It is not unusual at all for a job applicant to blag their way in an interview hoping that they will eventually learn the ropes and not get cought. Sometimes it works, other times it can blow up in their face. Below is an interesting article from the Guardian which highlights how an employer can get cought out if their referencing process is not up to scratch...
___________________________________________________
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 June 2009 10.37
by Harriet Marsh
Nick is a teacher at an English language school in Tokyo. Nick is also deceiving his employers. On his arrival in Japan eight years ago he obtained what he expected to be a temporary job teaching English by claiming he had a degree from Oxford University. He backed up the claim with a false degree certificate obtained in Bangkok.
In reality Nick has one A level and no degree. He fabricated a university career because he felt that it would dramatically increase his chances of employment. He was right and Nick has no plans to return to the UK. Backed by his bogus qualification he is now, after eight years, the longest serving foreign teacher in his school.
Yet he admits it can be hard to live the lie. "Several years ago the school hand-picked me to accompany a group of students to Oxford on the basis that I knew the city well because I had spent three years studying there. In reality I had been there once for the weekend to visit some friends. Yet I had to maintain the charade: to come clean now would be unthinkable," he says.
Getting a job can be highly stressful and candidates feel pressure to enhance their achievements to present themselves in the most favourable light.
In their book Deception in Selection, Liz Walley and Mike Smith suggest that, in such circumstances, people are pushed to deception in the belief that "everyone else is doing it".
Certainly lying on CVs is on the increase. Surveys suggest as many as a quarter of job seekers deviate from the truth on their CV. The common distortions include bogus or exaggerated qualifications, changing the dates of employment to hide career gaps and exaggerating the pay received in a previous job.
Every job-hunter faces the challenge of presenting their qualifications and past experience with as positive a gloss as possible. So just where does harmless exaggeration end and outright deception begin? It is a difficult question to answer, just as it is hard to define what are company perks and what is simple theft.
While exaggeration is widespread and generally accepted, it is unwise to resort to outright lies. This is not merely moral advice, it is also expedient. Outright lies such as qualifications or invented jobs will work against you.
At best, the cost of lying to future employers is the embarrassment of being found out. At worst, it can cost you the job. Under the terms of the contract of employment, prospective employees are required to tell the truth.
A CV acts as a personal history form and if a job offer is made on the basis of information contained in a CV that the employer believes to be correct, then the employer is legally entitled to withdraw the job offer if they discover the CV contains false information.
Take the example of a young man recently employed by a major household goods manufacturing company, who discovered this the hard way.
He joined the company claiming his previous salary to be 25% higher than it actually was. Yet when the payroll system processed the tax details from his former employer the deceit was uncovered. Four hours after arriving at his desk he was marched from the building.
In Deception in Selection, Walley and Smith put forward the theory that job candidates often fabricate an element of their CV in the belief that it will only be a short-term measure. Yet, if not discovered early on, they find it hard to turn back the clock and escape their deception.
Showing posts with label cv fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cv fraud. Show all posts
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
CV Liers can get prison time
It is not unusual for job applicants to turn their CV into a document of complete fiction. What most of them don't realise is that this little bit of marketing chicanery is a criminal offense that can land them in pretty hot water. Most recently a senior NHS manager was given a criminal record for lying on his CV. The article below was originally published in personneltoday.com. Read on...
_______________________________________________________
Suspended sentence for NHS manager who lied on his CV
Louisa Peacock 22 March 2010 16:18
A senior NHS manager who lied on his CV has been given a 12-month suspended prison sentence and told to carry out 200 hours of unpaid community work.
Hasan Tahsin, former head of estates and capital projects at Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, made fraudulent claims about his qualifications and memberships of professional bodies when he applied to several posts at five NHS trusts between March 2004 and March 2009. The skills required, including project management and estates management, were essential for each position.
Tahsin was discovered following an audit of senior managers' qualifications for the trust. He was arrested and interviewed by the NHS Counter-Fraud Service in May 2009, when he admitted he had lied to get the jobs - which fraudulently earned him £245,246 during five years.
Tahsin, 54, of Chadwell Heath in Romford, Essex, held responsible positions within the NHS dating back to 1990.
Investigating officer Alan McGill, of the NHS Counter-Fraud Service, said: "It is regrettable that Tahsin managed to secure senior management posts within the NHS for so long. Such deceptions are the exception and the vast majority of NHS staff are of high integrity.
"This case demonstrates that when suspicions of fraud are brought to the attention of the NHS Counter-Fraud Service, we will thoroughly investigate and, where fraud is found, will seek to prosecute."
The case follows that of senior NHS HR manager Kerrie Devine, of Lympstone, Devon, who lied on her CV by claiming she held a degree in HR management and was part way through a CIPD course. Devine was given a six-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay £9,600 in compensation.
_______________________________________________________
Suspended sentence for NHS manager who lied on his CV
Louisa Peacock 22 March 2010 16:18
A senior NHS manager who lied on his CV has been given a 12-month suspended prison sentence and told to carry out 200 hours of unpaid community work.
Hasan Tahsin, former head of estates and capital projects at Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, made fraudulent claims about his qualifications and memberships of professional bodies when he applied to several posts at five NHS trusts between March 2004 and March 2009. The skills required, including project management and estates management, were essential for each position.
Tahsin was discovered following an audit of senior managers' qualifications for the trust. He was arrested and interviewed by the NHS Counter-Fraud Service in May 2009, when he admitted he had lied to get the jobs - which fraudulently earned him £245,246 during five years.
Tahsin, 54, of Chadwell Heath in Romford, Essex, held responsible positions within the NHS dating back to 1990.
Investigating officer Alan McGill, of the NHS Counter-Fraud Service, said: "It is regrettable that Tahsin managed to secure senior management posts within the NHS for so long. Such deceptions are the exception and the vast majority of NHS staff are of high integrity.
"This case demonstrates that when suspicions of fraud are brought to the attention of the NHS Counter-Fraud Service, we will thoroughly investigate and, where fraud is found, will seek to prosecute."
The case follows that of senior NHS HR manager Kerrie Devine, of Lympstone, Devon, who lied on her CV by claiming she held a degree in HR management and was part way through a CIPD course. Devine was given a six-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay £9,600 in compensation.
Monday, 22 February 2010
2009 Fraud Trends - CIFAS publishes its report for last year
As always, CIFAS is giving us food for thought in their annual publication of Fraud Trends. On 1 March 2010,CIFAS will publish Fraudscape 2010: Depicting the UK's Fraud Landscape. This report will look, in depth, at all of the frauds filed by CIFAS Members in 2009 and examine the reasons behind these fraud trends. The report will be available on the CIFAS website and in hard copy. Read on...
____________________________________________________
Fraud continues to demonstrate impact of the recession
The analysis of fraud trends during 2009 by CIFAS - The UK's Fraud Prevention Service - reveals a 9% increase in the overall level of fraud, when compared with the previous year. This rise has been driven by some particular factors, most notably:
the unwelcome return of identity fraud which has led to a 31% escalation in the numbers of victims of fraud
a 55% increase in false insurance claims and a change in the nature of them as the effects of the recession intensify
the relentless rise in facility takeover and misuse of facility frauds.
(Numerical tables are included in the Notes for Editors below).
32% surge in identity fraud
CIFAS commented in October 2009 (in The Anonymous Attacker) on the reappearance of identity fraud (the use of a stolen or false identity to obtain goods or services by deception). This increase has continued; up 32% in 2009 from the level recorded in 2008. This rise has a direct link to the recession. Fraudsters have seen the reduction in the overall amount of lending taking place during 2009, discouraging many from attempting to commit application fraud (e.g. the use of lies and forged documents in an attempt to obtain products or services). This has led to a 25% reduction in application fraud but has meant that they have returned to stealing the identities of others in order to gain products and services.
Protective Registration (a service provided by CIFAS to help protect individuals at heightened risk of identity fraud) increased by 241% year on year. This is attributable both to a developing awareness among individuals of the threat of identity fraud and how it is perpetrated, and to the growing use of the service by organisations to protect the identities of those whose details have been put at risk as a result of a data breach.
Over 25,000 more victims in 2009
With over 85,000 victims of impersonation, and 24,000 victims of takeover (whose accounts have been hijacked by fraudsters) recorded in 2009 (increases of 35% and 16% respectively on 2008 and an overall increase in victims of 31%), the very real impact of fraud is underlined. Fraud victims can be preyed upon by organised criminals, faceless fraudsters and sometimes even by those close to them. Victims commonly describe feelings of helplessness, vulnerability and not knowing who to trust. This is in addition to the financial impact and time taken to rectify the damage.
CIFAS Communications Manager, Richard Hurley, comments: "The financial cost of fraud is bad enough, but the emotional and psychological effects for the victim must never be underestimated. Fraudsters are adapting their approach in an attempt to ensure that their profits do not suffer during the recession, with absolutely no thought for the profoundly damaging impact this has on their victims. The role played by online, organised, criminals trading in people's identity details has been frequently reported in recent years, and it is depressing to think that the numbers of victims of fraud demonstrates just how little these criminals care."
Rise in insurance fraud shows increase in premeditated 'accidents'
While insurance fraud has long been difficult to prove (for instance, adding to claims for stolen cars or laptops other items such as mp3 players, mobile phones, cameras and wallets), the 55% increase in cases filed by CIFAS Members during 2009 reveals a trend towards claimants being even more dishonest. The 55% increase in fraudulent claims is driven more by a surge in claims for staged or completely fictitious events than inflated claims for damage and losses actually incurred.
On 1 March 2010, CIFAS will publish its report Fraudscape 2010: Depicting the UK's Fraud Landscape. This examination of fraud trends will provide a more detailed look at what lies behind the increase in false insurance claims as well as in all other types of fraud identified by CIFAS Members throughout 2009.
Facility takeover fraud and misuse of facility continue to be double trouble
Previous figures from CIFAS have confirmed the intensification during the past two years of facility takeover frauds (also known as 'account takeover' where a fraudster hijacks an individual's account in order to 'take over' and control it) and misuse of facility frauds (where the fraudster uses an account, policy or other facility for a fraudulent purpose such as receiving fraudulent payments into a bank account, or evading payments on credit card or loan accounts).
