Ex Felons For Hire

A Waterloo City Council member says she will try Monday night to persuade the council to rescind a “ban the box” ordinance that would bar employers from asking about criminal convictions on job applications.

Ward 1 Council Member Margaret Klein said she is trying to help the city avoid the cost of fighting litigation filed over the ordinance, but that she doubts other council members will support her motion.

“This thing is going to be voted down,” Klein said. “I’m totally aware of it. … I thought it was worth a chance to at least — at least — pause our lawsuit so that we don’t waste money.”

After the council passed the ordinance in November — the first of its kind in Iowa — the Iowa Association of Business and Industry on Jan. 2 filed a petition for a court injunction blocking the legislation. An attorney for the lobbying group argued that the ordinance is illegal, citing a 2017 law that bans local governments from creating stricter hiring rules for private companies than those spelled out in state law.

Meanwhile. state Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, and state Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, the respective chairs of the state House and Senate judiciary committees, have filed legislation to ban actions such as Waterloo’s that apply to private businesses.

Klein said that, facing such measures, the city should pull back the ordinance, which is scheduled to take effect July 1. But Ward 3 Council Member Patrick Morrissey, who voted for the ordinance in November, said he does not believe Klein’s motion will get the second it needs to for council consideration. He said the council debated the ordinance before adopting it 4-3 in November.

“We talked this and talked this and talked this,” he said. “We amended it and amended it and amended it.”

After former At-Large Council Member Steve Schmitt lost re-election in November and Ward 2 Council Member Bruce Jacobs retired, Klein is the lone “no” voter remaining on the council. Schmitt’s replacement, Dave Boessen, declined to comment on whether he would second Klein’s motion Monday. Jacobs’ replacement, Jonathan Grieder, and Ward 4 council member Jerome Amos Jr., who voted in favor of the ordinance, said they would not.

“Margaret has a right to do what she’ll do,” Amos said. “We’ll just go from there.”

Waterloo City Attorney Martin Petersen said he expects to file a response to the Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s lawsuit this week. The association is relying on an Iowa law passed by the Legislature in response to some counties attempting to raise the minimum wage for businesses in their jurisdictions. The lobbying group has argued that when laws vary among local jurisdictions, it puts unfair pressures on businesses in different parts of the state.

Klein and Schmitt have previously told the Des Moines Register they worry the ordinance will push business owners to nearby Cedar Falls.

Waterloo Commission on Human Rights Executive Director Abraham Funchess Jr., who lobbied the city for the ordinance for almost a decade, has previously said banning the box could help alleviate racial disparities in the city. Citing a wide gap in income, unemployment rates and home ownership among white and black residents, 24/7 Wall Street in 2018 named the Waterloo-Cedar Falls metro the worst place for black people to live.

After Klein asked last week to place the “ban the box” ordinance back on the agenda, Morrissey said he wondered whether she was attempting to build her brand among the state’s conservatives.

“Is she running for some other office or what?” he asked. “Is the point to make a name for herself?”

In response, Klein said: “No one knows what the future’s going to bring.”

But, she added, Morrissey’s questions feel like an unfair attempt to discredit her.

“I don’t know why he would say that,” she told the Register. “It’s just an effort to devalue my questions.”

Tyler Jett covers jobs and the economy for the Register. Contact him at 515-284-8215 and tjett@registermedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @LetsJett.

Your support makes work like this possible. Subscribe at DesMoinesRegister.com/Deal.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source

A Waterloo City Council member says she will try Monday night to persuade the council to rescind a “ban the box” ordinance that would bar employers from asking about criminal convictions on job applications.

Ward 1 Council Member Margaret Klein said she is trying to help the city avoid the cost of fighting litigation filed over the ordinance, but that she doubts other council members will support her motion.

“This thing is going to be voted down,” Klein said. “I’m totally aware of it. … I thought it was worth a chance to at least — at least — pause our lawsuit so that we don’t waste money.”

After the council passed the ordinance in November — the first of its kind in Iowa — the Iowa Association of Business and Industry on Jan. 2 filed a petition for a court injunction blocking the legislation. An attorney for the lobbying group argued that the ordinance is illegal, citing a 2017 law that bans local governments from creating stricter hiring rules for private companies than those spelled out in state law.

Meanwhile. state Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, and state Sen. Brad Zaun, R-Urbandale, the respective chairs of the state House and Senate judiciary committees, have filed legislation to ban actions such as Waterloo’s that apply to private businesses.

