We are absolutely delighted to have been recognised again in the innovation category of the Thames Gateway Business Awards. Below is the press release
________________________________________________________
In the midst of the recession, Powerchex innovates and wins award at the Thames Gateway Business Awards
Powerchex, the leading pre-employment screening firm for financial services, has again won recognition at the prestigious Thames Gateway Business Awards.
This year, Powerchex was praised in the Innovation Category for its new service ‘Know Your Supplier’ (KYS). Judges were looking for businesses that could demonstrate that they had successfully introduced a new idea, technique or practice that had improved their business, how the idea was implemented and how it had impacted upon the business.
The glittering awards ceremony took place at the Troxy on Friday evening with more than 700 people in attendance. Judges paid tribute to Powerchex, recognising the bravery and forward-thinking of an SME prepared to innovate in a recession.
“I am absolutely ecstatic that our achievement has been recognised on such a scale,” stated Alexandra Kelly, Managing Director of Powerchex. “Not only have we shown that we are prepared to innovate and look at something completely new, but also have the confidence to put resources behind the project at such a difficult time for many small businesses.”
This is the second year running that Powerchex has been successful in the Innovation Category of the Thames Gateway Awards. Last year, Powerchex won praise for its pioneering staff training and development programme, which lowered costs by reducing staff turnover and increasing the output per person.
“It is extremely important to invest in your workforce, even in times of economic difficulty,” continues Kelly. “While it can be easy to concentrate only on the front-line of your business, keeping staff motivated and your cost-per-unit as low as possible maximises your chances of not just surviving, but actually growing your market share as markets recover.”
Enzo Testa, Executive Managing Director of Archant London commented; “We are proud to do all we can to support, encourage and promote businesses within the many local areas we cover. The rich mix of successful businesses across The Thames Gateway region make our communities, places we can be proud of. To this end, we are pleased to have organised this event.”
Showing posts with label pre-employment screening. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pre-employment screening. Show all posts
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Powerchex warn that temps require the same level of pre-employment screening as permanent employees
I am sure that everyone has been appauled by the lapses in control that led to innocent children being abused by the people they should trust most, their childminders. This should serve as a reminder that a proper pre-employment screening policy should not exclude casual workers.
____________________________________________________________
A convicted child sex offender was able to obtain employment in a nursery after staff failed to carry out the required pre-employment screening checks.
Andrew Smith was employed in the kitchen of Norwood Manor Day Nursery through employment agency Reed despite his name appearing on the sex offender’s register after he was caught sending a string of perverted internet messages and webcam footage of him performing a solo sex act to someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl, but was in fact an undercover police officer.
Smith subsequently served 6 months of a 12 month jail sentence and was placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years. The Criminal Records check that is required for those working in nurseries would have revealed this but staff failed to comply.
Alexandra Kelly, a Director at Powerchex, one of the leading pre-employment screening providers, believes that Smith being a temporary employee is no excuse for a low level of vetting, “We advise our clients to determine the level of vetting required using a risk based approach. Temporary workers pose the same, if not a bigger risk to the company than permanent employees. With temps there is an emphasis on the speed of vetting but companies should work closely with their provider of pre-employment screening to ensure that this need does not prevent proper due diligence taking place.”
____________________________________________________________
A convicted child sex offender was able to obtain employment in a nursery after staff failed to carry out the required pre-employment screening checks.
Andrew Smith was employed in the kitchen of Norwood Manor Day Nursery through employment agency Reed despite his name appearing on the sex offender’s register after he was caught sending a string of perverted internet messages and webcam footage of him performing a solo sex act to someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl, but was in fact an undercover police officer.
Smith subsequently served 6 months of a 12 month jail sentence and was placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years. The Criminal Records check that is required for those working in nurseries would have revealed this but staff failed to comply.
Alexandra Kelly, a Director at Powerchex, one of the leading pre-employment screening providers, believes that Smith being a temporary employee is no excuse for a low level of vetting, “We advise our clients to determine the level of vetting required using a risk based approach. Temporary workers pose the same, if not a bigger risk to the company than permanent employees. With temps there is an emphasis on the speed of vetting but companies should work closely with their provider of pre-employment screening to ensure that this need does not prevent proper due diligence taking place.”
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
HR, Facebook and Screening
This is an ongoing debate between HR departments, recruiters and screening firms. Should we check facebook profiles? Our standard response to all our clients is that we will check business profiles such as zoom and linkedin, but we will not check social networking profiles. Paul Reeves, who is a partner at the law firm of Stephenson Harwood wrote a very interesting posting in Managing people, Technology on Tue, 18/08/2009 - 13:38.
The article first appeared in HR Zone at: : http://www.hrzone.co.uk/topic/hr-snooping-facing-facebook
What do you think?
_______________________________________________________
In a recent and high profile example of some of the issues associated with social networking sites, the wife of the recently appointed chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, disclosed details of their personal life and address on her Facebook page, compromising their personal and, potentially, national safety.
There have also been recent examples of footballers and cricketers using Twitter to air their views about their employers. The blurring of the lines between private and public space, which is part of the social networking phenomenon, is key to the problem. These very public spaces have the capacity to threaten existing jobs, future careers, personal safety and corporate reputations as well as providing opportunities to contravene copyright and other laws. Organisations and individuals all have a role to play in managing the impact of social networking.
Reputational damage
An innocent exchange of wall postings on Facebook could lead to an employee breaching their contractual obligations by, for example, disclosing confidential information about a company's business or its clients. This could clearly have an adverse effect so an employer should investigate any allegations of this nature with a view to taking disciplinary action.