In 2009, facility takeover fraud rose by 16% from 2008. This means an increase of over 250% during the past 24 months. A significant contributory factor to this trend is the prevalence of 'phishing' emails (sent by fraudsters to look as though they come from a bank or credit card company, for example, asking for personal details which are then used to plunder the victim's account).
Similarly, misuse of facility has risen by 28% in 2009 and by 115% during the last two years.
The link between these types of fraud runs deep, with fraudsters frequently using both methods: for example, taking over an account to withdraw funds and then using another account to receive these bogus 'transactions'. Richard Hurley explains: "Whether it is an organised criminal obtaining your account numbers online, or someone in dire financial straits misusing their cheque-book account, the net result is still fraud: fraud that costs businesses, the public sector, and ultimately all of us, millions of pounds each year."
Comment from the CIFAS Chief Executive
Peter Hurst, CIFAS Chief Executive, comments: "It is well-known that a rise in fraud goes hand in hand with a recession. The trends identified by CIFAS Members during 2009, however, demonstrate that it is not just a few thousand extra people turning to crime to make ends meet. It is a whole criminal element changing its behaviour. Fraudsters adapt their methods in response to changes in the economy, finding and exploiting any area of weakness.
"All organisations must acknowledge this by arming themselves against the fraudsters. As these figures demonstrate, fraud is very much a present danger - no matter what the circumstances. Working together, sharing data on proven frauds and sharing best practice are the only ways that fraud can be prevented - and it is not only the pragmatic thing to do, but also the responsible thing to do in times of continued economic strife."
____________________________________________________
Fraud continues to demonstrate impact of the recession
The analysis of fraud trends during 2009 by CIFAS - The UK's Fraud Prevention Service - reveals a 9% increase in the overall level of fraud, when compared with the previous year. This rise has been driven by some particular factors, most notably:
the unwelcome return of identity fraud which has led to a 31% escalation in the numbers of victims of fraud
a 55% increase in false insurance claims and a change in the nature of them as the effects of the recession intensify
the relentless rise in facility takeover and misuse of facility frauds.
(Numerical tables are included in the Notes for Editors below).
32% surge in identity fraud
CIFAS commented in October 2009 (in The Anonymous Attacker) on the reappearance of identity fraud (the use of a stolen or false identity to obtain goods or services by deception). This increase has continued; up 32% in 2009 from the level recorded in 2008. This rise has a direct link to the recession. Fraudsters have seen the reduction in the overall amount of lending taking place during 2009, discouraging many from attempting to commit application fraud (e.g. the use of lies and forged documents in an attempt to obtain products or services). This has led to a 25% reduction in application fraud but has meant that they have returned to stealing the identities of others in order to gain products and services.
Protective Registration (a service provided by CIFAS to help protect individuals at heightened risk of identity fraud) increased by 241% year on year. This is attributable both to a developing awareness among individuals of the threat of identity fraud and how it is perpetrated, and to the growing use of the service by organisations to protect the identities of those whose details have been put at risk as a result of a data breach.
Over 25,000 more victims in 2009
With over 85,000 victims of impersonation, and 24,000 victims of takeover (whose accounts have been hijacked by fraudsters) recorded in 2009 (increases of 35% and 16% respectively on 2008 and an overall increase in victims of 31%), the very real impact of fraud is underlined. Fraud victims can be preyed upon by organised criminals, faceless fraudsters and sometimes even by those close to them. Victims commonly describe feelings of helplessness, vulnerability and not knowing who to trust. This is in addition to the financial impact and time taken to rectify the damage.
CIFAS Communications Manager, Richard Hurley, comments: "The financial cost of fraud is bad enough, but the emotional and psychological effects for the victim must never be underestimated. Fraudsters are adapting their approach in an attempt to ensure that their profits do not suffer during the recession, with absolutely no thought for the profoundly damaging impact this has on their victims. The role played by online, organised, criminals trading in people's identity details has been frequently reported in recent years, and it is depressing to think that the numbers of victims of fraud demonstrates just how little these criminals care."
Rise in insurance fraud shows increase in premeditated 'accidents'
While insurance fraud has long been difficult to prove (for instance, adding to claims for stolen cars or laptops other items such as mp3 players, mobile phones, cameras and wallets), the 55% increase in cases filed by CIFAS Members during 2009 reveals a trend towards claimants being even more dishonest. The 55% increase in fraudulent claims is driven more by a surge in claims for staged or completely fictitious events than inflated claims for damage and losses actually incurred.
On 1 March 2010, CIFAS will publish its report Fraudscape 2010: Depicting the UK's Fraud Landscape. This examination of fraud trends will provide a more detailed look at what lies behind the increase in false insurance claims as well as in all other types of fraud identified by CIFAS Members throughout 2009.
