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, 10:15 AM
 
1,474 posts, read 3,086,095 times
Reputation: 2053

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2blessed2stress View Post
With all due respect Ollie, the items you mention such as high school diploma...this is a background check and is fine, and routine, but has nothing to do with credit.

It isn't your "problem" but it also isn't your business as an employer if your potential file clerk filed bankruptcy. It IS your problem and your business, as an employer, if your potential bank teller or bookkeeper or accountant or business manager ...etc...has financial problems. These types of positions may warrant a credit check in parallel with a background check.
I would say that any check on any part of my life is a background check whether financial (credit), academic, criminal. I see no difference.

Financial troubles are a "root" of many conditions and those conditions are often brought into the work place.

 
Old 12-19-2013, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,347 posts, read 15,795,936 times
Reputation: 9878
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.
Credit check for landlords and business owners are apples and oranges. Landlords can see if they have a history of paying on time though it is only part of that. Many landlords also ask for paystubs as well to show how much income is coming in. A credit check may not even be needed in some cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
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.
You argue that credit checks can prevent "deceptive job applications" I reply that part of the problem is for many the recession whipped out several jobs that will never return. Think about it for a second, if your entire division was laid off and the entire industry was too, your skills are lost unless you can turn it around. Plus some places call the same things different things. I worked in Walt Disney World in "merchandise" but most places would call it retail. I would basically do the job of cashier, stocker and customer service with (returns and refunds) all in one. If I put merchandise cast member on a resume it doesn't click but if I put merchandise cast member (retail) it would get more hits. Am I being deceptive? No, I am putting it in more employer friendly terms out of necessity. I am sure many positions have weird titles and duties compared to the rest of the industry.

As for your point on if this bill will reduce hiring, I don't think it will. If anything it MAY (keyword here) increase turnover if credit checks are actually essential and do end up giving employers better employees. Of course, I don't believe that because many who are in debt will worker harder to keep their jobs so they can pay off medical bills, student loan and credit card debt. Perhaps the person who didn't have to take on debt is toxic to your work environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
But employees are free to (and ought to) perform due diligence when deciding whether to apply for a job. As you say, public companies have reams of information freely available that you can discover within a few minutes on a web browser. It's a bit harder with private companies, but they do have markets, customers, and employees and you can investigate all of them pretty thoroughly.

Sen. Warren's proposal (see text and useful info here) would ban the consideration of consumer credit information in the hiring process except for jobs requiring national security clearance, even if the job applicant says it's OK. The above article also notes that blacks and Hispanics have lower average credit ratings. About half of all employers currently use credit checks, and this would have a huge impact on hiring practices in the U.S.
Good point for the companies however are credit check needed for low end jobs that they aren't essential for? Do we really need good credit to flip burgers at the Krust Krab, make pizzas at Pizza Castle, cook chum at Chum Bucket, be greeters at the Walmart or say "attention K-Mart shoppers, we have a new blue light special"? Some jobs need it like perhaps being a financial planner, I get that. But the question is, do we need it to do any job?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
I think among other things it will cause companies to cut back on hiring, and they'll move more toward outsourcing either from contracting agencies or by opening foreign offices where it's easier and cheaper to hire help. Millions of jobs have already been pushed out of the U.S. market, and this will be just one more nail in the coffin of full time jobs in the U.S.
You say that but you still just give opinion, give us facts. Opinions based on facts speak louder than the businesses are great and do not need regulation (even when they do because of pollution or cooking the books) psycho babble you have preached over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
That said, I don't think Sen. Warren's proposal is going to fly, even though she has the support of fellow Sen. Markey and a bunch of unions and social action lobbyists. In a jobless recovery (which I think no one is even calling a recovery anymore) we can't afford to do anything to discourage hiring. Such a bill would never pass in the House, anyway. It's dead in the water. It made the headlines because it's such a radical thing to do. I guess the good thing about it is that it got people talking about the issue.
But we aren't doing much to encourage hiring with the way congress is acting. Hopefully with the budget deal set to be em-placed, it will be. The laws have minimal impact except for Obamacare and maybe EPA due to larger costs at installation compared to larger fines levied when things go wrong. ust ask BP with the Gulf of Mexico.

