Bryan's shared items in Google Reader

International Background Checks and International Screening for Employment and Education Verification

2009-07-18T00:28:23Z

Employers have long recognized that conducting due diligence on new hires is a mission- critical task. Firms cannot afford to be sidetracked by employee problems such as workplace violence, theft, false resumes, embezzlement, harassment or trumped-up injury claims. Employers can be the subject of lawsuits for negligent hiring if they hire someone that they should have known, through the exercise of due diligence, was dangerous, unfit or unqualified.

However, with the mobility of workers across international borders, it is no longer adequate to conduct these checks just in the United States. A 2000 government study shows that 11.5% of the population consists of immigrants. In addition, an increasing number of workers have spent part of their professional career abroad. The number of countries from which employers seek additional information about applicants is expansive, and includes India, China, the Philippines, France, Germany, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Japan and Canada, among others.

Because of the perceived difficulty in performing international employment screening, some employers have not attempted to verify international credentials or to perform foreign criminal checks. However, the mere fact that information may be more difficult to obtain from outside of the U.S. does not relieve an employer of their due diligence obligation.

Nor can employers simply assume that the U.S. government has conducted background checks if the worker was issued a visa. After the events of 9/11, the U.S. has increased checks on foreign visitors and on workers on government “watch lists.” However, the government checks are generally not aimed at verifying a credential or checking for criminal records for employment purposes.

Education
Verification of an educational degree earned abroad is critical to verify credentials and to avoid fraud. An employer needs to determine if an applicant in fact attended the school claimed and received the degree claimed. Statistics show that education fraud can run as high as 20%. The employer also needs to determine if the school is accredited and authentic. The world is awash with phony schools and worthless diplomas. If the employer is not familiar with a school, the employer should conduct its own research. A legitimate school will often have an e-mail address or phone number so that they can be contacted to verify a degree.

Employment
Foreign employment can also be verified by contacting the employer even though they are in a foreign country. Often such calls will be made in the middle of the night due to time differences. The critical step is to obtain as much information about the past employer as possible from the applicant. If the employer does not speak English, an interpreter may be needed.

In order to assist employers in the requirements worldwide, ESR has published a helpful chart showing what is required in each country around the world. See:

http://www.esrcheck.com/internationalscreening.php

In order to comply with international data and privacy protection laws, ESR does not send personal information offshore. The verifications are conducted from the U.S. The only exceptions are certain countries referred to as “Red Zones,” where due to unique circumstances, a local researcher may be needed.

In some countries, verifications can be especially difficult due to problems in that country with communications or other barriers. In the event a country does not utilize the English alphabet or an employer or school cannot communicate in English, it may be necessary to request applicant information in the language of that country. A U.S. firm that performs international screening should also be Safe Harbor Certified.

Ricci puts employers between a rock and a hard place

2009-07-17T17:39:00Z

Sonia Sotomayor is undoubtedly not the only person responding to questions about the Supreme Court’s Ricci v DeStefano decision – the 5-4 opinion is surely a “hot topic” for employment attorneys and inside-counsel all across the nation. In Ricci, the Court ruled that a city’s decision not to certify firefighters’ exams, in order to avoid potential race bias claims, was discriminatory. The exams rendered no blacks and at most two Hispanics eligible for promotions. The Court’s decision may have generated many more questions than it answered.

While some US Senators sought to use the case as a litmus test for the qualifications of the Supreme Court nominee, more than a few employers and their legal counsel were likely lamenting the lack of clarity – nothing resembling a litmus test – in the High Court’s opinion as to how to meet the new standard announced for the lawful rejection of a selection procedure that has been determined to have a discriminatory impact on protected members of a workforce.

“[U]nder Title VII, before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action,” wrote Justice Kennedy, joined by four other Justices. Applying this standard, the Court concluded that the city “was not entitled to disregard the tests based solely on the racial disparity in the result.”

But what exactly is “a strong basis in evidence” and how is that standard applied in the real world of employers diligently trying to meet antidiscrimination obligations? As Justice Ginsberg points out in her dissenting opinion, the “barely described” standard “makes voluntary compliance a hazardous adventure.” Given that three of her High Court colleagues agreed with her observation, how difficult will it be for employers to navigate this tricky landscape? How many varied interpretations of this new standard will we see in the coming months and years and will the Supreme Court be required to revisit the issue?

