返回列表 发表时间:2021-10-08    浏览次数:764

背景调查被忽视了吗?

雇主是否对员工背景调查政策保持警惕?每当有关于员工伤害客户、挪用资金或以其他方式犯下不法行为的新故事出现时,都会有人提出这个问题。在某些情况下,雇主采取了捷径或跳过了可能有助于防止相关事件发生的背景调查步骤。其他时候,这些事件是侥幸:没有犯罪历史搜索 或 参考调查 可以预见的第一次犯罪 。 

为了更好地了解雇主在审查中可能遗漏了哪些地方,我们研究了几起事件,在这些事件中,更彻底的背景调查可能会有所作为。 

1. 凶残的送货员 

8 月 19 日星期一,博卡拉顿的一名 75 岁妇女在家中被一名送货员谋杀,送货员在那里安装她在百思买购买的洗衣机和烘干机。凶手,21 岁的豪尔赫·拉查佐 (Jorge Lachazo) 用木槌将这名女子打死,并用丙酮焚烧了她的尸体,这似乎毫无动机。 

Lachazo 是 XM Delivery Service 的一名员工,该公司是一家总部位于迈阿密的快递公司,与该公司签订了交付该设备的合同。百思买与外部公司签订合同以交付和安装电器,而不是在内部处理这些服务。在这种情况下,百思买与位于阿肯色州的航运公司 JB Hunt 签订了交付合同,后者又与 XM Delivery Service 签订了合同。

 目前,尚不清楚 Lachazo 是否有犯罪背景或其他可能预测他行为的过去危险信号。百思买对其审查分包商的政策并不十分开放,尽管该公司已承诺“审查[其]现有的筛选、审计和安全计划”。该案例确实强调了为什么企业 对承包商进行审查和对员工进行审查一样彻底的重要性。

2. 综合临终关怀检查的挑战 

芝加哥记者吉姆帕克为 临终关怀新闻撰稿,阐明了临终关怀行业背景调查不足的普遍性。根据美国卫生与公共服务部监察长办公室 (OIG) 的报告,在 2012 年至 2016 年期间,美国 87% 的临终关怀机构“在监管或认证机构的调查中至少发现了一项缺陷”。常见的缺陷类型是背景调查或背景调查文件的失误。 

Parker 写道,挑战在于收容所的背景调查非常复杂,涉及犯罪记录搜索、 教育验证、 工作经历、 专业执照、滥用和疏忽登记检查、OIG 排除列表的搜索等等。结果是许多临终关怀员工与弱势患者一起工作,即使他们没有完整的背景调查档案。 

尽管其复杂性, 医疗保健背景调查必须是全面的, 以保护患者并避免潜在的疏忽招聘或医疗事故诉讼。 

3. 6,000 次跳过背景调查 

在爱荷华州,最近对该州公共安全部 (DPS) 的审计发现,一名文员 跳过了近 6,000 项背景调查职员 Joe Sheehan Jr. 的工作是对寻求私人调查员或保安员执照的个人进行背景调查。 

要获得这种类型的许可证(称为“警卫卡”),申请人必须通过爱荷华州犯罪历史调查和联邦背景调查。有特定信念的个人不得持有警卫卡或在安全或私家侦探行业工作。Sheehan Jr. 跳过了 5,817 起案件的联邦背景调查步骤。

 此后,DPS 解雇了 Sheehan Jr.,并为 5,817 名守卫持卡人中的大多数人处理了联邦支票。到目前为止,DPS 已经撤销了大约 25 张因州外定罪的警卫卡,这些警卫卡一开始就应该取消这些人接收卡的资格。DPS 已对 Sheehan Jr. 展开刑事调查,并试图确定他是否因跳过背景调查而受贿。 

这个案例表明,背景调查不应该只是一个人的责任。DPS 的额外监督或裁员本可以帮助组织避免这种情况。

结论 

无论您是与承包商、医护人员、获得宝贵专业执照的个人还是全职员工打交道,员工背景调查审查都是极其重要的一步。在大多数情况下,当雇主在背景调查中偷工减料时,他们并不是出于恶意:这些捷径可能是出于纯粹的懒惰、为了省钱,或者仅仅是健忘或缺乏监督。不管忽视背景调查的原因是什么,它们对企业来说都可能是极其昂贵的——无论是以悲剧、诉讼或负面公关的形式。 

criminal history search or reference check could have foreseen. 