FYI, I don't agree with Markey, the guy is an idiot. He complained about Disney with their new Magic Bands initiative because they would be collecting guest data IF the guest allow it through the bands however everything he asked for was in the press release of it. As for Warren, she is a bit out there but to be fair, she is doing the right thing here. And I am not even a liberal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts View Post
I think we should be pushing our lawmakers to reduce the laws and regulations that discourage hiring, even at the risk of allowing less diversity and so forth in the workplace. Isn't it better overall to have more full time jobs with benefits, than to push all these equalization and redistribution policies on employers, driving them to hire fewer and fewer people as years go by? When I was a kid, almost everyone had a full time job with benefits, at least paid vacations and sick leave, and now it seems like about 25% of people are contractors or part timers, and this has to be related to the huge expansion in these types of laws that regulate hiring and firing practices.
When you were a kid companies were willing to give vacations, now they aren't. You don't have as many benefits these days even with full-time work (besides government work) because of the unseen costs of employment. For instance, 401Ks have replaced pensions because of lower costs. The issue I will agree with is Obamacare forcing those that didn't have medical plans before (due to high unseen costs of employment) to give medical plans to full-time employees. A good number turned around and cut hours back for that reason. I'll give you that.

However the diversity laws while I don't agree and think it should be blind to race, sex, creed, age, ect. it is needed because of the "old (white) men's club" that have existed. Think about it for a minute, GM has been in business over 100 years and finally has a woman CEO. Out of all the Walt Disney CEOs (Walt, Roy, Card Walker, Frank Wells, Michael Eisner and Bob Iger) none so far are female and many older companies still haven't had a minority CEO (for whatever reason.)
 
Old 12-19-2013, 11:21 AM
 
189 posts, read 208,117 times
Reputation: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post

However the diversity laws while I don't agree and think it should be blind to race, sex, creed, age, ect. it is needed because of the "old (white) men's club" that have existed. Think about it for a minute, GM has been in business over 100 years and finally has a woman CEO. Out of all the Walt Disney CEOs (Walt, Roy, Card Walker, Frank Wells, Michael Eisner and Bob Iger) none so far are female and many older companies still haven't had a minority CEO (for whatever reason.)

Really, are you still fighting for the gender thing? That was 70 ago in China.
In 2013, women held 51% of all senior management positions in China – a higher proportion than any other country and up from only 25% last year, according to a report by the Chicago-based accounting firm Grant Thornton.
It's time for the American people open their eyes, to see a new world frame now. Things are not like what your news paper say. The Chinese women are on the stage, not because some sympothy, they are on the stage because they are really qualified for their job. Is Elizebeth qualified for the job?

Last edited by TheBookofLife; 12-19-2013 at 11:39 AM..
 
Old 12-19-2013, 12:01 PM
 
3,764 posts, read 3,505,826 times
Reputation: 8938
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
You say that but you still just give opinion, give us facts. Opinions based on facts speak louder than the businesses are great and do not need regulation (even when they do because of pollution or cooking the books) psycho babble you have preached over and over again.
If you think my comments are "psycho babble" then why bother replying? Your own post is nothing but opinions and arbitrary assertions, for example the claim that Warren's law would not affect hiring. Fine, it's a free country and you can believe whatever you want, but for me, the proof's in the pudding.

For decades, private employers have complained about onerous laws designed to control who can be hired, for how much money, and for how long. And for decades, government interference in hiring has only grown, to the point where hiring an employee means a company has failed its stockholders -- failed, because they are taking on a huge financial risk and legal liability.

