Among the world’s most developed countries, Germany seems to be on the right track concerning renewable energy production. The country’s renewable resources have been used more than the classic ones this year, reports BDEW, Germany’s Federal Association of Energy.

Therefore, nuclear power dropped to 17.4 percent after Chancellor Angela Merkel had decided to show down the oldest eight reactors, as a reaction to the disaster at Fukushima, Japan. Plans are that by 2022 they’ll have phased out all of the nuclear power plants today in function.

To leap to the next generation of nuclear power technology, Bill Gates-backed start-up TerraPower is approaching countries rather than individual utilities or financiers.

Gates last week disclosed that he brought up TerraPower’s fourth-generation nuclear power technology with government officials at the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology during a visit to China. “TerrPower is having very good discussions with [China National Nuclear Corporation] and various people in the Chinese government,” Gates told the Associated Press.

Bellevue, Wash.-based TerraPower then said that the company has visited energy experts in the U.S. France, India, Japan, Korea and Russia, but that “there were no deals to at this time.”

If you thought the Fukushima disaster derailed nuclear power worldwide, look again.

Evacuations and the havoc caused by meltdowns at four reactor cores at the Fukushima power plant earlier this year prompted Japan to shift away from nuclear power and recatalyzed a nuclear phase-out in Germany. But many countries remain enthusiastic about nuclear power, and interest in newer technologies has increased because they are safer, according to a panel of industry professionals here at the MIT Energy Finance Forum on Friday.

“Our investors have a very long time horizon and the reason they supported it is the long-term societal implications and the potentially significant returns from that (so) we haven’t seen any wavering of support,” said Tyler Ellis, a project manager at TerraPower. “Our development partners are trying to accelerate the time scale (of building plants) due to the energy security and safety.”

Power plants are stressing freshwater resources around the country, according to a new report that finds both the quantity and quality of water supplies—”even in unexpected places—”are affected.

The report, Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants: Electricity’s Thirst for a Precious Resource, is based on three years of research by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of more than a dozen scientists. It is the “first systematic assessment of how power-plant cooling affects freshwater resources across the United States and of the quality of the data available on power plant water usage,” according to UCS.

The U.S. EPA has just released test results indicating that at least one common fracking chemical has contaminated drinking water in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. The finding is significant because the natural gas industry has long denied any systematic connection between its fracking operations and harm to water supplies, despite a growing body of anecdotal evidence. Denial has traditionally been a pretty easy call for the industry, given its exemption from chemical disclosure rules that would have definitively revealed (or disproved) any such link years ago. However, the new investigation may be only a taste of things to come, as the EPA gears up for closer scrutiny of fracking chemicals and their impacts.

Global radioactivity data challenge Japanese estimates for emissions and point to the role of spent fuel pools

The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March released far more radiation than the Japanese government has claimed. So concludes a study1 that combines radioactivity data from across the globe to estimate the scale and fate of emissions from the shattered plant.

Fu Nishikata, eight, and her brother Kaito, 12, on the playground of the school they left on 1 April to evacuate to Yonezawa, 50km away. Their mother, Kanako Nishikata, is member of a group of parents for the protection of Fukushima children. Photograph: Jeremie Souteyrat

It was an email from an old friend that led me to the irradiated sunflower fields of Fukushima. I had not heard from Reiko-san since 2003, when I left my post as the Guardian’s Tokyo correspondent. Before that, the magazine editor had been the source of many astute comments about social trends in Japan. In April, she contacted me out of the blue. I was pleased at first, then worried.

Prospective caregivers for some of Kentucky’s most vulnerable citizens may soon be subject to extensive criminal record searches, thanks to a $3 million grant to establish a comprehensive statewide system for thorough background checks.

“The Commonwealth of Kentucky is very pleased to participate in this critical initiative that is designed to help long-term care facilities and providers avoid hiring individuals with certain criminal histories by conducting federal and state level background checks on prospective job applicants,” said Gov. Steve Beshear. “This falls directly in line with our ongoing work to address elder abuse and improve patient care in long-term care facilities.”

