Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Had to rep you again.
Nurses are getting credit checks now too.
What does good credit have to do with taking care of a sick person? Luckily,some states are barred from looking at your credit history.
I completely understand criminal and backround checks,but credit checks?
New Jersey is one of those. The bills they passed are about a page long. So are Pennsylvania's.
Enforcement, however, is a horse of a different color.
You can't speak for everybody with bad credit. I don't have great credit because I got into debt with my education and I got sick when I was unemployed. You can't always help your circumstances and denying people a job based on past experiences will always keep people where they are and will do nothing to help the economy of America if we keep punishing people. I can understand if somebody got out of jail for murder or robbing a bank, but most people I know didn't do that, but they had something as simple as student loan debt or medical bills that piled on while they fell on hard times.
I see a lot of judgements being made on here to discredit the unemployed or underemployed on here.
I wish we could "thumbs down" replies like his, too, but we can't. I'll just say that drowning in debt from college is FROWNED ON by people who think they hold the moral high ground on debt. Rich white people who were perfectly able to pay their way through college off their parents' trust funds or their own, or who managed to get well-enough paying jobs while they were full-time undergrads to be able to pay their own way entirely without loans. Or full-ride scholarship babies. And so on, and so forth. The entitled rich come up with opinions like that. When I got raked over the coals at Immigration on the job only after I transferred out of San Francisco which has a high cost of living and where people in general UNDERSTAND being drowning in debt IN GENERAL not just "fresh out of college" to a lower-cost lower-consciousness part of the country, the Pacific Northwest - and suddenly started getting raked over the coals on a regular weekly basis about "the background check." Nine months at the same job in the same capacity and at the same pay scale, in San Francisco and I never once got told in any fashion that I "shouldn't have gone to college if I couldn't afford it" like I was in Seattle after I transferred there to the same pay level with the same government agency. Different part of the country, different expectations of debt level. Washington vs California.
A Bachelor's degree is necessary if you want to become a teacher. A law degree is necessary if you want to become a malpractice lawyer. These are not "luxuries" or "frivolities" the way I was treated by the background-check personnel agents in Seattle. Now, in some states the cost of living is so much lower than, say, San Francisco, New York, or Boston, that the prevailing attitude of employers is that they won't understand why you're in so much debt just from staying alive and will grill you endlessly about what THEY think is an "irresponsible" level of debt. If you go to college/live in Boston, NY or San Francisco and then try to get a job in some lower-cost-of-living part of the country that is what you will face. It also doesn't help that I'm a minority and minorities just GET raked over the coals for every little thing more than our white counterparts (same schools in elementary through high school, same degrees from same universities, same skill level, etc...when I go to my high school reunions I find that my peers from high school who went to similar colleges as I did, with the same degrees, have an EASIER time getting and keeping jobs than I do and all else is the same except our skin colour and perceived "race.").
And yet the overprivileged over-entitled people who tend to be disproportionately represented on this and other Internet forums, and actually on the Internet as a whole, just up and say that anyone with "bad credit" and drowning in debt from college is automatically "irresponsible" for having, basically, gone to college anyway even if they couldn't pay for it. That's the gist of the fact that most states' Bar admissions seem to take that same attitude. Drowning in debt from law school - denied. "That's financial irresponsibility." "If you didn't have a spare $200,000 sitting around in a checking account you shouldn't have gone to law school." Law school should be left to the rich white boys whose parents can pay for it out of pocket. And so on, and so forth.
I kind of wish people who thought like this would drop off the face of the earth, or at least go back under the rock they crawled out from under. But alas, they comprise most of the decision-makers of the world!!
The only people who have problems with credit checks are those with bad credit. By and large those with bad credit got there because of irresponsibility, not overdue medical bills. Let's not kid ourselves. Even past due medical bills can usually be attributed to irresponsiblity. In the small percentage that aren't, why would companies care? It's a cheap way to whittle down the applicant pool.
To answer the original question, I was denied a job at the TSA back in '08 due to some disorderly conduct charges I forgot to report when I was in college.
