The Cost of a Bad Hire
This month, The Hire Authority’s Phil Sharkey focuses his Radio Entrepreneurs’ segment on an important—and largely avoidable—hiring issue: the cost of a bad hire. Sharing from the onset, the frustration he feels when employers forego the relatively inexpensive and timely steps they could avail themselves of, as a cost- and time-saving measure, in response to the questionable labor market and as a residual of the pandemic from the last two years, Phil set the stage to share a couple of alarming statistics. “They’re risking so much,” he says.
Quoting from the Department of Labor, he begins, “In a recent study from last year, 30% of the employee’s first year earning is the average cost. If you’re paying someone $12 an hour, up to a huge salary, 30% of that cost is what they’re seeing regarding a bad hire.”
Phil illustrates that when a client takes the wise precaution of conducting a background check, the discovery of falsified or unsavory information assists the hiring manager of making an informed decision, and often saves the company time and money. “For example, let’s say that a yearly salary of $80,000.00 is the compensation. If it’s a bad hire, 30% of that is $24,000.00 of wasted money. Conversely, our cost is very transparent. A full background check is between $250.00 and $300.00. When you weigh that against the cost of bringing someone on board that could potentially cost the company a large amount of money, it seems to be a smart investment to make sure you’re getting who they say they are. It’s good business. It’s poor business not to.”
Nathan Gobes, host of Radio Entrepreneurs, comments that the delicate economy has a lot to do with the investments companies decide to make or not, citing that business owners are struggling and are looking to reduce costs. He concurs with Phil that cutting back on background checks is a mistake.
To be clear, Phil points out that it isn’t just the candidate with a criminal record or who is a drug offender, or anyone who has fabricated completely false information on their resume who costs the company money. In addition, managers must divert their own time supervising poorly performing employees. The statistic for this number is 17%; or, to put that figure into context, one full workday a week. The ripple effect is real. “The background check can catch a lot of these, with employment verification and references. The consistency there, a poor performance or argumentative behavior, those come out in the past history,” he shares. A background check is information and will help a hiring manager decide which candidate is best suited for the role.
A resume isn’t the only resource an employer should be looking at. Speaking again of the ripple effect a bad hire has on productivity, Phil itemizes that a company risks losing clients, reputation damage, employer reputation, and decreased teamwork.
Recruitment costs are also a factor. Fraudulent information on resumes and job applications are up to almost 50%, Phil states, and he posits that if recruitment companies conducted background checks, again, a lot of time and money could be saved. He highlights that his company is never involved with the candidate, to the degree that the recruitment company is. “We’re separate agencies. We don’t have any connection to the person, which is a really important sort of separation between ‘church and state.’ We just want to do a thorough background check, so the hiring manager has a clear and honest report.” To further qualify, he says that every state has its own rules and regulations. “Any screening company that is chosen by another company should be a member of the PBS, the professional background screening association, which we are. And if they’re not, then, then you should move on right away from that search and not use that company.”
Another thing employers need to keep in mind, is that discovery of a candidate’s background should include, not only where they currently are, but also where they’ve been. One recent story that Phil relays, “A person had a Massachusetts history for the last four or five years. But the previous history in Texas showed that there were many criminal records. It was amazing that he was still not even in jail.”
Large companies hiring C-suite executives are not immune, either, to the cost of a bad hire. Walmart’s former Vice President of Communications was slated for an even greater position, but in September of 2014, he was forced to resign from the company, based on his false claim that he received his Bachelor of Arts degree. When asked about his untrue assertion, he said, “I definitely didn’t disclose that I didn’t have a degree. And there were times when it was probably an error of omission, I think.” As Phil put it, “This was a big black eye to Walmart and their brand.”
In addition to cost-cutting, Phil suggests that another reason companies bypass conducting a background check, is that many enterprises are family-run businesses and pride themselves on running their company based on their opinions of people, sealed with a handshake. This myopic view can have devastating consequences, as the foregoing spells out.
When commenting on the type of information Phil and his team uncover, he is clear that a complete background check takes three days. This quick, yet thorough, turnaround time will not cost them time in the recruiting process. A job applicant’s criminal record, locally and in other states, is revealed, as well as the accuracy of past work history including job titles and tenure. The information his company provides makes it easier for them to part ways with a client, wishing them the best, offering the fair and true statement that they have to move in another direction.
Whether the candidate is at the C-suite level or not, a background check remains an important cost of business, and is clearly time and money well-spent, in comparison to the damaging effects of the cost of a bad hire.
Offenders That Would’ve Been Caught With A Background Check
In this segment, host Jeffrey Davis introduces the subject of what employers can do to protect themselves and their businesses from hiring the wrong employee. Phil begins by saying that, because of the changes in the labor market—a residual effect from the pandemic that started two years ago—employers are resistant to conducting background checks on potential employees, largely because they are short-staffed, and time is of the essence. “Employers are also concerned with scaring off candidates,” Phil adds. For these reasons, employers frequently ask him, why bother?
To emphasize why it’s important for employers to spend the time and make the investment, Phil cites two examples. The first was a news story previously featured on a local news station. A former teacher at a New Hampshire high school had been accused of inappropriately touching students and had been formally charged with sexual assault. This same teacher had been let go from another New Hampshire school district for similar complaints, specifically, for giving students a ‘therapeutic massage.’ This report was from just a few weeks ago in December 2021. “Here is the big point for my line of work. The Human Resources Director for this regional school district told police that this gentleman’s background check consisted of a fingerprint criminal check and two references, but they did not call his previous employer,” Phil pauses.
“Now, a reference is only as strong as the integrity of the person giving the reference. I’ve had people in prison give me references. They’re called in my industry “hip pocket references.” They would not be giving references unless it was going to be favorable, which is definitely not good enough,” he explains. The perpetrator in this example also had a similar record in a northern Massachusetts school district. This story, Phil emphasizes, shows how important it is to fully investigate an applicant with a full background investigation. “Had they just reached out to the former employers, information would have surfaced that this was a possibly dangerous person and a poor hire. This is a case where a full investigation really would have been necessary to protect the school district and that next victim ,” he emphasizes.
Astonishingly, this is an area where Phil gets push-back over privacy rights, which, Phil argues, of course applicants have rights, but so does the victim and the people at the next place of employment.
Interjecting with a critical point on the subject, Jeffrey posits that the people who implemented the hiring process—and failed in their duties to carefully vet job applicants—should be fired, too. Nodding in agreement, Phil says that best practices appear to be sliding because of the current hiring situation (the lack of staffing and the lack of available people), but this is not a time and cost-saving measure. In bypassing something as important as a thorough background check, he says, hiring personnel in companies open themselves up to being questioned for their own level of professionalism.
Going back to the original example, Phil says that this teacher has, so far, managed to evade criminal convictions, so a criminal background check would be outstanding. But, a simple standard background check with former employers would be revealing by asking if the candidate would be eligible for rehire?
“ ‘Fostering a proper culture for your business to succeed,’ ” defines Phil. “It’s a standard in place for business professionalism…We have a policy in place to check the backgrounds of all potential candidates.” If companies uphold these principles, the workplace is a safe environment for everyone. He says that a candidate should be pleased that a potential employer takes the time to consistently look out for everyone’s safety.
Offering yet another example, this one comes from the University of Michigan. In the last month, the President was fired for having inappropriate relations with a subordinate employee and releasing communications sent from the university’s email. This relationship dated as far back as 2019 and the investigation uncovered almost 120 pages of sexually suggestive emails. “This is the type of person for whom a background check will be required for his next job, hopefully. This shows his lack of judgment and character, for such an important position,” Phil laments.
Summarizing the discussion, Jeffrey comments that company cultures are fragile, especially now more than ever, and it’s imperative for entrepreneurs and business owners to spend the time and make the investment to conduct a background check on a job applicant. “It doesn’t take much for a leader to hurt or destroy a culture. Vigilance continues to be important,” he concludes.
#labormarket #backgroundchecks #shortstaffed #sexualassault #humanresources #director #references #previousemployer #fullbackgroundinvestigation #dangerousperson #poorhire #privacyrights #bestpractices #criminalconvictions #businesstosucceed #businessprofessionalism #potentialcandidates #workplace #safeenvironment #entrepreneurs #businessowners
Cutting To The Truth About Resumes
Finishing off 2021 and beginning 2022, Phil Sharkey sat with Nathan Gobes of Radio Entrepreneurs to discuss resumes and the diverse ways in which applicants falsify information and the ramifications of doing so, for themselves and for the hiring company.
To start, Phil mentions that 70% of his clients require only a resume to be sent in by a candidate. Many times, this is the only document that Phil has to work off of when he conducts a background check. And, before he begins that investigative work, he already knows what other employers know: that 66% of candidates exaggerate their skills and competencies on a resume. Phil quoted this figure from Monster.com, which shared additional, and equally staggering, statistics. Of four hundred applicants, 78% ‘stretched the truth about themselves’ and commenting on this, Phil acknowledged that a resume is an opportunity for a candidate to put themselves in the best light possible, but, he emphasized, “When you cross that line and you falsify, it’s just going to cause you great harm.”
Highlighting five additional bullet points, Phil stated:
- 60% of applicants claimed to have a mastery in skills for which they either had basic knowledge or no knowledge at all.
- Over 50% said they had worked at some jobs longer in order to omit a successor employer.