Facility takeover fraud and misuse of facility continue to be double trouble
Previous figures from CIFAS have confirmed the intensification during the past two years of facility takeover frauds (also known as 'account takeover' where a fraudster hijacks an individual's account in order to 'take over' and control it) and misuse of facility frauds (where the fraudster uses an account, policy or other facility for a fraudulent purpose such as receiving fraudulent payments into a bank account, or evading payments on credit card or loan accounts).
In 2009, facility takeover fraud rose by 16% from 2008. This means an increase of over 250% during the past 24 months. A significant contributory factor to this trend is the prevalence of 'phishing' emails (sent by fraudsters to look as though they come from a bank or credit card company, for example, asking for personal details which are then used to plunder the victim's account).
Similarly, misuse of facility has risen by 28% in 2009 and by 115% during the last two years.
The link between these types of fraud runs deep, with fraudsters frequently using both methods: for example, taking over an account to withdraw funds and then using another account to receive these bogus 'transactions'. Richard Hurley explains: "Whether it is an organised criminal obtaining your account numbers online, or someone in dire financial straits misusing their cheque-book account, the net result is still fraud: fraud that costs businesses, the public sector, and ultimately all of us, millions of pounds each year."
Comment from the CIFAS Chief Executive
Peter Hurst, CIFAS Chief Executive, comments: "It is well-known that a rise in fraud goes hand in hand with a recession. The trends identified by CIFAS Members during 2009, however, demonstrate that it is not just a few thousand extra people turning to crime to make ends meet. It is a whole criminal element changing its behaviour. Fraudsters adapt their methods in response to changes in the economy, finding and exploiting any area of weakness.
"All organisations must acknowledge this by arming themselves against the fraudsters. As these figures demonstrate, fraud is very much a present danger - no matter what the circumstances. Working together, sharing data on proven frauds and sharing best practice are the only ways that fraud can be prevented - and it is not only the pragmatic thing to do, but also the responsible thing to do in times of continued economic strife."
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
Senior Public Sector Worker spared prison over lies told on CV
Powerchex Warns of the Consequences of CV Embellishment. This is our most recent press release following another case where the courts got serious about lies on CVs and a major UK employer learned a lesson in retrospective screening. Read on.
A senior NHS Human Resources manager who exaggerated her qualifications has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay nearly £10,000 compensation.
The individual in question was found to have made the claims when her Trust merged with another in 2006: staff were asked to submit expressions of interests for new posts, and she made a series of misrepresentations in an attempt to obtain alternative employment.
She last week pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud by false representation at Exeter Crown Court. As well as the fine, she must also carry out 150 hours of unpaid community work. The conviction follows an investigation by the NHS Counter Fraud Service.
Alexandra Kelly is the Managing Director of city pre-employment firm, Powerchex. Kelly has considerable experience of similar situations and is well aware of the repercussions that CV embellishment can have on both in the individual and the company affected.
“Jobseekers should be aware of the perils of being caught lying on their CV or any other documentation used in order to gain employment. More and more employers are outsourcing their pre-employment screening to professional firms with the tools and experience to uncover CV embellishments or even outright fabrications. While this particular situation is unusual in its severity, most employers will look to terminate if they get wind that you have misrepresented yourself at any stage of the hiring process.”
Perhaps even more saliently, employers need to be aware of the reputational damage CV embellishment can cause to their company, especially if information comes to light after the individual has already started their employment. “Sadly it is no longer enough for firms to simply ask their employees to sign a declaration stating that any information supplied about themselves is true,” continues Kelly. “Like the above situation, such incidences can gain bring considerable negative exposure, with associated financial and reputational consequences. Firms must make clear to their potential employees that the information they provide during the recruitment process will be subject to relevant checks, and that employment is conditional upon verification of all information supplied. Unfortunately, the risks are now too great not to err on the side of caution.”
A senior NHS Human Resources manager who exaggerated her qualifications has been given a six-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay nearly £10,000 compensation.
The individual in question was found to have made the claims when her Trust merged with another in 2006: staff were asked to submit expressions of interests for new posts, and she made a series of misrepresentations in an attempt to obtain alternative employment.
She last week pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud by false representation at Exeter Crown Court. As well as the fine, she must also carry out 150 hours of unpaid community work. The conviction follows an investigation by the NHS Counter Fraud Service.
Alexandra Kelly is the Managing Director of city pre-employment firm, Powerchex. Kelly has considerable experience of similar situations and is well aware of the repercussions that CV embellishment can have on both in the individual and the company affected.
“Jobseekers should be aware of the perils of being caught lying on their CV or any other documentation used in order to gain employment. More and more employers are outsourcing their pre-employment screening to professional firms with the tools and experience to uncover CV embellishments or even outright fabrications. While this particular situation is unusual in its severity, most employers will look to terminate if they get wind that you have misrepresented yourself at any stage of the hiring process.”
Perhaps even more saliently, employers need to be aware of the reputational damage CV embellishment can cause to their company, especially if information comes to light after the individual has already started their employment. “Sadly it is no longer enough for firms to simply ask their employees to sign a declaration stating that any information supplied about themselves is true,” continues Kelly. “Like the above situation, such incidences can gain bring considerable negative exposure, with associated financial and reputational consequences. Firms must make clear to their potential employees that the information they provide during the recruitment process will be subject to relevant checks, and that employment is conditional upon verification of all information supplied. Unfortunately, the risks are now too great not to err on the side of caution.”