Don't you even realize that the country has been in a recession the past few years? A lot of people haven't paid their bills because they were laid off or downsized at their jobs! These people had to hold off because they were worried about keeping a roof over their heads, supporting their children/families. When you're trying to scrape money together to pay your rent/mortgage, light bill, food, gas for your car, where's the extra money to pay that other bill?
I'm all for pre-employment background checks in terms of criminal history, drug/alcohol history, driving record history (if the job entails driving).
I'm against credit history checks-period! You're trying to get the job so you can pay your outstanding bills! Your financial history is none of the potential employer's business, unless you are pursuing a job entails handling large sums of currency!
I used to be one against credit checks. Now I support them.
Identity theft is skyrocketing. Even IRS workers busted having stolen people's identities. A lot of the reasoning behind this is desperation.
However... I also feel that if your job has no access to anything - a cook, an IT worker, a call center (if the main application is properly secured and monitored) then a credit check is not warranted.
I also feel a soft pull should be the most that can be pulled. That gives you reason codes and responses without impacting the score.
If course, if they really want to make this a non-issue, force the credit bureaus to remove "excessive inquiries" as a score impact, and change permissible purpose to only involve loan or credit extension.
You cannot totally ban the practice if the job entails working with finance.
Why not when it has never been shown to be an effective means of judging a person for employment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leah_V
I agree, I think it is mainly a liability issue.
As a hiring manager, i cannot simply 'take their word for it' when it comes to the character of an individual.
I can understand having issues is your credit past due to lack of preparation, or surprise emergencies above/beyond your insurance buthaving an issue with paying your rent, getting evicted regularly, defaulting on loans, or anything habitual is a statement of money management skills.
So do you have something proving that a person that a person being evicted is going to affect their employment or is it just something you made up to justify treating people badly for something you obviously do not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
I used to be one against credit checks. Now I support them.
Identity theft is skyrocketing. Even IRS workers busted having stolen people's identities. A lot of the reasoning behind this is desperation.
However... I also feel that if your job has no access to anything - a cook, an IT worker, a call center (if the main application is properly secured and monitored) then a credit check is not warranted.
I also feel a soft pull should be the most that can be pulled. That gives you reason codes and responses without impacting the score.
If course, if they really want to make this a non-issue, force the credit bureaus to remove "excessive inquiries" as a score impact, and change permissible purpose to only involve loan or credit extension.
Please tell me what kind of actual proof do you have that people stealing identities are more likely to have bad credit. by the way I worked with some guys with perfect credit, they are now in jail for mortgage fraud mostly committed in the real estate industry collapse, but they have perfect credit while they rot in jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brocco
right, but an employer doesn't care about any of that. its not their job to help the economy of america. it is their job to make money efficiently for their company.
Sure but do you have something showing that checking people's credit affects companies bottom lines?
A simple question that I ask for every one of these threads, and which is always avoided, do those who feel the use of credit reports are justified have any actual studies proving the practice prevents theft or other issues?
Quote:
Credit checks are not reliable for employment
Credit reports are marketed to employers as a means to gauge an applicant’s character or likelihood to commit theft or fraud. Yet no empirical evidence has demonstrated that reviewing a job applicant’s personal credit history prevents crime. In fact, several studies have failed to find a correlation between credit history and criminal behavior.3 A spokesperson for TransUnion, one of the major credit reporting companies, even admitted: “we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report… and their likelihood to commit fraud.â€4 Credit reports can be a good indicator of the tremendous economic stresses that are facing households, including whether they have had to incur debts to pay for basic expenses or medical care, but they are not a crystal ball revealing who will be a reliable employee.
Why not when it has never been shown to be an effective means of judging a person for employment?
So do you have something proving that a person that a person being evicted is going to affect their employment or is it just something you made up to justify treating people badly for something you obviously do not understand?
Please tell me what kind of actual proof do you have that people stealing identities are more likely to have bad credit. by the way I worked with some guys with perfect credit, they are now in jail for mortgage fraud mostly committed in the real estate industry collapse, but they have perfect credit while they rot in jail.
Sure but do you have something showing that checking people's credit affects companies bottom lines?