An employee who makes derogatory comments about their work, or their colleagues, on their profile could face disciplinary action as well as possible defamation or libel actions, not to mention the potential damage to the company's public image. Employers should consider carefully the type of conduct that warrants disciplinary action and make this clear to employees.
The way an employee behaves in their personal life may not be how their employer would like them to behave but, provided it does not impact their work or the company's reputation, then any disciplinary action would be inappropriate and any dismissal as a result could lead to a claim for unfair dismissal. So not everything an employee posts on their social networking site should have an impact on their employment.
Bullying and harassment
The ability to join work groups on networking sites creates the opportunity for 'banter' between colleagues. In extreme cases, this could lead to a complaint of bullying or harassment for which an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, so complaints must be treated seriously and dealt with promptly. Employers need to be alert to these issues and the potential risks they pose.
Managing employer access when recruiting
Some employers have viewed the rise in the use of social networking sites as an opportunity to vet job applicants for their suitability. This can be a risky tactic as it exposes employers to potential discrimination claims. If an applicant who has not been offered a job discovers that their profile has been accessed as part of the recruitment process they could allege that information about their age, race, sex or religion displayed on their profile played a part in the decision to reject them.
While the company may have rejected them for a completely unrelated and fair reason, the existence of this information, which would be discloseable in litigation, will provide an additional hurdle to overcome in defending any claim. If employers do use this as a recruitment tool, then it is advisable to have a paper-trail setting out why a candidate was unsuccessful.
Managing employee access
In light of the issues posed by social networking sites, many employers have considered preventing access to such sites or monitoring employees' use. Each of these options presents its own issues and, despite the potential risks, these sites can be useful for building business networks - LinkedIn and Plaxo are designed for professional business relationships. Restricted use could, therefore, be preferable to a total ban.
In addition, employees could see a total ban as an overreaction by employers to what is an increasingly common form of communication. Banning staff from using the sites could lower morale, especially in industries where long hours are common and access for reasonable periods is used as a break from work.
To manage this issue, employers should consider monitoring employee's use to ensure it is being used appropriately. Recently, an employee who was claiming to be sick updated his Facebook page with the fact that he was absent due to a hangover. The employer used this as evidence against him in a disciplinary process.
Employers should have an internet usage policy in place to monitor employees in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Public bodies must also factor in the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular article 8: the right to respect for private and family life.
Many internet policies were drafted before social networking sites became popular and may need to be updated to make sure the now cover these sites and the potential issues they throw up. Any changes should be communicated to all employees as this will strengthen an employer's position in the event of any disciplinary action or the need to defend any subsequent claim.
Unauthorised downloads
Employees often use social networking sites to share photographs or videos, including possibly unauthorised data while at work. This could not only damage the company's IT system, but is likely to be breach copyright.
Ownership of information
Where employees use social networking sites for business networking purposes via the employer's IT system, employers may be able to claim ownership of their profiles so that they can retain any information relating to business contacts. This can be useful for employers but they must make their employees aware of this position by including it in any internet policy.
Protecting organisations and individuals
To protect themselves under the current legislation, companies should:
Set out the parameters of internet usage (including downloads)
The consequences for breach of any internet policy , including reference to other related policies e.g. equal opportunities, harassment and bullying
Inform employees about the level of monitoring and the policy itself, including any changes
Follow fair procedures in respect of any disciplinary action and apply the policy consistently
Not be afraid to use information from social networking sites to deal with any misconduct, provided this is done appropriately.
For employees, the onus is on them to understand the policy and to ensure that their own site pages do not breach their employer's policies. They should also bear in mind that their pages are visible to millions of people globally and the consequences this may have.
The article first appeared in HR Zone at: : http://www.hrzone.co.uk/topic/hr-snooping-facing-facebook
What do you think?
_______________________________________________________
In a recent and high profile example of some of the issues associated with social networking sites, the wife of the recently appointed chief of MI6, Sir John Sawers, disclosed details of their personal life and address on her Facebook page, compromising their personal and, potentially, national safety.
There have also been recent examples of footballers and cricketers using Twitter to air their views about their employers. The blurring of the lines between private and public space, which is part of the social networking phenomenon, is key to the problem. These very public spaces have the capacity to threaten existing jobs, future careers, personal safety and corporate reputations as well as providing opportunities to contravene copyright and other laws. Organisations and individuals all have a role to play in managing the impact of social networking.
Reputational damage
An innocent exchange of wall postings on Facebook could lead to an employee breaching their contractual obligations by, for example, disclosing confidential information about a company's business or its clients. This could clearly have an adverse effect so an employer should investigate any allegations of this nature with a view to taking disciplinary action.
An employee who makes derogatory comments about their work, or their colleagues, on their profile could face disciplinary action as well as possible defamation or libel actions, not to mention the potential damage to the company's public image. Employers should consider carefully the type of conduct that warrants disciplinary action and make this clear to employees.
The way an employee behaves in their personal life may not be how their employer would like them to behave but, provided it does not impact their work or the company's reputation, then any disciplinary action would be inappropriate and any dismissal as a result could lead to a claim for unfair dismissal. So not everything an employee posts on their social networking site should have an impact on their employment.
Bullying and harassment
The ability to join work groups on networking sites creates the opportunity for 'banter' between colleagues. In extreme cases, this could lead to a complaint of bullying or harassment for which an employer may be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, so complaints must be treated seriously and dealt with promptly. Employers need to be alert to these issues and the potential risks they pose.
Managing employer access when recruiting
Some employers have viewed the rise in the use of social networking sites as an opportunity to vet job applicants for their suitability. This can be a risky tactic as it exposes employers to potential discrimination claims. If an applicant who has not been offered a job discovers that their profile has been accessed as part of the recruitment process they could allege that information about their age, race, sex or religion displayed on their profile played a part in the decision to reject them.