And then there is the tension that Ricci creates between Title VII’s disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. How will employers seeking to avoid selection procedures that create a disparate impact manage not to invite at the same time a disparate treatment claim? As Justice Ginsburg laments, under the High Court’s ruling, an employer that changes an employment practice in order to comply with Title VII’s disparate impact provision is acting “because of race,” which is generally forbidden under Title VII’s disparate treatment prohibition. The Justice finds this position at odds with congressional intent and the EEOC’s interpretive guidance: “Congress did not intend to expose those who comply with the Act to charges that they are violating the very statute they are seeking to implement.”

Employers are caught between a rock and a hard place with a new standard and a new view of Title VII that likely applies to selection procedures for many other types of employment decisions. For example, consider an employer that out of good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII, performs a disparate impact analysis prior to implementing a reduction in force in order to avoid unintentional bias and associated liability. If the statistics show a disparate impact on a minority group, what should the employer do?

Under Ricci, a statistical disparity alone would likely be insufficient to justify a change in selection criteria. How much and what type of evidence of unreliability must the employer collect before rejecting the questionable procedure and implementing a new one without incurring liability for disparate treatment of non-minority members not initially identified for layoff, but selected under a new procedure?

These and many other questions will likely arise in the aftermath of Ricci. But I predict a surge in reverse discrimination cases that will soon begin to generate some answers.

Lawyers warn employers against giving glowing reviews on LinkedIn

2009-07-16T18:58:33Z

Management-side lawyers are warning employers about the hidden dangers of LinkedIn, the popular business networking site that posts recommendations for job candidates. Specifically, attorneys are advising employers to be wary of giving glowing remarks about employees on the site because the employers risk having the recommendations used against them in a discrimination or harassment suit.

Home Broadband Adoption 2009

2009-06-17T04:00:00Z

Broadband adoption increases, but monthly prices do, too.

Ready To Invest In New Technology? Here Are Some Questions To Ask

2009-07-16T09:36:13Z

What did you do the last time you invested in a new HR system?

If you’re at all similar to the thousands of other HR leaders that have gone through the process, you probably assembled an inter-departmental group from across the company and began creating lists of all the features anybody suggested.

Like other companies, that list probably didn’t include such vendor questions as:

What is the turnaround time on resolving system problems?
What is the turnover in your customer support staff?
Can we request a change in our primary customer representative?
When do we have to pay for system upgrades? Can we refuse an update and still receive support?

An article in the September issue of the Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership addresses the issue of post-sale service and support for HR technology systems. The article (available only by subscription) talks about the advice experts like Leighanne Levensaler of Bersin and Associates and HRchitect’s Rick Fletcher and Matt Lafata have for companies planning an investment in HR technology. (Incidentally, they all agree that mere lists of features is the WRONG way to go.)

They, and, surprisingly, the vendors I spoke with for the article, all agree that the most overlooked area in systems acquisition is customer service.

After the system is up and running, the most important feature becomes service and support. That the systems have user-defined fields and configurable screens matters hardly at all if you can’t get the vendor to help you batch post job listings to multiple sites.

That’s why Andrew Curtis, director of customer support at iCIMS, suggests that once you’ve got a short list of vendors, and are making a decision, the post-sale support and service “should carry a 100 percent weight.”

OK. So that might be overkill, but SilkRoad technology’s COO, Brian Platz, says, “How much weight would I give to post-sale issues? I would give it 50 percent of my criteria.”

Now that you’ve got some sense of just how important the post-sale service is, how do you go about checking out the vendor? The Journal article offers more detail, but here are some tips from the consultants and vendors.

Who to interview when checking references

A regular system user in HR. For talent acquisition systems, this is probably a senior recruiter, or lead.
The primary liaison between the user and the vendor. This may be the project lead or the “go to” person, but not necessarily.
The user’s in-house tech support system. Large companies may have an HR tech specialist. Most others will not, but they may have one person who has more specialized knowledge of the system than other techs. In the smaller companies, there may not be an IT support person. In this case, find out who gets asked the “How do I do this” questions.

What to ask

Does the vendor have a single support contact person for the user? How often does the contact change?
Is the vendor proactive? Is the vendor interested in how you are using the system? Do you get advice and tips on improving efficiency? How regularly do you hear from the vendor, not counting sales calls?
How often is training offered? How effective is it? What’s the method of training?
Is there a portal where training materials are available, information is posted, updates are announced, and especially, is there a user forum or online discussion where users regularly exchange information? (Ask the vendor for access to it and see what users say.)
How long does it take to get through to a live person when you have a support call? What is the quality of the response? What has been your experience when the problem is more complex than the first-level support person can handle?
How long does it take to get a call back in an emergency situation?
What do you like most about working with this vendor?
Would you use this vendor again?

Tips

For the demo, ask the sales team to bring a support person or client relations manager. Sales will bring along the best person they have. That’s the person you want to insist on as your own contact.
Specify in the Service Level Agreement that you have the right to approve and change the support contact or client rep.
Require that the lead implementation person remain onsite (if an on-premises installation) or otherwise be available for a period of time after going live with a new system.

EEOC Hearing Highlights “Devastating Impact” of Age Discrimination

2009-07-15T07:00:00Z

Highlighting the “devastating impact” of age discrimination, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today held a public hearing on recent developments under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), including the effect on older workers of widespread layoffs, threats to employee benefits, and controversial recent court decisions. The Commission will consider expert panelists’ proposals for regulatory and legislative action, and today issued a technical assistance document on waivers as part of severance agreements.

Private sector not necessarily a model for hiring reform

2009-07-14T17:43:44Z

Some practices such as relying primarily on résumés aren't suitable for the federal government, consultancy says.

Interns clamor to get in the gov't game

2009-07-15T18:47:11Z

Shared by Bryan
A fascinating example of how individuals in an organization influence applicants.

Obama motivates many to seek out Hill, agency internships rather than Wall Street posts.

The Supreme Court on Ricci: Boon or bust for employment testing?

2009-07-14T21:21:35Z

By Doug Reynolds, Ph.D. I’ve been asked by several colleagues now about the implications of the Ricci case for hiring practices in the U.S. This is the one where the City of New Haven chose to discard the results of a promotion test for firefighters because it produced an adverse impact on protected classes who failed the test. The city was sued by a group of firefighters who passed the test, and the Supreme Court found in favor of the firefighters, citing that the city had engaged in disparate treatment by using race as a factor in their decision to throw out results from a validated test. Some labor attorneys believe this decision will dampen enthusiasm for employment testing. My feeling is that this interpretation is short-sighted...

How to disposition sourced leads for OFCCP compliance

2009-07-14T19:07:57Z

Sourced leads should be stored initially in a separate database (e.g., CRM). Your company needs a policy for reaching out within a certain timeframe and expiring (not deleting) the ones that don't respond. See this blogpost for details.

The Problem with Today’s Talent Profiles

2009-07-10T21:50:00Z

If you follow our research, you know we spend a lot of time discussing, evaluating, writing and speaking about talent profiles. While profile management may seem like just another “bell or whistle” feature set promoted by marketing teams, we believe it is a critical aspect of this juggernaut called integrated talent management. Unfortunately, we have recently learned that many early adopter organizations have some serious challenges implementing the first generation of talent profiles offered by vendors today.

Briefly, a level set on talent profiles.
Talent profiles provide a consolidated view of all talent-related employee data that is generated by system processes, added by administrators, managers or employees, and by external systems. For example, most talent profiles available in talent management systems today probably include data for performance objectives, performance history, training, certifications, competencies, education, awards, succession plans, career plans, mobility and languages. They also usually support organization-defined fields, and the ability to expose or suppress certain fields depending on operational, legal and cultural practices. In slightly more sophisticated talent management systems, contextual segments of the talent profile are presented within talent processes (such as talent planning, succession management and pay for performance) to inform and influence the user’s decision-making and planning efforts. The information helps managers answer questions including:

Who has the necessary background to support a project or company initiative?
Who can fill this internal vacancy today?
Which person is a better fit for this job?
Does this person consistently meet or exceed performance plans?
Can this person work in another country?
Does this person’s career interest align with a specific need we have for him / her today?

In addition, talent management providers that have embraced social software in their applications provide opportunities for employees to connect with each other (a la Facebook and LinkedIn) for expertise finding, networking, career exploration and knowledge-sharing. Sounds great in theory, right? In practice, however, we have found that early adopter organizations are having a hard time implementing talent profiles – in part due to their own “immature” processes, and in part due to major gaps in the design and security of the talent profiles.

There are a few key points that I will touch on now. To receive our full analysis of these problems, you will have to read our 2009 update to the Talent Management Suites industry study, which is due out in early September.

Problem #1 - Organizations lack quality and consistent data due to immature HR processes and integration. No additional comment needed here – this is to be expected at this stage of the market.