Currently, state law requires long-term care facilities to conduct only name-based background checks for their prospective employees. This grant, however, will help the Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS) purchase equipment to conduct digital fingerprint background checks, which will ultimately enhance patient safety.

The grant enables the state to purchase live scan equipment to secure digital fingerprints that will be used for both in-state and FBI criminal background checks, according to cabinet officials.

Kentucky is home to 590 long-term care facilities, 101 assisted living facilities, and roughly 600 other providers who employ direct patient access workers.

Once established, this new statewide system will allow officials to perform more in-depth screening of applicants seeking employment at nursing, intermediate care and Alzheimer’s facilities; personal care and family care homes; home health agencies, hospice care providers, long-term care hospitals, personal services agencies, adult day care providers, assisted living facilities, intermediate care facilities for individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, and other entities that provide long-term services.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is charged with administering the National Background Check Program (NBCP), created under Section 6201 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This agency is under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Last year, Beshear ordered a multi-agency review – coordinated by the CHFS – that resulted in a comprehensive report on the protection of nursing home residents. The Cabinet has implemented many recommendations included in the report. Additionally, the cabinet has revived the state Elder Abuse Committee to continue the vital collaboration between agencies and stakeholders in an effort to enhance measures aimed at protecting Kentucky’s seniors.

The state also joined the national Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation Prevention Program. In the program, states work with medical professionals to detect cases where older Americans are being scammed.

On the heels of these actions, Beshear supported and later signed into law two pieces of legislation targeted at protecting adults and the elderly from abuse and exploitation. The laws, which specifically addressed guardianship of adults, bar individuals convicted of felony abuse or exploitation of an adult from serving as that victim’s guardian, executor or power of attorney. The other measure makes the guardianship process more accessible for those who are dealing with more than one state.

“The Cabinet for Health and Family Services is committed to our mission to protect Kentucky’s most vulnerable citizens,” said CHFS Secretary Janie Miller. “We are pleased to take part in the National Background Check Program and commend Beshear for his continued leadership and support of issues that safeguard Kentucky’s seniors.”

As the state begins to implement the grant, it seeks input from the provider community and public and private stakeholders on the development of legislation designed to expand current background check policies. For more information or to provide input on the new program, contact the Office of the Inspector General at (502) 564-2888.

Source: lex18

Getting old isn’t pleasant: things start to creak or stop working all together. The good news, you would think, in the case of nuclear power plants is that you can replace worn, corroded or cracked parts with new ones.

But an impressive year-long investigation into the US nuclear power industry by Associated Press reveals how the regulators and the industry have repeatedly found a much simpler solution to ageing: weaken the safety standards until the creaking plants meet them.

On yesterday’s post, some commenters argued the engineering safety issue is not unique to nuclear power, meaning it is unfair to criticise the nuclear industry for failings that pass unnoticed elsewhere. I disagree for the simple reason that the stakes are so vastly higher for nuclear reactors: safety standards have to be far more stringent because the consequences of serious accidents have such huge economic and social costs. Remember, the pact you sign when you build a reactor is to control that atomic inferno for decades and then look after the waste for thousands of years.

The reactors at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, on the banks of the Hudson River in New York state, first operated in 1974 and 1976. Photograph: Susan Watts/Getty Images

That leads to the point that underlies the AP investigation. The incentive to maintain costly safety regimes runs entirely counter to the primary incentive of the nuclear power plant operators, which, perfectly reasonably, is to make money. The problem comes when, as years roll by without serious incidents, that heavy, expensive regulation starts to look like an unnecessary burden.

And that’s exactly what AP’s reporters found:

Federal regulators have been working closely with the US nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s ageing reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them. Time after time, officials at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes — all of these and thousands of other problems linked to ageing were uncovered. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.

Yet despite the many problems linked to ageing, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years, even as the NRC has extended the licenses of dozens of reactors.

The problem of ageing is another where the incentive to close old reactors down in favour of newer, safer reactors is easily overwhelmed by the incentive to keep it running. The plant exists and the capital costs are paid off, so as long you can sell the electricity for more than the maintenance costs, you have a money-printing machine.

