Study Finds Widespread Resume Falsification     

Internet giant Yahoo hoped its new CEO, Scott Thompson, would lift the company from its trend of slumping profits and economic woes. Those hopes   were dashed when it came to light that Thompson's résumé included a whopper of a lie - a computer science degree he had never earned.

Résumé falsification is disturbingly common, even among higher paid employees and executive management. The recently ousted Thompson joins an ever-growing list of prominent businesspeople that have been exposed as having falsified their educational or employment backgrounds.

The high-profile cases make the news , but a recent study from ADP and The Society of Human Resource Managers reflects widespread falsification of varying magnitude in résumés and job applications.

The study found:

• 53% of applications contained outright falsifications
• 78% were misleading
• 40% contained inflated salary claims
• 29% had altered employment dates
• 27% gave false references
• 21% stated fraudulent degrees

There are even Internet sites dedicated to teaching job applicants how to successfully lie on their résumés!

A conventional criminal background check may expose criminal charges or convictions, but employment history, references and degrees take more effort to verify. It's no surprise that busy employers frequently take their applicants' credentials on faith.

The hiring process is costly and time-consuming, but so are hiring mistakes! If you base your hiring decisions on information in an applicants' resume or job application, take the time to investigate whether it's accurate. United Employers Association can help you ensure your business is only hiring truthful, qualified employees. In addition to criminal history checks, we offer extensive background verification services through our partner organization, AAIM Check. Among useful services offered are Education and License Verifications and Previous Employer In-Depth Background Checks. These services are intended to authenticate applicants' claims about employment and educational history, as well as qualitatively determine personal and professional characteristics that could add to or detract from an applicant's likelihood to fit in at your business.

With the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributing 30% of all business failures to negligent hiring, no employer can afford to skip a comprehensive background analysis before hiring.

We can help you hire the right candidate for the job - call us! 

A federal appeals court ruled in late June that an employee was not protected under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when he missed work for a doctor visit to refill a prescription.  The FMLA protects an employee while on leave or absent from work for a "serious health condition," including time spent receiving medical treatment. Robert Jones, employed at a technology company, claimed his absence from work to obtain a prescription-refill note from his doctor was covered under FMLA. His employer disagreed and terminated Jones under the company's absence policy.  The policy assigned points for each absence, and employees were terminated after accruing three points. Jones' morning absence brought his total up from 2.5 to three points.

Jones filed a suit against the employer, alleging that his FMLA rights had been violated, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected his claim.  The court reasoned that Jones had not received medical treatment for his condition during his absence, and therefore the absence was not covered by FMLA. The employer was within its right to terminate Jones.

Although this decision is not binding in Oregon and Washington (which are in the Ninth Circuit), it is instructive that this court adopted a narrow interpretation of the law.  Jones' claim failed because his interaction with the doctor that day did not constitute "treatment" under the FMLA. The court held that if the doctor had actually examined Jones, instead of simply providing him with a prescription refill, the encounter would have been protected.

Day-to-day compliance with the FMLA can be challenging! Whether you need to brush up on the basics or talk through a difficult scenario, call or email our Employer Hotline for free, unlimited assistance. 

Many employers have adopted social media policies that attempt to regulate or restrict employees' presence on sites like Facebook and Twitter, but such policies run the risk of violating the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employees' rights to participate in certain protected activities.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)  has released a  new report examining the social media policies of seven employers.  Six out of seven policies  were  found to  contain  unlawful provisions.  Several of  these provisions attempted to restrict the release of confidential information through social media outlets.

The NLRB found  that  when the terms of confidentiality provisions were overly broad, they infringed upon employees' right to openly discuss, issues, wages, working conditions and terms of employment.  All such discussions are protected under the National Labor Relations Act.  Although it seems like a matter of common sense that an employer should be able to restrict employees from communicating confidential information,  the specific wording  of such policies is key - a few sentences can make the difference between compliance and noncompliance.

One employer's policy was simple: "Don't release confidential guest, team member or company information." The NLRB concluded that "confidential information"  was overbroad and could be reasonably interpreted to include employees' wages, working conditions, and terms of employment.

Compare that to a provision in another company's policy that the board found lawful:

"Maintain the confidentiality of [Employer] trade secrets and private confidential information. Trade secrets may include information regarding the development of systems, processes, products, know-how and technology. Do not post internal reports, policies, procedures or other internal business-related confidential communications."

The Board held this policy was lawful.  The Act does not give employees the right to disclose trade secrets, and the  policy provided enough examples of prohibited disclosures that employees  could understand that is did not restrict the type  of discussions protected under the Act.