Fraud Facts

fraud alert red grunge square stamp on white
Aquir/Shutterstock

The management of Human Resources requires the HR practitioner to balance somewhat conflicting responsibilities. We must provide services that enhance effective, positive, pro-active employee engagement and, at the same time, ensure that all employees are compliant with organizational rules, standards and legislative requirements. Unfortunately the compliance requirements usually tip the scales into a negative perception of the Human Resources role and, sometimes, create an echoing negative response on the part of the HR practitioner.

Why? The Human Resources function often exposes the ugly side of human behaviour. We deal with people who are not at their best when they, as employees, engage in activities such as fraud or theft within the workplace. This behaviour seems particularly problematic when linked to workers’ compensation systems and the numerous parties accessing the benefits that these systems provide. Sometimes it is easy to fall into the trap of suspicion and cynicism if we start to perceive that all employees are not at their best.

Fraudulent behaviour does happen and is perpetrated by some individuals. Occupational Health and Safety lawyer, Norm Keith, explores some of the specifics related to fraudulent workers’ compensation systems behaviours on the part of some employees, some employers and some third party medical practitioners.

Click here to read the article.

Mr. Keith advocates for the development of a whistleblower reward program that would support and compensate individuals who come forward to report on those who are stealing from workers’ compensation systems. This is an interesting concept as it would allow for an increased responsibility for sharing ethical and legally compliant behaviours among all participants in a compensation system.

In the meantime this reporting responsibility continues to fall on the role of the Human Resources practitioner. We are the ones, especially if the health and safety function falls within our scope of duties, who must report and deal with the consequence of unethical and potentially fraudulent workplace behaviour. These are moral, ethical and legal obligations that deserve to be upheld in all workplaces.

At the same time we must remember that this type of behaviour is not the norm for the average employee, employer or medical practitioner. As such, we must continue to find the delicate balance within ourselves and in support of our professional roles.

Discussion Questions:

  1. Identify three ways an employee, an employer and a medical practitioner could engage in fraudulent activities through a workers’ compensation system.
  2. Defrauding a workers’ compensation system is not a ‘victimless crime.’ Who is impacted by workers’ compensation fraud?
  3. As a Human Resources professional, what steps will you take when an employee comes forward with an allegation of workers’ compensation fraud by a co-worker?

HR and the Interview Setting

Should HR Practitioners know what they are doing in an interview setting?  Whose role is it anyway?

As Human Resources Practitioners, we are often called upon to be the organizational role model for employee behaviour. It’s easy, then, to become the target for how to do things wrong, when the expectation is that the HR Practitioner should always be doing things right.  Right?

Why is HR expected to be perfect? It is because it is so important to organizational success!

A great example of this comes from the following article which reveals that twenty percent of HR practitioners were involved in asking illegal interview questions!   How is that even possible?   If HR cannot get it right, what are supervisors expected to do?

man with fingers crossed
dolgachov/Thinkstock

Click here to view the article.

The article states that, in some cases, HR practitioners are involved in asking questions that focus on religious preferences and practices, disabilities, and gender based issues. When this occurs, the article recommends correcting the situation immediately by addressing the question of concern and ensuring that the person being interviewed knows that the question asked was inappropriate and is not an acceptable practice. Is this solution a little bit of “too little, too late”?

The article has some great comments – many of them harshly critical of the role of HR in the interview process, including the perception that HR practitioners are ‘liars’ and, “Liars are not leaders”. If HR practitioners are regarded as liars then what does that say about the rest of the organization as represented by HR?  The article and the comments may make for uncomfortable reading and show how quickly HR can lose credibility if we do not know what we are doing!   If HR does not have credibility, then what is its value?

Discussion Questions:

  • What are three practices that HR must include in preparing for interviews?
  • How will I address members of an interview panel when they go ‘off script’ or outside of legal boundaries?
  • Have I been in an interview where the HR practitioner has made me feel uncomfortable?
  • How will I lead in the role of HR to avoid being called a liar?
  • How do I continually improve the credibility of HR?
  • What will I do to address issues of accommodation when they come up in an interview setting?

 

 

Working Moms and Family Status

If working moms are more productive, how can you ask the question about “family status” in an interview? Babies on the wall and all!

Click here to view the article.

This article seems to fly in the face of asking questions related to family status. If working moms are more productive, how can HR practitioners ensure that entire recruitment process is still fair and equitable to all applicants?

Businesswoman With Daughter
Photo Credit: Fuse/Thinkstock

As HR practitioners, we use the interview process to make sure that the ‘best’ candidate comes forward through each stage of the recruitment process. At the same time, we need to be wary of treading into preconceived ideas as to who is more effective as a worker especially when we start dealing with ‘typical’ labeling or stereotypes based on what is trending or current in dealing with workplace issues.

Supermoms may exist. So do Superdads. Does having children matter when we look to a commitment by the individual when they make a decision to join your particular workplace? Maybe we should be clear about what type of work environment the candidate is walking into so that they (the candidate) can decide whether or not the work that is required best suits their own lifestyle and work-life choices.

Discussion Questions:

  • Is it ever okay to ask the question regarding family status in an interview?
  • How do we evaluate potential employee productivity during the recruitment process?
  • What kinds of scheduling considerations should the HR practitioner put into place when dealing with employees who may have parental obligations?
  • What kinds of workplaces would be best suited to providing a ‘child’ friendly work environment?
  • Does having family friendly HR policies cause levels of discrimination?
  • What are the policy considerations that the HR Practitioner should be developing?