Klein said that, facing such measures, the city should pull back the ordinance, which is scheduled to take effect July 1. But Ward 3 Council Member Patrick Morrissey, who voted for the ordinance in November, said he does not believe Klein’s motion will get the second it needs to for council consideration. He said the council debated the ordinance before adopting it 4-3 in November.

“We talked this and talked this and talked this,” he said. “We amended it and amended it and amended it.”

After former At-Large Council Member Steve Schmitt lost re-election in November and Ward 2 Council Member Bruce Jacobs retired, Klein is the lone “no” voter remaining on the council. Schmitt’s replacement, Dave Boessen, declined to comment on whether he would second Klein’s motion Monday. Jacobs’ replacement, Jonathan Grieder, and Ward 4 council member Jerome Amos Jr., who voted in favor of the ordinance, said they would not.

“Margaret has a right to do what she’ll do,” Amos said. “We’ll just go from there.”

Waterloo City Attorney Martin Petersen said he expects to file a response to the Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s lawsuit this week. The association is relying on an Iowa law passed by the Legislature in response to some counties attempting to raise the minimum wage for businesses in their jurisdictions. The lobbying group has argued that when laws vary among local jurisdictions, it puts unfair pressures on businesses in different parts of the state.

Klein and Schmitt have previously told the Des Moines Register they worry the ordinance will push business owners to nearby Cedar Falls.

Waterloo Commission on Human Rights Executive Director Abraham Funchess Jr., who lobbied the city for the ordinance for almost a decade, has previously said banning the box could help alleviate racial disparities in the city. Citing a wide gap in income, unemployment rates and home ownership among white and black residents, 24/7 Wall Street in 2018 named the Waterloo-Cedar Falls metro the worst place for black people to live.

After Klein asked last week to place the “ban the box” ordinance back on the agenda, Morrissey said he wondered whether she was attempting to build her brand among the state’s conservatives.

“Is she running for some other office or what?” he asked. “Is the point to make a name for herself?”

In response, Klein said: “No one knows what the future’s going to bring.”

But, she added, Morrissey’s questions feel like an unfair attempt to discredit her.

“I don’t know why he would say that,” she told the Register. “It’s just an effort to devalue my questions.”

Tyler Jett covers jobs and the economy for the Register. Contact him at 515-284-8215 and tjett@registermedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @LetsJett.

Your support makes work like this possible. Subscribe at DesMoinesRegister.com/Deal.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source

The United States leads the world in many categories that evoke pride and one that should not: We lock people up at a higher rate than any other country. We also have a lot of ex-offenders who have a hard time finding legitimate work. And an ex-offender with no job and no money is a crime waiting to happen.

But a few years back, we came up with a remedy for that problem: forbidding employers from asking applicants about their criminal records at the start of the hiring process. Only after candidates have been found qualified and offered interviews may the employer request this information.

Illinois and dozens of other states have enacted “ban the box” laws to improve the job prospects of correctional alumni. (The term refers to the square you check if you have a criminal record.) In December, President Donald Trump signed a measure imposing a similar rule on federal agencies and contractors. These laws are particularly relevant to black men, who have far higher rates of imprisonment than other men — and higher unemployment rates.

Even in today’s hot job market, African American men from age 20 to 34 are twice as likely to be out of work as their white peers. Ex-offenders are typically five times likelier to be unemployed than other people. Their neighbors would be safer if those ex-offenders could find steady jobs that would divert them from felonious activity.

Banning the box was a plausible reform. “This law will help ensure that people across Illinois get a fair shot to reach their full potential through their skills and qualifications, rather than past history,” said Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn when he signed the bill in 2014. The assumption was that if ex-offenders could clear the initial screen, employers would be more likely to excuse their past transgressions.

But all these changes in state laws didn’t account for a powerful and immutable law: the law of unintended consequences. The evidence about banning the box is piling up, and it’s not pretty. Instead of helping ex-offenders and black men, they have backfired on both.

Last year, Jennifer Doleac, an economics professor at Texas A&M who is affiliated with the University of Chicago Crime Lab, gave written testimony to a U.S. House committee on these laws. Her conclusions were sobering.

“Current evidence suggests that Ban the Box may not increase employment for people with criminal records, and might even reduce it,” she said. “Delaying information about job applicants’ criminal histories leads employers to statistically discriminate against groups that are more likely to have a recent conviction.” In a triumph of perversity, the people who were supposed to gain ended up worse off.