Saturday, 1 August 2009
Research finds that Linkedin profiles are more accurate than CVs
Candidates are often more honest in their LinkedIn profiles than in the CVs they send employers. At least that’s what LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman said at the Social Recruiting Summit held recently at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, CA. I suppose that this makes quite a bit of sense, if you consider that a LinkedIn profile can been seen by thousands of people who know the applicant and can expose any lies or exaggerations.
HR and screening staff should always look at discrepancies between CVs and online claims, but in addition they should also look at discrepancies between an applicant's CV and what they state on their screening/application form. We have found cases where the screening form was accurate and truthful, but did not bare any semblance with the CV on the basis of which the applicant was interviewed and made an offer.
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Company Directors are not immune from fraud
It is not unusual for companies to neglect applying their normal pre-employment screening practices when it comes to their directors, board members and non-executive directors. Research released by the UK's Insolvency Service showed that there is a significant increase in criminal malpractice amongst company directors.
The directors of 91 companies were banned for financial crime over the year as more directors turned to fraud to try to salvage something for themselves from ailing companies. In this tough economic times, companies should also make an extra effort to conduct proper due dilligence on their suppliers, especially those suppliers who have access to sensitive company information, or client data.
Guy Logan reports for Personnel Today:
_________________________________________________________________
HR must be on watch for directors’ fraud
Guy Logan05 May 2009 14:11
HR must be extra-vigilant against a rise in fraud by company directors during the recession, a lawyer has warned.
Statistics published by the government's UK Insolvency Service at the weekend revealed that the number of directors banned for criminal malpractice jumped by almost one third (31%), to 1,852 directors who were charged in the 12 months to March.
Disqualification proceedings launched against directors for crimes such as fraud or theft rose by 72%, while cases of misappropriation of assets grew by almost 20%.
Edward Starling, solicitor at law firm Wedlake Bell, warned that company directors were just as likely to commit fraud as junior employees.
"It's well known that fraud increases in the recession, but it's possible that some counter-fraud departments miss serious fraud because they are too focused on the smaller fish [more junior employees]," he told Personnel Today.
"The increase in disqualification cases being launched over the past year is huge, and this number will only rise in the coming months."
Starling added that limited resources for the Insolvency Service, which unearthed the majority of cases of malpractice by directors, would mean many bosses would elude justice.
Research last year found one in five employees admitted to committing fraud by exaggerating expense claims.
The directors of 91 companies were banned for financial crime over the year as more directors turned to fraud to try to salvage something for themselves from ailing companies. In this tough economic times, companies should also make an extra effort to conduct proper due dilligence on their suppliers, especially those suppliers who have access to sensitive company information, or client data.
Guy Logan reports for Personnel Today:
_________________________________________________________________
HR must be on watch for directors’ fraud
Guy Logan05 May 2009 14:11
HR must be extra-vigilant against a rise in fraud by company directors during the recession, a lawyer has warned.
Statistics published by the government's UK Insolvency Service at the weekend revealed that the number of directors banned for criminal malpractice jumped by almost one third (31%), to 1,852 directors who were charged in the 12 months to March.
Disqualification proceedings launched against directors for crimes such as fraud or theft rose by 72%, while cases of misappropriation of assets grew by almost 20%.
Edward Starling, solicitor at law firm Wedlake Bell, warned that company directors were just as likely to commit fraud as junior employees.
"It's well known that fraud increases in the recession, but it's possible that some counter-fraud departments miss serious fraud because they are too focused on the smaller fish [more junior employees]," he told Personnel Today.
"The increase in disqualification cases being launched over the past year is huge, and this number will only rise in the coming months."
Starling added that limited resources for the Insolvency Service, which unearthed the majority of cases of malpractice by directors, would mean many bosses would elude justice.
Research last year found one in five employees admitted to committing fraud by exaggerating expense claims.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
E-Verify in Hot Water about Error Rate
An SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management http://shrmjax.org/pdfs/08-0447%202nd%20Quarter%202008.pdf) backed bill launched an employment verification debate on the other side of the pond. Apparently monster-sized databases are debated around the world, not just in the UK.
__________________________________________________________________________
Mark Schoeff Jr reports for Workforce Week
With momentum building for Congress to address comprehensive immigration reform later this year, two members of the House have introduced a bill to put employment verification at the center of the debate.
Written by Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, and Sam Johnson, R-Texas, the measure would establish a mandatory electronic verification system that replaces an existing government-run system that has been roundly criticized by employer groups.
Giffords and Johnson hope their bill, the New Employee Verification Act, will either be the foundation for work-site enforcement in a broader immigration bill or move through Congress on its own.
The bill was introduced Wednesday, April 22, and announced by Giffords and Johnson on Thursday, April 23. It was originally offered in the previous Congress but had to be reintroduced because it did not become law.
The legislation mandates that all employers sign up for the Electronic Employment Verification System, which is based on the new-hire system used in each state to enforce child support payments. About 90 percent of employers use the new-hire system already.
