Victig Yearly Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

Each year, Victig collects data from its customers so it can evaluate its own performance and devise a plan-of-attack on the next year to be sure it continues to meet or surpass customer expectations. The evaluations are based on surveys customers take following their purchase and use of services from the company and a third-party supplier qualifier.

Survey results indicate a 96% satisfaction rating with Victig services

Victig used the survey company Open Ratings to create a Past Performance Evaluation to analyze how their business performed in the year 2013. Customers were asked the question, “Overall, how satisfied do you feel about the performance of this company during this transaction,” and responded with a 96% satisfaction rating. They were also asked about the company’s reliability, cost, order accuracy, delivery/timeliness, quality, business relations, personnel, customer support, and responsiveness. In each of these categories, Victig was graded with a stunning 96% and above, with their best rating being in order accuracy at 98%.

D&B reports low risk of Victig ceasing operations

Victig was also rated in D&B’s Supplier Qualifier Report using the SER (supplier evaluation risk rating) which “predicts the likelihood that a supplier will cease operations, regardless of debts outstanding, or become inactive over the next 12 months.” Victig was rated with a 3, which on this scale means they have a low risk of defaulting or going out of business. Their payments to creditors are “prompt” which the survey explains to mean payments are made 30 or more days sooner than was agreed on in the terms of agreement with their supplier.

In the entire United States, just 12% of all businesses have the same SER score. Victig’s likelihood of ceasing operations is 3.1% (which means the chances are basically nill) while the average SER score is 5.6%.

Why didn’t you do a background check?

teri jarvis charge with emezzlement

Pre-employment background checks are a must these days.  I can’t come up with any reason why a company would NOT want to do them.  In our company every day we see reasons why you would always want to look at the history of an individual before you hire them.  Recently a Utah company made a mistake, a very costly one for that matter, when they didn’t perform a criminal search on an employee.  Teri Ann Jarvis was hired as a secretary and over the course of her employment embezzled over $500,000 dollars.  If they would have done a Utah state wide criminal search they would have found a criminal history that could have changed their mind about hiring her.  Jarvis pleaded guilty in 2001 to issuing a bad check of less than $300, a third-degree felony and In 1991 she was charged with attempted forgery also a third-degree felony.   Read Article

Sometimes employers think placing applicants in higher positions warrants the cost of a background check or you should spend more money on those people but in fact it is the exact opposite.  The jobs that pay the least are the ones that pose the greatest risk.

All business should be doing a comprehensive background check so that they protect themselves legally and in the case mentioned above protect their money.

 

Radio Shack CEO Resigns in Wake of Resume Scandal

Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, RadioShack is known for its expertise in electronics, but after a scandal in 2006 involving its CEO, it’s not known so well for its ability to hire competent people based on valid resumes. In February of 2006, David Edmondson resigned as CEO of RadioShack amid allegations that he had falsified information on his resume, an error that would have been picked up had the company performed a routine background check.

Edmondson’s career at RadioShack

Edmondson accepted the position of CEO in 2005 after having worked with the company in a variety of positions for 11 years. He was known for his ability to develop successful marketing strategies and was instrumental in the technological alliances made between RadioShack and IBM, HP, Verizon Wireless, Microsoft, Dish Network, Sirius Satellite Radio, and Apple. In fact, he came up with the tagline, “You’ve got questions . . . We’ve got answers” and was recognized in 1996 as being in the top 100 of marketers in America.

All this didn’t matter, however, when the Fort Worth Star-Telegram took a look into his past and discovered discrepancies in his resume. He claimed to have received two college degrees, one in theology and one in psychology, but the college he cited was an unaccredited institution and further investigation revealed that he had received no degrees at all.

Former CEO admitted fault

Edmondson eventually admitted, “I clearly misstated my academic record and the responsibility for these misstatements is mine alone.” He said the decision to resign was agreed on mutually between him and the board of directors.

Leonoard Roberts who serves as executive chairman of the company, was also the man who had chosen Edmondson for the job. In an interview, he told reporters, “When our company’s credibility becomes based on a single individual, it is time for a change. One of the most important things we have as a corporation is integrity and trust. We have to restore that back to the company.”

Officers’ biographies removed and updated

Following this scandal, The New York Times reported that the officers of RadioShack had their biographies on the website removed for a time. In their place was a note stating, “We are currently updating and validating all of the biographical information for each of our senior executives. Please check back soon to receive this information.”

These embarrassments and resulting fallout to RadioShack–its stock dipped to a three year low with investors’ trust severely shaken–could have been prevented if the Texas company had performed its homework a little more carefully. All it would have taken was a background check with employment verification to be sure Edmondson had the credentials he claimed. It would behoove all companies to take this learning experience and apply it to their hiring practices.

Utah Employers Discover Resume Falsifications

Despite the easy availability of background checks these days, some employers still neglect to require them or do not thoroughly analyze their results. This is evident with some recent high profile cases of prominent CEOs being “outed” for lying on their resumes.