The latest evidence, assembled by University of California, Santa Barbara, economist Ryan Sherrard, confirms the detrimental consequences. After such a law is passed, his study found, African American men get fewer job callbacks — and white applicants get more. In places that “ban the box,” black ex-offenders are likelier to end up back in jail than before.

The reasons for these unwanted results are not hard to guess. When employers can’t find out whether applicants have criminal histories, they don’t assume the best about black men; they assume the worst.

An employer who would hire an unskilled young African American man who has never been in trouble, but not one with a rap sheet, can no longer tell one from the other until late in the process. The applicant with a spotless record has no way to distinguish himself from the onetime Gangster Disciple.

So hiring managers may decide to avoid the hassle by not considering many, or any, young black men. Under “ban the box” laws, employers seem to develop a greater preference for white candidates.

This effect works to the disadvantage of African Americans who haven’t been in trouble with the cops. It’s also no favor to those who have. Sherrard thinks the increase in recidivism may stem from the discouragement that arises when an ex-offender gets a callback and an interview, only to then be rejected because of his past. Raising false hopes is corrosive.

Doleac offers a few alternatives to make it easier for former inmates to get jobs, including education and training to improve their skills, authorizing judges to issue them certificates of work readiness and giving employers legal protection if such employees commit crimes on the job.

But the priority should be to repeal these laws, which have hindered the people they were meant to help. Sometimes the best way to do good is to stop doing harm.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source

Loading…

January 27, 2020
0

The FBI reports that fake job listings get people to hand over personal
information to cybercriminals and results in an average financial loss of
$3,000 per victim

Earn $10,000 a month just by reading emails. Make your
own schedule and work from home. Call us today to get started!

Job hunting is already a complicated process. But cybercriminals
have decided to make it even more challenging by using fake job listings like
this to steal personal information.

It’s not uncommon to receive a message on LinkedIn from potential
employers and hiring managers. Heck, I receive them frequently and I’m sure you
do, too. People around the world view LinkedIn and websites like Indeed as
trusted resources to search for job postings and to review company information.
But what if some of those job listings are for fake jobs? And what if they’re
impersonating your organization to pull off their schemes?

As if it isn’t enough that you have to worry about telephone
scams and traditional phishing emails — now job seekers and businesses alike have
to keep an eye out for fake job postings. Cybercriminals are using this variation
on phishing to either get victims to buy something or to gain access to their
personally identifying information (PII).

But how do fake job scams work and what should you look out
for? Today, we’ll give you the lowdown on fake job and hiring scams — both for
job seekers and organizations. We’ll also share some of the key warning signs
to look out for and what you can do if you think you or your business are
victims of fake job listings or impersonation scams.

Let’s hash it out.

Thousands of Fake Jobs and Employment Scams Were Reported in 2019

Let’s start with some numbers. According to the Better Business Bureau’s Scam Tracker^sm,  there were 3,434 scams in the U.S. that were reported between Jan. 1, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2019. The employment scams that occurred during the year that claim to have resulted in the greatest financial losses were $1.25 million on July 2, and $500,000 on Jan. 18.

The former involved a job where someone claims to have been
hired to read emails (yeah, not really sure what kind of legitimate job that
would be, but I digress) and got scammed out of a $1.25 million paycheck. The
latter involved someone claiming to be a recruiter from Quest Diagnostics and
asking the victim to provide their social security number, date of birth, and
address as part of a multi-tier interview process.

I kind of have to question the validity of the claimed
financial loss in the first case — but, hey, these are the numbers they’re
reporting. If anyone genuinely believes they were going to be paid $1.25
million for reading emails, then I’m sure someone’s also got a bridge to sell
them. (I’m not trying to victim shame here — I just believe people need to demonstrate
more common sense.)

Now, let’s check out some numbers that come to us from the great Down Under. In Australia, there were 2,499 job and employment scams reported in 2019 by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC). The reported financial losses from employment and job scams reported that year totaled nearly $1.7 million. This is up from the 2,841 reports in 2018 with financial losses totaling more than $1.5 million

Unlike the BBB ScamTracker, the ACCC provides more specific
demographic type of information as well as additional info about scam
methodologies. According to their data, females were targeted slightly more
frequently (49.5%) than males (48%), and the most utilized delivery method was
email (54.5%).

Fake Jobs: 10 Types of Employment Scams to Watch Out For

Job scams come in all shapes and sizes. Some cybercriminals pretend to work for small businesses while others impersonate personnel at major enterprises. From fake work-from-home jobs at Amazon to remote positions for major tech corporations, virtually any organization is fair game in the eyes of these nefarious individuals. Some of these scams target individuals who are genuinely seeking jobs to make some honest money. Others target individuals who seek to make money for little effort.

So, what are some of the most common types of fake jobs? According to Alison Doyle at TheBalanceCareers.com, 10 common examples include:

• Credit report scams. This is where the
  applicant is asked to provide their personally identifying information (PII) to
  run a credit check. However, what this really does is give the actor your PII,
  which they can use to steal your identity and/or open new accounts in your name.
• Fake job application scams. This scam
  involves using an online form to collect the victims’ personal information via
  a fake application. Similarly, this can result in identity theft.
• Background check scams. This type of scam
  involves a company requiring a job seeker to pay for a background check by providing
  payment via a pre-paid VISA or Mastercard.
• Start-up kit purchase scams. Tell me if
  you’ve ever heard this one before: You see an ad that boasts about how you can
  make incredible pay every month by just assembling and selling products. Yeah,
  what this ends up doing is costing you money that you’ll never see again.
• Software purchase scams. This employment
  scam involves you, as a victim, buying programs that’ll later be reimbursed.
• Bait-and-switch scams. Initially, it
  sounds ideal: It’s an entry-level position that’ll help you develop the skills
  and knowledge you need to work your way up within X major corporation. Soon,
  you’ll be rolling in the money — except you won’t be, because it’s
  really a door-to-door sales position.  
• Training materials scams. This type of
  fake jobs scam tactic involves them saying that they’ll send you software.
  Instead, a cashier’s check arrives, and they’ll ask you to cash the check and
  send those funds via Western Union to get the training materials. Yeah, sounds
  totally legit…
• Online training purchase scams. Similarly,
  this type of scam also will require you to purchaseonline training
  because it’s required for the position. It’ll look like the training comes from
  a real company, but it’s a fake email address that looks similar to the real
  deal.
• Direct deposit scams. Virtually every
  employer would need your direct deposit information — and criminals know this
  and use it to their advantage. However, while legitimate employers won’t need you
  to provide that information until after you’re hired, these crooks will claim
  to need it before they can set up your interview. They’ll say that they need to
  process the information at that time.
• Trial employment scams. Criminals will
  claim that you’re one of at least two applicants who will participate in a
  brief trial period for a legitimate company. They’ll require you to complete an
  employee contract which, of course, includes submitting your PII.   

So, how do these cybercriminals do it?

Fake Job Scam Methods: Job Boards, Fake Websites, and Phone Calls or Emails

Their methodologies also differ from criminal to criminal.
Some job scams involve offering fake jobs through fake job postings on Indeed
or by presenting LinkedIn fake job offers to users directly through private
messages. Some criminals go to the next level and create entire fake websites. And
others, who prefer less effort, may just call people on the phone or choose to
send an email instead.

Fake Websites Designed to Look Legit

According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC³), these actors create spoofed websites of real companies to pose as legitimate employers.

The report goes on to say:

While hiring scams have been around for many years, cyber criminals’ emerging use of spoofed websites to harvest PII and steal money shows an increased level of complexity. Criminals often lend credibility to their scheme by advertising alongside legitimate employers and job placement firms, enabling them to target victims of all skill and income levels.”

So, imagine if someone decided to create a fake version of
your website to lure visitors to their page instead of yours. Not only would
they be stealing (and, ultimately, burning) your potential hires, but they’re
also tarnishing your reputation once the jig is up and the victims realize
their game.

They Pretend to Be You (Or A Fake Employee Within Your Organization)

Regardless of which tactic they prefer, cybercriminals like
to impersonate various personnel within organizations. They pretend to be
everyone from recruiters and human resources professionals to department
managers. Some criminals work alone while others team up to pull off more
elaborate schemes. One may pose as a recruiter and then pass you off to the
supposed “hiring manager” for the position.

Some of these criminals really like to go the extra mile to
sell their scam. They may opt to send their victims an employee contract and
request standard employment application type of information — SSN, driver’s
license info, direct deposit information, etc. They also may “require” payment
for costs associated with running background checks and screenings — which, of
course, they’ll be happy to reimburse in your first paycheck. (Red flags,
anyone?)

But why go to all of this trouble? They want to convince
their victims that they’re legitimate and that their fake jobs are as well.
This makes it easier for them to get victims to provide their PII, or to get
them to buy something under the guise of it being part of the application
requirements. This could include buying gift cards or purchasing fake
certification courses at a discount.