Information for recently hired employees would be checked against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases to determine work eligibility. The system would eliminate the I-9 immigration form.
Alternatively, employers could register for the Secure Electronic Employment Verification System, a network of government-certified private sector companies that would authenticate a workers’ identity through a biometric identifier like a thumbprint.
The bill would establish civil and criminal penalties for employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Giffords and Johnson have been working with the HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce on the legislation. The organization is led by the Society for Human Resource Management and also includes the HR Policy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The HR groups have led a charge against E-Verify, the government-run electronic verification system that is currently used on a voluntary basis by 118,917 employers.
“E-Verify’s significant error rate and reliance on paper-based identity documents often deny legal workers employment and can lead to fraud and identity theft,” the HR Initiative wrote in an April 23 letter to members of Congress. “Employers, in turn, are left vulnerable to sanctions through no fault of their own.”
E-Verify detractors say that the 4.1 percent error rate in the Social Security database could lead to millions of people being incorrectly ruled ineligible for work.
E-Verify proponents, which include many Republicans and conservative Democrats, say that the system confirms 96 percent of queries instantly and has an error rate of less than 1 percent.
Like E-Verify, the Electronic Employee Verification System would rely on the Social Security database. But the Giffords-Johnson bill requires that the Social Security information be cleaned up before the new system is launched.
In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Giffords called the proposal a “simple, effective, balanced alternative to E-Verify. It is a realistic piece of legislation.”
She also touted a provision that would establish federal pre-emption of state laws on employment verification. Her home state of Arizona was the first of several to mandate that employers use E-Verify—an experiment that is not succeeding, according to Giffords.
“Immigration is in the federal purview,” she said. “We should be dealing with it at the congressional level, not piecemeal state by state.”
It’s not yet clear when Congress will take up immigration reform. A comprehensive bill sparked political combustion in 2007 and died in the Senate. In the last couple weeks, the Obama administration has indicated it wants to address comprehensive immigration this year.
So far, individual dimensions of reform—such as verification and employment visas—have not been able to move on their own. But E-Verify is scheduled to expire on September 30, which might give work-site enforcement separate momentum.
Johnson says the electronic verification bill doesn’t have to be held up until comprehensive reform is complete.
“This year, we stand a great chance of passing it out of the House and Senate,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t have to wait. It can be combined later.”
As the immigration debate gets under way, HR organizations are trying to influence the outcome, especially on verification.
“SHRM feels strongly that employers should be part of the solution to illegal immigration,” said Mike Aitken, SHRM director of government affairs.
__________________________________________________________________________
Mark Schoeff Jr reports for Workforce Week
With momentum building for Congress to address comprehensive immigration reform later this year, two members of the House have introduced a bill to put employment verification at the center of the debate.
Written by Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, and Sam Johnson, R-Texas, the measure would establish a mandatory electronic verification system that replaces an existing government-run system that has been roundly criticized by employer groups.
Giffords and Johnson hope their bill, the New Employee Verification Act, will either be the foundation for work-site enforcement in a broader immigration bill or move through Congress on its own.
The bill was introduced Wednesday, April 22, and announced by Giffords and Johnson on Thursday, April 23. It was originally offered in the previous Congress but had to be reintroduced because it did not become law.
The legislation mandates that all employers sign up for the Electronic Employment Verification System, which is based on the new-hire system used in each state to enforce child support payments. About 90 percent of employers use the new-hire system already.
Information for recently hired employees would be checked against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases to determine work eligibility. The system would eliminate the I-9 immigration form.
Alternatively, employers could register for the Secure Electronic Employment Verification System, a network of government-certified private sector companies that would authenticate a workers’ identity through a biometric identifier like a thumbprint.
The bill would establish civil and criminal penalties for employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Giffords and Johnson have been working with the HR Initiative for a Legal Workforce on the legislation. The organization is led by the Society for Human Resource Management and also includes the HR Policy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
The HR groups have led a charge against E-Verify, the government-run electronic verification system that is currently used on a voluntary basis by 118,917 employers.
“E-Verify’s significant error rate and reliance on paper-based identity documents often deny legal workers employment and can lead to fraud and identity theft,” the HR Initiative wrote in an April 23 letter to members of Congress. “Employers, in turn, are left vulnerable to sanctions through no fault of their own.”
E-Verify detractors say that the 4.1 percent error rate in the Social Security database could lead to millions of people being incorrectly ruled ineligible for work.
E-Verify proponents, which include many Republicans and conservative Democrats, say that the system confirms 96 percent of queries instantly and has an error rate of less than 1 percent.
Like E-Verify, the Electronic Employee Verification System would rely on the Social Security database. But the Giffords-Johnson bill requires that the Social Security information be cleaned up before the new system is launched.
In a conference call with reporters Thursday, Giffords called the proposal a “simple, effective, balanced alternative to E-Verify. It is a realistic piece of legislation.”
She also touted a provision that would establish federal pre-emption of state laws on employment verification. Her home state of Arizona was the first of several to mandate that employers use E-Verify—an experiment that is not succeeding, according to Giffords.
