- News from ADP
-
ADP News 2010
- Payroll software costing businesses more than £104,280 per year
- ADP and Decathlon make a winning team
- ADP closes acquisition of OneClickHR plc
- IPP awards first re-accredited payroll quality standard to ADP
- Page and Moy Travel Group set off on payroll journey with ADP
- ADP named Payroll Employer of the Year for third year running
-
ADP News 2009
- ADP UK to introduce employment screening through partnership with BackCheck
- ADP scoops two awards at payroll ceremony
- ADP passes the test for SHL
- Harwoods chooses ADP to support business acceleration
- ADP - A partner for life
- ADP toasts deal with Adnams
- ADP extends ADP Streamline, its offering designed for multinationals, to 45 countries
- Nimax Theatres (UK) chooses ADP to stage payroll
- ADP News 2008
- ADP News 2007
-
ADP News 2006
- IKEA selects ADP for GlobalView HR and Payroll service in 40 countries
- ADP launches ADP freedom 2.10 - payroll and HR for the entire employee lifecycle
- ADP freedom tunes up as headline act for Hard Rock Cafe
- Leading global clinical research organisation ICON, switch to ADP freedom in the UK
- ADP Launches Free multi-lingual HR lexicon on-line
- Dermalogica looks forward to soothing balm of ADP freedom
- ADP and Deloitte makes easy work of Financial Reporting Law
- ADP Industry news
- ADP News 2012
Employment screening by "postcode discrimination" not supported by research
Discrimination by postcode is not a part of employment screening despite the claims of anecdotal reports and theories on the incidence of unemployment in deprived areas, according to new research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
Researchers from the Policy Research Institute at Leeds Metropolitan University and Warwick University considered two hypotheses that have long been put forward in research on unemployment and 'worklessness'; employment screening by address, what they term "post code selection." As the researchers note, this is often asserted but rarely substantiated.
Through a comprehensive literature review, analysis of data from the Labour Force survey and the National benefits database as well as 20 direct interviews in six local authority areas with employers, agencies and representatives of JobCentre Plus, the researchers found little to no quantitative evidence to support the 'myth' of "postcode selection."
According to the report, although some employers responses suggested that area of residence was considered during recruitment it was at most a tertiary factor in the selection process. Most frequently address was only considered when a business wanted close and available labour, or when difficult situations at work could spill over into home life when staff are likely to encounter members of the public outside of work as well as during their employment.
Even where employers had suggested that they would have concerns about employing people from deprived areas because of attached prejudice, they said they would simply pay more scrutiny to these applicants during recruitment rather than reject them.
The report suggests that rather than being disadvantaged by employment screening practices, people from deprived areas face disadvantages in the opportunism offered by the local labour market. The research suggested that this could be partially due to preconceptions about the area's candidates - employers may not advertise positions in those areas.
This kind of area based effect on discrimination in recruitment was partially substantiated by the research. However postcode selection was found to only act in addition to personal characteristics, "at the margins and in very specific conditions: where individuals have the personal characteristics to compete in labour markets against individuals with similar personal characteristics but living in less deprived neighbourhoods."
According to the researchers final conclusions, postcode selection was less likely to be a factor in recruitment when a professional background check service was used for employment screening rather than simply relying on the decisions of individual managers.
Researchers from the Policy Research Institute at Leeds Metropolitan University and Warwick University considered two hypotheses that have long been put forward in research on unemployment and 'worklessness'; employment screening by address, what they term "post code selection." As the researchers note, this is often asserted but rarely substantiated.
Through a comprehensive literature review, analysis of data from the Labour Force survey and the National benefits database as well as 20 direct interviews in six local authority areas with employers, agencies and representatives of JobCentre Plus, the researchers found little to no quantitative evidence to support the 'myth' of "postcode selection."
According to the report, although some employers responses suggested that area of residence was considered during recruitment it was at most a tertiary factor in the selection process. Most frequently address was only considered when a business wanted close and available labour, or when difficult situations at work could spill over into home life when staff are likely to encounter members of the public outside of work as well as during their employment.
Even where employers had suggested that they would have concerns about employing people from deprived areas because of attached prejudice, they said they would simply pay more scrutiny to these applicants during recruitment rather than reject them.
The report suggests that rather than being disadvantaged by employment screening practices, people from deprived areas face disadvantages in the opportunism offered by the local labour market. The research suggested that this could be partially due to preconceptions about the area's candidates - employers may not advertise positions in those areas.
This kind of area based effect on discrimination in recruitment was partially substantiated by the research. However postcode selection was found to only act in addition to personal characteristics, "at the margins and in very specific conditions: where individuals have the personal characteristics to compete in labour markets against individuals with similar personal characteristics but living in less deprived neighbourhoods."
According to the researchers final conclusions, postcode selection was less likely to be a factor in recruitment when a professional background check service was used for employment screening rather than simply relying on the decisions of individual managers.
