Clearing Up Misinformation
The driver screening process needs improvement.
Deborah Whistler
Editor
My October editorial dealing with the identity problems of owner-operators Donna and James Murphy caused quite a stir. I got letters from several truckers who suffered similar experiences. I also was contacted by other background screeners who had more information on problems in the screening process.
To refresh your memory, James, a veteran long-haul trucker, was mistakenly identified in a DAC Services report (the most widely used driver-screening service in trucking) as having several felony convictions. The bogus report was based on a "name-only" search, which DAC claims are common in the background screening business.
Not so, says Bill Saling, managing partner of Employment Research Services LLC. "Most legitimate search firms will not publish a record on a name match only unless they emphatically point out that fact in the text of the report."
Problem is, even if the document says it is based on a "name-only" search, the misidentification is still there. Most employers aren't going to dig any deeper. They would probably just pass on the driver rather than take a chance. And many times, the driver in question isn't even aware the bad information is in the document.
And instances of mistaken identity are occurring more often. Saling points out that, under pressure from the privacy lobby, many jurisdictions are withholding data such as dates of birth, drivers license numbers, Social Security numbers, etc. from criminal record files. "This makes it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to confirm that the record ties back to the given applicant," says Saling. "Here is a case where the advocacy groups probably caused the very problem they are now complaining about."
The problems aren't limited to misidentification. Drivers are sometimes victims of negative and inaccurate information provided to DAC by previous employers. Say, a disgruntled dispatcher who decides to punish a driver for refusing a load.
Many drivers have told us it is extremely difficult to get a negative DAC report cleared up. They can go back to the carrier originating the report, but if there is still a dispute between the driver and the carrier about what happened, it basically becomes a "he said, she said." The driver's rebuttal is printed on the DAC report, but the negative information still remains. When in doubt, a future employer would likely take the word of the previous employer.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn. (OOIDA) has asked DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to amend a proposal OOIDA says shields motor carriers from liability for providing bum background data.
OOIDA says truckers are not protected from "irresponsible carriers who manipulate background check information to retaliate against or blackball safe drivers who refuse pressure to violate safety rules — most notably hours of service regulations."
Here is what OOIDA would like to see happen in the area of driver background checks:
• The carrier should be required to verify and attest that the information it transmits is true, and that safety performances should only relate to the driver's history with that carrier.
Drivers should have the right to review a safety performance history at any time — not just during the hiring process. The current rule provides no meaningful ability to correct an inaccurate report, OOIDA says.
• The prospective employer should automatically give the driver a copy of any background information it receives; and FMCSA should require written authorization from a driver before a carrier begins a background check. Without such knowledge, the driver will not know when his or her rights to review, attempt to correct or rebut the information have been triggered, OOIDA says.
• FMCSA should limit background investigations to information directly related to a driver's safety qualifications under federal law; and to require the information reported be made with sufficient detail to ensure accuracy.
• In addition, there should be some guidance as to whether the previous carrier should be required to delete any information older than three years from its records or from records it received from other carriers.
• A former carrier should be given seven days, instead of the proposed 30 days, to respond to a driver's attempt to correct or rebut employment information so the driver can quickly begin working.
E-mail Deb at dwhistler@truckinginfo.com