Once the cybercriminals have convinced their victims that
their scam is real and they get the info they want, they’ll drop the job
seekers like hot potatoes and will disappear.

So, how can you tell fake jobs from real ones?

How to Identify Fake Job Listings

There are a few ways that you can identify fake jobs. As discussed
just moments ago, it’s clear that cyber criminals running these scams often
request the same types of information as legitimate employers. However, there
are several indicators the IC³ says you can use to identify real
fake jobs from real ones:

• “Interviews are not conducted in-person or through a secure video call.
• Interviews are conducted via teleconference applications that use email addresses instead of phone numbers.
• Potential employers contact victims through non-company email domains and teleconference applications.
• Potential employers require employees to purchase start-up equipment from the company.
• Potential employers request credit card information.
• Job postings appear on job boards, but not on the companies’ websites.
• Recruiters or managers do not have profiles on the job board, or the profiles do not seem to fit their roles.”

Some
additional things to keep an eye out for are ads saying they have “undisclosed”
government jobs.

How to Protect Yourself as a Job Seeker from Fake Jobs

Have you seen a potential fake job listing or are worried that you’ve been scammed? Consumer.gov has some helpful information about what job scams look like. The site also provides additional information about what you should know and do if you’re a victim and have already lost money to such as scam.

Otherwise, you can:

• Do your research. Contact the prospective employer directly to verify whether he listed position is available.
• Never pay in advance. If someone is trying to charge you for information about a job or requires some type of payment to apply or interview for it, run the other way. It’s a scam.  
• Inform the Federal Trade Commission. File a complaint with the FTC to inform them about the scan.
• Get help with identity theft. If you’ve found yourself in the position of having your PII used by a scammer, you can find official resources on how to report and recover from identity theft.

How to Protect Your
Business from Being Used in Employment Scams

So, what can you do to protect your organization’s name and
reputation from these types of scams?

Contact Law Enforcement

The Federal Trade Commission recommends business that believes they’re the victim of an impersonation scam to report the scam to the FBI’s IC3. They also suggest you encourage job seekers to forward any related emails to the Anti Phishing Working Group (APWG).

Funnel All Applications Through Your Website

Encourage users to only apply for jobs on your official
website. If you post job listings on any job boards, be sure to include that
information in the job postings as well.

Assert Your Identity on Your Website

Every website should use SSL/TLS certificates to ensure that
any transactions are made via secure, encrypted connections. The additional
benefit of using an organization validation (OV) or extended validation (EV)
SSL certificate on your website is that it helps you to assert your
organizational identity. This way, job seekers and customers alike know that
you’re you and not an imposter.

Google Your
Organization

Research job ads listing your organization’s name on Indeed,
LinkedIn, Glassdoor, Monster, and other major job websites. Ensure that any job
listings you find are genuine and report any that aren’t. You can take this a
step further and search Google (or your preferred search engine) in general for
additional job listing locations.

Notify Job Seekers
About the Scam

If your organization is the victim of an impersonation
phishing scam for fake jobs, be sure to add a notification to your website’s
home page that warns users about the fraudulent activity.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source

A new law eliminating cash bail for most crimes in New York could put more than half of the state’s bail-bond companies out of business, industry leaders said.

New York judges are prohibited from requiring bail of pretrial defendants for misdemeanors and nonviolent felony charges under new criminal-court regulations that took effect Jan. 1.

Backers of the bail changes have said they prevent people who are accused of minor crimes from languishing in jails simply because they can’t afford bail. Instead, defendants are released and instructed to return to court for their trials.

Critics have said the changes free repeat offenders to commit more crimes while they await hearings on current charges. Leaders in New York’s bail-bond industry said the law has another consequence: It could put at least half of them out of operation.

“As far as it being a viable business, say goodbye,” said Bernardo-Goldstein & Quinn Agency President

Jay Bernardo,

who has worked at the Albany bail bond company for 20 years. In an interview, Mr. Bernardo said his family’s 60-year-old company has already shed about half of the dozen employees it had in 2019, with further shrinkage to come as fewer accused criminals seek bail under the new law.

Mr. Bernardo serves as president of the New York State Bail Bondsman Association, which spent more than $100,000—along with national industry groups—on lobbying to fight the new bail law. He said there are currently 212 licensed bail-bonds agents in New York. Those agents generate revenue by charging fees in exchange for guaranteeing bail payments for family members of accused criminals in the event that the accused don’t return to court, he said.