Problem #2 - Many vendors do not offer processes to ensure the timely gathering of accurate profile data. Specifically, they do not offer employees and managers the ability to update profiles directly (self-service). As a result, the data is limited to whatever the system “knows” and is only maintained through system events. And if a vendor does allow employees and managers to edit and contribute to profiles, they do not always provide workflow to support an approval or validation process. Further, very few vendors go one important step further to support adoption by offering workflow and notifications to request and remind employees to update their profiles – either as a standalone process or embedded within an existing process, such as performance management, onboarding or career planning.

Problem #3 - Most vendors do not offer role-based views of the talent profile. Rather, they only offer two views of the talent profile – a public view, which everyone can see, and an administrator view. The security model does not account for special roles (such as a talent planner, project manager, mentor or coach) that would benefit from a more comprehensive view of the profiles while conducting a talent search or working with individuals.

Problem #4 - In conjunction with Problem #3, even the vendors that do offer support for multiple “administrator” roles do not always offer granular security controls on which sections or fields are viewable by role and by audience type within the organization (i.e., geography, functional unit, department, level etc.). This is particularly important to enforce data privacy conventions and regulations.

As a result of these “problems,” many early adopter organizations were forced to implement a “public” talent profile that honors all operational, legal and cultural differences and requirements across the enterprise – meaning that they have implemented the lowest common denominator profile, and not the insightful and robust profile described above.

Last week, we finished up our comprehensive briefings for talent management systems with 26 vendors. Through the process, I was disappointed to find that many vendors have not addressed all of these “problems” in their latest releases. I suspect this is due to the fact that, to fully address the problems, it will require serious updates to the information architectures and security models. And, at this time, vendors are unlikely to have many organizations shouting at them to do this because of Problem #1 – the organizations just aren’t ready to implement and institutionalize the comprehensive talent profile, and they haven’t encountered these issues – yet.

On a positive note, there are a handful of vendors (including Authoria, Taleo and Halogen) with scalable talent profiles.

Halogen recently provided us with a demo of its new Talent Profile module (available in September). While Halogen is not always first to the market, the company typically does a great job once they get here. Rest assured, with the Talent Profile module, Halogen customers will not have to worry about Problems #2, 3, & 4, so they can focus on Problem #1.

Final Thoughts:

Profile management is a key system feature to support integrated talent planning and management. Given its importance to the platform and the value it can provide, we urge organizations to invest the time to understand its benefits – and more importantly, its minefields. While the problems may not be pressing issues for you today, they certainly will be in the not too distant future.

Free Job Matching Launches Monday For Employers and Seekers

2009-07-10T20:25:23Z

A U.S. recovery job site launches Monday, backed by an impressive array of Fortune 500 companies.

What makes UnitedWeWork.org (password protected until Monday) different from the other job services that have popped up since the recession began last year is that this one is free to employers and job seekers. And it uses the matching power of QuietAgent to automate the finding of jobs and candidates for seekers and recruiters.

And with the likes of AT&T, ADP, Allstate, Hewitt Associates, Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, Office Depot, Sears Holdings, 7-Eleven, and Starbucks involved, UnitedWeWork.com has real jobs available.

Other services, of course, offer lots of jobs for seekers to search, while all the major job boards let recruiters set automatic resume searches. But with Quiet Agent there’s no actual searching. Job seekers spend a few minutes filling in some details about themselves and their career interests, upload a resume, and then go about other business while Quiet Agent technology looks for matches.

Jason Kerr, CEO of Quiet Agent, says UnitedWeWork will simplify the task of sourcing candidates for recruiters and searching job listings for seekers. Because the service is free, Kerr expects to especially attract the smaller employer.

The sponsor companies are all members of AllianceQ, the network launched by QuietAgent last year that enables them to pool resumes and refer their unsuccessful candidates to jobs with other AllianceQ members. (It’s a little more involved than that. BusinessWeek has the details.)

Besides doing good, UnitedWeWork is a way to built the QuietAgent candidate database. As the number of resumes grows, the matches improve for recruiters who use the service or are members of AllianceQ.

“It’s all about volume,” says Kerr, explaining that the more job seekers who participate in UnitedWeWork or submit a resume on the QuietAgent site, the more likely matches will be made and people will be hired.

Candidates who submit resumes on UnitedWeWork, but don’t want to go into the QuietAgent database, can simply delete their resume and profile when they find a job or at the end of the year when UnitedWeWork starts charging. It will remain free for employers with fewer than 100 workers.

Details on how to participate can be found here. The site won’t be publicly available until Monday. Search firms and agencies can’t participate.