To get a better sense of where employers might be missing the mark with their vetting, we looked at several incidents in which more thorough background checks could have made a difference. 

1. Murderous Deliveryman 

On Monday, August 19, a 75-year-old woman in Boca Raton was murdered in her home by a deliveryman who was there to install a washer and dryer she’d purchased at Best Buy. The killer, 21-year-old Jorge Lachazo, beat the woman to death with a mallet and burned her body with acetone seemingly without motive. 

Lachazo was an employee of X.M. Delivery Service, a Miami-based delivery company that had been contracted to deliver the appliance. Best Buy contracts outside companies to deliver and install appliances rather than handling these services in-house. In this case, Best Buy contracted the Arkansas-based shipping company J.B. Hunt for the delivery, which in turn contracted X.M. Delivery Service.

 At this point, it isn’t clear if Lachazo had a criminal background or other past red flags that might have predicted his behavior. Best Buy hasn’t been very open about its policies for vetting subcontractors, though the company has promised to “review [its] existing screening, audit, and safety programs.” The case does highlight why it’s crucial for businesses to vet their contractors just as thoroughly as they vet their employees.

2. Challenges with Comprehensive Hospice Checks 

Writing for Hospice News, Chicago journalist Jim Parker shed some light on how common deficient background checks are in the hospice industry. According to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report, 87 percent of all hospices in the United States “had at least one deficiency identified during a regulatory or accreditor survey” between 2012 and 2016. The most common type of deficiency was a lapse in background checks or background check documentation. 

The challenge, Parker writes, is that background checks for hospices are sophisticated, involving criminal history searches, verifications for education, work history, professional licenses, abuse and neglect registry checks, searches of the OIG exclusions list, and more. The result is that many hospice employees work with vulnerable patients even though they don’t have full background checks on file. 

Despite their complexity, healthcare background checks must be comprehensive to protect patients and avoid potential negligent hiring or malpractice lawsuits. 

3. 6,000 Skipped Background Checks 

In Iowa, a recent audit of the state’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) found that a clerk had skipped running nearly 6,000 background checks. It was the job of the clerk, Joe Sheehan Jr., to initiate background checks for individuals seeking private investigator or security guard licenses. 

To receive this type of license—known as a “guard card”—applicants must pass both an Iowa state criminal history check and a federal background check. Individuals with certain convictions are not allowed to hold guard cards or work in the security or private investigator industries. Sheehan Jr. skipped the federal background check step for 5,817 cases.

 DPS has since fired Sheehan Jr. and processed federal checks for most of the 5,817 guard cardholders. So far, DPS has revoked about 25 guard cards over out-of-state convictions that should have disqualified those individuals from receiving the cards in the first place. DPS has opened a criminal investigation into Sheehan Jr. and is trying to determine if he was bribed to skip the background checks. 

This case shows that background checks should not just be the responsibility of a single person. Additional oversight or redundancy at DPS could have helped the organization to avoid the situation.

Conclusion 

Employee background check vetting is an extremely important step whether you are dealing with contractors, healthcare workers, individuals receiving valuable professional licenses, or full-time employees. In most cases, when employers cut corners with their background checks, they aren’t doing so with malicious intent: these shortcuts might happen out of sheer laziness, to save money, or simply forgetfulness or lack of oversight. Regardless of the reason for neglected background checks, they can be extremely costly for businesses—whether in the form of tragedies, lawsuits, or negative PR. 


电子屏-02.png