While the company may have rejected them for a completely unrelated and fair reason, the existence of this information, which would be discloseable in litigation, will provide an additional hurdle to overcome in defending any claim. If employers do use this as a recruitment tool, then it is advisable to have a paper-trail setting out why a candidate was unsuccessful.
Managing employee access
In light of the issues posed by social networking sites, many employers have considered preventing access to such sites or monitoring employees' use. Each of these options presents its own issues and, despite the potential risks, these sites can be useful for building business networks - LinkedIn and Plaxo are designed for professional business relationships. Restricted use could, therefore, be preferable to a total ban.
In addition, employees could see a total ban as an overreaction by employers to what is an increasingly common form of communication. Banning staff from using the sites could lower morale, especially in industries where long hours are common and access for reasonable periods is used as a break from work.
To manage this issue, employers should consider monitoring employee's use to ensure it is being used appropriately. Recently, an employee who was claiming to be sick updated his Facebook page with the fact that he was absent due to a hangover. The employer used this as evidence against him in a disciplinary process.
Employers should have an internet usage policy in place to monitor employees in order to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. Public bodies must also factor in the Human Rights Act 1998, in particular article 8: the right to respect for private and family life.
Many internet policies were drafted before social networking sites became popular and may need to be updated to make sure the now cover these sites and the potential issues they throw up. Any changes should be communicated to all employees as this will strengthen an employer's position in the event of any disciplinary action or the need to defend any subsequent claim.
Unauthorised downloads
Employees often use social networking sites to share photographs or videos, including possibly unauthorised data while at work. This could not only damage the company's IT system, but is likely to be breach copyright.
Ownership of information
Where employees use social networking sites for business networking purposes via the employer's IT system, employers may be able to claim ownership of their profiles so that they can retain any information relating to business contacts. This can be useful for employers but they must make their employees aware of this position by including it in any internet policy.
Protecting organisations and individuals
To protect themselves under the current legislation, companies should:
Set out the parameters of internet usage (including downloads)
The consequences for breach of any internet policy , including reference to other related policies e.g. equal opportunities, harassment and bullying
Inform employees about the level of monitoring and the policy itself, including any changes
Follow fair procedures in respect of any disciplinary action and apply the policy consistently
Not be afraid to use information from social networking sites to deal with any misconduct, provided this is done appropriately.
For employees, the onus is on them to understand the policy and to ensure that their own site pages do not breach their employer's policies. They should also bear in mind that their pages are visible to millions of people globally and the consequences this may have.
Friday, 7 August 2009
Graduates are stretching the truth to get work in uncertain economic times
Powerchex has released their annual survey into CV discrepancies. Here is how it was reported in the Guardian:
_______________________________________________________
Under-21s told 29% more lies on job applications this year than last
Jessica Shepherd
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 August 2009 15.47 BST
More under-21-year-olds in the UK are lying on their CVs this year compared with last, a poll has found.
Of 4,735 job applications from all age groups sent to finance firms between June last year and this May, 899contained false information.Powerchex, a company which screens CVs and application forms on behalf of finance companies, found that of the 307 belonging to under-21s, 18% contained lies, an increase of 29% from last year, when only 14% of forms contained false information.
Under-21s are now the most likely to lie on job forms, the company says. Their most common lie was to claim a 2:1 university degree when they had been awarded a 2:2.
Others exaggerated menial jobs to make themselves sound more important. Another common lie was to claim they had left a job because their contract had expired rather than because they had been made to leave.
This year's final-year university students face the highest levels of graduate unemployment in a generation.
Alexandra Kelly, managing director of Powerchex, said: "The pressure of the recession on job markets seems to have led more applicants to believe that they should lie or make embellished claims to get jobs."
_______________________________________________________
Under-21s told 29% more lies on job applications this year than last
Jessica Shepherd
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 August 2009 15.47 BST
More under-21-year-olds in the UK are lying on their CVs this year compared with last, a poll has found.
Of 4,735 job applications from all age groups sent to finance firms between June last year and this May, 899contained false information.Powerchex, a company which screens CVs and application forms on behalf of finance companies, found that of the 307 belonging to under-21s, 18% contained lies, an increase of 29% from last year, when only 14% of forms contained false information.
Under-21s are now the most likely to lie on job forms, the company says. Their most common lie was to claim a 2:1 university degree when they had been awarded a 2:2.
Others exaggerated menial jobs to make themselves sound more important. Another common lie was to claim they had left a job because their contract had expired rather than because they had been made to leave.
This year's final-year university students face the highest levels of graduate unemployment in a generation.
Alexandra Kelly, managing director of Powerchex, said: "The pressure of the recession on job markets seems to have led more applicants to believe that they should lie or make embellished claims to get jobs."
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.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Departing workers often steal data from ex-employers: study
A study by Ponemon Institute reveals that more than half of departing employees steal data from their ex-employers. Other than the obvious implications raised concerning the data security policy or lack there of, at the site of the ex-employer, one needs to consider the fact that these employees must be quite confident that their ex-employer will not disclose this sort of information to the new employer. Given the percentage of dishonestly involved, new employers are well advised to probe into these sort of issues during the referencing process.
________________________________________________________________
Many ex-employees in the U.S. are walking off with companies' sensitive and confidential data when they leave their jobs, a new study has found.
And of those, most have either used or plan to use the data for their next job with another company.
"Not only is this putting customer and other confidential information at risk for a data breach, but it could affect companies' competitiveness and future revenues," said the study released Monday by the Ponemon Institute, a Michigan-based independent think-tank that researches information and privacy management practices in business and government.