Related Reading

• Poll Shows More New Yorkers Think Bail Changes Are Bad for State (Jan. 21)
• U.S. Ushers In 2020 With Slate of New Laws (Jan. 2)

People who are arrested and charged with crimes in criminal courts may be offered bail as a condition for their release as they await trial. Typically the family of the accused would provide a fraction of the required amount, and a bail-bond company would insure the remainder. The funds act as collateral to help ensure defendants return for their hearings.

New York State bail-bond companies employed around 2,000 people in 2019, according to Mr. Bernardo, but that number may soon shrink drastically.

American Bail Coalition Executive Director

Jeff Clayton,

whose group represents the national bail-bonds industry, said in an interview that New York State bail-bond companies, which insured about $500 million in total bail liabilities in 2019, will likely see their revenues fall by half. “A lot of these people who were able to offer folks the right to bail now will go out of business,” he said. “That’s unfortunate.”

Mr. Clayton said that changes limiting the use of bail in New Jersey that took effect in 2017 reduced the use of bail there by more than 90%, prompting many bail-bond companies to eliminate jobs or go out of business. He said the outcome of the changes in New York may have an impact on other states currently considering bail changes, including California.

Bail-bond companies across New York are adjusting to the change. Mr. Bernardo said his company will survive by diversifying into retail-clothing sales and insurance.

Empire Bail Bonds, which operated seven storefront locations in New York City, Long Island and Westchester County, is cutting costs by closing most of its stores, President and CEO

Michelle Esquenazi

said in an interview. “We’re not going to be a brick-and-mortar shop anymore,” she said. “We’re going to narrow it down to one or two locations.”

New York State Senate Deputy Majority Leader

Michael Gianaris,

a backer of the new law, said the elimination of cash bail is justified even if it prompted job losses.

“We should prioritize fairness for human beings over an industry that profits off of the unfairness that existed for so long,” Mr. Gianaris, a Democrat from Queens, said in an interview. “I’m always concerned about the loss of jobs, but we can’t allow profits to be put before people who are being held in cages.”

But other lawmakers want changes to the law allowing judges to require bail when accused criminals represent a public-safety risk. “We’re going down the wrong path,” New York State Assemblyman

Michael Reilly,

a Republican from Staten Island, said in an interview. “Right now, we’re seeing that it’s not working.”

—Jimmy Vielkind contribute to this article.

Write to Ben Chapman at Ben.Chapman@wsj.com

Copyright ©2019 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source

When you’re looking for a new job, the last thing that probably comes to mind is being ripped off. Unfortunately, with criminals always on the lookout, you have to keep your guard up no matter what you’re doing online — even job hunting.

One reason is scammers have figured out ways to spoof websites and phone numbers to trick you into thinking you’re on an official company site when in fact you’re dealing with impostors. Tap or click here to learn about a convincing fake text scam from your bank.

That’s exactly what’s happening right now with the latest batch of scams. The FBI warned criminals are targeting job applicants, and you really need to know what to watch for.

Fake job scams making the rounds

The FBI released an alert this week warning people about fake job and fake hiring scams.These involve criminals attempting to trick victims into believing they have a job or a potential job.

Scammers leverage their position as potential “employers” to talk victims into handing over personally identifiable information (PII) or to send money.

RELATED: Future robocallers will spoof numbers and voices

These types of scams have been around forever, but technology is making them easier to pull off. Cybercriminals are now posing as legitimate employers by spoofing company websites and posting fake job openings on online job boards.

They even go so far as to conduct false interviews with unsuspecting victims, then request personal data or money from them. The information they collect can be used for a number of corrupt purposes including identity theft and draining a victim’s bank account.

Here’s a typical way these scams work: Crooks begin by spoofing a legitimate company’s website and posting fake job openings that direct job seekers to the spoofed site.

Applicants then apply for the position through the fake site and are contacted by email to conduct an interview. Of course, these fake interviews don’t take place in-person, they are usually done through a teleconferencing application.

After being interviewed by the imposter, the applicant is offered a job, usually in a work-from-home position. To make it all appear legit, the crook sends the victim a contract to sign physically, at which time they are asked to submit a copy of their driver’s license, Social Security number and banking information for direct deposit. Yikes, right!?

The crook might even tell the victim they need to pay upfront for background checks or screenings, job training, equipment or supplies. Many times victims are told they will be reimbursed for these expenses with their first paycheck.

You may also like: FBI issues dire warning about smart TVs and hackers

Of course, once the impostor gets the money and PII they disappear. It sounds too unbelievable to be true, but it is.

