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 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.
I agree except for accounting....I think any jobs where you actually handle cash (banking or positions that are responsible for wires transfers etc..).
In some states it's illegal to ask if a person has a felony so .....
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.
Bzzzt: Sorry, that's incorrect. Or should I say, you only mentioned 'part' of the law.
The "Federal" regulations state:
Title VII prohibits employers from treating people with similar criminal records differently because of their race, national origin, or another Title VII-protected characteristic (which includes color, sex, and religion). (This is the part you mentioned)
Title VII prohibits employers from using policies or practices that screen individuals based on criminal history information if:
They significantly disadvantage Title VII-protected individuals such as African Americans and Hispanics;(You left this part out. And since African-Americans, especially young males, have a much higher incarceration rate than average, it's quite easy for a court to decide that a policy of doing crimal records checks for employment is discriminitory. Note that I am not saying that a high incarceration rate is deserved, just that is what the statistics are.) AND
They do not help the employer accurately decide if the person is likely to be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. (This is highly subjective, and who decides? The employer? Certainly not. That's decided by a government bureaucrat.)
Also mentioned by the EEOC "...there may be reasons for an employer not to rely on the conviction record alone when making an employment decision. Several states' laws limit employers' use of arrest and conviction records to make employment decisions. These laws may prohibit employers from asking about arrest records or require employers to wait until late in the hiring process to ask about conviction records."
So, you can see why an employer is hesitant to use criminal records to screen applicants. Even if it is not strictly prohibited, the potential lawsuits and govenment retaliation make it dangerous to do so.
So, as a result, employers have taken to using credit checks as a proxy. This is the "law of unintended consequences" I mentioned before.
Take away their ability to use these records, and they will come up with something else.
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.
That's not a good analogy.
When you rent a property, you are contracting to make regular payments with the owner. Structurally, it's the same thing as making regular payments on a loan. The person who owns the property has an interest in seeing if you can pay for almost exactly the same reasons as a banker has before making you a loan.
You don't (I hope) make payments to your employer. The relationship is reversed. Employees have an interest in making sure the employer can pay them, but employers aren't required to submit financial information to potential employees (unless they are public companies where that information gets released anyway).
You don't (I hope) make payments to your employer. The relationship is reversed. Employees have an interest in making sure the employer can pay them, but employers aren't required to submit financial information to potential employees (unless they are public companies where that information gets released anyway).
Maybe they should be?
I'd strongly encourage employees to "check" the credit of potential employers, and also to think long and hard about continuing to come into work if the company misses a payment (late payroll, etc).
Quote:
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.
Employers already can get a release to do a background check. If the law changes to forbid them from getting a full credit report, but allowing access to specific details with a release from the prospective employee, then I'm sure Experian and friends will be happy to make a new category of "limited report" with a fee attached which they can sell to prospective employers, only containing actually work-history-relevant information.
When you rent a property, you are contracting to make regular payments with the owner. Structurally, it's the same thing as making regular payments on a loan. The person who owns the property has an interest in seeing if you can pay for almost exactly the same reasons as a banker has before making you a loan.
Good, so you agree that credit checks are an important tool for landlords and property managers.
Quote:
You don't (I hope) make payments to your employer. The relationship is reversed. Employees have an interest in making sure the employer can pay them, but employers aren't required to submit financial information to potential employees (unless they are public companies where that information gets released anyway).
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.
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.
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.
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 rent a property, you are contracting to make regular payments with the owner. Structurally, it's the same thing as making regular payments on a loan. The person who owns the property has an interest in seeing if you can pay for almost exactly the same reasons as a banker has before making you a loan.
You don't (I hope) make payments to your employer. The relationship is reversed. Employees have an interest in making sure the employer can pay them, but employers aren't required to submit financial information to potential employees (unless they are public companies where that information gets released anyway).
Thanks, but I am aware of the differences. My point, not made clearly, is how much should laws "protect" anyone from entering, or not entering, into an agreement with another party? If I am going to hire you, pay you, should I not have the right to determine, to whatever extent I want, to know who I am hiring? If I am going to essentially turn over an expensive property to you, should I not have the right to determine your ability to pay whether a lease payment or mortgage payment? Employment is a legal arrangement as is a lease. The party with the most to lose ought to have protections.
This of course does often boil down to race. Let's be honest about that. As an employer, if I cannot legally discriminate on my hiring i.e. quality of the person being hired, then I am more likely to make judgment calls on other factors. Should a black person with a decent credit score not be hired because an employer just makes a guess? No pun intended, but there is too much painting everyone the same color. Employers already discriminate based on first names on resumes. Shantavious is highly unlikely to get a call back whereas Joan might all other things equal. Should Senator Warren call for a law saying you cannot put down first names on applications?
How about high school diplomas? Should an employer be able to check school history? Yes? No? If you can prevent a credit check, how about a check on schools attended. People lie and do so routinely. Where does the "Warren doctrine" stop?
