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.
Open a business, make sleeping with their partner a term of employment and see how many applications you get. You might get some swingers applying, but if not, you'll be working alone.
Heck, open a manufacturing company, and offer to pay engineers $10 an hour. I bet you can't hire a single engineer.
I can only assume you have zero marketable skills at all and are desperate do anything.
I was referring to a thing called "slippery slope". IF you allow X then you say, let's Allow Y too, and, over time, we say Let's Allow Z cuz we do Y and X, then eventually we'll be doing XYZ which is something truly despotic.
Also, once Employer C sees employers A and B getting away with it, he'll do it too and it will spiral out of control to where it gets harder to just go work somewhere else and avoid it.
I was referring to a thing called "slippery slope". IF you allow X then you say, let's Allow Y too, and, over time, we say Let's Allow Z cuz we do Y and X, then eventually we'll be doing XYZ which is something truly despotic.
Also, once Employer C sees employers A and B getting away with it, he'll do it too and it will spiral out of control to where it gets harder to just go work somewhere else and avoid it.
First, slippery slopes are on both sides of the hill.
Second, have you ever had an offer to go to another company and then your current employer offers you incentives to stay?
If you don't want your credit run, don't apply for a job at a company that runs it.
That isn't shown on the job advert though. I haven't seen "willing to under go a credit screening" except with maybe one financial job I put in for. That often happens later on in the search, which unless you have a job currently you may not hold the power.
Depending on the job description. Usually people with bad credit will commit fraud faster than someone with good credit.
Overall, white crime is committed by people working in places where money can easily be commingled or put into their own account and every program you see about these type of crimes, are from people who have huge debt/bad credit!
Screening the backgrounds of employees “is critical to protect the safety of Connecticut residents in their homes and offices, in their cars and in all other places they travel,” Mr. Rosenberg testified to Connecticut legislators in February 2009, explaining why TransUnion markets its credit reports to employers.
Trouble is, researchers say there is no evidence showing that people with weak credit are more likely to be bad employees or to steal from their bosses, a fact that Mr. Rosenberg himself later admitted.
“At this point we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud,” he said in separate testimony to Oregon legislators in January.
It is only hard because of discriminatory reasons. Basically every state is at-will just they may not be fully at-will. An employer can't fire someone based on a protected class including disability unless ability is a BFQ to the position. This would be like a football team dumping a disabled player who can do his job (often however they are moved into an office role.) On top of that other conditions are state to state but mostly all states are at-will minus protective classes. https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article...t-states-ps.rl
The main problem with credit checks is identity theft where there isn't any protection to the score. Meaning a person who got their identity stolen by going to a "secure and trusted" location like a college or Experian can and will have a lower credit score and look like they could steal or aren't on top of things when they really are. Also cancer and serious illness patients are in a similar boat. Also having to disclose either can find themselves out of the pool regardless even though it is possibly a protected class. Of course, I have to say unless you lnow for a fact it is over that as per a friend of the boss or a worker their's, it isn't a case you should do.
Employment is a voluntary association, and the criteria for who gets hired out a pool of applicants is almost totally subjective. All a credit check represents is simply one more of those totally subjective criteria.
Do you honestly think a 4 year degree actually prepares anyone for a job? In almost any field, your undergrad degree by itself is meaningless to your job knowledge/performance, but tons of companies have that (all by itself, no professional or graduate degree) as a criteria. Why?
Do you know the purpose of a job interview? It isn't to see if you are qualified to do the job. Your resume did that. The purpose of mos interviews is to determine whether you're cool enough to go to happy hour with the group. It's a popularity contest, and the goal is to see if the clique you want to be in will give you a trial run with them. It's totally subjective because the employer is asking "do I want to hang out with this person?" In all your personal associations, were all of your criteria totally objective, mathematical and rule based metrics for "who is friend" and who isn't? I doubt it. Job interview same thing. Popularity contest.
There’s a limited amount of jobs, in my view, that should require a credit-check; do you all feel they should be allowed to ask? I hope we can pass legislation in my town regarding credit checks.
Many states are making it illegal on a job application.
I think if you are hiring someone to work in with your money, like a book keeper, accountant, etc. YES!
Why would you want to hire someone handling your money, who can't handle their own responsibly. Now if there is a reason like a medical thing, give them a pass. But someone who bites off more than they can chew, makes bad choices. Chooses take the vacation, buy the designer handbag, etc. Over good money management.
Now a truck driver, needs a clean driving record. No difference, just different jobs which needs a clean record to perform correctly.
That is just ridiculous. How can we tell people to work hard to get out of debt then support policies that disallow them from gaining employment?
There doesn't need to be a prize for responsible personal behavior because responsible personal behavior like getting/staying out of debt is its own reward. If it so happens that being responsible with debt also improves your chances of getting a job, then great, but that would be just one more personally rewarding thing tat comes from proper, responsible, personal behavior.
Along with being more employable, you save tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars over your lifetime by having good credit and low debt. You have emergency resources. You have backup. You have personal financial insurance against catastrophe. Etc etc. Yeah, the "more employable" thing is handy I guess, but there are sooooooooo many positive, rewarding reasons to not be in debt that again, it is a no-brainer.
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.
