Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Small Business Award Nominees Sought By Local Micro-Lending Program

MetroAction is currently seeking nominations for its small business awards program. More than ever, entrepreneurs are facing daily challenges in the successful operation of their businesses. MetroAction wants to highlight the very best of our local entrepreneurial spirit by recognizing the successes of these small businesses for their positive impact on our local economy.

The awards have traditionally honored local small businesses that clearly demonstrate how hard work and determination pay off. MetroAction is currently seeking nominations for the following awards:

The Small Business of the Year Award, sponsored by Fidelity Bank, recognizes the dedication, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit displayed by area small business. This award has three distinctive categories:
• Small Business of the Year: 50 or less employees
• Small Business of the Year: 51-250 employees
• New and Emerging Small Business: In operation for less than 3 years

The Virtual Small Business of the Year Award recognizes a local business without a corresponding physical identity, and includes home based businesses, vehicle based businesses, and web based businesses.

The Young Entrepreneur Award, sponsored by Bank of America, recognizes a Lackawanna County young entrepreneur between the ages of 13-30 who demonstrates entrepreneurial innovation and success.

The Small Business Advocate Award recognizes a local individual who provides a distinctive level of service and who is a noted supporter of entrepreneurial development, creating opportunities and growth for small business in the community.

All nominees must serve Lackawanna County. Anyone can nominate a business, including self-nominations. Visit www.MetroAction.org for eligibility and judging criteria or call (570) 342-7711. Award applications are due April, 30 2010 and will be presented at MetroAction’s Small Business Award Luncheon on May 25.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Interesting Links to Relevant Information

Alot of interesting links and information has come our way over the course of the last month. Instead of doing a separate blog on each, we thought we'd provide the links so you can read some other good blogs with topical discussions.

First, there's 30 Top Objections to Social Media and How To Respond. Great article, and a good blog (Marketing Shindig) to keep on hand.

Here's another great link/article: Where to Hang With Entrepreneurs Online, from Small Biz Trends. There are countless other links within this article, taking entrepreneurs to places on the Web which may be helpful and inspiring. Of particular interest is a Blog entitle "Bootstrap Business."

So, just a quick reminder that there are many places on-line where aspiring entrepreneurs and those already in business can find a wealth of information. Thank's Keith, for the heads on the above sites!

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Background Checks - Employer Burden of Proof

A February job posting for a small company included an overview of a small assembly laborer, paying $9 per hour. The company listed requirements for the position: a high school education or general equivalency diploma, small assembly experience and “no convictions.”

Virtually all of this particular company's hires came out of a “no felons” policy, supported by the company. In an effort to "keep the workplace safe and out of lawsuits", the company owner instituted the policy for the first employee and continued it throughout the life of the company.

Depending on what state you are in, a felony conviction can result from bouncing a $500 check, or smoking marijuana in a park. States vary on the width and breadth of felony statute coverage.

Like most employers, this company had not conducted any studies to prove that their "no convictions" policy allowed for a safe workplace. No "empirical evidence." Companies
spend a great deal of money on criminal checks and often base hiring decisions on the results without evidence of the return on the investment or the efficacy of the decisions. The absence of empirical evidence will soon become more than a question of effective screening and hiring practices--according to a recent article (February 2010) in Workforce Management.

A recent article noted: "Within the next 12 to 18 months, employers can expect to see the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issue new guidelines that require empirical evidence for the 'business necessity' defense in racial discrimination cases that arise from screening and hiring practices, according to Rod Fliegel, a partner at Littler Mendelson in San Francisco. The new guidelines are likely to upend hiring policies based on untested assumptions about criminality and workplace behaviors."

That same article goes on to note the following: "Employers stand to benefit from the new guidelines, which may bring greater clarity to what is now a legal quagmire. In addition to the new guidelines, in September 2009 the EEOC filed the first lawsuit in what experts believe will be a new series of court actions on screening and hiring practices that may help define the empirical evidence federal courts will require.