Contrast this with the past, when it used to be that hiring full timers was a sign of a healthy company. There are much fewer good full time jobs today, per capita, than there were in an earlier era; nearly everyone agrees with this commonplace knowledge. It's not even up for debate. Millions of young people graduating high school no longer have the kind of blue collar opportunities that they once had in the 1970s and earlier. Those jobs are gone overseas, and we with all our idealistic laws such as Sen. Warren espouses have pushed those jobs overseas.

I think it's a huge mistake to put yet another restriction on hiring. Some here say: but how is someone supposed to get out of this situation where they're ruined their credit through no fault of their own i.e. by losing their mortgage, by having to declare bankruptcy or whatever.

To this I would say, too bad for them but how is that my fault? I pay my bills, I have preserved my good credit. When my house value in Arizona dropped through the floor and we had to move east for work, friends told me to walk away from the mortgage because "it's just a few years of bad credit and then it's over". Fortunately, I resisted that temptation, found a tenant and kept paying the mortgage even though I was losing money every month, and now the house is coming back up so that in a few years I can sell it. Now you're telling me that for these other people, bad credit is not their fault and we all have to pay for them--and this law will make us all pay for it one way or the other--it will make it harder for me to find a job next time I'm unemployed because they won't be able to use my great credit even if I hand them the report myself.

Now there's the other little matter of why does bad credit matter, because someone with bad credit might be a great employee as some here are claiming. Sure, and sometimes people with a record of misdemeanors might turn out to be super-honest and reliable as well, even despite a history indicating the opposite. Yes, people do change, and yes, sometimes bankruptcy or inability to pay the mortgage or credit card bills is not someone's fault, but rather due to illness or accident or needing to care for a sick parent or what-have-you. I grant you that.

But consider the cost of employee theft. White collar crime is estimated to cost the country about $300 billion annually (Wikipedia says between $300 and $660 billion). Hoo boy. That's a lot of jobs. Then there's retail shrinkage, about $35 billion. If these numbers were one tenth of that, maybe we could safely eliminate credit checks. But with this scale of rip-offs going on everywhere, employers would be crazy not to at least filter out people who have problems paying off credit cards. The temptation to skim a little extra to pay off those bills is just too great for a lot of people. It's the same logic as drug tests; you don't want someone with a $100-a-day cocaine habit to be handling money.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,347 posts, read 15,795,936 times
Reputation: 9878
Reasons for Retail Shrinkage is not exclusively caused by store employees. About.com lists four sources, the second largest is not linked to employees at all, the fourth is also outside the company.

Quote:
Top 4 Sources of Shrinkage
The percentage of loss of products between manufacture and point of sale is referred to as shrinkage, or sometimes called shrink. The average shrink percentage in the retail industry is about 2% of sales. While that may sound low, shrinkage cost U.S. retailers over $31 billion in 2001 according to the National Retail Security Survey on retail theft. Here are the four major sources of inventory shrinkage in retail.
1. Employee Theft
According to the National Retail Security Survey, the number one source of shrinkage for a retail business is internal theft. Some of the types of employee theft include discount abuse, refund abuse and even credit card abuse. Unfortunately, this is one loss prevention area that generally doesn't receive as much monitoring as customer theft.
2. Shoplifting
Coming in at a close second is shoplifting. Customer theft occurs through concealment, altering or swapping price tags, or transfer from one container to another. While shoplifting remains a smaller inventory loss source than employee theft, stealing by shoppers still costs retailers about $10 billion annually.
3. Administrative Error
Administrative and paperwork errors make up approximately 15% of shrinkage. Simple pricing mistakes due to markups or markdowns can cost retailers quite a bit.
4. Vendor Fraud
The smallest percentage of shrink is vendor fraud. Retailers report vendor fraud occurs most when outside vendors to stock inventory within the store.
So removing the $10 billion by shoplifting, and the 15% by administrative issues (approx $5 billion), that leaves about $16 billion by employee theft and vendor fraud alone (I would guess vendor fraud is less than $4 billion.) Employee theft maybe a big one, but a large chunk is shoplifting.