- 45% were terminated, but gave a false reason for leaving the job, when, in fact, they were either terminated for cause or abandoned the job of their own volition.
Pausing, Phil says that it’s a big, red flag to him when an applicant falsely extends the dates they worked at a company. It’s an obvious lie that immediately makes him suspicious of what else it is they’ve lied about on their resume. Continuing:
- Almost 43% made up relevant experience.
- 41% have used a director’s title when their actual title was as a manager or lower on the corporate hierarchy.
Regarding this last bullet point, Phil states that stepping up for a day or two to perform another job is different from assuming that role and its responsibilities full-time. Employers have been known to pull job offers upon finding out that a candidate lied about past experience and the extent of their professional roles; or, immediately terminate a new employee when similar information is uncovered.
Citing the possible reasons why applicants stretch the truth or lie on their resumes, Phil again quotes Monster.com’s resume expert Kim Isaac, who articulated that candidates falsify information because ‘they fear not being good enough or of not measuring up to their peers, or a fear of not getting called back for interviews.’ Phil points out that employers do check an applicant’s credentials, and warns that doing whatever it takes to get an edge will come back to get them. “And the interviewer will do a background screen even after the fact. It may get you in the door, but in the long run it’s going to cause you harm,” Phil reiterates.
When it will cause a potential employee harm, for this Phil indicates that there’s no expiration date. “Some people late in their career, for example. There might be a merger within companies, and they do a background check. I’ve done it many times myself. And it comes back that the resume is falsified. Employees have had to give back relative pay. You don’t win in the long run and you’re taking one heck of a risk,” he illustrates.
For the foregoing reasons, it’s in an employer’s best interest to conduct a background check on any applicant. “Our standard background check takes three business days. You’re not going to lose an applicant. You’re not going to lose a lot of time in the hiring process to just make sure they are who they say they are,” reassures Phil. Overall, it’s worth it for an employer to wait until Phil and his team certify what is on a resume, to be certain that an applicant’s professional credentials and educational background are true.
A final area which Phil sees regularly on a resume, is skill stretching. However, a careful background check will reveal whether or not the applicant actually used a particular skill on a regular basis. “Three days is all you need to give me, and we’ll come back to you with whether the candidate is an honest person or not,” Phil offers.
In response to this, Nathan comments that it’s a more cost-effective approach for an employer to have a background search conducted on a given candidate, bringing out that terminating an employee is a real loss of time because of requisite training, compounded by having to start looking to hire for the same job again. Phil concurs, saying that it’s better to bring someone on board who’s been thoroughly vetted.
Given the residual pandemic labor market issues amid what has been termed ‘the great resignation,’ employers are looking to fill those gaps and they base salaries on skills and experience. To have to replace employees is not what employers want right now, Nathan summarized.
In response to the current job market, Phil advises that companies avoid letting their best practices, best hiring guidelines slide. He admonishes all employers to continue to do their due diligence. “Just because we’re desperate finding people for certain positions, doesn’t mean you still shouldn’t do a quality background check,” he reasons.
Phil shares a story regarding a mall Santa. “A level two sex offender was found to be working as a Santa this year at the Burlington and Pheasant Lane malls. This is a level two and that’s the more severe level. If this can happen in a mall, hiring a Santa, it can happen to any business. You really can’t afford to skip a background check on a man who’s dealing with children and being so close to them.”
Taking the time, taking a closer look at a job applicant’s resume and conducting a background check is imperative to any business. Skipping this crucial step could get a company into a dire situation. “Everyone should at least go through a background check. It just has to be done today,” Phil concludes.
#resume #applicant #falsifyinformation #hiringcompany #candidate #backgroundcheck #skills #competencies #stretchthetruth #basicknowledge #terminated #jobabandonment #relevantexperience #director #manager #joboffer #interview #credentials #backgroundscreen #career #merger #relativepay #threebusinessdays #professionalcredentials #educationalbackground #skillstretching #training #labormarket #greatresignation #basesalaries #bestpractices #hiringguidelines #duediligence #leveltwosexoffender
How Can I Utilize the MA CORI Search?
In the December 2021 Radio Entrepreneurs’ segment, featuring Phil Sharkey, President of The Hire Authority, Inc., host Jeffrey Davis opened the discussion by recommending that employers properly screen new hires and employees, even when promoting from within. Phil continues that train of thought with the sobering comment that in his thirty years in the industry, “The numbers are trending upward regarding falsification and dangerous people.” He’s quick to point out that a background check is not an exercise in spying on potential candidates. Instead, it’s a protective measure for the employer to request honesty from an applicant. Anything less is detrimental to a business, and any successful business owner knows to be proactive and not reactive when it comes to decision-making.
As a natural segue, Phil brings out what is involved in a Massachusetts CORI (criminal offender record information) search. First of all, to clarify, ‘CORI’ is a term specific to the state of Massachusetts. In other states, it is simply referred to as a criminal background check. Secondly, he says that while it’s the best background search tool in the state, it is not without its flaws. “The CORI check only shows pending and conviction cases. If someone has four or five assaults and batteries and these are all dismissed, these do not appear on the CORI. I tell my clients that it’s important they understand it’s only pending cases and convictions that surface. Sealed cases or for people who have had their record expunged won’t surface,” Phil emphasizes.
He qualifies this by pointing out that CORI used to show arrests, but that changed so that people who had been arrested would have a visibly clean record. By protecting the individual, any hinderance of this nature would be minimized for them in finding future employment. So that Phil’s clients have a complete picture of a candidate’s record, though, he always suggests a CORI, but also that he checks the county criminal court, which does list arrests. “For example, recently, there was one instance where the CORI showed a clear record, but the person had four arrests out of Brockton district court, all of which were dismissed because they were assault batteries again, and drug possessions. I still think an employer needs to know that,” Phil advances.
Countering typical, pushback response about a perceived ‘big brother’ mentality, Phil disagrees. “I feel that it’s information and that gives the employer an opportunity to make the best decision available. And I also believe that a person should own it. If they’ve been arrested four times for assault and battery, then that’s a fact, even if they have not been convicted,” he states. Providing that information to his clients is the responsible thing to do, because without it, he knows, they could be hiring a violent person.
Phil mentions that part of the procedure in conducting a CORI check requires that the applicant sign a release and show proof of identification. He recommends that candidates conduct a background check on themselves occasionally. “I should never know more about a person than they know about themselves,” he adds.
Interestingly, felonies survive on a background search for ten years. Misdemeanors are recorded for five years. “If a candidate had a misdemeanor six, seven, or eight years ago, a CORI should come back clear. If there’s a felony from more than ten years ago, it should also come back clear,” Phil explains. He expressed that so many people have had issues and he suggests that they reach out to the Massachusetts courts, in case their record needs to be expunged. Jeff interjects that that’s an important thing to do over time and something that a lot of people probably don’t consider, especially if their past actions are definitively in the past. He asks, rhetorically, “If a person is keeping up that track record after creating a history of success, why not clean it up?”
Phil is transparent that his job is just to retrieve the information, but first his client—a business owner—has to be approved by the state of Massachusetts to have the benefit of CORI access, then he can conduct background checks on behalf of his client.
Prompted by Jeff, Phil shares a story about the CEO of Yahoo, a well-known company. Scott Thompson claimed he had degrees in accounting, as well as computer science from local Stonehill College. He was the CEO of Yahoo in early 2012, and previously, he was the former president of PayPal. “It took five minutes to show that he had a degree in accounting…no degree in computers. Another high-ranking Yahoo shareholder commented that this undermined Mr. Thompson’s credibility as a technology expert and reflected poorly on his character as ‘our CEO at Yahoo.’ A huge, black eye to their branding and all over a simple lie, which seemed to be quite unnecessary,” Phil illustrates. It is a story such as this that punctuates the value and importance to employers of utilizing the Massachusetts CORI search.
Concluding, Jeff recommends that if ‘somebody wants to be a little bit smart and not get themselves into a problem, requiring lawyers and management consultants to save themselves,’ they must reach out to Phil and his team at The Hire Authority, Inc.
#cori #screennewhires #employees #falsification #dangerouspeople #potentialcandidates #protectivemeasure #pendingcases #conviction #assaults #batteries #recordexpunged #futureemployment #countycriminalcourt #drugpossessions #bigbrother #violentperson #signarelease #proofofidentification #felonies #midemeanors #businessowner #credibility #character #lie #lawyers #managementconsultants
Protecting Your Business From Internal & External Threats
In this latest segment, Phil Sharkey, President of The Hire Authority, Inc., further discussed with Jeffrey Davis of Radio Entrepreneurs, the recurring theme of the labor market and what issues employers are facing in the hiring pool. “I hope people are still doing their background checks in this economy,” Jeffrey said. He continued by pointing out that, “Yesterday, a client said to me that they are looking for someone at a certain level. If this person has a pulse and doesn’t carry knives and guns, we’re hiring them tomorrow.” To which Phil responded that he just can’t emphasize it enough: The importance of not letting best practices slide during the hiring process.
“I understand that thought process, but that’s the type of thinking that will pull you under if you just bring in any person,” he replied. By way of example, Phil said that he has seen the fraudulent background percentages rise in a relatively short time from 25% up to the now-current figure of 33%. He goes on to say that that might not seem like a giant number, but the future, dishonest implications are there. “You tell a candidate that you’re doing a thorough background check. They sign off on it, and 33% of all screenings reveal fraudulent information. The smart entrepreneur realizes that’s a recipe for a disaster,” he explains.
