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]

Re: credit checks

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]

Re: credit checks

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

[Harlan Huckleby]

Re: credit checks

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]

Re: credit checks

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?