credit checks

[Harlan Huckleby]

Are you OK with employers checking the credit rating of job applicants?
I know if I were an employer, I would check. But it really amounts to a new debtors prison. Once people lose a job, they often damage their credit rating, which then keeps them from being rehired.


(I know this is a somewhat political question, hope I have not violated the charter of the Romper Room. I didn't want to put it in the FYI room because I already know what that handful of angry morons think.)

[MJZiggy]

The employer is supposed to pay the employee. The employee does not owe the employer money and if you're not lending someone money, their credit rating is not your business. I see that as an invasion of privacy. Is there privacy anymore?

[swede]

Are you OK with employers checking the credit rating of job applicants?
I know if I were an employer, I would check. But it really amounts to a new debtors prison. Once people lose a job, they often damage their credit rating, which then keeps them from being rehired.


(I know this is a somewhat political question, hope I have not violated the charter of the Romper Room. I didn't want to put it in the FYI room because I already know what that handful of angry morons think.)



If you're so certain...describe the angry morons and attach to them the opinion you know them to have. I don't think it is as easy as you say. The right to privacy is important to nut job whackos to be sure. The right of an employer to hire whom it wishes, and to choose its own reasonable means of identifying good prospective employees is also cherished among the lunatic fringe that like the constitution.

Which position damages liberty the most?

[swede]

If you meant another angry moron besides me, I apologize.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If you meant another angry moron besides me, I apologize.

It was a joke because in another thread I was praising the fine gentlemen of the FYI room. I certainly don't think of you as an angry moron because you are of good cheer.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The right of an employer to hire whom it wishes, and to choose its own reasonable means of identifying good prospective employees is also cherished among the lunatic fringe that like the constitution.

Of course the Supreme Court has looked in there and found a right of privacy. I'm not sure that is the isssue here, though.

We already restrict who can access your credit history. It used to be that only bankers and other lenders could take a peak. Years ago, employers would use friendly contacts down at the local bank to do their research. Now I suppose it is easier to do, but I assume you need some sort of status to access somebody's legal records. Come to think of it, I think I read something about WI removing that information from online.

Its a tough question. How can you be for people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps when they forever have "DO NOT HIRE THIS PERSON" imprinted on their forehead?

[digitaldean]

This is an incredible invasion of privacy. If the employee was doing business (like buying goods/services from said company) that's one thing. But to be used to screen employees is unnecessary. Previous work history and references should be more than enough.

[sheepshead]

Unless youre handling money no way. Finance department, CFO, controllers auditors, etc hell yeah. Services have evolved so checks are so cheap they did them for everyone in some cases. I'm glad its being curtailed.

[Scott Campbell]

You don't have to sign the consent form if you don't want to provide it. It's the prospective employees choice.


Bottom line - pay your debts.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You don't have to sign the consent form if you don't want to provide it. It's the prospective employees choice.

please.



Bottom line - pay your debts.

half the bankruptcies are due to medical bills.

There is a reason why debtors prisons were done away with. It doesn't do anybody any good to create unemployable people.

[retailguy]

If half the debts are due to medical bills, what's the excuse for the other half?

[Harlan Huckleby]

If half the debts are due to medical bills, what's the excuse for the other half?

old devil rum

[Scott Campbell]

You don't have to sign the consent form if you don't want to provide it. It's the prospective employees choice.

please.





It is your choice. You don't have to provide it.


Employers wouldn't be asking for this information unless it was statistically relevant to hiring.

Should employers be allowed to ask if you can spell "cat"?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It is your choice. You don't have to provide it.
What do you reckon happens to the resumes of job applicants who refuse to let the prospective employer do a credit check?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice


Should employers be allowed to ask if you can spell "cat"?
There are many things an employer is not allowed to ask an applicant, such as their religion and marital status.

Credit history is a different matter. The employer has very legitimate reasons to want to discriminate based on this information. On the other hand, society has a legitimate reason to prevent millions of families from suffering chronic financial hardship

Medical records are very similar. Does an employer have a legitimate interest in knowing if a potential employee is likely to have health problems? Obviously. But on the other hand, it would be very bad for society if people who experienced health problems were effectively black-balled from the labor market.

It's really a question of what kind of society you want us to have, there are arguments to be made for either choice.

[Scott Campbell]

Credit history is a different matter. The employer has very legitimate reasons to want to discriminate based on this information.


Should employers be able to sue employees who don't disclose their history of poor job performance? Just how does your great society protect innocent businesses from these pay check predators?

[Harlan Huckleby]

They can certainly fire them. And if a business has a case that they have been damaged by a fraud, they can sue them.

[Patler]

The credit reporting industry is little more than a legalized con racket, in my opinion. Thet are held to no standard of accuracy in what they report. They can enter any information sent to them from anyone, with no obligation to verify accuracy. They have managed to convince businesses that their reports are statistically relevant to just about everything, including your insurability. (did you know that some insurance rates are tied to credit scores?)

I would bet most people in favor of employers checking credit scores would change their opinions if they ever had to try and correct inaccurate information in their report. It can be an absolute nightmare. The bureaus have a high burden of proof you must meet when you try to remove negative information that the bureau itself has incorrectly attributed to you, such as from having entered an incorrect social security number. Just trying to get a live person to talk to is problematic, then convincing them that loans or payments they have listed are not yours can take forever.

Credit reporting services have done a masterful job of promoting themselves, and they have managed to virtually exclude the subject from it. Too many silly things unrelated to payment promptness can adversely impact your score. If you pay everything as due, and have no established credit because you have no debts, you will be downgraded. Shop for the best loan rates, and have numerous institutions order credit reports on you because of it and your credit score will go down. Have a number of credit cards with high "available" credit limits and you will be downgraded even if you never use the cards.

I know of one instance where one agency made the assumption that John James Doe and James John Doe must be the same person, and it took nearly a year to get it sorted out. Meanwhile, one of them was unable to get an apartment in his name because of a credit check.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We need a government takeover of the credit agencies!

Only kidding. I think.

I always found it extremely bizarre that we would have three of the suckers, all of which hold credibility. Which means everybody has to monitor and update all three. That's nutty.

[swede]

I'll bet guys named John Doe take a lot of crap.

"I heard they found your body in a dumpster last week. Everything okay?"

[Bretsky]

Of course they should

[Scott Campbell]

If Patler is against it, that's good enough for me.

[Bretsky]

If Patler is against it, that's good enough for me.


We haven't agreed on anything since 2008 either so at least things are consistent :lol:

[Harlan Huckleby]

If Campbell is against it, I'm for it.

[Scott Campbell]

If Campbell is against it, I'm for it.



That uneasiness in the pit of my stomach just magically disappeared.

[Scott Campbell]

If Patler is against it, that's good enough for me.


We haven't agreed on anything since 2008 either so at least things are consistent :lol:


I think you're blinded by our disagreements in one thread. We were mostly in agreement in that thread where Partial kept trying to buy a condo.