Perhaps more important, the legal scuffle over empirical evidence will continue to kick up questions about the role of criminal screening in hiring and the extent to which employers find false comfort in a relatively cheap and easy—but unproven—risk management tool while neglecting more effective measures to reduce workplace violence, theft, fraud and employment-related lawsuits. While the screening industry continues to play to employer concerns about criminality and promote criminal checks as an effective countermeasure, broader forces are challenging those assumptions."

Screening companies have told employers for years how their assistance in screening applicants can create "safer" work environments. “Background screening can create a safer workplace,” says Theresa Preg, director of marketing development for LexisNexis Screening Solutions, also known as ChoicePoint, which runs 12 million employment-related screens a year. But the company has no empirical evidence to back up the statement.

Vendors frequently cite statistics on workplace violence but fail to note that the vast majority of incidents are not perpetrated by employees but by criminals unconnected to the workplace, clients or customers, or outsiders who have a personal relationship with an employee. They also don’t say that there is no research indicating that employees with criminal records are more likely to commit acts of workplace violence. Another common vendor claim is that employee theft causes 30 percent of all business failures. Although the number has been reiterated in marketing materials for two decades, there’s no substantiation for it.

“I don’t know of any actual studies or evidence of a decrease in fraud or theft tied to criminal checks,” says Jason Morris, president and COO of EmployeeScreenIQ, which runs more than half a million employment screens each year. “There are no hard reports or case studies, and the National Association of Professional Background Screeners hasn’t produced any.”

To construct new guidelines for screening and hiring, the EEOC will draw from testimony given in its November 2008 hearings and from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2007 decision in the case of El v. SEPTA, according to Fliegel, who represents employers and screening vendors. “The EEOC will look to the hearings and El, which talked about an empirical basis for comparing an applicant with a record with an applicant without a record,” he says. “Some scholarship is now focusing on this.”

Fliegel cites the work of Shawn Bushway, a criminologist at the University at Albany, who testified at the EEOC hearings that employers have elevated criminal-history records as the “trump card” in hiring decisions, instead of using more responsible statistical risk assessments. Increasingly, employers focus less on direct job-related employment and reference checks and skills evaluations and more on criminal records and credit checks.

In HireRight’s 2009 survey of screening practices, employers most frequently cited workplace safety as their motivation for screening. Almost half say they screen to reduce theft and fraud. But no research suggests that criminal checks can predict an employee’s propensity for workplace violence, and there is no evidence that criminal screening reduces theft or fraud.

Most fraud perpetrators, for example, do not have a record because they are first offenders, according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. In addition, U.S. retailers commonly respond to incidents of employee theft by simply firing the employee, so no criminal record is generated.

While pressure is mounting at the federal level, the recession has forced state governments to take a closer look at the role employers play in the revolving door of recidivism that keeps prisons full and places already stretched state budgets in even greater peril. A number of states, including New York, Massachusetts and California, are tightening restrictions on screening practices and hiring bars.

At the EEOC hearings, experts reported that recidivism drops to extremely low levels for people who have stable employment during their first year out of prison. Employers that construct hiring barriers for millions of marginal nonviolent ex-offenders will find it increasingly difficult to remain compliant with federal and state regulations.

The growing trend at the state level is to require screening and hiring bars for specific jobs, including many caregiver positions, and restrict screening and hiring bars in all others. Greater clarity in state legislation is likely to reduce the small but highly publicized number of negligent-hiring lawsuits that are filed each year, and minimize the even smaller number that center on criminal records.

New EEOC regulations demanding an evidence-based approach to screening may help hone more effective hiring practices and provide a safe harbor from negligent-hiring lawsuits. The criminal screening process now in place at many companies may be an expedient method for culling candidates, but employers with hiring bars may soon have to rely more on proven methods for mitigating risk: job-specific hiring policies, proper supervision and effective performance management. (Source: Workforce Management Research Center, Fay Hansen.)