Among 945 survey participants who had been laid off, fired, or changed jobs in the past year, 59 per cent admitted to taking company data with them, said the study, which as sponsored by Symantec Corp., the internet security company that makes Norton Antivirus.
Of those:
65 per cent took email lists.
45 per cent took non-financial business information.
39 per cent took customer information, including contact lists.
35 per cent took employee records.
16 per cent took financial information.
About 61 per cent took the data as paper documents or hard files, 53 per cent burned the information onto a CD or DVD, and 42 per cent downloaded it onto a USB memory stick.
When asked if their former company permitted them to keep the information, 79 per cent admitted that the company did not.
The study's results suggested that the stolen information was valuable to competitors — 67 per cent of the ex-employees said they used confidential, sensitive or proprietary information from their ex-employer to help secure a new job, and 68 per cent said they planned to make use of the data.
Companies share blame
The study's author suggested that companies aren't doing enough to stop the thefts:
Only 15 per cent of companies in the survey conducted a review or audit of the paper and electronic documents taken by employees.
92 per cent of employees took CDs, DVDs, USB memory sticks and PDAs with them when they left, and 89 per cent reported that the company did not do an electronic scan of the devices.
24 per cent of employees were able to access their former employer's computer system or network after their departure and 44 per cent continued to receive email on the company's account.
"Even if layoffs are not imminent, companies need to be more aware of who has access to sensitive business information," said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, in a statement. "Our research suggests that a great deal of data loss is preventable through the use of clear policies, better communication with employees, and adequate controls on data access."
Dissatisfied employees more likely to steal
The study found that only 13 per cent of respondents who had a favourable view of their former employer kept some of the company's information, while more than 61 per cent with an unfavourable view took the data.
When employees who took the data were asked why it was acceptable to do so:
54 per cent said other employees kept the information when they left the company.
50 per cent said no one checked their belongings when they left.
11 per cent said their former supervisor said it was permissible to keep the information.
________________________________________________________________
Many ex-employees in the U.S. are walking off with companies' sensitive and confidential data when they leave their jobs, a new study has found.
And of those, most have either used or plan to use the data for their next job with another company.
"Not only is this putting customer and other confidential information at risk for a data breach, but it could affect companies' competitiveness and future revenues," said the study released Monday by the Ponemon Institute, a Michigan-based independent think-tank that researches information and privacy management practices in business and government.
Among 945 survey participants who had been laid off, fired, or changed jobs in the past year, 59 per cent admitted to taking company data with them, said the study, which as sponsored by Symantec Corp., the internet security company that makes Norton Antivirus.
Of those:
65 per cent took email lists.
45 per cent took non-financial business information.
39 per cent took customer information, including contact lists.
35 per cent took employee records.
16 per cent took financial information.
About 61 per cent took the data as paper documents or hard files, 53 per cent burned the information onto a CD or DVD, and 42 per cent downloaded it onto a USB memory stick.
When asked if their former company permitted them to keep the information, 79 per cent admitted that the company did not.
The study's results suggested that the stolen information was valuable to competitors — 67 per cent of the ex-employees said they used confidential, sensitive or proprietary information from their ex-employer to help secure a new job, and 68 per cent said they planned to make use of the data.
Companies share blame
The study's author suggested that companies aren't doing enough to stop the thefts:
Only 15 per cent of companies in the survey conducted a review or audit of the paper and electronic documents taken by employees.
92 per cent of employees took CDs, DVDs, USB memory sticks and PDAs with them when they left, and 89 per cent reported that the company did not do an electronic scan of the devices.
24 per cent of employees were able to access their former employer's computer system or network after their departure and 44 per cent continued to receive email on the company's account.
"Even if layoffs are not imminent, companies need to be more aware of who has access to sensitive business information," said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, in a statement. "Our research suggests that a great deal of data loss is preventable through the use of clear policies, better communication with employees, and adequate controls on data access."
Dissatisfied employees more likely to steal
The study found that only 13 per cent of respondents who had a favourable view of their former employer kept some of the company's information, while more than 61 per cent with an unfavourable view took the data.
When employees who took the data were asked why it was acceptable to do so:
54 per cent said other employees kept the information when they left the company.
50 per cent said no one checked their belongings when they left.
11 per cent said their former supervisor said it was permissible to keep the information.
Monday, 9 February 2009
A flood of fake CVs for IT jobs
According to The Times of India fake CVs and qualifications are flooding the Indian IT market. This trend represents a real danger to companies outsourcing IT development to India on more than one front. There is the obvious risk that the person may have a false or stolen identity and could be working on behalf of organised crime. A further risk is that the employee is not qualified for the role they will be doing and can cause serious damage to the IT infrastracture of the client. Companies are advised to not let their guards down when outsourcing any part of their work whether it is in the UK or internationally. Auditing the screening arrangements of a supplier is basic risk mitigation.