As an employer, why is it my problem that someone hit a rough spot and went into bankruptcy? Why is it my duty to help them out of that rough spot? That really is the question. How are we to relate to other people? Our so-called neighbors?
I actually would advise any couple contemplating marriage to run credit checks on each other. Friend's daughter happily walked down the aisle, said I do, and wound up deep in debt and her own credit ruined because the "prince" had ruined his own credit and was beyond redemption on his debt. He left her ultimately.
When someone, some group, gains a particular "right" some other group or individual loses one. We continue to limit freedom in sometimes minor ways but they add up to big chunks.
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.
Thanks, but I am aware of the differences. My point, not made clearly, is how much should laws "protect" anyone from entering, or not entering, into an agreement with another party?
My point is that I want laws to protect me from three giant corporations gathering information about me from every other giant corporation with no accountability to me in the case of error or outright malfeasance. Apparently requiring them to get a release from me before doing that would mean the world would end or CitiCorp would lose money or something, so using public law to limit how this information can be used strikes me as a very mild compromise.
I'll think differently when I actually enter into an agreement with a credit ratings agency.
Bzzzt: Sorry, that's incorrect. Or should I say, you only mentioned 'part' of the law.
The "Federal" regulations state:
Title VII prohibits employers from treating people with similar criminal records differently because of their race, national origin, or another Title VII-protected characteristic (which includes color, sex, and religion). (This is the part you mentioned)
Title VII prohibits employers from using policies or practices that screen individuals based on criminal history information if:
They significantly disadvantage Title VII-protected individuals such as African Americans and Hispanics;(You left this part out. And since African-Americans, especially young males, have a much higher incarceration rate than average, it's quite easy for a court to decide that a policy of doing crimal records checks for employment is discriminitory. Note that I am not saying that a high incarceration rate is deserved, just that is what the statistics are.) AND
They do not help the employer accurately decide if the person is likely to be a responsible, reliable, or safe employee. (This is highly subjective, and who decides? The employer? Certainly not. That's decided by a government bureaucrat.)
Also mentioned by the EEOC "...there may be reasons for an employer not to rely on the conviction record alone when making an employment decision. Several states' laws limit employers' use of arrest and conviction records to make employment decisions. These laws may prohibit employers from asking about arrest records or require employers to wait until late in the hiring process to ask about conviction records."
So, you can see why an employer is hesitant to use criminal records to screen applicants. Even if it is not strictly prohibited, the potential lawsuits and govenment retaliation make it dangerous to do so.
So, as a result, employers have taken to using credit checks as a proxy. This is the "law of unintended consequences" I mentioned before.
Take away their ability to use these records, and they will come up with something else.
What you are tlaking about is disparate impact of a hiring policy; it does not matter what the policy is whether it is criminal convictions or tests, if it creates disparate impact, the employer must prove it is an occupational requirement.
The EEOC has tested this in court and loss in regards to criminal convictions. Right now, there are a few EEOC solicitors going around the country advocating there should be laws on the books against using any criminal records, these solicitors are also spinning the facts in order to brainwahs employers into thinking they might be exposed to a suit if they use them.
Interesting enough, the premises of criminal records creating disparate impact against a couple of minority groups is in itself a violation of Title VII. For example, if an all black company create disparate impact based on criminal records, the company can be sued for discrimination, even though 100% of its workforce is black. However, if a white person was not hired due to a criminal record, even with disparate impact, a white person has no recourse in order to sue. The EEOC has detemrined that it will use a nation wide pool in order to determine disparate impact; no other criteria does this. This is the EEOC simply being ran by advocates using and spining regulations in order to advance their agenda.
I have a much more detailed write up on this forum regarding this, I will see if I can find it.
Thanks, but I am aware of the differences. My point, not made clearly, is how much should laws "protect" anyone from entering, or not entering, into an agreement with another party? If I am going to hire you, pay you, should I not have the right to determine, to whatever extent I want, to know who I am hiring? If I am going to essentially turn over an expensive property to you, should I not have the right to determine your ability to pay whether a lease payment or mortgage payment? Employment is a legal arrangement as is a lease. The party with the most to lose ought to have protections.
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
This of course does often boil down to race. Let's be honest about that. As an employer, if I cannot legally discriminate on my hiring i.e. quality of the person being hired, then I am more likely to make judgment calls on other factors. Should a black person with a decent credit score not be hired because an employer just makes a guess? No pun intended, but there is too much painting everyone the same color. Employers already discriminate based on first names on resumes. Shantavious is highly unlikely to get a call back whereas Joan might all other things equal. Should Senator Warren call for a law saying you cannot put down first names on applications?
Well, I will have to agree with you on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
How about high school diplomas? Should an employer be able to check school history? Yes? No? If you can prevent a credit check, how about a check on schools attended. People lie and do so routinely. Where does the "Warren doctrine" stop?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie1946
As an employer, why is it my problem that someone hit a rough spot and went into bankruptcy? Why is it my duty to help them out of that rough spot? That really is the question. How are we to relate to other people? Our so-called neighbors?
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.
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.