“Immigration is in the federal purview,” she said. “We should be dealing with it at the congressional level, not piecemeal state by state.”
It’s not yet clear when Congress will take up immigration reform. A comprehensive bill sparked political combustion in 2007 and died in the Senate. In the last couple weeks, the Obama administration has indicated it wants to address comprehensive immigration this year.
So far, individual dimensions of reform—such as verification and employment visas—have not been able to move on their own. But E-Verify is scheduled to expire on September 30, which might give work-site enforcement separate momentum.
Johnson says the electronic verification bill doesn’t have to be held up until comprehensive reform is complete.
“This year, we stand a great chance of passing it out of the House and Senate,” Johnson said. “It doesn’t have to wait. It can be combined later.”
As the immigration debate gets under way, HR organizations are trying to influence the outcome, especially on verification.
“SHRM feels strongly that employers should be part of the solution to illegal immigration,” said Mike Aitken, SHRM director of government affairs.
Monday, 23 March 2009
CIFAS Staff Fraud Database
CIFAS FRAUDSCAPE
The CIFAS Staff Fraud Database is a data-sharing scheme that enables responsible employers to file proven cases of staff fraud in order to prevent the perpetrator moving unchallenged to a new employer to commit further fraud.
An employer accesses the database in order to:
file data about identified staff fraud cases
check staff fraud records filed by other CIFAS Members.
This can be done either to pre-screen applicants or to screen current employees. Almost 120 employers already share information in this way. As a member of the Staff Fraud Database, Powerchex can access the database on behalf of CIFAS members.Click on the link below for an analysis of the cases of staff fraud filed to the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database by those organisations.
http://www.cifas.org.uk/download/fraudscape.pdf
The CIFAS Staff Fraud Database is a data-sharing scheme that enables responsible employers to file proven cases of staff fraud in order to prevent the perpetrator moving unchallenged to a new employer to commit further fraud.
An employer accesses the database in order to:
file data about identified staff fraud cases
check staff fraud records filed by other CIFAS Members.
This can be done either to pre-screen applicants or to screen current employees. Almost 120 employers already share information in this way. As a member of the Staff Fraud Database, Powerchex can access the database on behalf of CIFAS members.Click on the link below for an analysis of the cases of staff fraud filed to the CIFAS Staff Fraud Database by those organisations.
http://www.cifas.org.uk/download/fraudscape.pdf
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Should hiring decisions be made by looking at social networking sites?
Views vary widely on the subject of trawling through social networking sites as part of the pre-employment screening process. Here at Powerchex our view has always been that there are too many legal and ethical pitfalls to this process and for that reason we do not incorporate these searches to our screening process. As an employer you need to make up your mind of course. Here are two views on the subject that may help you decide:
______________________________________________________
Louisa Peacock reports for Personnel today:
A quarter of employers worldwide are checking social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace for information about job candidates, research has revealed.
The study by talent management consultancy DDI found that 25% of 1,910 job interviewers across the globe, and 12% of employers in the UK, were checking out candidate profiles or photos before deciding whether to interview them.
More than half (52%) of those that did look up prospective employee profiles on such sites admitted they used the information to make hiring decisions.
The news comes just days after Personnel Today reported that employers should encourage their staff to use Facebook and Twitter to help network with their peers.
However, less than a third of 3,523 jobseekers (32%) surveyed by DDI worldwide, and just a quarter (25%) of applicants in the UK, believed that what they put on social networking sites might affect their chances of getting a job.
Steve Newhall, vice-president for Europe at DDI, said: "Interviewers should realise that much of what is put [on Facebook] is for fun, and is unlikely to reflect a candidate's on-the-job demeanour or performance. It's difficult to gauge when looking at Facebook-type data if the information is true or has any relevance for the job role in question. A well-planned and conducted selection process will uncover relevant information about candidates' ability to do the job."
The 2009 Global Interviewing Practices and Perceptions survey found that German employers were almost twice as likely as any other country to conduct online searches, with 46% reporting they use this technique to make hiring decisions.
The practice of checking social networking sites becomes more prevalent the younger the interviewer. Globally, only 19% of those over 50 checked these sites, compared to 46% of those under 25.
The global survey interviewed 248 employers and 704 jobseekers in the UK.
_____________________
Jo Wort, professional support lawyer, and Gagandeep Prasad, solicitor Charles Russell present the legal view on the subject:
There are several issues raised by this approach to recruitment. The first is one of potential discrimination arising out of the age profile of internet users. In adopting a policy of online application only, it is likely that many older candidates will be excluded before the recruitment process has even begun. If faced with an age discrimination claim, the company would have to seek to justify this approach.
Trawling through these sites on receipt of an application is pre-employment vetting. Potentially, this raises both discrimination and data protection issues. For example, there may be information obtained from these sites that relate to an individual's sexual orientation, or religious belief that impact, or are perceived to impact, on the eventual decision whether or not to recruit. Information that impacts on recruitment decisions in this way will be grounds for a discrimination claim.