Shifting his focus to cybersecurity and background checks, Phil shares some research he found. He says, “The US Department of Commerce stated in 2018, that the global average for a data breach is $3.86 million, breaking down to almost $150 per stolen record.” While cybersecurity is not what The Hire Authority, Inc. is known for, but with partners in that particular field, he confirms that these numbers are accurate and clearly an enormous loss.
Elaborating on what companies can do to make sure they hire honest employees, Phil shares that the aforementioned study recommended a four-prong attack to people to protect themselves. “The first is to protect who has access to your information. Second, conduct background and security checks for all of your employees, especially those who have access to your computer systems,” he enumerates. Cybersecurity, as he points out, is the number one crime today.
With cybersecurity under scrutiny, Phil mentions that a welcome by-product appreciated by many of his clients, is working with him and his company. The personal attention and long-standing business relationship affords Phil’s clients peace of mind, which is in contrast to a client calling a large company with a portal system and speaking to a rep who doesn’t understand what’s involved in background screening.
Jeffrey responds that he believes people are dishonest 75% of the time, based on the information he sees on LinkedIn, as one example. “Since people are looking for people, they’re willing to hear anything because they want to hear it,” he concludes.
Phil agrees and pursues that thought by introducing the concept of infringing on someone’s rights and offending them with a background check. He reasons, “There’s no offense saying you are who you are. What if I’m lying and push comes to shove, and you ask me about the receipts in the bank or if I’ve locked the door? I’ve already shown you that I’m lying. It’s not infringing on my rights. It’s that we’ve become a society that accepts people and wants to back off. And it can’t be that way any longer. There’s no infringement of rights. They’ve signed a release and they just have to be honest.”
Jeffrey adds, “My clients are spending too much money trying to get rid of the wrong people. And the expense of trying to get rid of the wrong people is so excessive and time-consuming, and disruptive to a company. One rotten apple can ruin a barrel. The expense of doing a background check upfront is nominal. It’s a little insurance policy. It’s the best insurance policy.” Phil concurs, emphasizing that his company’s tagline is to be proactive and not reactive. “Your best recruiting insurance strategy,” is how Jeffrey labels it.
A story Phil shares about truthfulness, or lack of it, involves celebrity chef Robert Irvine, who was fired from his own television show on the Food Network. He claimed that he produced and designed Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s wedding cake. This was an exaggeration. He picked out some of its fruit, but nothing worthy of his moniker or brand. “This was a person who could be easily researched, and he had the audacity to assume that he didn’t have to play by the rules,” Phil states.
Asked how quickly he can turn around a background check, Phil says that a detailed report can be completed within three days, allowing business owners to feel secure moving forward with a candidate who will be a safe and productive company asset.
Jeffrey wraps up this segment, thanking Phil for his comments and expertise, and remarking that, “It’s too dangerous to let the wrong people in.”
#labormarket #backgroundcheck #bestpractices #33percent #cybersecurity #databreach #honestemployee #computersystem #businessrelationship #infringingonrights #signarelease #bestinsurancepolicy #threedays #businessowners #candidate #companyasset
A Smart Investment of Money and Time Save Businesses from Hiring Potentially Dangerous and Dishonest Employees
In this month’s Radio Entrepreneurs’ segment, Phil Sharkey of The Hire Authority, Inc. impresses upon his listeners some new points employers need to consider, as well as highlight the continued need for vigilance, when hiring.
The first comment he makes serves as a reminder to employers that they cannot afford to let their professional standards and due diligence slide. “It’s going to come back and bite big time,” he warns. Phil’s strong admonition is noteworthy; he typically approaches the topic with a realistic, though optimistic, view of the employment and hiring vertical. During this segment, his tone is a bit more pointed and urgent.
Jeffrey Davis, the host of Radio Entrepreneurs, agrees when he states that in his consulting engagements with his own clients, he has seen problems surface, many times, when background checks are not conducted, even for—and perhaps, surprisingly—upper management, ‘white collar’ positions. Phil responds by endorsing that observation. “They’re usually very powerful individuals, and the interviewer doesn’t want to offend them. They take the candidate at their word,” he explains. This naivete often creates long-term and far-reaching corporate reputational damage, too. One example Phil shares illustrates this point: Richard Li was the Chairman of Pacific Century Group. He claimed he had graduated from Stanford University with a degree in computer engineering. After years on the job, it was discovered that he attended the school for three years and did not graduate. “It hurt them quite a bit on their marketing and their integrity,” Phil concludes, adding that it’s not always a lower-level employee who lies about their credentials and experience.
What he emphasizes in this discussion is that one bad apple can destroy a whole organization. It’s problematic when one employee, perhaps one who holds a lower-level position, was untruthful about their history during the interview process and they become a problem for one reason or another, in a bigger organization. The problem becomes exponential if the employee holds a senior position, as previously described; but, also, if the company is a small business, the whole operation is put in jeopardy when one employee is untruthful from the beginning and their lack of integrity and character becomes evident over time. “It’s so vital…to do a thorough background check. I always tell clients to maintain their professionalism,” Phil admonishes. The reason for this posturing, is that the company can sustain its goodwill approach when dubious information about a candidate is uncovered by Phil and his team. And this discovery can be completed within two or three business days. Because of the quick turnaround time, clients can make decisions early on, with minimal involvement and rapport with a candidate, sparing them an affront, legal or otherwise. “Just let them go. Just say that they don’t fit,” he cautions.
Even with such a bland rejection, some candidates do get angry or become violent. Phil says, “These are people who are used to defending themselves, and they don’t want it getting out about their backgrounds. As in many times with criminal records, I do see that perfect person 95% of the time. It’s when that button switches and they become quite scary.”
Apart from supplying a business owner with a clear picture of a candidate’s history, a background check also serves to minimize the frequency of a violent candidate response. They have to sign a waiver that they know a background check is going to be conducted. The criminal background check in Massachusetts is the CORI (criminal offender record index) search and it covers the entire state. Phil notes that the mandate for CORI use by companies presupposes approval that it is a legitimate company. Once established, the business can hire Phil to conduct the searches, or the company can perform a criminal records check themselves.
Often, though, companies choose to engage Phil’s services, because he also has access to other state background search records, and he knows the laws surrounding each state’s background check resources. “In California, you can’t do a statewide check. In New Hampshire, you need to sign a notarized release to do a statewide criminal check. I have a lot of clients who are juggling a lot of tasks. A background check is not one more area they need to delve into. We become a partner with most of our clients,” he boasts. In addition to focusing on background screening, Phil is knowledgeable about what certain court rulings mean. For example, a client will call him and ask what a ‘nolo contendere’ is.
Verification of identity is an important feature of a background screening. It confirms a person’s social security number and who they are, as well as giving an address history. This might be seemingly innocuous, but reveals a lot. Phil has seen the history of many candidates who have lived in Massachusetts for a very short time and having dug deeper, learned that they have a criminal record in other states.
And while many employers in the current economy, especially, are eager to hire anyone, Phil continues to maintain that smart money and time are well-spent conducting a background check on a candidate. A verification search and a criminal check are under $100.00 with his firm, which is a sound investment saving a company from, and eliminating future problems with, as he puts it, “Someone who could be dangerous.”
#smartinvestment #money #time #dangerous #dishonest #employees #duediligence #backgroundchecks #whitecollar #degree #marketing #integrity #credentials #experience #criminalrecords #candidateshistory #cori #criminaloffenderrecordsindex #california #newhampshire #notarizedrelease #statewidecriminalcheck #nolocontendere #verificationofidentity #socialsecuritynumber #addresshistory
Quick & Detailed Background Checks With A Specialized Touch
In this month’s segment on Radio Entrepreneurs, Phil Sharkey speaks with Jonathan Freedman about the level of detail within the focused background check services The Hire Authority, Inc. offers its clients.
To begin, the biggest differentiator between The Hire Authority, Inc. and large background check companies, is that the former does all of the work for its clients and turns it around in three business days. Conversely, the latter gives employers access to their online portal to submit candidate information, putting the responsibility on the employer to check back in seven days to two weeks. “These larger companies deputize their own client, positioning them like another employee of the company,” Phil compares.
There is more to the process than that, and Phil explains in greater detail exactly what his company delivers to clients. Unlike larger companies, a person answers the phone at The Hire Authority’s office. Before the pandemic, when Phil’s company was conducting approximately 1,000 background checks in a calendar month, a human being still answered the phone. That has not changed. Phil’s team of professionals work with HR directors and managers, business owners, and office managers, getting the necessary information about a potential employee, taking that information to conduct a complete background check—with the candidate’s full knowledge, from signed release authorization. “We offer specialized service and make it easier for our clients to use our services,” Phil states.
He elaborates on what specialized service means, when he points out that clients will often indicate that they are looking for specific information. For example, a candidate might have written on their application that they graduated from a particular university or college with a degree in X, but their background check shows that they did not attend that institution, nor did they earn the degree they claimed. Phil mentions that, for the longest time, 30% of job applicants had fraudulent information on their resume or job application. That number has now increased to 40%. This sobering, and disturbing, number is what encourages business owners to be careful about the hiring process, investing the time and money to properly vet a candidate.
