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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2013, 12:49 AM
 
4,800 posts, read 10,612,488 times
Reputation: 8291

Advertisements

What justification do employers have for credit checks? Most people on this forum oppose this practice, but before I supported this legislation I would want to know from employers why they think they need this. If they don't come up with a compelling reason then I would probably support the law.

 
Old 12-19-2013, 01:07 AM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
17,478 posts, read 21,350,544 times
Reputation: 24359
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Credit checks are used by landlords to screen tenants and it's widely believed to be a useful measure of how reliable the person will be. I rent out a house but I'm not an expert; this is just what the property management companies have told me. I suppose it casts too wide a net at times; some of the stories posted here are interesting counter examples.
How reliable that person will be? In this economy, the past 5-6 years, not even government employees are reliable anymore!

During the boom times, many with a sterling credit rating lost their jobs, and there went the house! And maybe the car too!
 
Old 12-19-2013, 05:43 AM
 
Location: New Albany, IN
832 posts, read 1,385,041 times
Reputation: 1137
I agree that checking someone's credit report for employment would be like checking someone's medical record. I mean, if they're checking credit, why not check the medical record too? I can imagine: "Applicant has two visits to an emergency department in the last five year period. People who visit an emergency department are more likely to have accidents. It is better to have no visits to an emergency department."

Both are incomplete, unreliable barometers of someone's character. A credit report does not display how the "adverse action" started or all of the efforts someone has made to stay standing. No one cares about incorrect addresses or conflicts with insurance over whether an operation was "medically necessary"--on paper the applicant just looks like a deadbeat who doesn't want to pay his bills. Of course everyone knows that; I'm just thrilled to hear a politician trying to get something done about it.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 06:01 AM
 
Location: Hampton Roads
3,032 posts, read 3,811,271 times
Reputation: 4401
In some industries, though, I agree with it, but not in all. Anything where you give a person access to someone else's back account information (ie. when you call in and make a payment to your insurance company.... although not always true, someone who is more strapped for cash/has poor credit may be more likely to commit fraud). I saw that when I worked in property management. It was awful.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 07:07 AM
 
15,721 posts, read 13,642,417 times
Reputation: 21614
Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
Credit checks are used by landlords to screen tenants and it's widely believed to be a useful measure of how reliable the person will be. I rent out a house but I'm not an expert; this is just what the property management companies have told me. I suppose it casts too wide a net at times; some of the stories posted here are interesting counter examples.

But I don't think taking this tool away from employers is a good idea. For one thing, it won't work; employers will start conducting background investigations for more employees, which necessarily will include a credit check, assuming this law leaves that loophole. Thus, the law will probably backfire.

Also, credit checks can be a useful tool. Not perfect, maybe, but people can be incredibly deceptive on job applications. I wonder how many employers support this bill; probably none. The net impact is going to be reduced hiring, because it takes away what is increasingly seen as an important tool.

Sorry, just my 2 cents.
How is it in any way useful? Many credit reports contain false info, so how in the heck are you verifying someone is being deceptive based off a source that is known to many times false?
 
Old 12-19-2013, 07:19 AM
 
1,474 posts, read 3,093,563 times
Reputation: 2054
The EEOC recently ruled that employers could not turn down applicants based on a criminal history UNLESS the employer could prove that the criminal record directly impacted the job. Example, hiring someone for a bank when the felon had robbed banks in the past. Now, whether that rule survived, I don't know, but it is indicative of the situation that employers are put into regarding hiring anyone. How about drug testing? Yes? No? How about employers demanding access to your Facebook account? Should criminal background checks be allowed?

If you own rental property, should you be allowed to run a credit check on prospective renters? A smart landlord does that to screen out people whose finances are such that they are likely not to pay their rent. In some jurisdictions it is almost impossible to evict tenants and the credit check is one device for screening.

If an employer looks at an applicant and likes what they see, it is unlikely that a credit score will be the deciding factor on a job.

This entire employment thing is very messy and the Warren law is another item to make it more difficult on businesses. It is also another reason why companies move abroad.

Much depends on which side of the coin you are on, the employer's side or the job seeker side. As with other rules concerning employment, lawyers will find ways around it. Lobbyists do their work and very little seems to happen in favor of the average person.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 07:54 AM
 
15,721 posts, read 13,642,417 times
Reputation: 21614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946 View Post
The EEOC recently ruled that employers could not turn down applicants based on a criminal history UNLESS the employer could prove that the criminal record directly impacted the job.
That is just guidance, there is no regulation stating an employer cannot use criminal records as a tool for applicants. Only thing is that it must be applied equally, which some employers have trouble doing.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946 View Post
If you own rental property, should you be allowed to run a credit check on prospective renters? A smart landlord does that to screen out people whose finances are such that they are likely not to pay their rent. In some jurisdictions it is almost impossible to evict tenants and the credit check is one device for screening.
Renting is not employment, two different things.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 07:59 AM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,135 posts, read 21,948,056 times
Reputation: 23222
Moderator cut: orphaned

How do you hire someone to do a job that requires bonding without doing a credit check? Also the ability to have the restraint to live within ones means is a character issue.

Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 12-20-2013 at 10:34 AM.. Reason: Quoted post removed
 
Old 12-19-2013, 08:05 AM
 
3,766 posts, read 3,821,520 times
Reputation: 5201
Thank god, finally someone is doing something about ridiculous HR hiring policies and procedures at many places.

One of my good friends was significantly hindered for the longest time by absolutely asinine credit discrimination when the economy sunk in 2008. She ended up losing her job. While being unemployed during the height of a recession, she was crippled between having to choose to pay rent and buy food or pay off student loan debt. As a result, her credit ratings started suffering tremendously which made her job searching much more difficult, because idiot employers discriminate against you if you have bad credit.

How is anyone supposed to dig out of a hole, which they didn't even create in the first place due to an economic downturn, like that? You can't pay your bills because you don't have a job, yet you can't get a job to pay your bills because firms discriminate against you for having bad credit? It makes no sense at all. It's simply a rigged system to keep you shackled to debt for the rest of your life in order to make as much money off you as possible.

There are really very few good reasons an employer would ever need to see your credit history. It's almost the same as discriminating against hiring someone because of a health reason.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 08:10 AM
 
7,495 posts, read 9,805,056 times
Reputation: 7394
I think it's good news. They should have no right to see someone's credit unless they're going into a career field where it'd be relevant like accounting or banking or something. People get jobs to pay off bills.
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