Why Hire Criminals and Liars?

The May 1, 2006 edition of Time Magazine published an article indicating that many companies may be hiring much less than they bargained for. For example, one resume vetting company researched 1,000 resumes and found that 43% of them contained one or more “significant inaccuracies.” This is more than an instance of “fibbing” as an expert interviewed for the article suggested, “There’s a lot of evidence that those who cheat on job applications also cheat in school and life.” He reminded me of a customer of ours in the restaurant industry who told me that one of his line cooks threatened another cook with a pistol during a shift. The owner was appalled, but especially upset after we showed him that the employee had reported being arrested twice for aggravated assault on his application.

Obviously, criminals who moonlight as employees are not good news. Hiring an employee who does harm to customers or other employees can expose a company to considerable liability. Moreover, leaders put integrity and personal honesty near the top of their employee wish list. Nonetheless, the Time article made it clear that employers have a good chance of hiring the kinds of people they say they want to avoid.

I wondered about how widespread this problem is in the restaurant industry as it’s one of the key verticals my company serves. I was curious to see if our numbers in anyway matched the experience reported in the article. To find out, I checked the results for 18 companies in the restaurant industry that use our manager hiring process. A background check can include any of the following: criminal history, credit history, employment verification, education verification, drug screening, workers compensation cases filed and motor vehicle records. This list of possible categories tells you why we recommend conducting a background check late in the hiring process.

Our results mirrored the lack of character suggested by the Time Magazine article. In 2005 we completed 1,467 background checks for 18 restaurant companies and found that 17% (255) of the candidates had been arrested one or more times with 42% of them being convicted of the charge. As you might expect, drug and alcohol topped the list accounting for 51% of the arrests. Most of these were charges for possession of drugs or drunk driving. The next largest category was for theft accounting for 18% of the charges. These included writing bad checks, burglary, robbery and fraud. 11% of the charges were for violent crimes such as assault, domestic violence and maiming while 1% was for sex crimes such as rape and indecent exposure. Our “other” category accounted for 18% percent of the arrests and included charges such as criminal mischief, trespass and parole violation.

It’s obvious that conducting a background check can be well worth the time and money. However, before you consider doing so, you should understand what goes into the best of the checks. First, the data should be gathered by researchers on the ground in order to ensure current records and avoid cases of mistaken identity. While it is possible to search existing databases much more quickly, they are often incorrect and out of date. Moreover, your vendor should also provide the Adverse Information Notice (a legal requirement) with each report as well as a “notes” page that explains any strange laws that apply to the state(s) where you are located. Finally, if you are going to go with the “Cadillac” version of background checking, your vendor should be willing to walk you through any report that you have questions about. As it is when you buy any product that affects the quality and security of your employees, you should shop around and conduct a background check on each of your potential vendors.