At the time, the 30 to 40 year licences granted to nuclear power plants were seen as the absolute maximum period for which they would run: the period matched their design lifetimes. Now, AP found, 66 of the 104 operating units in the US have been relicenced for 20 extra years, with applications being considered for 16 more.

Globally, the oldest operational nuclear power plant is in the UK: the 44-year-old Oldbury reactors, 15 miles north of Bristol on the bank of the river Severn. Of the 440 reactors in the world, 22 are older than 40 years, and 163 are older than 30 years.

AP quote NRC chief spokesman Eliot Brenner defending the licence extensions: “When a plant gets to be 40 years old, about the only thing that’s 40 years old is the ink on the license. Most, if not all of the major components, will have been changed out.”

But a former NRC head, Ivan Selin, has a different view. “It’s as if we were all driving Model T’s today and trying to bring them up to current mileage standards.”

So here’s the choice. You can back nuclear, an industry far more inherently dangerous than its rivals, with a history of capturing its safety regulators and dumping its costs on taxpayers. Or you can do all you can to back energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy storage plans.

Source: guardian

The first “independent” review of the Fukushima nuclear disaster was published today and it does not make reassuring reading. Japan is perhaps the most technologically advanced nation on Earth and yet, time after time, the report finds missing measures that I would have expected to already be in place. It highlights the fundamental inability for anyone to anticipate all future events and so deeply undermines the claims of the nuclear industry and its supporters that this time, with the new generation of reactors, things will be different.

I used quote marks on the word “independent” because the report comes from the International Atomic Energy Association (pdf) (IAEA) which, while independent of Japan, is far from independent from the nuclear industry it was founded to promote. But this conflict of interest only makes the findings of the IEAE’s experts more startling.

Investogators inspect the damaged building housing the No.3 reactor at TEPCO's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant on June 17, 2011. Photograph: Kyodo/Reuters

So let’s take a look at some of the 15 conclusions and 16 lessons (I’ve edited a bit for brevity).

There were insufficient defence-in-depth provisions for tsunami hazards. In particular, although tsunami hazards were considered [in] 2002, the tsunami hazard was underestimated. Moreover, those additional protective measures were not reviewed and approved by the regulatory authority. Severe accident management provisions were not adequate to cope with multiple plant failures.

So, they looked at the tsunami risk, badly underestimated the scale of what was needed and then the regulator failed to check their work.

Japan has a well organized emergency preparedness and response system … and dedicated and devoted officials and workers. [But] complicated structures and organizations can result in delays in urgent decision making.

Even in one of the best nuclear safety regimes, the complexity of accidents can overwhelm the emergency response.

The siting and design of nuclear plants should include sufficient protection against infrequent and complex combinations of external events and these should be considered in the plant safety analysis;
Any changes in external hazards or understanding of them should be periodically reviewed for their impact on the current plant configuration

This, in other words, says that the unexpected will occur and tacitly admits it can’t be planned for.

Plant layout should be based on maintaining a ‘dry site concept’, where practicable, as a defence-in-depth measure against site flooding;
An active tsunami warning system should be established with the provision for
immediate operator action.

Nuclear power plants shouldn’t be able to flood and need tsunami warning systems to operate safely, the inspectors conclude. It’s very worrying that this is a “lesson to be learned”, in a world where many reactors are already sited on coasts, while sea levels are rising and storms are increasing in intensity.

For severe situations, such as total loss of off-site power or the engineering safety systems, simple alternative sources for these functions (such as mobile power, compressed air and water supplies) should be provided. Such provisions should be located at a safe place and the plant operators should be trained to use them.
Nuclear sites should have adequate on-site seismically robust, suitably shielded, ventilated and well equipped buildings to house the Emergency Response Centres.

More frighteningly obvious “lessons” to be learned: you need back-up equipment in a safe place that people know how to use, and somewhere safe for the emergency response to be run from.