The FBI has received numerous reports of cases like this happening since the beginning of 2019, with the average loss to a victim of $3,000 — not to mention all the damage to their credit scores after handing over all the PII.

How to stay protected

With scams like these becoming more common, the FBI is trying to make everyone aware of what to look for and how to protect against them.

Cybercriminals executing this scam request the same information as legitimate employers, making it difficult to identify a hiring scam until it’s too late.

Some indicators of these scams include:

• Interviews are not conducted in-person or through a secure video call.
• Interviews are conducted via teleconference applications that use email addresses instead of phone numbers.
• Potential employers contact victims through non-company email domains and teleconference applications.
• Potential employers require employees to purchase start-up equipment from the company.
• Potential employers request credit card information.
• Job postings appear on job boards, but not on the companies’ websites.
• Recruiters or managers do not have profiles on the job board, or the profiles do not seem to fit their roles.

Now that you know what to look for, you need to know how to protect yourself.

Here are some suggestions from the FBI:

• Conduct a web search of the hiring company using the company name only. Results that return multiple websites for the same company may indicate fraudulent job listings.
• Legitimate companies will ask for personally-identifying information and bank account info for payroll purposes AFTER hiring employees. This information is safer to give in-person. If in-person contact is not possible, a video call with the potential employer can confirm identity, especially if the company has a directory to compare employee photos.
• Never send money to someone you meet online — especially by wire transfer.
• Never provide credit card information to an employer.
• Never provide bank account information to employers without verifying their identities.
• Never share your Social Security number or other personally-identifying information that can be used to access your accounts with someone who does not need to know this information.
• Before entering personally-identifying information online, make sure the website is secure by looking at the address bar. The address should begin with “https://”, not “http://”. However, criminals can also use https:// to give victims a false sense of security. A decision to proceed should not be based solely upon the use of “https://”.

If you find yourself in the unfortunate position of being a victim to one of these scams, there are steps you need to take ASAP.

The FBI recommends the following actions:

• Report the activity to the Internet Crime Complaint Center at www.ic3.gov or your local FBI field office, which can be found online at www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices.
• Report the activity to the website in which the job posting was listed.
• Report the activity to the company the cybercriminals impersonated.
• Contact your financial institution immediately upon discovering any fraudulent or suspicious activity and direct them to stop or reverse the transactions.
• Ask your financial institution to contact the corresponding financial institution where the fraudulent or suspicious transfer was sent.

Another thing you can do to know you’re safe when looking for work or trying to hire for your company is to stick with trusted job sites like our sponsor, LinkedIn.

Find the right person for your business, today, with LinkedIn Jobs. You can pay what you want and get the first $50 off. Just visit LinkedIn.com/Kim. Terms and conditions apply.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Bill would ban ‘ban the box’ law  Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier

Source

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

FBI Warning: Scammers using fake job listings to target applicants for info  Wink News

Source

When state Rep. Raymond Dehn applied this year to be an appointed member of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, he came across a surprising question on a government form: Had he ever been convicted of a felony?

Since 2009, it has been illegal for a public employer to ask such a question of applicants before they’re selected for an interview. And in 2013, the Legislature extended that “ban the box” law to cover private employers as well. 

Dehn would know — he used his own teenage burglary conviction to help promote the 2013 measure as necessary criminal justice reform. “It was a little bit surprising when I saw it,” Dehn said of the felony question on his PUC application.

But what might appear at first glance to be a violation of state law is actually an unusual exception that was quietly implemented several years earlier — in 2004 — and one that may have been overlooked by legislators seeking to ban the box years later.

The Secretary of State’s office is required to ask people who apply to serve on state boards and commissions — from volunteer spots on advisory groups to the powerful Metropolitan Council — whether they have a felony conviction. Hundreds, if not thousands of people apply to the positions each year.

Dehn said he didn’t voice objections when he saw the felony question because his pending application for an appointment by the governor puts him in an “awkward situation.” That is, he was reluctant to complain about the process he was in the middle of. But Gov. Tim Walz, Secretary of State Steve Simon and others now say they’re hoping to repeal that 2004 provision they describe as inconsistent with the spirit of ban the box measures.

“The whole idea of ban the box was that we wouldn’t ask people about felonies in their background when they’re applying for a job,” Simon said. “If someone is among us and has left prison behind they should get a shot at these opportunities.”

How did it happen?