Assessment Centers: Current Practices in the United States

2009-07-09T14:12:32Z

Abstract

Purpose The goals of this investigation were to review current AC practices in the United States by evaluating whether they follow the Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations (International Task Force on Assessment Centers, 2000). We both expanded upon and compared our results to a prior benchmarking study (Spychalski et al. in Personnel Psychol, 50:71–90, 1997), and investigated practices regarding job analysis, AC development, dimensions (i.e., job requirements), exercises, assessor characteristics and training, behavior recording, data integration, organizational policy, assessee rights, AC evaluation and AC technology. Data were collected via an online survey completed by individuals from human resource departments of organizations (N = 54) across the U.S; organizations to whom the survey was sent were selected by sampling Fortune 500 organizations based on economic sector.

Findings Results indicate that 93% of organizations reported considering the Guidelines for AC development and use. More specifically, the investigation reports specific findings regarding job analysis, AC development, AC dimensions, AC exercises, assessor characteristics, assessor training, behavior recording, data integration, organizational policy, assessee rights, AC evaluation, and AC technology.

Implications We provide two types of conclusions. First, based on two concerns, we provide two recommendations for improving current practice. Second, we present two commendations (i.e., positive trends that should continue). Finally, to continue to advance AC practice, we discuss our results in the context of observations on recent developments in AC practices by Lievens and Thornton (Assessment centers: Recent developments in practice and research. Blackwell, Malden, pp 243–264, 2005).

Originality/Value Despite the importance of assessment centers (ACs) for personnel selection and development, no recent benchmarking studies exist.

Content Type Journal Article
DOI 10.1007/s10869-009-9123-3
Authors
- Tasha L. Eurich, CH2M HILL Englewood CO 80112 USA
- Diana E. Krause, University of Western Ontario Management and Organizational Studies London ON N6A 5C2 Canada
- Konstantin Cigularov, Illinois Institute of Technology Institute of Psychology Chicago IL 60616-3793 USA
- George C. Thornton, Colorado State University Department of Psychology Fort Collins CO 80523 USA

Journal Journal of Business and Psychology
Online ISSN 1573-353X
Print ISSN 0889-3268

Patterns and sources of adult personality development: Growth curve analyses of the NEO PI-R scales in a longitudinal twin study.

2009-07-10T18:50:43Z

The present study examined the patterns and sources of 10-year stability and change of adult personality assessed by the 5 domains and 30 facets of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Phenotypic and biometric analyses were performed on data from 126 identical and 61 fraternal twins from the Bielefeld Longitudinal Study of Adult Twins (BiLSAT). Consistent with previous research, LGM analyses revealed significant mean-level changes in domains and facets suggesting maturation of personality. There were also substantial individual differences in the change trajectories of both domain and facet scales. Correlations between age and trait changes were modest and there were no significant associations between change and gender. Biometric extensions of growth curve models showed that 10-year stability and change of personality were influenced by both genetic as well as environmental factors. Regarding the etiology of change, the analyses uncovered a more complex picture than originally stated, as findings suggest noticeable differences between traits with respect to the magnitude of genetic and environmental effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

The Rush to Source Candidates from Internet and Social Networking Sites

2009-07-10T07:33:08Z

A new article by Employment Screening Resources President Lester Rosen has appeared in the Recruiting Trends blog, sponsored by Kennedy Information for the purpose of providing leading edge insights and strategies for the recruiting professional. The blog offers articles by thought leaders and experts in the area of talent management and recruiting.

The article is titled: “The Rush to Source Candidates from Internet and Social Networking Sites – Let’s Slow Down and Think About This for a Minute.”

The article examines pitfalls and legal risk in the use of the internet for sourcing and screening. See: http://www.recruitingtrends.com/article/ART635215

Mr. Rosen, who is as an attorney at law, is a member of the Editorial Board and frequently presents at Kennedy Information Recruiting Conferences.

Massive I-9 audits on the way: How to prepare

2009-07-09T15:51:30Z

When the feds said their new immigration strategy was to crack down on employers’ hiring and record-keeping practices, they weren’t kidding.

Last week, U.S. Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE) told 652 employers their I-9 forms were being audited. That’s more than the number of audits ICE conducted in the entire previous fiscal year. In addition to I-9s, many of the audits will also include subpoenas for EINs, payroll records and correspondences with the Social Security Administration regarding no-match letters.

The nationwide inspection follows an April announcement that ICE planned to focus the majority of its resources on prosecuting employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The list of companies being audited hasn’t been released. ICE has described the effort as a “first step,” meaning there will likely be more mass inspections in the near future.

