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.
I thought a lot of folk who were complaining were just tripping on the credit authorization mess that's been going on.But as I probably mentioned, I interviewed for a temp 4 month job and they made me fill out those credit auth. forms. Then I seriously realized, this is mad real. And my credit isn't even that bad. They wanted to take that to another level though. With the other crazy forms and more, I felt like, you know what, just make me walk through the metal detector. TSA style. WTF, people...come on. You wan to check my DNA too? It's overly intrusive.It's burdensome and unnecessary. It's a waste of resources. It serves no purpose as it is not objective reasoning.
Want to know how I am going to combat this? Job hunt like it's my last couple of months on Planet Earth. Like the world is coming to an end. UNTIL I FIND AN EMPLOYER WHO ISN'T OBSESSED WITH BEING INTRUSIVE AND NOSEY.
You can try to justify it and qualify it until you're blue in the face, but this is blatant discrimination.
If you want to call it that then sure. Guess what, being a person who can not manage their finances is not a protected class. Even if a state bans credit checks, the moment I see you can not manage your personal life, I can fire you.
Again, in my example it is just going with the best candidate. Please tell me how candidate b, is a better hire then candidate a?
BTW, doesn't your credit report take a hit each time they run a credit check?
Not every time, but repeated inquiries can lower your score.
I'm undergoing a background check for a government agency that is a client of ours; they have hit my credit report several times and the repeated inquiries lowered my score by ten points. Not a huge hassle in the grand scheme of things; I'm still in the 'excellent' category.
I had to undergo a credit and criminal background check before taking this job because of the sensitive nature of the data I work with. This data is extremely valuable and is not available to most people who work for our clients, so I take my responsibilities towards that data seriously. We're not even allowed to store a single scrap of it on our work laptops for fear that the laptops could be stolen and the data intercepted.
So I can understand why background checks were necessary, at least in my case. However I don't think most jobs require anything nearly as stringent.
Do these employers think job hunters are all stupid, desperate sheep? We can go on fishing expeditions too. Pull up all those public records on the employers.Media and news sources. Internet presence, facebook, twitter, etc, people. See all the business reports available on file. Like I've been saying, it's a game that two can play. Some of us have a background in crim justice and law.Our friends and family might. You think these employers are all Titans and angels?
If you want to call it that then sure. Guess what, being a person who can not manage their finances is not a protected class. Even if a state bans credit checks, the moment I see you can not manage your personal life, I can fire you.
Again, in my example it is just going with the best candidate. Please tell me how candidate b, is a better hire then candidate a?
Flip a coin, draw straws, do rock-paper-scissors, level the playing field, but LEAVE credit history/scores out of it!
That's not in the best interest of the employer or the future employee.
If you have two candidates who are that closely matched, I have to believe there is a BETTER WAY to decide who gets the job other than bringing someone's credit history into the mix. What's next? Their medical history to see if they might get sick in the future and possibly miss time at work because of it? Ones credit history should be as protected as ones medical history.
Absolutely. Credit companies and others who benefit pay for studies to be done to support the fallacy that bad credit proves lack of character, or irresponsibility. In essence these studies are biased, because they ARE FINANCED BY A PARTY THAT HAS AN INTEREST IN A SUBJECTIVE OUTCOME. It's advertising.This is the essence of "academia" or "research". There are just enough studies done that disprove this misconception that bad credit=bad person. This is actually a subjective moral opinion that has nothing to do with real life, and the many UNAVOIDABLE OR UNFORSEEABLE events that occur to humans living in an industrialized, capitalist society. Basically, in plain English for the common man, ITS BULL CACA.
If someone has a clean criminal background and a clean drug test, that should matter MORE.
Thank you.
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.
You wan to check my DNA too? It's overly intrusive.It's burdensome and unnecessary. It's a waste of resources. It serves no purpose as it is not objective reasoning. 