Emergency Response Centres should have available as far as practicable essential safety related parameters, such as coolant levels, containment status, pressure, etc, [delivered by] hardened instrumentation and lines.
External events [can] affect several plants and several units at the plants at the same time. This requires a sufficiently large resource in terms of trained experienced people, equipment and supplies.
The risk and implications of hydrogen explosions should be revisited and necessary mitigating systems should be implemented.

Yet more “lessons”: you need to ensure you know what’s happening in the reactor, you need to have enough people to cope and the risk of hydrogen explosions has been underestimated.

Nuclear regulatory systems should ensure that regulatory independence [is] preserved in all circumstances.

The last lesson is also chilling, when you consider the implied alternative.

To sum up, when you build a reactor you are committing to controlling the nuclear fury at its heart for half a century or more, and controlling the waste produced for many thousands of years (using methods no-one has yet developed).

On those timescales, unforeseen events are a certainty, with hugely costly consequences. The earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan were extreme, and the IAEA report tries to argues that new nuclear safety regulations should learn lessons from the failure of the system at Fukushima to cope.

But the real lesson is that it is impossible to cover all eventualities. That means nuclear power is not safe or, given the colossal clean-up costs, cheap. Regretfully, I believe it is an illusory answer to the problem of rising greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Source

by Muhammad Saad Khan

When we talk about quality employment and best employee, then the first thing which came up in any employer’s mind is that their incumbent would be highly qualified and his qualification is legitimate.

Legitimacy of education is becoming a very intense issue these days as there are many people trying to get their credentials faked out to get their desired job. As the recession hit all around the globe and the job market is so scarce, and the qualified employee needs are so high, so many people are using bad means to get their education.

There are number of diploma mills and degree mills, offline and online which are providing the best criminal services to the people and making money like never before. They are actually selling fake degrees, diplomas and certifications. Which have no worth as now every single employer is running a comprehensive education background check to vet their education authenticity.

Verifying the education credentials of a potential candidate can be an important part in identifying if they have the suitable skills set for the position. Educational success reveals a great deal about an applicant’s credentials and motivations; and through education background checks, an employer can get an accurate depiction of their qualifications.

Many employers view particular educational qualifications as a key factor in seeking new employees. Moreover, education is a prerequisite for many positions because it ensures applicable knowledge of a subject matter, or more importantly, a required license for the position.

Studies show that approximately 30% of all applicants puff up information about their educational background, ranging from made‐up degrees from legitimate schools to insignificant degrees from diploma mills.

In 2004, the general Accounting Office revealed that nearly 200,000 federal employees had at the very least exaggerated education credentials on their resume.

SHRM(Society for Human Resource Management): More than 53% of job applicants falsify information on their resumes; one in four candidates misrepresents his educational attainment.

ADP Hiring Index: 49% of employment, education and or credential reference checks reveal discrepancies in the applicant’s information.

Association of Certified Fraud Examiners: 41% of applicants lie about their education.

The above trend indicates an increase in the likelihood that employer’s who don’t verify education will hire unqualified personnel. Hiring unqualified personnel, in turn, leads to higher employee turnover, forcing the organization to incur expensive recruiting and replacement costs.

Online Degree Scams: Diploma Mills and Fake Degrees

It has also become exceedingly easy to access an authentic looking, knock‐off diploma from any school in America; all you need is a credit card and a computer. Diploma mills and degree mills as well as various websites, advertise very realistic, physical diplomas and transcripts, which have been found to deceive many employers.

Therefore, with the striking statistics of resume fraud, employers should think twice about using physical diplomas as proper evidence of a degree. Because the requirement for education qualification has become so demanding, education fraud is becoming more prevalent, as are the establishments of diploma mills.

Consequently, in order to combat education fraud, laws have recently been passed in which companies who manufacture fake degrees and diplomas are considered to have committed a Misdemeanor, unless the degree explicitly states, “for novelty purposes only.”

Current Systems of Education Background Checks and Degree/ Diploma Verification and Why They Are Not Enough!

