Candidates are often more honest in their LinkedIn profiles than in the resumes they send employers.

At least that’s what LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman said at the Social Recruiting Summit held recently at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, CA.

His reasoning: Resumes are read only by a few people in a company, who know nothing about the candidate. On the other hand, candidates might have hundreds of LinkedIn connections, and in theory, know or have worked with all of them.

Reid’s point: It’s pretty hard to lie publicly in front of current or former colleagues.

Of course, LinkedIn profiles aren’t really replacements for resumes — most users don’t put the same detail into a profile, and there aren’t many versions tailored to different types of positions.

But some experts recommend finding a candidate’s profile to quickly make sure it matches the info the candidate sent to you.

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.

This employer’s taken the concept of online background checks to a new level.

Candidates applying for jobs with the city of Bozeman, Montana, are asked to list “any and all” Web sites, chat rooms and social networking groups they use (“including but not limited to Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.”) — along with their usernames and passwords.

Many hiring managers Google applicants’ names or look for them on Facebook, but actually logging in to their personal profiles is something new entirely.

Why does Bozeman want that access? According to city attorney Greg Sullivan, it’s “to make sure the people that we hire have the highest moral character and are a good fit for the city,” The Consumerist reports.

Sullivan also said the city doesn’t look at “the things that the federal Constitution lists as protected things” (whatever that means).

The story drew a lot of attention and outcry from the media, potential Bozeman employees and HR pros. That’s not surprising, considering there’s a debate going on about whether hiring managers should even look at candidates’ profiles, let alone obtain log-in information.

Apparently all the press got the city rethinking that part of the application. In a recent press release, Bozeman announced it will “suspend its practice of reviewing candidates’ password protected internet information until the City conducts a more comprehensive evaluation of the practice.”

What do you think? Did the public overreact to Bozeman’s hiring practice, or was the negative response justified?

Should social networking profiles play any role in the background check process at all?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

A woman was recently arrested for stealing from her employer — and using the money to pay back an employer she’d stolen from previously.

Got that? Here are the details:

Kathy Foer-Morse worked as a paralegal for a law firm in Norristown, Pennsylvania. She was recently fired, arrested and charged with stealing $100,937 from the firm. Allegedly, she’d been writing herself fraudulent checks from estate accounts the firm managed, the Pottstown Mercury reports.

Police said Foer-Morse was sending the money to her previous employer, a law firm in New York City. She owed them restitution after she was caught stealing $285,000 while she worked there.

No word on whether the firm knew about her past when it hired her, but we’re guessing she found a way to hide it from them.

If you look closely at the upper right-hand corner of the Form I-9, you’ll see it’s supposed to expire today. What should you do now?

An easy answer: nothing.

The current form lists an expiration date of 6/30/09, but last week, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced the form will remain valid after today.

On June 26, USCIS asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approved continued use of the current version. While the request is pending, the form will not expire, despite the date listed at the top of the first page.

When the extension is approved — and a new expiration date is set — USCIS will update the form.

But for now, just keep using the form on the agency’s Web site, dated “Rev. 02/02/09″ at the bottom of each page and the June 30 expiration date at the top.

Note: When the form is updated, it’s unlikely USCIS will make any substantial changes, just add the new dates.

Probably not, experts say.

The automated Telephone Number Employer Verification (TEVN) system is set to be available in late September, replacing the current operator-assisted hot line.

TEVN will allow employers to verify up to 10 names and SSNs at a time without having to wait to get an agent on the phone.

It’s definitely an improvement over the hotline, but there’s already a system available that lets employers verify more numbers in less time. The online Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS) lets employers:

• verify up to 10 names and SSNs with immediate results, and
• upload files of up to 250,000 names and numbers and get results the next business day.

Plus, both SSNVS and TEVN require you to register with SSA’s Business Services Online. So once that’s done, most employers will have little reason to get on the phone.

The rule’s effective date has been pushed back yet again, this time to September 8.

A regulation requiring federal contractors to use E-Verify was proposed by President Bush in June 2008 and scheduled to go into effect in January. Then, the Chamber of Commerce sued to block the rule, and President Obama moved the effective date back to give the new administration more time to review the reg.

It was then pushed back again — and again.

If the rule ever makes it into the books, it will apply to companies with contracts lasting more than 120 days, valued at more than $120,000 and involving work done in the United States.

Those companies not already using E-Verify will have to:

• enroll in the program within 30 days of being awarded the contract
• start verifying all new hires within 90 days of enrollment
• verify existing employees who are assigned to work on the contract, and
• continue using E-Verify for the duration of the contract.

The New Employee Verification Act, written by Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) and Sam Johnson (R-Texas), was introduced to the House on April 22.

If passed, it would require companies to sign up for the Electronic Employee Verification System, which would be based on the new hire reporting systems already used in each state to enforce child support payments. About 90% of employers already use their state’s new hire system, the bill’s backers said.

The electronic verification would replace the Form I-9.

The bill would also create a network of private, government certified worker authentication companies that would use biometric data like fingerprints to verify employment eligibility.

We’ll keep you posted on the bill’s movement.

In June 2008, President Bush issued an executive order requiring all federal contractors to verify new hires and existing employees assigned to government contracts through E-Verify. The rule was scheduled to take effect in January — until a coalition led by the Chamber of Commerce sued.

The feds pushed the effective date back to Feb. 20.  Then the Obama administration extended the delay to May 21 — and has just pushed the date back yet again to give the new administration time to review the rule. It’s now set to take effect June 30.

In the meantime, the Chamber of Commerce’s suit is still pending. We’ll keep you posted on how that turns out.

If it’s ever enacted, the rule will apply to companies with contracts lasting more than 120 days, valued at more than $120,000 and involving work done in the United States.

Those companies not already using E-Verify will have to:

• enroll in the program within 30 days of being awarded the contract
• start verifying all new hires within 90 days of enrollment
• verify existing employees who are assigned to work on the contract, and
• continue using E-Verify for the duration of the contract.

A coalition led by a Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union recently sued the state’s governor, challenging an executive order requiring some employers to authorize new hires through E-Verify.

The order, signed in March 2008 by Republican Governor Donald Carcieri, requires all companies doing business with the state government (including vendors and contractors) to use the system.

The coalition sued, claiming it violated the separation of powers clause in the state’s constitution. But the court disagreed, letting the order stand. A similar ruling was issued in Arizona last year.

Cite: Rhode Island Coal. Against Domestic Violence v. Carcieri