In the aftermath of last weeks firing of MIT Dean of Admissions, Merilee Jones for misrepresenting academic credentials on her resume 28 years ago, I became curious just how prevalent lying on resumes has become. The numbers are sobering, especially if you are a hiring manager or HR staffing professional. Depending on what source you reference, anywhere between a third to over a half of applicant resumes are not truthful and above board. According to a survey by CareerBuilder.com conducted October, 2006, over half of HR managers said they had flagged a lie on an applicant’s resume either during the interview or upon verifying information. Not surprisingly, 93 percent of those caught were not hired. ADP Screening and Selection Services, a unit of the Roseland, N.J.-based ADP payroll and benefits managing company, says that in performing 2.6 million background checks in 2001, it found that 44 percent of applicants lied about their work histories, 41 percent lied about their education, and 23 percent falsified credentials or licenses.

It seems like just the other day I was writing about the addition to Performance Pro of electronic signature, enhanced routing, new position content, and a slick expanded performance rating scale. Oh yes, it was just the other day. Well we aren't stopping there. Just a quick product update for HRN Management Group clients and those interested in what’s going on with Performance Pro product development . . . In the mid to late June 07 timeframe we plan to announce our next product upgrade release of Performance Pro in conjunction with HRN’s participation at the SHRM 59th Annual Conference & Expo (June 24-27, 2007 in Las Vegas). Included in this second upgrade of 2007 will be the integration of 120 to 140 complete and editable job description documents that align with position templates built into Performance Pro. This additional content will come pre-configured and integrated into Performance Pro and will be available to all users and new clients at no additional cost.

In another in the ongoing lineup of EEO cases you can’t make up, Motherhood Maternity has agreed to settle a pregnancy discrimination case. The Philadelphia store which sells maternity clothes was accused of refusing to hire female applicants because they were pregnant.

Is all this hub-bub about employer e-mail monitoring and rampant employee abuse of workplace email and high-speed Internet connections based on fact or just Big Brother ‘scare tactics’ to keep employee noses to the grindstone and hock Internet and e-mail monitoring software? Regardless of where you stand on this point, if you don’t have a company e-mail and computer/network use policy in place, and communicated to your employees, you really do have your head in the sand. Consider these statistics:

Modern company policy manuals often include guidelines for cell phone use, volume levels for radios or CD/players, personal computer, network, and Internet restrictions, and nobody seems to bat an eye. But when the subject of restricting, or in any way limiting, an individual from being connected to their iPod or other MP3 format digital music device is brought up, people cry foul. Why? Have we really become such an individualized and self-entitled culture that we expect the right to listen to ‘our music on our terms’ over being expected to appear engaged with the sounds and activities of the employer that is paying our wage?

Proximity is a fundamental component in the law of attraction. With most workplace environments comprised of both male and female adults who spend 8 to 10 hours or more per day within the same four walls, and in the proximity of the same people working shoulder to shoulder, attractions and romances are sure to develop. Marital statistics show that the average age of marriage is increasing which means more young workers are likely to be single. In 2005 SHRM and the Wall Street Journal’s CareerJournal.com conducted a study and found that 40% of employees surveyed said they had an office romance at some point in their careers. In a 2007 Vault.com survey 41% of employees said they didn’t know if their company did or didn’t have a policy on the issue.

While there was certainly a lot of ugliness in the Don Imus incident was there anything good that came out of it? One good thing is that it pushed the Anna Nichole Smith story off the never ending 24-hour news circus. Another outcome, and something certainly more worthwhile, is that it has spurred thought and dialogue regarding racism, sexism, civility, and a long list of significant issues. But since we’re talking about HR here, does the Imus mess have any lessons for us? While one hopes that such conversation doesn’t occur in the workplace, we all know that similar things are said, at least in some environments every day. The issue becomes what do you do about it?

How honest are your applicants? Not nearly as honest as you’d like if surveys are any indication.

HR Fact Friday will be a regular weekly posting to HR News & Views. I will cast out a net to uncover and share interesting, informative, unusual, and sometimes humorous HR industry facts. Where other sources are referenced, I will give full credit and provide links where available. This week I am summarizing findings released in February, 2007 from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on Job Bias Charges. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.