Specialized service also encompasses follow-up and dedicated time spent discussing with a hiring client what was discovered about a candidate. “We set the expectations with our clients initially, and then discuss the results of the background check with them. How clients utilize that information is key,” Phil acknowledges. “That is really our expertise: Extracting information, but also being available to go over the results with people. The information needs some interpretation and understanding of what’s behind it. For example, is this something of note, given the distinct position that the person is applying to?”
Such conversations have been one hallmark of The Hire Authority for over 20 years. A by-product of this longevity as resulted in knowing the ins and outs, to the point of transparency, which clients benefit from.
Highlighting another bonus, Phil mentions that, while headquartered in the Greater Boston area, his company is capable of conducting background checks nationally. This point further substantiates that his services are as expansive as larger companies, yet his company still provides personalized service.
Technology plays a role in the quality of specialized service, as well. “The difference is how information is submitted to us. We have dedicated computers that deliver by encrypted email. Everything is secure here,” Phil states.
With sophisticated IT, involvement with and debriefing for the client, the information that Phil and his team need to get started is the job application and the resume, which serve as roadmaps for a thorough background check. “If there are issues, we notate it,” he observes.
One vertical where these documents are especially helpful includes the pharmaceutical industry. Often what is uncovered, is that the candidate worked for a placement agency, who contracted them to work at a specific, pharmaceutical company and their resume reads as though they worked directly for that company. By correcting how that information is presented, some applicants appreciate the clarification and will resubmit an accurate work history. “Candidates understand what is going on, so they are less resistant than they used to be. We still get some pushback, but I remind them that they have a right to see their background check. Some of them value that and see where there are discrepancies that need to be addressed,” Phil explains.
Where there is negative information on a background check, Phil encourages applicants to be upfront about it and that they can overcome it. In this way, even though a potential employer is paying for such discovery, the candidate benefits from it, too.
Finally, another particular that sets The Hire Authority apart, is that Phil and his team focus exclusively on conducting and delivering background checks. Larger companies offer this service, as well as other lines of business, such as payroll. Show producer Jonathan Freedman summarized it this way, “You and The Hire Authority are all about making this as painless as possible for your clients and for the applicants, as well, getting closure and getting people hired. Helping out business and helping out the individuals.”
It’s these differentiators that are the cornerstones of the quick and detailed specialized service that Phil and his company are known for.
#backgroundcheck #threebusinessdays #answerthephone #hrdirector #hrmanager #businessowner #officemanager #signedreleaseauthorization #fraudulentinformation #resume #jobapplication #fortypercent #hiringprocess #vetacandidate # followup #extractinginformation #hallmark #byproduct #transparency #nationally #technology #encryptedemail #roadmaps #pharmaceuticalindustry #workhistory #painlessaspossible
Why Employers Should Not Skip Out On Background Checks
As summer winds down, it is apparent that the employment marketplace continues to be in a state of flux. In the August segment on Radio Entrepreneurs, Phil Sharkey of The Hire Authority, Inc. spoke to Jonathan Freedman about the importance of background checks.
Phil has consistently discussed the benefit employers gain from spending a little bit of their bottom line to engage Phil and his team in conducting background checks on potential employees. There is no downside to making this kind of investment. However, the downside to not making this kind of investment can ‘bankrupt a small company and cause a larger company great harm,’ he notes.
In the past, Phil has remarked that 30% of all job applicants lie or offer fraudulent information about their experience or education, or deliberately omit mentioning a shady or criminal history. Now, astonishingly, this percentage has increased to 40%. This new statistic is seemingly counter to the existing job market, when so many employers are desperate to staff their businesses. With so many positions available, it’s strange that this many potential candidates feel the need to exaggerate when applying for a job. “I really urge all of my clients, all businesses, small to large, not to stop their due diligence, not to stop their best hiring practices. Forty percent of the people who sign a release and authorization are aware that a background check is going to be conducted,” Phil highlights.
The Hire Authority, Inc. facilitates between 500 and 2,000 employee background checks per month, and of this number, that amounts to between 200 and 400 candidates who knowingly promote themselves dishonestly and who are equally aware that their dishonesty is going to be uncovered.
While these numbers are shocking and discouraging, it points to an obvious truth: if someone lies on their way in the door, they are going to continue that pattern of behavior once hired. Before offering hard statistics that substantiate this notion, Phil paused to offer a reminder that he is not ‘big brother’ or attempting to spy on anyone. Rather, a background check will simply expose a potential employee’s history and assist an employer in their decision to hire.
The statistics Phil itemizes are noteworthy. Smart employers and hiring managers would be wise to take these numbers under advisement:
*Seventy-five percent (75%) of employees had stolen from their employer. Employee theft costs businesses $50 billion annually.
*59.1% of employees who commit thefts are male.
*In 2018, there were 2,790 injuries because of violence at work, with 453 workplace fatalities. Seventy-one percent (71%) were female, and of this, 64% were between 25 to 54 in age.
*From a July 15, 2021 report, an employee at a hotel chain in Connecticut committed larceny in the third degree.
*At a Philadelphia hotel, an employee was charged with aggravated assault, felony, possession of an instrument of crime, simple assault, reckless endangerment, conspiracy to intimidate, and was a witness in a burglary in criminal trespass.
These statistics underscore the advice that Phil gives to his clients: hire slow, fire quickly. Jonathan asked Phil why there is a rising number of employees offering fraudulent information about themselves on a job application. Phil responded that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a volatile society. The statistics he offered bear this out. “People just have to be honest. That’s what they don’t understand. It’s not the level of qualifications from my office. It’s honesty and integrity. An honest person goes a long way,” implored Phil. He further mentioned that employers are looking for qualifications, too, but they value honesty and integrity, just as much.
Even with the ‘ban the box’ in Massachusetts, which is removal of the criminal question on a job application, Phil states that employers still have the right to hire who they deem best for the job, and a background check gives them the necessary information to help them make that best decision.
Phil acknowledges that a candidate may have a dubious background, but if they own it and are upfront about it, that can work in their favor, by showing that they are not that person anymore. In either case, it’s the employer who makes the final hiring decision, and asking Phil to conduct a background check on a potential employee is a relatively inexpensive and painless process, one that can save the employer from a huge business loss in varying aspects down the road.
#employment #employmentmarketplace #jobmarket #backgroundchecks #fraudulentinformation #fortypercentlie #duediligence #employeetheft #violenceatwork #workplaceviolence #workplacefatalities #larceny #aggravatedassault #felony #possessionofaweapon #simpleassault #recklessendangerment #conspiracytointimidate #burglary #criminaltrespass #hireslowfirequickly #covid19 #honest
The Importance of Drug Screening For Employers
In his July segment with host Jeffrey Davis of Radio Entrepreneurs, Phil Sharkey took the time to elaborate on last month’s drug screening topic. The discussion focused on why it’s important for employers to avail themselves of this service when contemplating offering employment to a potential candidate.
Launching into the conversation without any hesitation, Phil explained why drug screening is important. “I get a lot of pushback from people. Though, obviously with tree cutters and drivers, they understand. We push for it for all employees. And the first reason I tell them is, according to the National Council of Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, more than 70% of those abusing illicit drugs are employed. I’m not coming down on them. I’m just saying we have a big problem here. A lot of people are using drugs and they’re working.”
Phil goes on to say that the same report points out that about 16% of employees live with a substance abuse disorder and of that number, 80% support their drug use by stealing from their employers. Prescription pain medication disorders have the highest rate among those in the service industry. Drawing attention to the statistics, Phil is quick to mention that he’s not ‘big brother’ or looking to spy on candidates. But he is looking to protect fellow businesses.
He continues by explaining the drug screening process and that he takes a hands-on approach by coordinating with the applicant, so they have direct access to him and can liaise with the patient service center. “They have three days to get to the testing center and have a urine analysis,” Phil says. He also mentions that this makes sense, because, “If a person is on drugs, we need to know about it right then.” Perhaps not surprisingly, 50% of all sign-ups miss their appointment and Phil explains why. “Unfortunately, we get a lot of people who flood their system with water, so it shows that it’s a ‘no test.’ A lot of people on drugs will flood their system with water in an attempt to mask the drugs.”
Phil explains the actual process, in detail, of what an applicant can expect when taking a drug screen test, including what happens when a test result comes back showing drug use. Phil pauses to say that he understands that some people are nervous or afraid of taking a drug test. “When there’s a result showing drug use, they have a chance to explain themselves to a medical review officer, an ‘MRO.’ There’s a list of ten barbiturates and other drugs, including marijuana and alcohol. Many people are on Xanax or on something for anxiety. Or, there’s a legal reason.” But he says that half the time that it gets to that level, the candidate doesn’t reach out to the MRO.
All of this happens within a three- to five-day turnaround to Phil’s clients. He adds that it’s a simple process, but a necessary process. “It’s not infringing if you want to work for a company. They need to know that you’re clear of drugs on that day,” Phil clarifies.
It’s noteworthy when Jeffrey asked about drug screening as being a violation of a person’s civil liberties. Phil answers by elaborating that candidates have the choice, if they feel that their rights are being encroached upon, they don’t have to work at that company. Additionally, Phil relates that he discusses this with his clients, reminding them that if the candidate is showing themselves to be this argumentative already, that’s an indication of future behavior.
Likening a drug screening test for employment, Phil responds in agreement to Jeff’s comment that when he was still living at home, he had to live by his parents’ house rules. “Employers need to know if you’re under the influence. And it does stay in your system for quite some time. Your weekend activities can affect your Monday morning performance,” Phil stresses.