• At present, human resource departments in companies directly contact the concerned educational institution and undertake verification. This is no longer a viable solution, considering the increase in the number of recruitments, and the time taken for verification. This is also not a fool proof method.
• A second method, often adopted by many of the larger corporations, is to outsource their employment verifications to background screening companies, who maintain large personnel databases.
• The third system which has developed recently in education background checks is the system of online degree and diploma verification. There is a database of fake colleges and universities and as well as the misdemeanors who faked their documents in past. It is now the best free online resource for the employers as well as for the students, who can check their institutions as well.

The biggest issue with targeting these diploma mills is that they frequently move around. Many diploma mills are constantly changing their names while others are sprouting up sporadically. There are currently hundreds of diploma mills on the internet that offer fake degrees and diplomas.

When posing as legitimate institutions, diploma mills will use catchy phrases to attract potential buyers:

• Here is an opportunity to get ahead

• University diplomas

• Obtain a prosperous future, money earning power, and the admiration of all

• Diplomas from a prestigious university

• Based upon your present knowledge and life experience

• No required tests, classes, books or interview

• Bachelors, masters, MBA, and doctorate (PhD) diplomas available in your field of choice

• No one is turned down

• Confidentiality assured. Call now to receive your diploma within days

• Furthermore, these “schools” have no faculty, no classes, and no course catalog and only have one address or email in which they can be contacted.

Concluding Remarks:

• Falsified education credentials have become a serious issue in the workforce; it breaches the faith on employees who are involved, especially when it can directly affect other employees and the company as a whole. It is also a serious blunder on the part of the employer who should have done proper education background checks; a mistake that could essentially hinder their current position.
• Now that up to 20% of employers in America require a diploma or degree from a college or university that awarded it to them, education background checks have become exceptionally crucial.
• Although a federal law has been implemented to target diploma mills that give out phony diplomas, the problem still exists and is far from being corrected. In the meantime, employers should remain steadfast about conducting pre‐employment background checks that include verifying academic credentials.
• The online diploma/degree mill checking systems are significant source of help to the employers looking for easy and free of cost education background check.
• Education background checks should be included in every pre‐employment screening process.

Here in the following video we are looking at nuclear hell on earth, a night film of the radioactive steam that continues to rise from Fukushima 24 hours a day. Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear power industry executive, is one of the experts who has been saying from day one that the nuclear crisis in Japan was much worse than they were telling us.

He was absolutely correct. Finally, three months later we are getting some numbers on what the real dangers are. And finally we can begin to understand the enormous cover-up of the nuclear doom that is reaching lungs all over the west coast of America, Canada, Alaska, Hawaii and at least half of Japan! For infants it’s a terrible valley of death we have created for them. As we shall see for years all of them have been born with already polluted bloodstreams and now the very young ones are dying in greater numbers on the west coast of the United States since Fukushima blew up.

Click here to read more on Pakalert Press

by Syed Faiez Hussain

While employers have long conducted education verification checks on their employment candidates, it appears that increasingly more staffing and recruiting groups are being made responsible for conducting this and other background checks as part of the employment screening process.
Education history, of course, outside of criminal records, is one of the more significant searches. For many positions, education is not just a prerequisite but also vital to employment candidate’s incumbent skill sets and the legitimacy they bring to the job. Those employment recruits who claim to but who do not possess the required skills can cause untold embarrassment to employer or recruiter alike. Both can lose clients over it, and in the extreme cases incur law suits.

Most notable, if a candidate lies, chances are he is lying about his education. With employment history, a fair number of applicants will exaggerate their role at a job or otherwise stretch the truth. But seldom do they out and out lie about working for an employer. This is not so much the case with education histories. Here is where the employment candidate will attempt to magically transform his two years of college into a full blown Bachelor’s Degree. Or in some cases, they never set foot inside the school.

I have often wondered why the candidate decides to select the school he has never been to. Did he like the football team? The debating club? The school colors? Or was it a large university with high levels of enrollment and he thought any degree verification efforts would somehow get lost in the shuffle? But then sometimes they speak a smaller school, an ivy shrouded liberal arts college in New England or somewhere, where they might think no one would bother searching. It’s hard to say what goes on in their minds, but I have considered the implications of the schools they select.

