Researchers versus Certified Court Records

“Would you get out of bed and leave your home for two dollars?”

If you have been conducting backgrounds long enough you know that every background screening company, except VERIFI, utilizes researches to pull records from the court houses. There is ONE major reason why. COST. The courts, or in every case, the clerk of court charges for civil & criminal records. They realized about 20-years ago there was money to be made charging for this information. Prior to this and before the internet became a real thing, requests were made via fax, snail mail, or by calling. Granted it was usually free in many cases, but you had to rely on them responding in a timely manner. But what it did for us was develop long term relationships with these clerks. Doing this now for almost 4 decades myself I got to know almost every clerk, sheriff or troop commander in the U.S.

I digressed there but now to the point. Background screening companies began to use researches because of cost. Companies generally pay a researcher two dollars per name. Let’s think about this for a minute. You as the customer are dependent upon your vendor and their researcher getting out of bed and driving to the courthouse and finding a place to park. But that’s not the least of it. It may be raining, snowing, freezing cold or blistering hot outside. On top of that if they do go to the courthouse generally the computers are in use by landmen, title researchers, abstractors, or another researcher. That is if the computers are working.

The question I ask is “would you get out of bed and leave your home for two dollars?” Generally, most people would say no. So how can you trust the information you are receiving? You can’t.

At VERIFI we are directly connected to EVERY courthouse and law enforcement agency in the U.S. But our customers are not just hiring people from the U.S. They also hire people from, Canada, Central and South America. Does it cost more? Yes. Too us it does but you are getting certified criminal records in return. Which means you are far less likely to be a party of a Negligent Hire lawsuit or suffer from morale problems because of a bad hire that creates a hostile work environment.

Don’t let a bad hire ruin your day.

The difference between "Application" and "Resume"

What’s the difference between a Resume and a Job Application?

It may not seem like it, but the difference between a job application and a resume is glaring. A resume is essentially just a piece of marketing material used to promote one’s self in the interest of getting an interview and finding a job. It’s just a collaboration of titles, responsibilities and ideas put onto paper, often times exaggerated or embellished with fancy titles and accomplishments all in the effort to sell ones self to a perspective employer.

The Letter of the Law

So why is a job application any better? The answer is in how the legal system views them. A job application is, under the rule of law, a piece of evidence. Sections 602, 613, 901, and 902 of the federal code simply state that “there is no better evidence than the written document.” Job applications have forms, signatures, dates, and identifiers that the applicant must fill-in, sign, date and verify. This makes it nearly impossible for an applicant to deny knowledge of any omissions, exaggerations, or misleading information within a court of law. Remember a job application is a legal “form” while a resume is considered “puffery” according to recent federal court rulings.

The Takeaway

I always tell my customers that you should never accept a resume as a job application. That’s not to say you shouldn’t consider resumes at all. You can always have your applicants attach it to the application. But in order to protect yourself and your company from problems down the road, you need to require your perspective employees to fill out the application and all accompanying forms.

Can you spot a liar in an interview?

Thanks to shows like NCIS and Law & Order, we think we know all about how to catch a liar in the act. Are we as good as we think we are, or has the media’s portrayal of lie detecting conditioned us to look for the wrong signs?

Research is saying that what we know to be signs of lying doesn’t really help us determine if someone is being honest or not. While liars are traditionally thought to show signs of nervous energy, the opposite may be true. Here are three ways to tell if you’re being lied to in an interview.

Nonverbal cues: While no specific behavior can be definitely traced back to lying, there are some physical clues we can detect when someone is being dishonest. If a person is making something up, he tends to be thinking harder. With more energy directed at keeping his story straight, a liar will have less movement, keeping especially still in his upper body. Nervous fidgeting in an interview may truly be an innocent case of nerves.

Too much detail: In order to compensate for being dishonest, a liar might give far too much detail than necessary to tell a story. Although she might show confidence in her actions, such as excessive eye contact, a liar might have trouble keeping up with all the details. Some experts say you should ask them to tell their story backwards. Keeping details in tact while telling a made up story backwards will increase their cognitive load and make it harder to keep the details consistent. (That may be a bit extreme to do in a job interview, however.)

Length of response time: If it takes longer than normal to get an answer during an interview, the answer may be fabricated. Look for signs of thinking hard and extra concentration. If an answer seems rehearsed, especially if the speaker uses non-contracted words (“did not” instead of “didn’t”), it may show signs of a practiced story, rather than a candid recollection.

Of course we can’t always be certain when attempting to detect a lie. In fact, 54% of the time, we can’t tell if we’re being lied to. The best thing to do is use our best judgment and hope that our judgment is good.

Content originally posted by TIME and InterviewIQ