checks.

But the bill by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza would limit credit screenings to law enforcement and managerial slots, as well as positions that handle large amounts of cash, jewelry or valuables or those that deal with sensitive financial information.

Opposed by the business lobby, which argues that credit checks can weed out financially irresponsible employees and help uncover liens and bankruptcies, Assembly Bill 943 recently cleared the Legislature and is headed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Mendoza, a Democrat, plans to stage a rally and news conference in support of the bill at 1 p.m. today in Room 82 at the Southeast Regional Occupation Program, 12940 E. Foster Road in Norwalk.

“He’s going to urge the governor to break down the barriers that currently exist for the thousands of Californians denied a chance for gainful employment,” said Richard Garcia, spokesman for Mendoza.

Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has not taken a public position on the bill.

“He typically waits for the bill to reach his office,” said Mike Naple, a spokesman for the governor, who has until Oct. 11 to sign or veto the bill.

Garcia said that Mendoza does not see a correlation between a person’s borrowing and employment histories, particularly in the current climate of foreclosures, layoffs, divorces, high student loan debt and identity theft. Without jobs, those harmed by the financial crisis cannot pay their bills and repair their credit.

“These people deserve a fair chance at recovery, and the only way they can do that is through gainful employment,” Garcia said.

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill. Denise Davis, a spokeswoman for the Sacramento-based organization, referred a call to the chamber’s position paper, which argues that job candidates’ suitability for a position does not always show up on résumés.

“Adverse credit situations that go unexplained could raise a red flag of the applicant’s suitability for some job responsibilities that involve access to employer or client assets or confidential information,” according to the position paper.

About 43 percent of employers check credit, according to a news release from Rep. Steve Cohen, a lawmaker from Tennessee who examined the issue in July.

Despite credit wrecked by outstanding medical bills, Debra Banks said she is a good worker, one who has been offered jobs in the toughest employment market in a generation.

The Hawthorne resident has been doing temporary data entry for about five years. Employers have offered her full-time positions – one after 20 months of temping, another after six months.

“I had already proven that I was trustworthy,” she said.

But she didn’t get the jobs.

john.canalis@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1273