To be sure, most employment candidates do not lie about having their college degrees. the overwhelming majority in fact are reputable and honest when it comes to claiming their certifications and degrees. Verifying education with most recruits is a fairly simple and straightforward process. Once we get from the client the type of degree the candidate has obtained, the name of the school, the location of the school, type of degree, major and year of graduation, the rest is pretty simple. Either we obtain verification from the school registrar’s office, the name and position of the verifying party, or we get it from the third party databases. All fine and valid.

There are exceptions. But for the most part, again, these are honest mistakes or simple oversights that are easily rectified. With common names, sometimes the degree is not enough. The researcher may require the major and the actual campus of the college or university. The campus is always important as most colleges and universities, despite the myriad branches, do not centralize their databases. The records for graduates and post-graduate degrees are housed with the registrar of that particular campus.

The wrong graduation date can cause confusion when conducting an education verification background search. With the wrong graduation date, it is sometimes difficult to find the student in the database. In some cases, and good to remember, those applicants who are lying about actually graduating from that college or university, will provide a fictitious graduation date. By doing so they try to hide the fact that they were “enrollment only” or never attended at all. So often we need to verify the graduation date.

Female graduates often go to school under their maiden names and then, years later, forget and provide only their married name. Time can be wasted searching for your candidate under her married name, when she attended school under her maiden name. When you as a recruiter or human resources executive are trying to get someone hired, this can cause delays. So it is always best to find out up front if her current name is the same name she used while attending the college or university.

With international students attending domestic colleges, there is a similar condition as with female college graduates. Often a foreign student went to school under a formal, native name. And then, over time, they”Americanize,” their names. Bao Wynn Nguyen is now Ben or Frank. His recent colleagues, the recruiter and most others now know him as Ben or Frank. But the school still has him records with his native name. When we are unable to verify, initially, it is necessary to go back to the candidate and ask if what name he or she used to register as a student. Again, this can cause delays in the hiring process.

Be aware of diploma mills. Diploma Mills have increased in prominence over the years. Those who run diploma mills, usually have several schools all running out of the same physical location. Often they are located for tax and legal purposes offshore. When conducting our research we find them in places like Gibraltar or the Seychelles.

Diploma Mills are the easy and spurious way to a higher education. This is where the employment candidate has spend all of a couple hundred bucks and twenty minutes, sometimes, in qualifying as a graduate from some mythical Internet School under the guise of “life experience.” Diploma mills often have them high falutin’ names that can sound like real schools. Often the name of the school is selected so you will associate the “graduate” with a prestigious university. They are not. They are not legitimate remote or distance learning institutions. They are bogus, unaccredited by anyone other than themselves, and the degree is worthless.

Examples of the diploma mill versus the actual college or university are, The University of Cambridge, a highly prestigious university in the U.K. and Cambridge State University that operated out of Louisiana and Mississippi until the Louisiana Attorney General had it closed down back in the nineties. Another is the University of Canterbury, an acclaimed and accredited New Zealand University, and our old buddy, and the fully unaccredited Canterbury University, which shows up from time to time on a candidate’s resume. Canterbury University claims to operate out of the United Kingdom, but its offices have been traced back to you guess it, The Seychelles.

Sometimes, when all else fails, it is incumbent upon the employment candidate to supply a copy or his or her degree or transcripts. We request this when the registrar is unable to locate the student in its database. Sometimes it’s a technical glitch, sometimes it’s an oversight on the part of the registrar.

If the candidate produces his college degree, you cannot accept it a face value. A common joke around our office is bogus diplomas is but one more reason G-d invented Photoshop. Or in the case fo diploma mills versus versus an actual university, the college crest just ain’t the same. There are variations, notable differences in both the crest and the proverbial paper it is written on. Another key is to examine carefully the officiating personnel who are listed or who have signed off on the graduation diploma.

We had a recent case where the university could not find the candidate’s graduation records for love nor money. We requested from our client a copy of the candidate’s diploma. Sure enough, here it came. At first glance it looked authentic enough. But upon further review, something was askew.