A further issue with trawling these sites is the question of verification. What weight do you place on the information found? Was it placed by the individual themselves, or a disgruntled former friend or colleague? The Employment Practices Data Protection Code makes clear that an employer should "not place reliance on information collected from possibly unreliable sources. Allow the applicant to make representations regarding information that will affect the decision to finally appoint". The applicant should therefore be given the opportunity to deal with information that the company has found on a social networking site that negatively impacts on any decision whether or not to recruit.
Such searches are effectively pre-employment vetting and the Employment Practices Data Protection Code states that employers should "only use vetting thing as a means of obtaining specific information, not as a means of general intelligence gathering". This should only be undertaken where there are significant risks to clients/customer, and ideally only late in the recruitment stage, so that not all applicants are vetted routinely.
Searching social networking sites as a recruitment tool raises many potential issues and, as a matter of best practice, should not be generally adopted.
______________________________________________________
Louisa Peacock reports for Personnel today:
A quarter of employers worldwide are checking social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace for information about job candidates, research has revealed.
The study by talent management consultancy DDI found that 25% of 1,910 job interviewers across the globe, and 12% of employers in the UK, were checking out candidate profiles or photos before deciding whether to interview them.
More than half (52%) of those that did look up prospective employee profiles on such sites admitted they used the information to make hiring decisions.
The news comes just days after Personnel Today reported that employers should encourage their staff to use Facebook and Twitter to help network with their peers.
However, less than a third of 3,523 jobseekers (32%) surveyed by DDI worldwide, and just a quarter (25%) of applicants in the UK, believed that what they put on social networking sites might affect their chances of getting a job.
Steve Newhall, vice-president for Europe at DDI, said: "Interviewers should realise that much of what is put [on Facebook] is for fun, and is unlikely to reflect a candidate's on-the-job demeanour or performance. It's difficult to gauge when looking at Facebook-type data if the information is true or has any relevance for the job role in question. A well-planned and conducted selection process will uncover relevant information about candidates' ability to do the job."
The 2009 Global Interviewing Practices and Perceptions survey found that German employers were almost twice as likely as any other country to conduct online searches, with 46% reporting they use this technique to make hiring decisions.
The practice of checking social networking sites becomes more prevalent the younger the interviewer. Globally, only 19% of those over 50 checked these sites, compared to 46% of those under 25.
The global survey interviewed 248 employers and 704 jobseekers in the UK.
_____________________
Jo Wort, professional support lawyer, and Gagandeep Prasad, solicitor Charles Russell present the legal view on the subject:
There are several issues raised by this approach to recruitment. The first is one of potential discrimination arising out of the age profile of internet users. In adopting a policy of online application only, it is likely that many older candidates will be excluded before the recruitment process has even begun. If faced with an age discrimination claim, the company would have to seek to justify this approach.
Trawling through these sites on receipt of an application is pre-employment vetting. Potentially, this raises both discrimination and data protection issues. For example, there may be information obtained from these sites that relate to an individual's sexual orientation, or religious belief that impact, or are perceived to impact, on the eventual decision whether or not to recruit. Information that impacts on recruitment decisions in this way will be grounds for a discrimination claim.
A further issue with trawling these sites is the question of verification. What weight do you place on the information found? Was it placed by the individual themselves, or a disgruntled former friend or colleague? The Employment Practices Data Protection Code makes clear that an employer should "not place reliance on information collected from possibly unreliable sources. Allow the applicant to make representations regarding information that will affect the decision to finally appoint". The applicant should therefore be given the opportunity to deal with information that the company has found on a social networking site that negatively impacts on any decision whether or not to recruit.
Such searches are effectively pre-employment vetting and the Employment Practices Data Protection Code states that employers should "only use vetting thing as a means of obtaining specific information, not as a means of general intelligence gathering". This should only be undertaken where there are significant risks to clients/customer, and ideally only late in the recruitment stage, so that not all applicants are vetted routinely.
Searching social networking sites as a recruitment tool raises many potential issues and, as a matter of best practice, should not be generally adopted.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Verifying Chinese Degrees and Qualifications
Anyone that has tried to verify a Chinese Degree will tell you that it is a time consuming and sometimes unreliable process. The easier way to do it is through the China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Center.
Their website is: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwweben/xw_aboutus.jsp and any company or individual can apply on line for a verification. These verifications need to be applied for in Chinese at: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/rzgl/apply/login.jsp and the cost varies between £25 and £35. Payment needs to be made by bank transfer and the verification process takes 20 days or less. If you find this too complicated and time consuming, we can do it on your behalf for a small admin fee.
The Introduction of CDGDC China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC) is an administrative department directly under the Ministry of Education, operating under the joint leadership of The Ministry of Education and The Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council (ADCSC). CDGDC is a non-profit agency with the independent qualification of legal entity.
Their website is: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/xwweben/xw_aboutus.jsp and any company or individual can apply on line for a verification. These verifications need to be applied for in Chinese at: http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/rzgl/apply/login.jsp and the cost varies between £25 and £35. Payment needs to be made by bank transfer and the verification process takes 20 days or less. If you find this too complicated and time consuming, we can do it on your behalf for a small admin fee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