One example of the lengths some candidates will go to, in an attempt to avoid a negative drug test result, is to smuggle in a urine sample previously taken that had been left in the car, in hot weather. The urine sample was 150 degrees.
Phil remarked that company owners are willing to uphold the same standards they expect of their employees; they will take a drug screening test, too. He draws a parallel by saying. “It’s a requirement of the job, just like you might need a certain degree or skill.”
To conclude, Phil illustrates a recent and local example of a candidate who had multiple charges against her for being under the influence of drugs and alcohol, while illegally operating a motor vehicle, as well as a history of several charges of larceny, criminal trespass, probation violation, and jail time. “This is a person who obviously has a drug problem, and you can see how it leads to other things. It leads to criminal trespass. It leads to theft. It leads to bad decisions. And I think there’s nothing against her civil liberty rights to have that checked out before,” underscores Phil.
For these reasons, for an employer to insist that a candidate take a drug screening test is not a violation of the candidate’s civil liberties. It’s more difficult to fire a candidate once they are hired, so for peace of mind and minimal financial investment, it’s worth it for an employer to recommend a drug screening test for all job applicants.
#drugscreening #illicitdrugs #bigproblem #substanceabusedisorder #stealing #serviceindustry #urineanalysis #medicalreviewofficer #MRO #barbiturates #marijuana #alcohol #anxiety #civilliberties #requirementofthejob #drugs #illegallyoperatingamotorvehicle #larceny #criminaltrespass #probationviolation #peaceofmind
How Employers Can Utilize A Drug Test When Hiring
As an expert on helping employers secure candidates with a solid track record, in this segment of Radio Entrepreneurs, with host Jonathan Freedman, Phil Sharkey, President of The Hire Authority, Inc., takes it one step further in this segment, to discuss how employers can utilize a drug test during the hiring process.
To start, Phil clarifies that he typically does not get involved with the applicant directly. Instead, he is hired by a company to research the validity of the applicant’s work history and uncover any facts regarding hidden, past criminal activity.
Conversely, when working with a company in their hiring process, he coordinates directly with the candidate. “We schedule their drug screening. We walk them through all of the problems that could arise such as drinking too much water or not drinking enough. They have three days to get a urinalysis done,” Phil says.
Drug testing is more immediately associated with jobs requiring driving, as well as more dangerous occupations, such as tree-cutting. However, Phil supports drug testing for any job, stating that it is not an encroachment on anyone’s rights. He works with those applicants who fall within the considerations of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). With his characteristic insight and posture not to make light of this, knowing that drug testing could be controversial, he offers some noteworthy statistics that underscore his philosophy.
Phil points out that we have issues in this country regarding drug dependency. Citing from the National Council of Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, “More than seventy percent of those who use illicit drugs are employed,” Phil quotes. Seventy percent is a huge number, jeopardizing the investment an employer makes in hiring an employee.
Continuing, Phil quotes from the National Safety Council when he says, “About sixty percent of employees live with a substance abuse disorder. Eighty percent of employees support their substance abuse problem by stealing from their employer. The highest rate of pain medication disorders is highest among workers in the service sector.” Phil pauses to explain that highlighting these statistics is not to disparage people with issues, but to mention that the first place workers go to support an addiction is to steal from their company.
From this, Jonathan responds that hiring applicants is a challenge in today’s market. In addition to hiring quality applicants, he asks Phil about reconciling entry-level vacancies with these figures, as well as factoring in legal marijuana use. Phil replies that, while there are over nine million people who are unemployed, there are eight million jobs available. He advises his clients to persevere, find, and hire drug-free candidates, because they do have the right to expect that their employees be clear-headed on the job, as all positions inherently require this. This principle applies to alcohol consumption, as well.
The word that comes up is ‘reasonable.’ For example, Phil specifies, if or when an employee is under the influence of alcohol or marijuana, the employer has the right to tell the employee that they cannot be in the office that day. Employers have the right to expect lucid employees.
Asking for real-life examples, Jonathan wonders what kind of stories Phil has seen in the last two years or so, especially since marijuana was legalized. Before sharing any specifics, Phil reminds listeners that a candidate is told ahead of time that part of the hiring process includes a drug test. When they conceal that they use drugs, a reasonable person concludes that they are not honest. “When candidates tell me that they only use on their own time and using doesn’t impair their abilities, I remind them that they have three or four days to prepare for the drug test, and their abilities were impaired in preparing,” he retorts. This seemingly small thing speaks largely to a candidate’s inability to be honest.
This dubious behavior adds up, too. Phil shares that, in one year, before the COVID-19 shutdown, $81 billion was spent by employers on people with substance abuse problems in the workplace. “It added up to absenteeism, healthcare costs, and lack of productivity. So, when we talk about people who don’t have the wherewithal to be clean on their drug screening, because they’re on a substance, it just doesn’t work,” he concludes.
The ten-panel drug screening includes testing for amphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, methadone, opiates, among a few others. “It’s not just marijuana that comes up in a drug screening test, either. Many times, it’s another substance. The statistics bear this out,” Phil says.
Before closing, Phil emphasizes that one of the most important components of the hiring process is dialogue. He laments that it’s lacking today and indicates that it creates a compromised hiring scenario. Instead, he says that if a candidate is upfront about weekend use or has a medical marijuana card, he can relay that fact to an employer, which gives the hiring manager the opportunity to make an informed decision of whether or not to pursue that candidate.
It’s for these due diligence reasons and the condition of the job market how employers can utilize a drug test and why many employers rely on The Hire Authority, Inc. for screening, and ultimately looking for, reliable and quality candidates.
#drugtest #criminalactivity #urinalysis #dangerousoccupatin #ada #americanswithdisabilitiesact #illicitdrugs #substanceabusedisorder #servicesector #entrylevel #legalmarijuanause #reasonable #absenteeism #healthcarecosts #lackofproductivity #tenpaneldrugscreening #dialogue #medicalmarijuanacard #informeddecision #duediligence #jobmarket #qualitycandidates
Different Types of Criminal Searches and What They Surface
Phil’s May appearance on Radio Entrepreneurs took a closer look at what is involved in a criminal background check and what is uncovered. Host Jonathan Freedman showed his surprise at the findings Phil shared. Before delving into the details, Phil reminded listeners that his job and that of his company, is not to play the role of ‘big brother,’ but instead, his assignment is to be a fact-finder. This is what his clients, who are business owners and employers, hire him and his staff to do on their behalf, as 30% of all job applicants have falsified something on their resume, even if that includes omitting information.
Phil points out that it’s an acceded fact that a candidate who lies on their resume is going to lie to the employer who hired them, too. “I’m on the integrity side of what a person says,” he asserts. Transitioning to the type of calls and requests he receives, Phil says that criminal checks are most frequently conducted. These are a part of a full background check, but sometimes all that an employer needs is just the criminal part of a background check.
Further articulating what a criminal record search entails and why it’s important, the first point that Phil brings out is that a criminal record catalogues a person’s full criminal history. Phil said that some applicants take exception to that, maintaining that it’s an invasion of privacy, but he is clear in his reply that a criminal record is a public record. His position is one of due diligence for an employment situation, and he needs a reason to look at an applicant’s history. “I need a signed release and authorization. Even though it’s a public document, I need their consent.” Responding to an example Jonathan inquired about, Phil said that an employer has the right to do their due diligence on a candidate’s background, and this becomes ever more important when the job requires the employee to use a company vehicle. Handing over a $40,000.00 asset to someone whose record is suspect is a huge risk.
A segue from risk to protection, Phil pointed out that it’s not enough for someone to give verbal consent to a background check; it must be in writing. This, he stated, is a protection for the employer, the candidate, and for himself. It’s a law-abiding measure with no shortcuts.
Next, Phil addressed the question of a national background check. The Hire Authority, Inc. works with clients from all over the United States, but for a complete background check, Phil doesn’t work with the FBI or the CIA. Instead, he conducts a database search, for which he cautions his clients, is sometimes inconclusive and inconsistent with the information that surfaces. What he’s really looking for, is confirmation of a person’s name, date of birth, and social security number.
Another check Phil facilitates, is looking at the address history of a candidate, reminding his clients that it’s not necessarily where the candidate is now, but where they’ve been. Simply asking a candidate for their address history gives them the opportunity to conceal unsavory information about what they’ve done elsewhere, which might disqualify them from being offered a position.
The discussion continues about how to handle a situation where a candidate is looking for a job, but their background is questionable. Phil underscores this with a balanced view: the candidate needs to own it and if they have the qualifications and personality for the job, that’s something to work with. “We still have to use good judgment. For example, if someone has several DUIs, they are not a good candidate for operating equipment,” he illustrates.
The overall judging process, he highlights, comes down to what the employer can live with, once the right questions are asked about the responsibility a candidate has taken to improve their desirability and if their story makes sense. Drug dealing, stealing, and other fraudulent behavior are the top results in a search that give an employer a reason to be very careful when offering employment.
CORI (criminal offender record index) checks are used to conduct a state search for an applicant in Massachusetts, though other states have their own state-wide system for cataloging criminal activity, and some states only allow for county criminal searches.
To conclude, Phil shares the story of Yahoo! CEO Scott Thompson, who falsified his education records, claiming he had a degree in accounting and in computer science. “The $40.00 background checked revealed that he never took a computer course in college,” Phil shared. A Yahoo! shareholder commented that this falsified record ‘undermines his credibility and reflects poorly on the character of our CEO.’ The point is, powerful, publicly-traded companies and high-ranking positions are not exempt, either, from the necessity of a thorough background and criminal check.