What should HR managers do if they get a Notice of Inspection (NOI) from the feds?

Preparation is key. Employers must act quickly — the NOIs generally require HR to turn over all I-9s within three business days.

If I-9 records don’t pass muster with ICE, the agency could launch a criminal investigation. But even if there are no criminal charges, employers could face civil fines for faulty record-keeping.

An audit doesn’t always mean charges or fines are coming. After receiving an NOI, employers should:

Respond quickly, even if it’s to ask ICE for a time extension
Choose one point person to correspond with ICE — that will avoid any inconsistencies in the information given
Notify all managers and employees who deal with I-9s and related documents
Secure all applicable records — any missing documents could be seen as an attempt to destroy evidence or sabotage the investigation, and
Consider conducting their own internal audit.

Twitter User. Is That An Oxymoron?

2009-07-08T00:38:38Z

Attention you would-be tweeps and tweeple. You talk a good game, but you don’t tweet one. In fact, you don’t tweet at all.

Half of all those registered on Twitter have not tweeted once. Half of those registered have no followers. Half follow no one. Nine percent of Twitter’s estimated 5-6 million registered users (the company doesn’t provide numbers) are considered inactive, having fewer then 10 followers, friends and updates.

If that’s the case — and a new report from Hubspot on the State of the Twittersphere says it is — then who’s doing all the tweeting?

Certainly not gray-haired executives at the top of the corporate food chain. ClickZ, reporting on yet another study, says only 3 percent of over-50 C-levels tweet. But if they’re under 40, then 56 percent of them tweet or microblog.

So it must be Gen Y doing the tweeting? Not so fast. Yet another study, this one released during June’s TWTRCON 2009 in San Francisco, says only 22 percent of the 18-24 year olds in the U.S. are on Twitter. Yet, says that same study, virtually all Gen Yers have a profile on Facebook, MySpace, or other social network.

Conducted for the Participatory Marketing Network by the Lubin School of Business’ Interactive and Direct Marketing Lab at Pace University, the study also showed that those who do use Twitter follow friends, celebrities, and family. Only 29 percent follow companies, which, if you do the math, is 6 percent of Gen Y. Kind of takes some of the air out of the Twitter-as-an-employer-branding opportunity.

That brings us back to the question of who is tweeting? The Hubspot report doesn’t tell us, though the company’s Twitter Grader does offer a curious list of the Twitter elite, those posters with the largest following and, consequently, big volumes of tweets. The New York Times, ESPN, Fox News, Huffington Post, and the occasional Guy Kawasaki make up the bulk of the 100 users.

The Hubsport report does tell us that the average active Twitter user tweets only about once a day. And for every 10 followers they have, they follow eight. And, no surprise here but a good hint at what’s being tweeted, the volume of tweets is greatest on Thursdays and Fridays.

There are a few other interesting tidbits in the report that recruiters will find of value. For instance, if you expect to be able to easily get the background on your followers or on those you may follow, guess again; 76 percent of Twitter users have no bio and 69 percent don’t even say where they are.

Could it be Scott Weaver was on to something when he blogged, “I’m Bitter About Twitter?” The Nielsen people might think so. They say that 60 percent of all Twitter users don’t return after their first month.

Commission to Hold Public Hearing July 15 on Age Discrimination in Employment

2009-07-07T07:00:00Z

In light of widespread layoffs, a significant spike in age discrimination charges, threats to employee benefits, and controversial recent court decisions, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a public hearing Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at 10 a.m. (Eastern Time), at agency headquarters, 131 M St, NE, Washington, DC., to discuss age discrimination in employment.

Federal Diary: A Boost for Those Burdened by Student Loan Debt

2009-07-02T04:00:00Z

BALTIMORE Americans invest heavily in the future of the nation by providing loans to help put students through college. Yet the burden of that debt for many former students is so great that it interferes with investments they would like to make in a home, a family or even a good time now and then.

O*NET Database updated

2009-07-02T15:48:25Z

Shared by Bryan
A great place to start when performing a job analysis.

With the release of the O*NET 14.0 development database, comprehensive data is now available for 833 O*NET-SOC occupations, including the 117 O*NET-SOCs updated within this release. The database also includes new Task Statements for 153 New and Emerging O*NET-SOC occupations and the addition of Interests and Work Values data for 96 of those occupations. It also incorporates the new O*NET-SOC 2009 taxonomy. Find out more about or download this file from our Developer's Corner.