A simple question that I ask for every one of these threads, and which is always avoided, do those who feel the use of credit reports are justified have any actual studies proving the practice prevents theft or other issues?
Statistically, someone with poor credit or other poor behavioral patterns, is more likely to carry those poor behavioral patterns to work.
The flaw in your assessment is that you're trying to show that a person with poor credit is not necessarily going to be a poor quality worker. While that's true, it's not sufficient to rule out credit checks.
If you have 10 people who are financially irresponsible, and you have 10 people who are financially responsible, you'll find that the group of 10 financially responsible people will have more responsible workers than the group of financially irresponsible people. Behavioral patterns transcend context.
So is someone with poor credit a bad worker? No. Not necessarily. But, statistically, it is more probable that they are. When you have two people with equal skills, and one has poor credit, while the other has good credit... it is a statistically superior decision to choose the individual with good credit.
8 years ago I was a mortgage broker watching the beginning of the collapse of the real estate market, and sitting in a seminar about the credit reporting agencies and why landlords needed to always check credit reports. When asked a representative from Equifax admitted that with the decline of mortgage applications that the credit reporting companies would have to find additional streams of revenue, as they are private companies and their shareholders would not be happy with lower numbers.
8 years later we have seen a large growth in companies using credit reports to hire and fire people, all of these companies preach the bad credit shows irresponsibility, but yet even the companies that produce these reports all say that there is nothing to show this is true, while suckering companies and our government into paying millions of dollars for these reports.
yet you have people on this very board who preach about how much a credit report matters while lording their good credit over people and insulting people. So once again where is something showing you are right? As of right now you only seem like a sucker to me, Experian, Equifax, and Transunion all needed an additional stream of revenue and they are getting it from naive people who like to use it to prop up their intelligence when they are showing the opposite is true.
By the way I checked my credit score last week and I have a 756 mid score, so I have what is considered excellent credit.
Statistically, someone with poor credit or other poor behavioral patterns, is more likely to carry those poor behavioral patterns to work.
The flaw in your assessment is that you're trying to show that a person with poor credit is not necessarily going to be a poor quality worker. While that's true, it's not sufficient to rule out credit checks.
If you have 10 people who are financially irresponsible, and you have 10 people who are financially responsible, you'll find that the group of 10 financially responsible people will have more responsible workers than the group of financially irresponsible people. Behavioral patterns transcend context.
So is someone with poor credit a bad worker? No. Not necessarily. But, statistically, it is more probable that they are. When you have two people with equal skills, and one has poor credit, while the other has good credit... it is a statistically superior decision to choose the individual with good credit.
You can read all the books you want, but when they are based on anecdotal evidence than it means nothing. Even the credit companies agree that there has not been a single study to prove that bad credit affects someone's employment future, nothing shows that those with bad credit are more likely to steal from an employer or client, in fact all studies show the exact opposite. There has not been a single verified study to show that people with bad credit make worse employees, once again it is all anecdotal on what those who state it as fact believe, but I have yet to see any kind of proof.
I want an actual study that shows all this is based on facts, yet all I can find are studies where they tried to prove this stuff and it in fact came back to show there is no effect on work habits, theft problems, or any of the other made up crap that a bad credit report is supposed to show for an employee.
You can read all the books you want, but when they are based on anecdotal evidence than it means nothing. Even the credit companies agree that there has not been a single study to prove that bad credit affects someone's employment future, nothing shows that those with bad credit are more likely to steal from an employer or client, in fact all studies show the exact opposite. There has not been a single verified study to show that people with bad credit make worse employees, once again it is all anecdotal on what those who state it as fact believe, but I have yet to see any kind of proof.
I want an actual study that shows all this is based on facts, yet all I can find are studies where they tried to prove this stuff and it in fact came back to show there is no effect on work habits, theft problems, or any of the other made up crap that a bad credit report is supposed to show for an employee.
The book is an academic texts that cites several studies. In fact, it's pretty much an analysis of studies. Of course, if you spent even a minute looking at it, you would have known that.
Which study do you feel is anecdotal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