The diploma was real enough, only the candidate graduated eleven years before that college president had taken office. The candidate had apparently taken someone’s legitimate diploma, swapped out on Photoshop that name for his own and then presented the diploma. An oversight on the part of the candidate and a serious mistake. When we reported our discovery to our client, she immediately invalidated the candidate for any further consideration.

We also get a lot of shuck and jive when we request a copy of the diploma or transcriptional. I can’t find it. It’s not here but with my parents. My dog ate it. Whatever. Sometimes what the candidate claims is true, and most of the the time…well, it’s tough to be caught in a lie. When it comes to explanations and excuses, we have heard quite a few. Some are even pretty creative. One chestnut was the lament, “The school just can’t get it’s s**t together.”

Too rare. So be careful when recruiting. With degrees that have been verified by the school registrar or through the third party databases, you can move forward with your candidate. But when the glitches show up, either resolve them by reviewing the candidate’s name while attending school, major, year of graduation, and, if necessary, a copy of degree. If this method fails to find resolution, then you may have a problem on your hands. Red flags are what they are and while everyone wants to get their person hired, there are few things more embarrassing than your client discovering your candidate had lied.

Source: Recruiting Blogs

by Muhammad Saad Khan

Employers and organizations, from the small businesses to the corporate giants, knows the benefits of hiring the best people and providing a safe, secure and healthy workplace, both physically and financially, for their employees, customers, shareholders, and the community in which they operate.

It’s important to know about the people before hiring. A new prospective employee is an important responsibility for any organization. An employer who has comprehensively performed a thorough pre employment screening on candidates is able to bring into the organization a highly capable person who will prove to be a tremendous asset in the future.

Regrettably, some organizations don’t take pre employment screening as a mandatory chunk of hiring process, and in result they runs with the risk of exposing their organization to someone who could ultimately become the organization’s greatest danger.

There are three basic reasons which elaborate that “why the pre employment screening process is extremely essential for an employer”.

1. To make the best hiring decision

2. Providing the safe working environment

3. Elimination of legal risks and liabilities

To Make the Best Hiring Decision, Employment Pre Screening is a Must!

It has been said that some applicants will only tell you what you want to hear. Most of the transgressions found in the forged resumes are basically in three categories: Education, Job titles, and dates of employment. By thoroughly verifying information given by an applicant, a company can improve the chances of hiring an individual who has portrayed his or her background, experience, and skills honestly and accurately. Using pre employment pre screening to verify an applicant’s history helps employers make decisions based upon facts.

Providing the Safe Working Environment Is a Primary Goal of an Employer

Acquiring and maintaining the safe working place for the employees is the dream of any employer or any organization. It’s obligatory for the employer to maintain work premises which is free of violence, fraud, theft, sexual and other types of harassment. The financial cost from these problems can be enormous. Additionally, there are other costs that are hard to measure, such as the harm to employee morale or the reputation of the organization. So it’s essential to run a pre employment background check to deter the criminals entering your heaven organization.

Legal Risks and Liabilities Are Extremely Harmful

Legal risks and liabilities is the threatening factor which is directly interconnected with the above two reasons of pre employment screening. The employers are responsible for the safety of employees, customers and anyone who enters the workplace. So its usual that there a risks and liabilities in hiring a wrong employee which can not only results into a trouble for the company but also for the business of the company. So to avoid such losses and risks, every employer must perform an effective pre employment background screening assessment to define the integrity and repute of a company.

Conclusion

The pre-employment background screening process can assist an employer in the hiring of qualified applicants, while simultaneously reducing turnover, deterring fraud, and avoiding litigation. As the job applicants vary widely in their knowledge, skills, abilities, interests, work styles, and other personal characteristics so these differences systematically affect the way people perform or behave on the job. Comprehensive pre employment screening process is able to collect accurate information on job-relevant characteristics that are not often recognized by simply observing the applicant. And most importantly these pre employment background checks can help in minimizing the chances of potential legal vulnerabilities. Thus the information helps assess the fit or match between people and jobs and has proven to have a significant return on investment for employers.