________________________________________________________________
BANGALORE: Not content with faking passports, visas and CVs, expert forgers are also meeting the needs of dubious IT aspirants. moolah by selling fake access and identity cards, appointment letters, pay revision letters, bank statements
Agents across the country are raking in the , and even relieving letters of companies and banks. A fortnight ago, Wipro Technologies interviewed a candidate who walked into its MG Road office with a whole bunch of fake documents, including an interview call letter from Wipro. Its HR staff smelt a rat and on interrogation, they uncovered the true extent of the candidate’s duplicity. Wipro let the Andhra Pradesh-based fraudster go after obtaining a written apology, in which he wrote, “I went to a shopping mall in Bangalore. There I met a job consultant. I paid him Rs 3,000 and in turn he got me fake certificates, ID card, offer letter, letter of salary hike, pay slips and bank statements. With these, I applied for a techie’s job in Wipro." An e-mail interview call letter received by another candidate had the following details: "Dear candidate, your resume is found on TimesJobs.com and you have been selected for the job you sought for. Your interview will be held on February 10 at Wipro’s Noida office. You have to come with photo copies of all required documents. First you have to deposit Rs 5,300 in any branch of a bank (name withheld) in the account number XXX in favour of Sr HRD. This money along with your travel allowance and DA will be refunded by the company on the day of the interview." Wipro has taken a serious view of the matter and even shared some cases with its peers. “It’s a serious menace growing in alarming proportions. We have given special training to our talent acquisition team to be extremely cautious of such questionable elements trying to creep into the system. We are talking to ten of our peers so that together we can find ways to fight the menace. The idea is to create a pool of fake CVs and share them between us so that we are insulated. This will also create awareness in the market," said Pradeep Bahirwani, vice-president, talent acquisition
, Wipro Technologies. According to Bahirwani, candidates from secondary cities easily fall prey to these "agents". According to a recent KPMG report, one of every four CVs in the Indian tech space is fake. Also, six of every ten fake CVs have a direct or indirect link to Hyderabad.
The Times of India
________________________________________________________________
BANGALORE: Not content with faking passports, visas and CVs, expert forgers are also meeting the needs of dubious IT aspirants. moolah by selling fake access and identity cards, appointment letters, pay revision letters, bank statements
Agents across the country are raking in the , and even relieving letters of companies and banks. A fortnight ago, Wipro Technologies interviewed a candidate who walked into its MG Road office with a whole bunch of fake documents, including an interview call letter from Wipro. Its HR staff smelt a rat and on interrogation, they uncovered the true extent of the candidate’s duplicity. Wipro let the Andhra Pradesh-based fraudster go after obtaining a written apology, in which he wrote, “I went to a shopping mall in Bangalore. There I met a job consultant. I paid him Rs 3,000 and in turn he got me fake certificates, ID card, offer letter, letter of salary hike, pay slips and bank statements. With these, I applied for a techie’s job in Wipro." An e-mail interview call letter received by another candidate had the following details: "Dear candidate, your resume is found on TimesJobs.com and you have been selected for the job you sought for. Your interview will be held on February 10 at Wipro’s Noida office. You have to come with photo copies of all required documents. First you have to deposit Rs 5,300 in any branch of a bank (name withheld) in the account number XXX in favour of Sr HRD. This money along with your travel allowance and DA will be refunded by the company on the day of the interview." Wipro has taken a serious view of the matter and even shared some cases with its peers. “It’s a serious menace growing in alarming proportions. We have given special training to our talent acquisition team to be extremely cautious of such questionable elements trying to creep into the system. We are talking to ten of our peers so that together we can find ways to fight the menace. The idea is to create a pool of fake CVs and share them between us so that we are insulated. This will also create awareness in the market," said Pradeep Bahirwani, vice-president, talent acquisition
, Wipro Technologies. According to Bahirwani, candidates from secondary cities easily fall prey to these "agents". According to a recent KPMG report, one of every four CVs in the Indian tech space is fake. Also, six of every ten fake CVs have a direct or indirect link to Hyderabad.
The Times of India
Monday, 2 February 2009
Companies should be very vigilant in screening their employees as fraud nears record levels
As the global economic downturn takes hold it is very likely that more fraud will come to light. Tightening economic conditions are likely to both reveal existing frauds, or act as an determinant for new frauds. Companies are urged to screen new employees carefully and not neglect to periodically re-screen employees in high risk functions.
____________________________________________________
The BBC On Line reports:
While fraud by professional gangs remained pretty constant, fraud by individuals increased dramatically.
Individual cases of fraud accounted for around £300m, a three-fold increase on 2007.
Professional gangs accounted for £806m.
The financial services sector suffered from £388m of alleged fraud - a 10-fold increase on 2007. However, £220m of this total was accounted for by an alleged £220m attempt to hack into Sumitomo Matsui Banking Corporation's systems.
Companies were badly hit, with a five-fold increase in fraud, up from £24m worth of cases in 2007 to £125m last year.
"Internal frauds are becoming more prevalent and should set alarm bells ringing within organisations. In difficult times, they could even become the tipping point between the survival and demise of an organisation," said Mr Patel.
____________________________________________________
The BBC On Line reports:
While fraud by professional gangs remained pretty constant, fraud by individuals increased dramatically.
Individual cases of fraud accounted for around £300m, a three-fold increase on 2007.
Professional gangs accounted for £806m.
The financial services sector suffered from £388m of alleged fraud - a 10-fold increase on 2007. However, £220m of this total was accounted for by an alleged £220m attempt to hack into Sumitomo Matsui Banking Corporation's systems.
Companies were badly hit, with a five-fold increase in fraud, up from £24m worth of cases in 2007 to £125m last year.
"Internal frauds are becoming more prevalent and should set alarm bells ringing within organisations. In difficult times, they could even become the tipping point between the survival and demise of an organisation," said Mr Patel.
India tightens pre-employment screening practices after Mumbai attacks
Many stories of lax pre-employment screening have be reported out of India. The attacks in Mumbai are finally making companies and authorities, look close at their vetting processes as reported in the Hindu Business Line below:
_______________________________________________________
Shaken by the magnitude of the terror that struck the two hotels in Mumbai, companies across industries would step up employee verification procedures, especially for contract employees and those employed in ‘sensitive positions’ such as security staff, hospitality and airlines frontline staff and telecom employees.
Mr Rajesh A R, Vice-President of staffing solutions company TeamLease Services says that for ‘sensitive positions,’ there is likely to be additional verifications like checking permanent addresses, apart from routine education and previous employment checking.