#criminalbackgroundcheck #bigbrother #factfinder #businessowners #employers #jobapplicants #candidate #fullbackgroundcheck #criminalrecord #criminalhistory #invastionofprivacy #publicrecord #duediligence #risk #protection #socialsecuritynumber #addresshistory #duis #fraudulentbehavior #cori #credibility
Industries That Have The Most Common Need For Job Screening
In this segment, Phil starts off by commenting that one thing that has not changed in the year-plus since the pandemic, is the percentage of job applicants who falsify their employment records and history. This figure remains at 30%.
Phil states that in any job, integrity is what matters. Honesty is what should be vetted, because if a candidate (political or otherwise) is not honest about their qualifications, with the right background check, a fraudulent past is easy to uncover.
Regarding this month’s topic, the list of industries that need to prioritize job screening starts with placement companies, consultancies, and temporary firms. Before this vertical topped the list, Phil reflects on the fact that, about ten years ago, placement organizations did not want to use his services in an effort to reduce their costs (and maintain their commissions) and avoid offending the candidate. He mentions that this has now changed, because companies have realized too late, they had hired a high-ranking person, who was not whom they claimed to be. Such dishonesty brings with it severe, financial ramifications if and when things go awry. Law firms are a big client for the Hire Authority, Inc., as well, for similar reasons.
Another big client is the trucking industry. Specifically, a driving record is critical in a background check. One dishonest candidate could disrupt the distribution channel if it’s found out that they have multiple driving offenses in different states. Jeff Davis, the host of Radio Entrepreneurs, highlighted the possibility of such a person transporting and distributing illegal drugs on the job. Nodding in agreement, Phil replied that he has seen it happen many times where large companies do not make it a priority to screen candidates…until there is a problem. He counters by saying that the one person whom a company doesn’t screen, is the one who can cause great harm to that company. He admonishes his clients not to lower their standards and risk real issues and expenses later.
“What about drug and alcohol screening? Can you do that?” Jeff asks. Phil says that he can, but it is a matter of delicacy where these are not illegal substances. “But, when I pull up a driving record and see that a candidate has three DUIs in six years, it’s a problem,” Phil illustrates. He further comments that he doesn’t want to sound harsh, because people do have addictions, but the employer should not want that on their dime. “It’s a ticking bomb situation,” Phil asserts.
Foodservice and hospitality verticals were hard-hit by the pandemic and it’s just starting to open up. “They must still do their due diligence and protect themselves. We have a client, Wahlburgers, who is opening up a new location at the MGM Grand in Springfield and they are taking the time to do a thorough background check. It’s so representative of their brand and their name, they can’t let it slide.” To further illustrate how a client should view the time and investment of conducting a background check, Phil categorizes it as a business expense as important as providing a uniform for an employee or paying for their training.
As with each Radio Entrepreneurs segment, Phil closes by providing a real-life example. James Peterson, CEO of Microsemi Corporation, from 2000 to the present, claimed to have a diploma from Brigham Young University. This was promoted in company press releases, though it was discovered that he had only one year of education from that institution. While he did not lose his job, he had to pay a $100,000.00 fine and forgo a six-figure bonus. For a $30.00 background check, the company could have saved itself a lot of embarrassment. “Here is what can happen to a company or brand if you don’t do the most minimal of this type of background check,” Phil concludes.
Phil reminds employers that they do have options and do not have to accept lying behavior from candidates. For a quick turnaround time of two or three days, a company can be spared a potential bankruptcy by avoiding hiring a dishonest person.
For more information about job screening, Phil can be reached at psharkey@hireauth.com or by calling (508)230-5901.
#employentrecords #thirtypercent #integrity #honesty #candidate #qualifications #fraudulentpast #jobscreening #placementcompanies #consultantcies #temporaryfirms #lawfirms #truckingindustry #drivingrecord #duis #tickingbomb #foodservice #hospitality #wahlburgers #brand #businessexpense #providingauniform #payingfortraining #lyingbehavior
Understanding What Comes With a Full Background Screening – Friday, February 12, 2021
In this February segment, Phil talks with Jonathan Freedman of Radio Entrepreneurs about what to expect from a full background check and addresses some common misconceptions. One of the first things he points out, is that it’s not necessary for employers to spend money for a background check on every candidate who walks through the door. Instead, he recommends that employers wait until they’ve narrowed the candidate pool down to two or three who are best suited for the job. By way of reminder, Phil tells listeners it’s common, that of all background checks, 30% reveal that potential job applicants promote fraudulent information. However, Phil states that, more importantly, when checks are clean, this gives the employer an opportunity to take an objective look at which candidate is best for the position.
Before discussing what’s involved in a complete background check, Phil mentions that the candidate must assent and sign a release form. This particular procedure saves the employer money; the candidate with a shady past will excuse themselves from the hiring process. Phil reassures listeners, though, that these protocols are not out to harm anyone. It’s only those scammers who look an employer in the eye and come across as ‘golden,’ who will take their leave, when they know that no shenanigans will be tolerated.
Next, Phil outlines the various degrees of a background check. Some consist strictly of a criminal check and some are much more comprehensive. The former is typically used for lower-level jobs and the latter applies to positions of much greater responsibility.
- First, Phil starts with a Social Security number verification, called a ‘skip trace.’ This is intended to make sure that the candidate legitimately has his or her own Social Security number.
- Second, he looks at the seven- to ten-year address history. Phil says that this is important because someone who has a record in another state isn’t going to be quick to divulge that during the application process. It’s in this area of discovery when duplicitous issues surface.
- Third, educational background is important, especially today, when it’s easy to print a legitimate-looking diploma and pass it off as authentic.
- Fourth, employment history verification of five to ten years. In this specific area, Phil says that his company’s services are better than what larger companies offer because only his senior level staff conduct these searches. They speak directly to Human Resources and supervisors, the last of these who will talk and what they say has great determining value.
- Fifth, criminal background checks are conducted by county, state, federal, and national parameters. Phil relays the stark reality that there are a lot of criminals out there. “They still need jobs,” he allows, “But, it’s when they check off that they’ve never been convicted of a felony on their job application, now they’re a criminal and a liar. The point is, it’s people who falsify.”
- Next, sex offender registries, local and national. Phil underscores the importance of this check, stating how serious it is, without getting into any unsavory detail.
- Lastly, driving records. Phil says it’s common for that check to be questioned as a requirement for an office job, but he rightly justifies it by saying that of all driving records, it is revealed that 10% of all candidates do not have a driver’s license. Therefore, a candidate like that is breaking the law every day by driving, and if they’re caught, they won’t be in to work and their car will be impounded. And, crucially, if they can’t keep their driver’s license in order, a responsible employer will wonder how this person can effectively service clients and do the job they were hired to do. Phil says that this is a huge indicator. And, because this is a national search, a DWI in California will surface in Massachusetts.
Jonathan asks Phil to provide context with how long it takes to complete a search from start to finish. Phil highlights that his company provides the best service regarding search completion; it only takes his staff two or three days to conduct a complete background check. Part of the reason his company can expedite this procedure and prioritize as quickly as it does is because, as Phil recognizes, it’s a competitive world and his client (the employer) doesn’t want to lose a good candidate, especially in these COVID times and because, depending on the position, the client could be losing money with a vacant position.
“Great information late, is useless,” Phil concludes. Larger companies who conduct background checks typically delay in getting information back to their clients by a week, and for the reasons previously stated, clients can’t wait that long. “It can be done in two or three days, so if it’s taking longer,” Phil says, “It’s because the company doesn’t care, or is too big, or they are too busy.” Jonathan summarizes these points by saying that the timeliness, as well as thoroughness, is where the value is for the client, which Phil affirms.
Per his custom within each segment, Phil offers a story relating to the world of finance. Wall Street analyst, Jack Rudman, was making $20 million a year, though he never graduated from MIT, as he claimed. He was a graduate of Boston University—still a great school—but he had been telling everyone that he was an MIT grad. When questioned, Rudman said that he felt ‘very insecure’ about his educational background. Phil counters this excuse by saying that one lie leads to another lie, leads to another lie, and he would be hesitant to allow such an individual to invest for him. Phil concludes this story, stating that people like this believe their own lies and, incredibly, could possibly pass a lie detector test.
The segment ends with Phil reminding listeners that real human beings answer the phone at his office and that clients can reach out directly to him via email at psharkey@hireauth.com.
#backgroundcheck #commonmisconceptions #employers #candidates #candidatepool #jobapplicants #fraudulentinformation #releaseform #noshenanigans #socialsecuritynumberverification #skiptrace #seventotenyearaddresshistory #educationalbackground #employmenthistoryverification #humanresources #supervisors #criminalbackgroundchecks #countystatefederalnational #felony #criminal #liar #sexoffender #drivingrecords #nationalsearch #twoorthreedays #COVID #valuefortheclient #liedetectortest
Why Background Checks Are More Important Than Ever
Sheriff Sharkey, so named by Jeffrey Davis of Radio Entrepreneurs, begins his report by expressing the anxiety that this global pandemic has thrust upon everyone, and in particular, employers. Striving to get and keep people working, employers are in a rush to maintain momentum; but, in many cases, have pushed screening to the side. He urges companies to see the value of conducting background checks, because so many prospective employees are fraudulent in the information they promote about themselves, and the effect has detrimental consequences for the employer and the employee.