Yahoo CEO padded resume

For instance, just last year, Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson was revealed to have “padded” his resume by bestowing upon himself a fictitious college degree. On the Yahoo bios page–a page that CEOs are required to swear is truthful–Thompson was reported to have acquired two bachelor’s degrees from Stonehill College: one in computer science and one in accounting. In actuality, he only has one in accounting.

The error was reported to be “inadvertent” but the information appeared on the company’s last annual report as well. According to CNN, the board “hired outside counsel to conduct a review of the false statement.” Patti Hart, the woman who led the search committee for the position of CEO, reportedly stepped down after her term ended.

Forbes reports most common resume lies

Though stories like these seem like they should be the exception, they actually occur more often than you might think. According to a report by Forbes, the most common things people lie about on resumes are college degrees, final GPAs, and previous salary earned. Utah’s KSL News was able to find several people (who wished to remain anonymous) who were willing to talk about their experiences with people who lied on their resumes.

Employers discover resume lies

One businesswoman shared a recent event when she hired an employee after asking specifically if she had any felonies. “She wrote straight out: ‘No felonies,'” the woman related. “And she got the job and everything. She had been working for us and was a really good employee.” However, an outright lie during an interview or on a resume cannot be ignored.

Another interviewee shared a story about a friend he knew to have dropped out of Salt Lake Community College. He told KSL News that the friend “lied on his resume and is now a working architect.”

Background checks prevent hiring mistakes

Thorough background checks and employment verifications can help employers hire only qualified applicants, thus avoiding the cost of training someone who turns out to be unable to perform the job. Don’t dismiss the importance of it, thinking applicants in general won’t lie. Forbes.com reported, “About 40 percent of people admit to having, at one time, lied on their resume.”

 

Pre-Employment Screening Services Modern Management Needs

 

risk with not doing background checks

Staffing presents unique concerns for employers, who do their very best to identify applicants’ strengths and weaknesses before making hiring decisions.  Resumes, phone interviews, in-person question and answer sessions and other hiring aids used by HR offices yield fruit, but do not always show the whole picture.  In truth, these methods provide fleeting glimpses at best, offering little proof to back-up job applicants’ claims.  Background checks capture long-range views of personal behavior, giving employers more substance to work with when verifying job application information.

The stakes are higher than ever for employers, who can no longer afford to make hiring missteps.  As a result, pre-employment screenings and formal background checks are commonplace among mainstream employers.  In fact, upwards of ninety-percent of human resources offices now conduct pre-employment background checks.

Background checks are individual procedures, so the depth and scope of each effort is unique, furnishing precisely the information each employer needs. In most cases, research is left to professionals, contracted by companies looking for information about job applicants and other parties.  Employers utilize checks for their own specific reasons, including the following concerns, held across a wide variety of industries.

Workplace Violence

Changing conditions across society require adjustments from employers, who share responsibility for keeping their own employees safe on the job.  Reports of workplace violence have grown in numbers over recent decades, so pre-employment background checks are used more than ever, to help identify violent tendencies among prospective employees.

Pre-employment screenings look at a variety of personal characteristics, including criminal arrests and convictions.  While there are limits in place governing how far back employer inquiries may go, recent criminal activity, especially arrests for violent behavior, alert human resources professionals to potential problems.

Liability for Negligent Hiring

Properly vetting employees is not just an internal performance issue for companies, who also bear responsibility for how employees interact with others while on the job.  Specialized employment roles require skills preparing employees to function in critical capacities, so verifying job competency is another background check benefit.  Hiring unqualified applicants puts other workers at risk, leaving the door open for employer liability issues.

Negligent hiring claims arise against employers when coworkers or customers suffer harm at the hands of an employee, working in an official capacity.  The litigation asserts that the employer should have known about a condition or past behavior leading an employee to misbehave on the job.

Due diligence for today’s employers requires formal background screening, including criminal records and veracity of job-training claims.

Theft and Workplace Fraud

Beyond protecting other staffers and furnishing safe workplaces, employers must also protect their own business interests.  Theft and fraud cost employers untold sums annually, prompting in-depth background investigations prior to employment.

Losses range from job site pilfering, where employees steal material property from their places of employment; all the way up to higher-level white-collar schemes fleecing corporations for millions.   Work histories and character references provided by applicants are a good start for identifying problematic behavior at past places of employment, but a comprehensive check paints a more accurate picture for employers.

Credit histories and civil judgments furnish valuable insight into the financial health of applicants and show human resources managers how they overcame cash flow difficulties in the past.  While poor credit entries don’t necessarily exclude applicants from employment, they may create cause for concern, especially when hiring for cash-sensitive positions.

Violence, liability and theft furnish three high-profile reasons for initiating comprehensive background screenings prior to employment; but there are more.  For these and other reasons, standard operating procedure for hiring workers, at all levels, must include formal background checks.

Author Byline:

This guest post is contributed by Rebecca Gray, who writes for Backgroundchecks.org. She welcomes your comments at her email id: GrayRebecca14@gmail.com.