Now why would employee shrinkage happen, my thoughts were confirmed in a Crime Doctor article. "Studies support this by proving that shrinkage is significantly less in stores with reduced employee turnover and fewer part-time workers." So basically it is the same idea of getting employees to stay with the company, get and retain happy workers and work with them. Now if they want a several thousand dollar raise without merit, that can be a different story. Don't get me wrong, it isn't perfect but when employers treat employees like dirt this is bound to happen.


how i met your mother 206 Aldrin Justice - YouTube

As for white collar crime, I couldn't tell you but a good amount of them caused the Sarbanes-Oaxley Act that puts CEOs and CFOs responsible for financial performance. (A no brainer but when you have those who brought down Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Parmalat and HealthSouth it is not as clear.)

Last edited by mkpunk; 12-19-2013 at 12:44 PM.. Reason: spell check and links
 
Old 12-19-2013, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
5,912 posts, read 7,030,050 times
Reputation: 8689
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
So basically it is the same idea of getting employees to stay with the company, get an retain happy workers and work with them.
That's communism, apparently.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Arizona
3,664 posts, read 5,549,879 times
Reputation: 2269
Here in IL running a credit check is illegal anyway, unless its for certain jobs(ex.banking). IMO I think in today's economy running a credit check is not the best means of determining a persons responsibility and financial stability. The credit check is just another reason for the employer to say no and keep the cash for themselves. It's especially difficult for students and student loan debt. That whole student loan industry is a big mess and more and more students are defaulting....because no one will hire them! Anyway I don't want to get to off topic so I'll leave it at that.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 01:09 PM
 
1,369 posts, read 2,004,512 times
Reputation: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchemist80 View Post
You should not have to. Everyone it entitled to see their file at each of the three bureau's once a year free under the fair credit reporting act.
Go to annualcreditreport.com
True, if you only have to review your file once per year.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,347 posts, read 15,795,936 times
Reputation: 9878
I apologize for the wrong video from that How I Met Your Mother episode, basically I was referring to the idea of Aldrin justice where you get wronged and do something wrong to the wrong-doer and make up for the karma. Essentially an employer treats you like dirt, you treat the employer like dirt.
 
Old 12-19-2013, 02:37 PM
 
1,474 posts, read 3,086,095 times
Reputation: 2053
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
So you thinka ccess to info should be unlimited? You think an employer should be able to get genetic and medical info? Access to savings and investment info? What is your proposed limit of data access?[[[[ I say leave it to the employer to know what is reasonable given the job description. If it is too onerous as far as an applicant is concerned, then go elsewhere and apply. The business paying the wage should not have the burden on them to guess at who they are hiring.]]]

Employment is not a legal agreement, there is no contract signed in msot employment situations. An employer is free to terminate just as an employee is free to quit. [[[ I think it is most definitely a legal agreement. There are lots of laws applying to employment which put an employer under certain obligations. The EEOC exists because of this. Businesses that have a certain number of employees have to allow leave time under the Family Leave Act etc. If you can be sued or prosecuted meaning the employer, you ought to be able to KNOW who you are hiring.]]]]



Well, I will have to agree with you on this. [[[[ Yeaaaaaa]]]]]



Educational obtainment is usually a job requirement, I fail to see how if a person missed a car payment two years ago that is related to the ability to do the job. I fail to see how anything on a credit report is related to a person's ability to do a job. [[[ See above. IF a perspective employer thinks it is useful to know, then why not? ]]]]



It is not your problem, that is why it is none of your (employers') businness. It is no more your business than my genetic profile, my investment strategy, my savings, etc.
[[[[ It is MY problem if someone I hire turns out to be unreliable, desperate for money, has family issues that are brought onto the job (seen this a bunch), has a criminal record, drug use etc. I tend to gather you would also prohibit drug testing? In any event, whatever the government comes up with, there will be ways around it all. This is why companies have probation periods so they can cut loose a hire without repercussions. ]]]]]
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