One surprising statistic that Phil shares, is that 75% of companies have hired the wrong person for the position. To underscore the severity of this, 38% of job applicants have admitted that they lied on their job application. He points out that these statistics are different from ‘resume boosting,’ where a potential employee might embellish a job responsibility that they did have. Instead, he states that these statistics reflect flat-out lying. He pronounces that this is unacceptable, because it results in companies that are made up of liars.
Jeff counters these statements by positing that lying is part of our culture, using the recent election as an example, where both parties published information that is difficult to accept as truth. Even if this is true that lying is a normal part of our culture, Jeff inserted, he was clear that these actions are not justified. Phil agreed and replied that it would be better if people abandoned the notion that the rules don’t apply to them and instead, pursued honesty as an honorable characteristic. Unfortunately, if you can get away with it, that seems to be the mantra, Phil summarizes.
Services like those offered by The Hire Authority, Inc., where fact-checking a potential employee’s background, is an important measure of which employers should avail themselves. Doing so exposes a job applicant who lies on their resume, their biography, or job application. Phil brings out that the risk/reward analysis is critical to employers. For instance, if the company needs drivers or accountants, the risk that someone with a terrible driving record is going to crash your company vehicle or an accountant makes a decision that could implode the company’s balance sheet, respectively, these are examples when the risk is undeniable. Conversely, with some time and minimal amount of money spent on a background check, past misdeeds will be revealed, as well as a person’s level of expertise, based on their professional history.
With more statistics to prove this point, Phil says that more than 60% claim mastery of skill sets, when they really had no skills at all, in a given area. He also shared that many applicants lie about how long they were employed at a company, mentioning the large discrepancy between the years they claim versus the months they can claim. Another falsehood employees promote is their title. Phil says it happens frequently and finds out from the former employer that someone else held that position, not the job applicant in question. He also reveals statistics regarding education, where an applicant will lie about having attended or graduated from a prestigious university.
What Phil takes exception to, is how many employers minimize these lies or are completely dismissive. For Phil, he believes – with good reason – that if an applicant lies, is found out, and is still offered the position, he is never surprised when the employer later regrets hiring that person. However large or small the position they are entrusted with, the lying will be a problem later.
Again, these are over false claims that an applicant has promoted about themselves, not information uncovered from their social media platforms.
The most incredulous story that Phil shares is about Mina Chang, who worked for the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilizations Operations and among other, numerous fraudulent information on her resume, claimed she had been on the cover of Time® Magazine. She was fired in November of 2019.
Phil mentions that The Hire Authority, Inc. partners with search firms, who value the background checking services he offers, as it makes their job easier and puts them in a position of honesty with their clients, who are the hiring companies.
Jeff commented that lying behavior is endemic to the hiring process. Phil concurs and points out that employees are a company’s biggest expense and most important value-add. One bad hire can cost a company an average of $17,000.00. This is especially risky when the company is small, or the position is a powerful one. Both can destroy a company. Yet, a quick, simple, and thorough background check can help companies avoid hiring a liar, whose pathological behavior will always be detrimental to the employer.
#backgroundcheck #screening #liar #resumeboosting #lyingonaresume #fraudulentclaims #hiringcompany #honesty #backgroundcheckingservices #jobapplicant #biography #masteryofskills
Why Employers Should Be Considering Driving Records Pre-Hire
In this segment, Phil highlights the importance and insight that reviewing an applicant’s driving record provides in the hiring process. While it might appear that a look into one’s driving record might seem like an invasion of privacy or inconsequential, it is a huge insight into the hiring decision for positions in the Department of Transportation (DOT) and trucking industry.
He also states that a driving record review is conducted for all job applicants for any job function. Why? A minimum of ten percent of all driving records come back with a report of a suspended driver’s license, and while a potential employer might argue that the job position does not require any driving, Phil’s accurate and prudent reply is that the applicant is driving to and from the job interview – onto company property – with a suspended license.
In the interview, Jeff asks Phil to qualify the passage of time, wondering how harshly Phil considers if the applicant had a speeding ticket a few years ago. Phil replies that, yes, that is factored in. However, he articulates further, that he considers the time period and the job position, too. For example, a salesperson might have more speeding violations than an office employee, and he says that we all likely have something similar on our record; but, what really jumps out, is an applicant who has a suspended license for months or years, with pages and pages of a bad driving history.
Phil cites a powerful statistic from the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) that the average company, not a trucking company, loses $74,000.00 per accident on an employee who has an on-the-job crash or accident, with an injury. When Phil sees that an applicant has several of these ‘accidents’ on their record, Phil makes certain to impress upon the hiring company to carefully consider if the applicant is worth this steep financial risk.
From Automotive Fleet magazine, Phil quotes, “Fifty-six billion dollars, employee accidents cost employers in 2017. It’s a big number, and to me, business is all about mitigating risk.”
Phil pauses to point out that surchargeable accidents do happen, but that’s different from someone with a record who is a ‘menace behind the wheel.’ Within the trucking industry, in 2017, a total of 4,761 people died as a result of crashes involving large trucks on American roads. This breaks down to one person every two hours, he says.
Jeff mentions the trend that large companies such as Amazon are eager to hire drivers and willingly pay double or triple the usual rate because of current economic circumstances. But, as Jeff queries, what about smaller businesses, who are keeping a close watch on the bottom line, but need drivers and cannot find qualified applicants? Phil concurs that this is a predicament, because unemployment insurance has made it advantageous for employees to stay home and collect. He believes that there are plenty of employees with safe driving records, who would appreciate the opportunity to work, which is contrary to an employee with a lengthy, poor driving record. Rather, this latter description shows that it’s who they are and that a background check on such a potential employee is worth the money spent by a hiring company before—not after—making a hiring decision.
#drivingrecord #DepartmentofTransportation #DOT #truckingindustry #suspendeddriverslicense #speedingticket #speedingviolation #baddrivinghistory #OccupationalSafetyandHealthAssociation #OSHA #onthejobcrash #onthejobaccident #menacebehindthewheel #unemploymentinsurance #safedrivingrecord
Different Types of Criminal Searches with Phil Sharkey of The Hire Authority, Inc.
In July’s segment on Radio Entrepreneurs, host Jeffrey Davis asked Phil Sharkey, President of The Hire Authority, Inc., to expand on the different types of thorough background checks. Phil took the opportunity to highlight one important component of a background check: criminal record researching.
Criminal record researching is but one of ten different checks within a thorough background check and it’s in this particular area where 33% of fraudulent information is captured. Phil pointed out that sometimes employers and clients only want a criminal check, not the full background details on a potential employee. Information on an applicant, or anyone, is public record, and the staff at The Hire Authority, Inc. regularly contacts Middlesex Superior Court or Natick-Framingham District Court for a person’s history.
Phil brought out that, even though criminal records are public information, there has to be a reason for a criminal check, such as pre- or post-employment purposes, tenancy issues, or because of other special circumstances, and the employer needs due diligence. There are some protocols, though, which must be carried out, prior to investigating a person’s potentially implicating background. A signed release and authorization, protecting the employer, The Hire Authority, Inc., and even the person whose background is being researched, must be circulated among the parties.
A criminal records search starts in a national database search, called ‘COPS’, which is an acronym for ‘Criminal Offender Profile Summary.’ This database shows any arrest or probation record, as well as newspaper articles. The database is useful, when the information stored on it is complete. Most states, but not others, record certain information and convictions, and Phil said he makes certain to clarify this to clients. Sometimes, Phil mentioned, when there is some dubious information captured, it raises the alert and he will suggest to his client that a more thorough background check is advisable.
For the best criminal search, a statewide criminal search on an applicant yields the most telling results. However, some states do not make it easy to conduct an investigation. For example, five states that make it difficult to access this public information include Alaska, California, Louisiana, Ohio, and Wyoming. Each state requests a fingerprint card from the employer, knowing that employers do not have these identification cards. Also, many states, like New Hampshire, require a signed notarized release, before obtaining results from an applicant’s criminal record. This release has to be mailed to Phil, who then has to mail it to the police; none of this is conducive to a timely hiring process.
The CORI (Criminal Offender Record Index) system is the standard tool used in criminal background checks in Massachusetts. Jeffrey immediately raised the question regarding the human rights issue, asking, “If I’m a criminal and I’ve paid my dues, why does this have to be public information? Is that the argument?” Phil responded, “Convictions and open cases only, in Massachusetts.” He stated that under former Governor Deval Patrick’s regime, he changed the CORI rules, with the goal of giving everyone multiple chances. He went on to explain that you could have an applicant with a half dozen assault and battery charges that had been dismissed, so the record comes back clear. “I had an example where the CORI check came back ‘clear’, but the district court showed assault and battery charges against the applicant.” Phil also pointed out that some charges are dropped, because the victim has to appear in court and face the defendant, and out of fear, doesn’t want to. Jeffrey next inquired about a marijuana conviction. Phil said it goes on someone’s criminal record, too…depending on the state.
Of all the different types of searches, county criminal searches are what Phil handles the most. “I can do a county search on anyone, anytime, across the country, coast to coast, in two to three business days.” This turnaround time does not adversely affect the timeliness of the recruiting process, either. “It has to be great information, but it has to be timely.”