“Before the Mumbai incident, companies did not feel the need to spend the money on additional checks such as these, especially for employees whose salaries were about Rs 4,000-Rs 5,000/ month.” Companies will therefore prefer to employ people who come with third party verification. “Candidates who have got themselves verified would stand a better chance of being employed,” he feels.
Very soon, he believes, this would also become mandatory for temp (contract) employees in the hospitality, airline, BFSI, retail and telecom sectors.
Col Vijay Reddy, Director of Footprints, a background screening firm, says that he has been recommending permanent residence verification of employees to all his clients, especially for contract staff in security agencies and the hospitality sectors.
“Now, they realise that people from the neighbouring region can easily pass off for Indians unless verified for permanent residency and that also by an independent agency.”Police verification
The hospitality sector, meanwhile, says the industry has been going through the usual procedure of identity checks. According to Ms Harinder Singh, General Manager, The Lalit Ashok, Bangalore, the hotel does go through the proper process of verifying for some positions. “We make sure there is police verification and identity checks too,” she says.
Mr Subrata Majumder, General Manager, The Park, Bangalore, says, “We make sure we demand police verification for various positions. We check documents, but how genuine they are is definitely a concern.”
In the meantime Aislinn Simpson of the Telegraph reports...
Indian call centre manager arrested over British insurance scam
The manager of an Indian call centre handling the insurance details of hundreds of British customers has been arrested over fears of a major scam, according to police.
According to the police, Edward Burns, an Indian citizen, was working in the insurance claims division of Delhi-based EXL, which handled British insurance firm Aviva, the parent company of Norwich Union.
The 30-year-old is feared to have been using identities of British insurance customers to make false claims for up to two years.
He has admitted siphoning off nearly £57,000 to bank accounts in Britain but this is only in relation to 12 customers and police believe the scam could be much larger.
They also fear that other British firms who hold accounts with EXL may have been affected.
The local head of police, Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi, said police also plan to interrogate three people thought to be accomplices of Mr Burns in Britain.
He said: "As this has been going on for two years, we suspect a much bigger financial fraud to British customers."
It is not yet clear how Mr Burns is alleged to have perpetrated the fraud, but it is understood that police believe his accomplices in Britain would collect the insurance payout and take a cut out to him in India.
EXL Service has played down the scale of the alleged scam, saying it was a "small-scale isolated incident".
A spokesman for Aviva said: "We can confirm that, through our own control mechanisms, we have discovered an isolated case of fraud by an employee of one of our supplier partners. We are currently working with the local authorities to take the appropriate action. At no time was any policy holders' money at risk."
_______________________________________________________
Shaken by the magnitude of the terror that struck the two hotels in Mumbai, companies across industries would step up employee verification procedures, especially for contract employees and those employed in ‘sensitive positions’ such as security staff, hospitality and airlines frontline staff and telecom employees.
Mr Rajesh A R, Vice-President of staffing solutions company TeamLease Services says that for ‘sensitive positions,’ there is likely to be additional verifications like checking permanent addresses, apart from routine education and previous employment checking.
“Before the Mumbai incident, companies did not feel the need to spend the money on additional checks such as these, especially for employees whose salaries were about Rs 4,000-Rs 5,000/ month.” Companies will therefore prefer to employ people who come with third party verification. “Candidates who have got themselves verified would stand a better chance of being employed,” he feels.
Very soon, he believes, this would also become mandatory for temp (contract) employees in the hospitality, airline, BFSI, retail and telecom sectors.
Col Vijay Reddy, Director of Footprints, a background screening firm, says that he has been recommending permanent residence verification of employees to all his clients, especially for contract staff in security agencies and the hospitality sectors.
“Now, they realise that people from the neighbouring region can easily pass off for Indians unless verified for permanent residency and that also by an independent agency.”Police verification
The hospitality sector, meanwhile, says the industry has been going through the usual procedure of identity checks. According to Ms Harinder Singh, General Manager, The Lalit Ashok, Bangalore, the hotel does go through the proper process of verifying for some positions. “We make sure there is police verification and identity checks too,” she says.
Mr Subrata Majumder, General Manager, The Park, Bangalore, says, “We make sure we demand police verification for various positions. We check documents, but how genuine they are is definitely a concern.”
In the meantime Aislinn Simpson of the Telegraph reports...
Indian call centre manager arrested over British insurance scam
The manager of an Indian call centre handling the insurance details of hundreds of British customers has been arrested over fears of a major scam, according to police.
According to the police, Edward Burns, an Indian citizen, was working in the insurance claims division of Delhi-based EXL, which handled British insurance firm Aviva, the parent company of Norwich Union.
The 30-year-old is feared to have been using identities of British insurance customers to make false claims for up to two years.
He has admitted siphoning off nearly £57,000 to bank accounts in Britain but this is only in relation to 12 customers and police believe the scam could be much larger.
They also fear that other British firms who hold accounts with EXL may have been affected.
The local head of police, Ashok Kumar Chaturvedi, said police also plan to interrogate three people thought to be accomplices of Mr Burns in Britain.
He said: "As this has been going on for two years, we suspect a much bigger financial fraud to British customers."
It is not yet clear how Mr Burns is alleged to have perpetrated the fraud, but it is understood that police believe his accomplices in Britain would collect the insurance payout and take a cut out to him in India.
EXL Service has played down the scale of the alleged scam, saying it was a "small-scale isolated incident".
A spokesman for Aviva said: "We can confirm that, through our own control mechanisms, we have discovered an isolated case of fraud by an employee of one of our supplier partners. We are currently working with the local authorities to take the appropriate action. At no time was any policy holders' money at risk."
A tale of two references...
This week brought two interesting stories about referencing. Two companies, one in the US, the other in Australia, reacted quite differently to adverse referencing. What would you do?