In 2009, Minnesota was the first state in the country to bar public employers from putting a criminal history checkbox on job applications. While DFLers controlled the Legislature, Republican Tim Pawlenty was governor.  And when state lawmakers expanded that to cover private employers in 2013, Minnesota was the third state to do so. Now 35 states have some form of ban-the-box legislation and according to the National Employment Law Project, three-fourths of Americans live in a jurisdiction that does not allow a conviction question on applications.

The rationale behind ban the box is to ensure ex-offenders aren’t screened out by employers before they even get a chance to have an interview. It does not, however, prevent an employer public or private from asking about convictions later in the hiring process. Viewed as a criminal justice measure, it has been backed by powerful groups across the political spectrum, including former President Barack Obama, the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch.

Minnesota employers have largely complied with the law. The state Department of Human Rights didn’t issue a single fine over the law in 2017 or 2018, the Duluth News Tribune reported in April.

There are exemptions in the law for positions that legally require some form of a background check, such as jobs at the Department of Corrections. But because of the 2004 law, exemptions also include positions on more than 200 boards and commissions, from the Acupuncture Advisory Council to the Sentencing Guidelines Commission as well as higher-profile jobs with the PUC and the Metropolitan Council.

People are appointed by the governor to the jobs, and their applications are public records. For instance, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey’s application last month to Walz’s Advisory Council on Climate Change says he has no felony convictions.

While many of the boards and commission jobs get only a small stipend or per diem, others, including the PUC, have annual salaries upwards of $100,000.

So how did the felony question on applications come to be? The statute that governs how appointments are made to boards and commissions dates to 1978, but the provision requiring a felony check was not in the original law. 

It was only added in 2004 among many amendments to state election law requested by the secretary of state and county auditor. There does not appear to have been discussion of the felony box issue before it was approved by the House Government Operations and Veterans Affairs Committee. 

Five years later, when the Legislature passed ban the box for state and local employment applications, no change was made to the application requirements for boards and commissions. It’s unclear if that was intentional.

Sen. Bobby Joe Champion, DFL-Minneapolis, said he was surprised to learn that the question was still being asked; he thought it was part of his 2009 bill. “Did I think it included that? Absolutely I thought it included that,” Champion said.

He also said that he is surprised agency heads hadn’t brought the matter to his attention.

“Because the guiding principal is still the same,” Champion said. “I’m surprised that they haven’t said anything, especially if we all believe that a person should not be perpetually punished.”

He said he wonders how many talented people didn’t even complete applications because they didn’t want their past crimes displayed on a public document.

Former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, who lobbied for ban the box at the Legislature, speculated that the retention in statute of the felony question for boards and commissions was an oversight. “We spent a lot of time trying to include as many job categories as possible … so I’m almost sure the state would not have intentionally left out boards and commissions,” he said via email.

Simon, who was in the Legislature when the 2009 and 2013 measures passed, said he only became aware of the requirement to ask about felony convictions at boards and commissions after he was elected to Secretary of State in 2014. His office collects the applications for the jobs.

State officials also push for a change

However the felony checkbox managed to stick around, Simon said he hopes to get rid of it soon. He privately raised the idea with lawmakers in 2015, though no legislator introduced any bills to include boards and commissions applications under ban the box statutes. 

Minnesota Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero, whose agency enforces ban the box, agreed with the Secretary of State’s office. She said her office first noticed the felony checkbox last year on applications for a council that plans the state’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration. 

Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell, one of the Walz Administration’s leads on criminal justice reform, said he was surprised to learn the felony question was still being asked by the state. 

“That is so bizarre. Especially when you think about the relevance. It’s crazy that we’re getting into those questions,” Schnell said. “If we’re in the second-chance business, we need to make sure we’re providing second chances and not excluding people, potentially excluding people, with those types of questions.

“I am so surprised.”

Walz also said he’d like to get rid of the felony question for applicants to boards and commissions. While he said marking “yes” on the felony question does not disqualify a job-seeker in his eyes, it could dissuade people from even applying. The DFLer said government should ensure those “barriers” aren’t in place. “It’s a benefit for the state, too, to have varied experiences on those boards and commissions,” he said.

Dehn, the lawmaker who applied to the PUC, received a full pardon from the state in 1982 and therefore could have answered “no” on the application. But he said he still noted his felony conviction on the state application since he’s been public about his convictions. While he said he didn’t want to “make a big deal of it” at the time, the felony question still “raised a flag.”

“Does it seem a little odd? Yeah I’d say it’s a little odd,” he said.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source