To illustrate the discussion, Phil offered a ‘Superstar Liar True Story.’ A woman had applied for a job to drive seniors. He recommended to his client to look at where the applicant had been. The record revealed that ‘Shelly’ had been arrested in 2016 for driving an empty school bus, which was straddling two lanes, at a speed of 15 MPH, with flashers on. She was pulled over, seen to have had bloodshot eyes, and given a sobriety test, which showed she was three times over the legal limit of alcohol. There were also empty nips around the driver’s seat of the bus. If the criminal search had been restricted to Massachusetts, the CORI check would have been clear. The cautionary tale here, for employers, is to consider the benefits of a national and county criminal background check on applicants.
Phil impressed the point that the overriding theme of this discussion, though, is not about invading someone’s privacy. Instead, it’s about an employer who wants to make an informed decision, with all of the information, before hiring an applicant and handing over the office keys to someone who perhaps has a criminal record.
#criminalbackgroundchecks #criminalrecord #investigation #nationaldatabase #publicrecord #countyrecords #districtcourt #superiorcourt #COPS #CORI #applicant #employer #publicinformation #staterecords
Staffing vs Screening: Differences & Benefits of Having Both, with Phil Sharkey of The Hire Authority, Inc.
In this month’s segment on Radio Entrepreneurs, Phil Sharkey, President of The Hire Authority, Inc., shared with Jeffrey Davis, the host of the show, the differences between a staffing company and a screening company.
To be clear, a staffing company liaises between the hiring company and the candidate. A rapport is built between the staffing company and their client company, as well as the candidate. The difference with a screening company is that the relationship is only with the hiring company, and there’s no connection to the candidate.
As Phil pointed out, “When you like someone, how much are you going to dig into their background, to find out the truth and who they really are?” In the past, recruiting companies had told Phil and his associates to stand down and larger companies insisted they would conduct their own background checks. “Now, recruiting companies are clients of ours,” he said, largely because there have been issues with candidates, for a lack of screening. It’s a huge expense for the staffing agency and the hiring company seeking a candidate, when falsified information is uncovered.
“We enjoy being the bad guys,” he expressed, saying that it’s no matter for him or his associates to report back something problematic to the staffing agency. By being the party to convey any negative information to his client about a potential candidate, the relationship between the staffing agency and the hiring company is preserved.
Commenting as before, that 33% of all job applicants knowingly submit untrue information when applying for a position, of that statistic, lower-ranking positions more frequently report back negative information on background checks. However, one reason for this, Phil attributes, is that for candidates seeking higher-ranking positions, often the concern is ruffling feathers and avoiding conducting a background check. A candidate who assumes a C-suite level position impacts the selling or brand of a product. Phil emphasized that it’s a gigantic problem when past dishonesty comes to light about one holding such a powerful position.
To illustrate this point and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Phil shared one surprising story regarding a candidate who Tweeted misinformation about himself and cost the government $69 million! For all of the unsavory details, please watch the video….
Phil concluded his remarks by reminding all employers to be cautious and slow about hiring candidates, and reminding them that for the cost of a thorough background check, the protection is well worth it.
Famous LIARS… And How They Could Have Been Caught
In this latest discussion on Radio Entrepreneurs, with host Jeffrey Davis, Phil introduces the scintillating topic, “Famous LIARS….And How They Could Have Been Caught.”
By way of reminder, Phil points out that 33% of all background checks show fraudulent information from job applicants. The conversation suggests that this is a problem only among the general work population, but Phil introduces the idea that no vertical, entity, or organization is safe from those who lie their way to the top.
With spirited volleying from Jeff, Phil talks about a few different people; one with a high-ranking military position, another with a long-term, high-profile career at a prestigious and world-renowned learning institution, someone else who held a senior position within the federal government, an individual who claimed to be an orphan and rose to private sector greatness (and whose parents are both alive and well and living in Massachusetts), and an attorney-wannabe who lied to his law firm about having attended law school and passing the bar exam…while he worked for them as a legal assistant. This last story resulted in a hefty lawsuit, of course.
With Pinocchio making an appearance in the background, Phil and Jeff discuss the reality that, not only are local businesses affected, but liars know no limits when it comes to the credentials they fabricate to advance themselves and their careers.
Phil makes the dogmatic, and true, statement that, “Once a liar, always a liar.” In these examples, here, he points out that these entities did not even do a simple, Level 1 or Level 2 background check. If that had been done, it would have been easy to discover and trace back that the perpetrators had made false educational claims.
“The amount of money and positions these people held within these organizations and government entities is staggering,” Phil stated, highlighting, again, that a dishonest person who fraudulently passes on information about their credentials is not restricted to the local economy.
The conversation concluded with Phil reminding everyone that it’s important for employers to not let their guard down, especially in this changing economy. Employment is a delicate thing, and now, employers need to be aware, more than ever, who they are considering as a possible, and qualified, candidate.
Why Employers Hiring Virtual Employees Need To Be Careful
With the outbreak of COVID-19 a few weeks ago and its subsequent impact on all facets of society, including every facet of any type of employment, Phil Sharkey was invited by Radio Entrepreneurs to participate in a remote studio segment in March 2020, to discuss the new effects on employment that this insidious virus has created.
Prescreening is still a relevant and necessary practice among employers, especially employers in a wide range of verticals, who are hiring because of this crisis: medical personnel, as well as retail and supermarket employees, for example. Even though time is of the essence, it is worth an employer’s investment to take a thoughtful approach when hiring an applicant, to make sure that a potential employee’s background check is clean. The statistic that 30% of all job applicants submitting fraudulent information continues to rear its ugly head, and this knowledge should keep employers from rushing through the hiring process and making hasty decisions. He recommends that his clients insist job applicants show the necessary documentation: birth certificate, educational history, criminal records, and especially Social Security numbers. “Retention and recruiting prior to this crisis was important,” Phil states, “But, it’s still a concern for employers, because they don’t want to have to replace employees right now,” he emphasizes.
Also due to the COVID-19 virus and its government-mandated ‘essential workers only’ policy, many employees are working remotely. This can be a huge risk for employers. One example that Phil discusses is the theft of time from an employer. He tells the story of an employee who worked remotely, time-stamped her work, all of which all seemed above-board to the employer. The employer went to the grocery store and saw his employee working there as a cashier, while she was supposed to be on the clock for her office employer. Apart from the obvious deceit by the employee, this situation speaks to the need for a new way of managing employees remotely and keeping them accountable.
For virtual or remote work, IT considerations are also important. Phil raised the questions, “Is an employee using their own home computer? If so, how secure is it? They are representing your company and have access to your systems.” He emphasized that not all employees should be suspect, though; again, only the 30% he routinely sees supplying fraudulent information about themselves during the interview process. A statistic Phil shares is from Open VPN, stated that, “One in three organizations (36%) dealt with a security incident due to a fraudulent or unsecured remote worker.” And, he pointed out, these statistics might be conservative, too.
With the ‘new normal’ in the workforce impacting how employees count for their time and to ensure that remote IT security measures are in place, Phil recommends all the more that it’s worth an employer’s time and investment to have Hire Authority run a thorough background check.
On February 28, 2020, Phil Sharkey visited the Radio Entrepreneurs studios for another informative discussion about employee screening. In this segment, Phil highlighted the top ten facts of fraudulent practices and the resulting consequences experienced by hiring companies who do not conduct the proper screening procedures. For example, for fact #10, “seventy-five percent of employers say that they have hired the wrong person for the position.” That is a staggering number, and it is, no doubt, based on fraudulent information given to the employer by the new hire during the interview process.
While keeping the conversation lively, the severity of these astonishing statistics emphasizing the prevalence of deceitful information passed off by potential employees, sends the sobering message to employers and other custodians of a given company, the benefits of engaging the services of the Hire Authority, Inc. Phil and his team are skilled at finding out often-hidden and falsified information, saving clients’ time and money, by avoiding a bad hire.
Thanks to Radio Entrepreneurs for having Phil on the show. This lively discussion centered on the importance of background checks as a variable for employers to consider a candidate’s potential employment, ranging from falsified social security information and academic claims to hiding a criminal record. Under the law, employers have rights, as well, and Phil highlights that, while a candidate might interview favorably with an employer, their record may show a highly questionable and different story.
The Law, Your Money… and You!
In this November 2019 interview with The Law, Your Money… and You!, Phil joined Camille Barron and Roberta Saphire and shared the particulars of how his service works on behalf of his clients and the benefits his clients receive by partnering with the Hire Authority. For example, while he is hired to conduct a thorough background check on a potential employee, he highlighted that his responsibility to his client is to present his fact-findings, only. He does not recommend one way or the other if the employer should extend an offer of employment; the ultimate decision to hire lies with the employer.
One of the questions posited by Attorney Barron is if the Hire Authority is responsible for reporting incriminating information to the authorities. While not required to do that, occasionally Phil will receive a phone call from an applicant who contests the information, and those conversations require careful finessing.
During the interview, Phil shared a humorous story that when he has called houses of worship for a reference on behalf of a Priest or Rabbi, the person he’s calling at the former parish sometimes replies with an incredulous tone that the ‘Hire Authority’ is calling!
Apart from the comprehensive and thorough services his company offers his clients, Phil commented on what sets apart his company from larger competitors. First, his staff are all senior-level people and, second, his national company does not experience frequent turnover. These two key factors benefit his clients long-term and, as a result, his clients come to rely on and develop trust in the integrity the Hire Authority is known for.