First, Microsemi as reported in the FT by Richard Waters
In spite of the new spirit of puritanism sweeping through US boardrooms, some chief executives are still being forgiven an occasional lapse into dishonesty.
That was the stance taken this week by directors of Microsemi, a small Californian technology company, after it was revealed that the company's chief executive had been less than forthright about his educational qualifications.
Rather than showing Jim Peterson the door - the fate that has often befallen other chief executives who have lied about their credentials - Microsemi's directors have decided that he should stay on, although with financial penalties that could cost him $1m.
News of the board's leniency drew a mixed reaction. "It's one data point about a person, about their willingness to falsify a record in a tight spot," said Wayne Norman, professor of ethics and philosophy at Duke University.
He added, though, that the company's directors were right to take a broader view of Mr Peterson's conduct over a number of years, and to consider the impact on shareholders of making a leadership change.
Justifying the decision not to jettison the chief executive after his nine years at the helm, Dennis Leibel, chairman, said: "The board's mission is to protect shareholder interests by balancing the results of the independent inquiry against the great value and strategic vision that Jim Peterson has created at Microsemi." He credited the chief executive with building a "highly successful and profitable enterprise".
Complicating the case was the fact that the disclosure about Mr Peterson's false credentials was made by Barry Minkow, a short-seller who has a track record of profiting by uncovering such irregularities.
The work of short-sellers in ferreting out discrepancies like this probably helped in the longer term to keep chief executives honest, said Mr Norman.
In a regulatory filing, Microsemi said that an investigation by law firm Munger Tolles & Olson had concluded that Mr Peterson did not have a bachelor's degree and MBA from Brigham Young University, as he had claimed.
Instead, he had been awarded an associate's degree by a college that later became part of Brigham Young, and had also earned "substantial credits" towards a bachelor's degree at the university.
Microsemi said it would impose financial penalties on Mr Peterson, while also introducing a heightened level of scrutiny that would involve deeper background checks into its senior executives.
While adding that the company "takes this matter very seriously", Mr Leibel stopped short of criticising the chief executive's dishonesty directly and said the company's directors "are not commenting on his beliefs, understandings or state of mind".
Meanwhile, in Australia...
A COMPANY has won more than $160,000 compensation from a recruitment firm that recommended a manager who was a former bankrupt and fraud.
The firm failed to conduct adequate background checks on the sales manager, who subsequently defrauded the company of $120,000.
Sydney water treatment equipment supplier Wedeco hired Driver Recruitment, trading as Authorised Solutions, to find sales manager for Southeast Asia, reports The Australian.
According to a NSW Court of Appeal judgment, the successful candidate, Stephen Riddell, worked for Wedeco for 18 months before it was discovered that his qualifications were false.
Wedeco found Riddell was an undischarged bankrupt and that "in his business activities he had engaged in fraudulent practices''.
Wedeco sought damages for breach of contract and for negligence and recovery of loss suffered.
The court heard that when the recruiter put forward Mr Riddell for the job, his CV said he had been employed as an area manager with another company, Tyco, for the past two years
In reality, Mr Riddell had stopped working for Tyco 5 months earlier.
Two Tyco employees nominated by Mr Riddell as referees said that when asked for a reference, they told the recruiter he no longer worked for the company and they could not speak about his work performance.
His former supervisor said that had the recruiter contacted him, he would have said Mr Riddell had had two warnings and that he was in the process of recommending his sacking when Riddell resigned.
The court found the recruitment firm breached its contract with Wedeco and its duty of care because the company failed to speak to the two referees.
It was ordered to pay $164,224 to Wedeco.
First, Microsemi as reported in the FT by Richard Waters
In spite of the new spirit of puritanism sweeping through US boardrooms, some chief executives are still being forgiven an occasional lapse into dishonesty.
That was the stance taken this week by directors of Microsemi, a small Californian technology company, after it was revealed that the company's chief executive had been less than forthright about his educational qualifications.
Rather than showing Jim Peterson the door - the fate that has often befallen other chief executives who have lied about their credentials - Microsemi's directors have decided that he should stay on, although with financial penalties that could cost him $1m.
News of the board's leniency drew a mixed reaction. "It's one data point about a person, about their willingness to falsify a record in a tight spot," said Wayne Norman, professor of ethics and philosophy at Duke University.
He added, though, that the company's directors were right to take a broader view of Mr Peterson's conduct over a number of years, and to consider the impact on shareholders of making a leadership change.
Justifying the decision not to jettison the chief executive after his nine years at the helm, Dennis Leibel, chairman, said: "The board's mission is to protect shareholder interests by balancing the results of the independent inquiry against the great value and strategic vision that Jim Peterson has created at Microsemi." He credited the chief executive with building a "highly successful and profitable enterprise".
Complicating the case was the fact that the disclosure about Mr Peterson's false credentials was made by Barry Minkow, a short-seller who has a track record of profiting by uncovering such irregularities.
The work of short-sellers in ferreting out discrepancies like this probably helped in the longer term to keep chief executives honest, said Mr Norman.
In a regulatory filing, Microsemi said that an investigation by law firm Munger Tolles & Olson had concluded that Mr Peterson did not have a bachelor's degree and MBA from Brigham Young University, as he had claimed.
Instead, he had been awarded an associate's degree by a college that later became part of Brigham Young, and had also earned "substantial credits" towards a bachelor's degree at the university.
Microsemi said it would impose financial penalties on Mr Peterson, while also introducing a heightened level of scrutiny that would involve deeper background checks into its senior executives.
While adding that the company "takes this matter very seriously", Mr Leibel stopped short of criticising the chief executive's dishonesty directly and said the company's directors "are not commenting on his beliefs, understandings or state of mind".
