The proposed law aims to address privacy concerns about certain online services, such as social networks and Google Street View. Apparently, there has been public outrage in Germany over corporations checking on private employee emails and filming sales clerks during coffee breaks.

At this point, the regulations have not yet been passed, and some are finding it difficult to imagine them being in force. It would also be challenging to prove a violation and enforce the law to win damages.

For instance, employers would still be able to conduct Internet searches on a job applicant, and could view business-related posts on websites such as LinkedIn, but could not go into Facebook and become a “friend” of the applicant, learning even more private details about the person.

The proposed law would also prohibit video surveillance in private areas such as washrooms, under threat of a 300,000 Euro fine. On the other hand, this type of surveillance would still be allowed in public areas.

Some view the proposed bill as a healthy balance between employee rights to privacy and employer rights to know valuable information about employees.

What do you think?

Do you think this type of law could ever be passed in Canada?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Image taken from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com

I recently read an article I found quite interesting: as the competition for jobs increases during these tough economic times, many job applicants are tempted to bend the truth by embellishing or omitting information on their résumés.

It happens even more than I imagined. Apparently, recruitment firms and pre-screening companies estimate that one in three résumés raises a red flag (due to false statements, exaggerated claims or important omissions), and it has only become worse since the economy weakened in 2008.

This scenario leads to applicants getting hired and being unable to perform their jobs because they are not truly qualified for the job in the first place. What’s worse, the company could be harmed as a result of the employee’s actions during his or her time with the company.

The only way to deal with this problem is to select the proper applicant from the outset: it is critical to thoroughly check out applicants prior to hiring. The main areas that are vulnerable to “white lies” are:

• Education
• Experience
• Responsibilities
• Work dates
• Salaries

In terms of education, it is common for job applicants to be a course or two shy of a degree yet list the degree as completed to avoid having to explain the situation. Also, extra courses and professional affiliations may be inaccurate. Some might even list a fake university.

Concerning experience and responsibilities, some applicants exaggerate what they did at their last job. For instance, they might stretch the truth about how many employees they managed, or claim to have been a full manager when they were only an assistant manager.

Work dates are important to examine, as many applicants leave out portions of their work experience because they don’t know how to explain a termination, resignation or unsuccessful job search. Further, some may leave out the early portion of their careers because they don’t want to show their age.

Lastly, it is important to get an accurate idea of the applicant’s previous salary, as some may inflate the numbers so they can get a higher one from their next employer.

If we accept that at least 30 percent of résumés contain some type of inaccuracy, it is important to conduct a diligent search of the job applicant. Try the following strategies:

• Make sure that the interview process involves rigorous questioning to verify information on the résumé.
• Pay attention to the applicant’s body language. If it is negative, defensive or evasive, determine why.
• Don’t be afraid to use technology to check on a job applicant; for example, the Internet, including social networking and social media sites. However, be careful how you use the information you collected.
• Look for gaps in the applicant’s résumé. Explore whether there have been problems with past jobs or during the time between jobs.
• Check references and credentials to ensure that the résumé is truthful. Don’t be afraid to hire a fact-checker if you lack the time to do so.

Remember, once you identify a “white lie”, give the job applicant a chance to provide a more honest account of the situation before hastily rejecting him or her.

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Image taken from: http://www.worldofworklawblog.com

Upon first thought, employers may not be sure what to do when a prospective employer calls asking for a reference on a former employee.

Is it safe to provide a reference when a prospective employer is conducting a background check on your former employee?

Is it worth providing a negative reference given the privacy, defamation or discrimination issues that could arise? What if the former employer provides a “false positive” reference, and the prospective employer hires the person and later feels that it was harmed by the former employer’s failure to provide a truthful reference? Is it dangerous to not be completely truthful about a former violent or drug-addicted employee? Is it unfair to provide neutral information when a high-performing former employee might deserve a glowing reference?

With all these questions, it’s easy to see why employers might hesitate to provide a complete performance-based reference for a former employee, and may instead stick to providing neutral references discussing the former employee’s name, positions held and dates of employment.

Similarly, it’s not difficult to see why prospective employers might wonder about what to ask and what not to ask a former employer about a job candidate during a background check, and the issues that could arise from asking for certain kinds of information about the person.

I recently read a case where a prospective employee interviewed with an employer, and was offered a job conditional on his providing adequate references. The employer called the candidate’s former employer for a reference check and learned that the prospective employee had failed some drug tests and was terminated for this reason. Shortly thereafter, the employer called the candidate back to rescind the job offer because of the failed drug tests.

The prospective employee brought an application to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, arguing that he expected his former employer to provide information about his employment history and performance during the background check, but not the information about the drug tests. He felt that his former employer should not have provided this information since he had not signed any form that specifically authorized such a disclosure.

In this case, the Privacy Commissioner decided that the former employer could provide the information about the drug tests, and the prospective employer could receive this information, since the information was directly related to the candidate’s work history. Also, it was likely that the candidate had provided express consent to the prospective employer by signing an authorization form that allowed it to investigate his “employment and other related matters as may be necessary in arriving at a final decision” with respect to hiring him. The same authorization released previous employers from all liability in responding to inquiries and releasing information in connection with his application. Unfortunately, since the candidate was not hired, both employers discarded the forms.

The commissioner found neither employer liable in this case, but they took a chance by not keeping anything in writing.

Employers who are interested in providing performance-based references during a background check are recommended to:

• Provide information that is strictly job-related and based on reasonable evidence that is accurate and verifiable
• Respond only to the questions asked, and do not add extraneous information about the person
• Make sure that your answers relate directly to the former employee’s work history and performance (if drug test results or violent behaviour make up part of the individual’s work history and performance, the Privacy Commissioner has found that a former employer can reasonably disclose the information if asked about history and performance)
• Make sure to get a signed statement from departing employees that releases the employer from any liability for responding truthfully to questions asked during the course of giving references; explain that without the signed release, the company will provide neutral references only
• Ensure there is a particular person at the company who provides the references, who is trained and understands the importance of carefully handling reference inquiries
• Provide reference information only to prospective employers after verifying their identities, receiving their request in writing, and receiving the prospective employee’s consent to make the inquiry

On the same note, employers who are interested in requesting performance-based references during a background check are recommended to obtain a candidate’s express consent to ask his or her former employers about the applicant’s previous employment history and performance (put it right on the application form and keep copies of it), and to provide this consent to the former employer if requested.

I’m wondering: does your company have a neutral employment reference background check policy, providing only name, position held and dates of employment of former employees? Have you refused to provide a reference? Does your company use releases for parting employees limiting liability for future references provided?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |