U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-23-2013, 02:39 AM
 
Location: Sweet Home...CHICAGO
3,330 posts, read 4,000,945 times
Reputation: 4009

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
You have led a sheltered life.

Keeping Your Employees From Stealing You Blind

As the article points out, most of the victims are small businesses.
Quote:
Selecting employees carefully can be a great way to eliminate insider theft. Employers should use background checks and credit checks that will inform them of the employee’s prior criminal record.

This is from the article you posted. Since when did credit checks and criminal background checks contain the same information? Having bad or no credit is the same is being a criminal? What if some person doesn't have good credit but have never committed a crime? Do you really think someone with bad credit is more likely to become a thief than someone with good credit?

What about all these white-collar criminals who are already wealthy, get greedy and still even more from their companies or clients?

As pointed out, credit reports don't always contain reliable information. You can have credit reports showing that bills you have unpaid are still unpaid.

 
Old 12-23-2013, 03:45 AM
 
834 posts, read 1,520,646 times
Reputation: 1232
Wow. I actually agree with Senator Warren on this issue. I rarely if ever agree with someone like Elizabeth Warren, because her politics are usually way too left leaning for me. However, I fully support her here with what she is trying to do, because these credit checks are intrusive and unnecessary. There used to be a time when employers were not this overly aggressive with prying into you personal life. We need to get back to that place where people are not forced to mindlessly surrender so much personal information to employers, which has nothing of any relevance with respect with to obtaining employment. Good for Senator Warren.

Last edited by izannimda; 12-23-2013 at 04:16 AM..
 
Old 12-23-2013, 04:48 AM
 
3,764 posts, read 3,507,421 times
Reputation: 8938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kineticity View Post
Address history can be obtained via background checks. Income history isn't actually going to be shown by a credit check. I've seen my credit report, and it doesn't reveal my wage and salary history.

No, her reasoning is sound. Yours is flawed.

There's plenty of theft and embezzlement being perpetrated by upper-echelon individuals who, presumably, already passed credit checks to obtain their employment. So obviously credit checks aren't doing sod-all to prevent any of it.

99.9999% of "average Joes" with poor credit are never going to steal or embezzle anything from their employer. My credit is abysmal, yet as a contractor I currently have access to a plethora of records due to my current position in an HR department. I'm talking about SSNs, addresses, salary information and stock transaction paperwork for people going all the way up to the top of the company. I have zero interest in doing anything other than my job with it. I'll get out of my financial situation through my own honest efforts or not at all.

Certainly; and that's why certain classes of employment would still be subject to credit checks. But you don't need them for every job.
The bill prohibits credit checks for all but national security clearance positions. The positions in banks and other financial firms to which I refer will not be part of that exception.

Typically, credit checks are run on candidates who have already been chosen for a job. It's just one more step in the vetting process. One of the reasons is to make sure someone who touches the firm's money doesn't have a history of multiple bankruptcy or a high load of debt for this salary level. Also, it can reveal whether there are liens that might result in garnishment of wages or legal action. If the employee is sued, the plaintiff's attorneys will definitely run this background check and discover any skeletons in the closet, so to protect itself a company ought to know whom it's hiring.

It's good to know that you're not a crook, but you're one person out of hundreds of millions, and clearly you're uninformed on this topic. One or two anecdotal accounts simply don't mean anything. I don't have any personal experience of someone ripping off an organization, either, but so what? There are millions of examples of people who do, and from all reports, the situation is getting worse, not better.

As for the wag who says the House is anti-consumer, I have some bad news for them: their pro-consumer champion E. Warren's policies would kill our economic system while jacking up the unemployment rates and the federal debt to new, catastrophic levels, all in the name of "fair employment for all" as the bill is called.
 
Old 12-23-2013, 04:57 AM
 
3,764 posts, read 3,507,421 times
Reputation: 8938
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnp292 View Post
Other posters have already done a rather thorough job of rebutting this post, so I'll only address the first paragraph. I've hired somewhat more folks than that throughout my career, and never had a credit check done on any one of them. More to the point, the company I work for now has something in the neighborhood of 200,000 employees who didn't get credit checks done prior to getting hired. Not a problem for us. Perhaps it is done for some positions I'm not aware of, and if it is I'm confident it's relevant to those jobs only, which is fine.
Credit checks are fine for certain sensitive positions in your firm? Yet you support a bill which would ban credit checks? It sounds like you don't actually know what your company does, nor do you understand the topic of this discussion.

Moderator cut: orphaned

Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 12-23-2013 at 09:34 AM.. Reason: removed orphaned reply
 
Old 12-23-2013, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
453 posts, read 520,141 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Credit checks are fine for certain sensitive positions in your firm? Yet you support a bill which would ban credit checks? It sounds like you don't actually know what your company does, nor do you understand the topic of this discussion.
No, YOU are the one who fails to understand. The bill, to my knowledge, would preserve credit checks for certain classes of positions. This has been explained to you numerous times, so at this point I can only conclude that either you have a deficiency in reading comprehension or you are deliberately ignoring key information because it conflicts with your desire to expound on some ridiculous point that has no actual bearing on the topic.
 
Old 12-23-2013, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado
544 posts, read 1,209,035 times
Reputation: 602
I interviewed for a job in September, great salary and great job. The person who was in the position was fired not for stealing from that company but for embezzling money from the Red Cross. He lost his job because he was sentenced to federal prison. I doubt the embezzlement showed up on his credit report.
 
Old 12-23-2013, 07:16 AM
 
Location: Clanton, AL
668 posts, read 571,060 times
Reputation: 81
In my experience the use of credit histories during the employment process is a valuable tool. While many people have had a bad episode in their credit past, the report shows you if there is a pattern of not fulfilling obligations during the last 7 years. When I was hiring people for the retail environment I learned to watch for such things. If people have constant issues managing their own money and constantly do not fulfill their obligations, it's a good sign you cannot trust them to manage your money or fulfill their obligation to your business.

The vast majority of cases of employee theft that I have encountered would have been avoided had we ran credit checks during the employment process. The reason I know this is that in most of those cases we offered the employee an opportunity to work through a process to continue their employment with us. Part of that was to run a credit check so we could address personal financial issues they may have had. We would try and help an employee improve their life through counseling and education. We ended that program due to the recidivism rate. Turns out it was best to just go ahead and check them out prior to employment.

Employment credit checks are a valuable tool and will cost us all too much to not use. The same goes for drug screening.
 
Old 12-23-2013, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Clanton, AL
668 posts, read 571,060 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by meekocat View Post
I interviewed for a job in September, great salary and great job. The person who was in the position was fired not for stealing from that company but for embezzling money from the Red Cross. He lost his job because he was sentenced to federal prison. I doubt the embezzlement showed up on his credit report.
That's why you do background checks. The credit check is looking for trends of not fulfilling obligations. It's a moral gauge that is not included on most criminal histories. That's why an employer needs both tools to help them come to an informed decision about a candidate.
 
Old 12-23-2013, 07:25 AM
 
Location: Chicago area
8,816 posts, read 13,309,481 times
Reputation: 15990
Having bad credit and not being able to pay the bills is not a moral guage. It is for some but for many others they have trouble paying their bills not because of moral defects but financial harship caused often by conditions outside their control ie medical issues, job loss etc. Summarily denying employment to such people is frankly cruel.
 
Old 12-23-2013, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Clanton, AL
668 posts, read 571,060 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80 View Post
Having bad credit and not being able to pay the bills is not a moral guage. It is for some but for many others they have trouble paying their bills not because of moral defects but financial harship caused often by conditions outside their control ie medical issues, job loss etc. Summarily denying employment to such people is frankly cruel.
That is why the credit history covers 7 years. As I said in one post, many have episodes with their credit but it's not that that an employer is looking for. It's a pattern of not fulfilling obligations that raise concern. It's a problem if you have a financial meltdown about every 6 months and walk away from your obligations. It's not a big thing if you have lost a job or had a family illness that resulted in a short period of financial difficulty. I never worked for or practiced what you tried to portray above. That's not what it's about after all.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Work and Employment > Job Search
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top