Meanwhile, in Australia...
A COMPANY has won more than $160,000 compensation from a recruitment firm that recommended a manager who was a former bankrupt and fraud.
The firm failed to conduct adequate background checks on the sales manager, who subsequently defrauded the company of $120,000.
Sydney water treatment equipment supplier Wedeco hired Driver Recruitment, trading as Authorised Solutions, to find sales manager for Southeast Asia, reports The Australian.
According to a NSW Court of Appeal judgment, the successful candidate, Stephen Riddell, worked for Wedeco for 18 months before it was discovered that his qualifications were false.
Wedeco found Riddell was an undischarged bankrupt and that "in his business activities he had engaged in fraudulent practices''.
Wedeco sought damages for breach of contract and for negligence and recovery of loss suffered.
The court heard that when the recruiter put forward Mr Riddell for the job, his CV said he had been employed as an area manager with another company, Tyco, for the past two years
In reality, Mr Riddell had stopped working for Tyco 5 months earlier.
Two Tyco employees nominated by Mr Riddell as referees said that when asked for a reference, they told the recruiter he no longer worked for the company and they could not speak about his work performance.
His former supervisor said that had the recruiter contacted him, he would have said Mr Riddell had had two warnings and that he was in the process of recommending his sacking when Riddell resigned.
The court found the recruitment firm breached its contract with Wedeco and its duty of care because the company failed to speak to the two referees.
It was ordered to pay $164,224 to Wedeco.
Friday, 23 January 2009
The Right Fit
Companies which rely on finding out just how good their new recruits are once they are in the job could be putting their finances and reputation at risk. This is the key message in a new guide produced by recruitment communications and candidate assessment experts, TMP Worldwide.In its latest White Paper ‘The Right Fit: Reducing the Risk of Recruitment’, TMP provides organisations with a guide to measuring the value of potential employees before they are in position.TMP Worldwide, Chief Executive, Andrew Wilkinson who launched the White paper at the HR Business Directors Summit held at the ICC in Birmingham on the 21st and 22nd January (http://www.hrevent.com/), says finding the ‘right fit’ means being clear about which behaviours lead to effective performance for your organisation. These need to be measured against the specific requirements of the job i.e. job competencies and should be linked to how organisations attract candidates via their employer brand.“Now, more than ever, expensive mistakes in recruiting the wrong people cannot afford to be made. Companies need to make sure they are attracting and retaining people who will add maximum value rather than just fill vacancies,” said Wilkinson.He suggests that the following four step approach will eradicate risky recruitment based on gut instinct.1. Understand the behaviours that lead to better performance which should be documented in an organisational competency model2. Attract the right people through defining and communicating an honest and compelling employer brand3. Create a ‘fit for purpose’ recruitment process4. Engage with candidates in their journey to becoming employees through a seamless on boarding programme.The White Paper takes business leader and recruiters through defining, creating and communicating an organisational competency model.According to TMP’s Wilkinson, Employer Brand is also key in establishing the differentiator that makes a company stand out from it competitors. “Having an effectively managed employer brand can improve engagement levels by up to 30% and increase the size of the labour pool by around 50%,” he said.When it comes to finding the ‘right fit’ Wilkinson recommends that companies start by identifying the behaviours and characteristics of high performing individuals to understand ‘what great looks like’. Once this is in place recruiters can use a number of tools from competency-based interviews, competency-sifting questionnaires and tailored assessment centre exercises to detect a candidate’s suitability for a role, says Wilkinson.Through the AMEC Nuclear case study within the White Paper, recruiters can see how TMP helped the company to create a competency framework which its HR and Capability Director says will differentiate AMEC Nuclear and drive the business forward.“Organisations will see immediate value and reduced recruitment risk from our ‘right fit’ approach which will identify the right people with the right behaviours for the company’s culture and vision,” concluded Wilkinson.‘The Right Fit: Reducing the Risk of Recruitment’ is available via email. Please contact Amy Johnson at amy.johnson@tmpw.co.uk
____________________________________
Finding the right fit with a new recruit is truly the "Holy Grail" in resourcing. Time and again we interview line managers who give every indication that an applicant would not be the right fit for the organisation they are joining. Subsequent research proves that indeed the longevity of the employee is short and the performance leaves a lot to be desired. The skills and abilities may be there, but further assessment is imperative when making the recruitment decision. At Powerchex we talk to referees and this helps us communicate to the resourcing team our observations on the fit of the applicant. It is quite often that an offer is retracted based on this criteria. Now that the labour market is a bit looser, I would recommend to companies to take the time and effort to establish the right fit when making their decision.
____________________________________
Finding the right fit with a new recruit is truly the "Holy Grail" in resourcing. Time and again we interview line managers who give every indication that an applicant would not be the right fit for the organisation they are joining. Subsequent research proves that indeed the longevity of the employee is short and the performance leaves a lot to be desired. The skills and abilities may be there, but further assessment is imperative when making the recruitment decision. At Powerchex we talk to referees and this helps us communicate to the resourcing team our observations on the fit of the applicant. It is quite often that an offer is retracted based on this criteria. Now that the labour market is a bit looser, I would recommend to companies to take the time and effort to establish the right fit when making their decision.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Festive scam alert
Scam-artists are more likely to target their victims during the festive period and in an economic downturn, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has warned. From miracle slimming products which would be aimed at those hoping to lose weight after Christmas parties, to the threat of online identity theft, consumers should be extra careful with their identities and their money. Scam-artists offering swift cash rewards were likely to be more active during the economic downturn. Consumers should regularly monitor their bank accounts and alert their bank whenever they see transactions which they do not recognise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
