United States: Recruiting Quality Employees In A Tight Marketplace

Free agency in athletics; the Silicon Valley explosion; a booming economy; mergers and acquisitions - any one of these could be utilized as reasons for why hiring has become difficult in today’s employment market. Considering these together gives a clearer picture as to why recruiting and hiring have become a more daunting task for employers. Competition for quality positions is high yet available quality workers are few. Drive down the road today, and you will see "Help Wanted" signs. The difficulty and "tightness" of today’s hiring market is unlike one seen in many years. Where do you find qualified employees? Public employers are faced with similar issues. Can you offer competitive salaries to keep good workers? Do hiring standards need to be lowered in order to find employees? This article will attempt to highlight how some of the issues facing today’s employers can be addressed to fill needed positions and provide proper service in county government.

A strong economy often signals a tight employment market. While the reason for this hiring difficulty comes from a strong or positive foundation, the reality faced by county employers raises concerns. A strong economy means employers are paying higher wages in an effort to attract new recruits and to retain experienced employees. When fewer people are available to compete for positions, an employer must offer incentives to attract new employees and to retain current employees. Certainly, compensation through salary is one place to look. However, budgets often limit the ability to increase salaries for certain positions. Other innovative benefits to enhance the compensation package can be utilized.

One method to attract quality individuals relates to offering solid benefit packages. Healthcare benefits for a municipal entity, which might have the opportunity of pooling of resources with other municipal entities, may be better than those provided by a private company which cannot afford to spend more dollars on healthcare. Providing options in payment for unused vacation or sick days might be an incentive to an employee, particularly one who has good experience with limited work loss. Offering childcare opportunities, perhaps through a county-related service or agency, may be a benefit that the private sector could not afford to provide or would not have as an available option. Suggesting that current employees will be rewarded for finding new employees who stay on the job for certain periods of time may be worthwhile. (Some employers offer monetary incentives to employees who find new recruits and then additional monetary incentives to those referring employees when a recruit stays on the job greater than one year.) Offering more flexible work schedules, or a reduction in hours, even by as little as one-half (½) hour to one (1) hour difference in schedule per day, can provide a huge benefit to certain employees whose family obligations require availability at certain times of the morning or evening. (Obviously, providing adequate public access to county government and services may allow for more or less flexibility for certain positions within county government.)

While the strategies mentioned above could still be used in recruiting, the actual selection of the employee may be more limited. Hiring decisions by county government may be constrained by civil service mandates or collective bargaining agreements. This need for flexibility as well as the need for an interest in hiring the right employee for a job has led some to argue that municipal governments should be afforded greater latitude in selecting persons to fill civil service roles. The concept of banding in civil service positions has been raised as a means to give public employers the ability to choose from among a broader group or "band" of prospective employees. See, Loosen the Shackles on Pennsylvania Local Government’s Hiring Authority: An Argument for Banding, 37 DUQ. L. Rev. 455 (1999). While certain legislative requirements for civil service positions must be met, the concept of banding allows for a little more flexibility in hiring procedures. It also allows for the appointment of someone who, while a high test scorer but perhaps not the highest test scorer, might have other attributes for a particular job that would lead an employer to hiring an individual. Reliance on test scores becomes less of a factor under the banding model, allowing a qualified candidate with more personality traits that fit the skills needed for a particular position to be hired even if that person is not the top test scorer on a civil service test so long as that person was among the highest "band" or group of available candidates.

Public employers also have requirements for hiring which involve preferences for one candidate over another under the Veteran’s Preference Act. While continually being tested in the courts, the Veteran’s Preference Act prohibits discretion in hiring from among similarly qualified candidates when one candidate is a Veteran. These types of standards, not applicable in the private sector, may limit the ability of public employers to be more creative in their hiring practices.

While the difficulty to find employees in a tight market pushes employers to be innovative, employers must avoid the temptation to deviate from good hiring practices. Focusing too much on getting a person into a job and not enough on good old fashioned hiring techniques to find the right person will do more harm than good. Employers must remember not to take shortcuts and eliminate the need to check references or to require a complete application to ensure that the recruit not only fits the position but fits the standards of the county.

Reference checking remains as important as ever and can be a means to avoid future employment problems. By rushing to hire an employee when few quality candidates are interested or available to take a position, an employer may forget to check references. It is in that one case that the "smoking gun" will be discovered, presenting more problems than when the process began.

An employee in a strong economy may move from position to position for monetary or other compensation reasons. A resume with a number of jobs for short periods of time can often be a sign of bigger problems. The employer should verify with each of the prior employers, at a minimum, the exact dates of employment including hiring and departure dates, the position of the employee, and information about the candidate’s supervisor, if possible. This would allow for more specific discussion about the employee if that employer is willing to provide that information. (Some employees are reluctant to give too much detail for fear of defamation suits for giving a poor review.) Very specific data also allows the county government to check the accuracy of the information on the candidate’s resume and/or application. While a human resources department of a prior employer may not give out a great deal of detail about the work quality of an applicant, the checking of the dates of employment will at least enable the new employer to verify that a candidate is not trying to hide gaps in the job history.

The employment application should not be changed when a county is experiencing hiring difficulties. The application process should remain constant so as to ensure fairness and non-discriminatory conduct in hiring procedures. The employment application, however, should always include details regarding prior job history in terms of dates of employment and positions held and identification of supervisors. The application may also seek information about criminal backgrounds that can be critical in the hiring process. Information about convictions is appropriate in most situations, particularly those in which the job description calls for dealing with members of the public and/or has significant safety concerns. Additional testing may be needed for public safety positions as well. The county employer must remember to obtain all historical information from candidates and not shortcut the hiring process simply because of an overwhelming need in a particular department.

Liability to third parties for negligent hiring has expanded over time and claims are more frequent than ever before. The number of lawsuits brought against employers for negligent hiring of employees who engage in criminal, violent or other wrongful acts continues to increase. See Workplace Privacy Issues: Avoiding Liability, SD 52 ALI-ABA 697 (1999). Claims for negligent hiring are far more commonplace even in the public sector. Certainly, the protections against municipal liability provide some limitations on negligent hiring claims that are not available to private employers. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8371 et seq. Nonetheless, consistency and thoroughness in the hiring process will provide a strong defense should litigation arise.

Employers today face challenges to locate quality employees. Public employers may be more limited than employers in the private sector as to hiring in certain areas. Utilizing sound hiring practices, coupled with innovative thinking, will lead to finding competent personnel and presenting opportunities for long-term employment.