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'm sure that you do work hard and are an asset to your company, but I don't think that you've given much thought to some of the catastrophic things that can happen to a person and ruin his credit through no fault of his own.
I'm an Army veteran and I've always worked hard and been dependable. The problem is that I came down with a serious illness. I won't go into detail, but the medical bills were incredible. I have decent health insurance, but there were many things that they weren't willing to pay for.
Long story short: my credit went from stellar to abysmal. This was completely unavoidable. I was absolutely powerless to stop it.
My question to you is: Do you think it's fair that I will be judged for something that was out of my control? It's adding insult to injury to suffer the illness and then be called irresponsible because it destroyed my credit.
Why should this string of bad luck keep me from getting a job? The problem with credit checks in hiring practice is that it doesn't account for people like me.
And credit checks don't really tell you much about a person anyway. I know people with good credit that are liars and thieves.
Bottom line: I think credit checks for hiring purposes should be made illegal at the federal level. It's a discriminatory practice that can keep hard working people from recovering and rebuilding their lives after falling on hard times.
I'm sorry to hear that this has happened to you, and no, it's not fair. But one answer, or one theory, or one opinion never covers all possible situations. Mine is no exception but I do believe that it covers more than it misses, and yours is one where it is not applicable.
I don't see many instances where bad credit will stop someone from getting *a* job, but may not allow them to get the one they want. The exception invalidates the rule, but I never said it was an absolute rule that anyone with bad credit under any circumstances is unreliable - it's just a pretty good generalization when applied across a broad spectrum of applicants. The best solution may be a combination of credit checks in conjunction with face-to-face interviews and NRC (Nat'l Records Check), allowing for explanation if needed. However, I think a bad credit report riddled with medical collections for a distinct period of time is much more explainable than someone who has a report filled over the entire time tracked with collections from car loans, credit cards, student loans, payday loans, etc. Companies, however, might find this to be too inefficient as part of the hiring process. That's their perogative to hire as they wish.
Correcting errors on credit reports, for those entries which really are errors, can be made in a few months at most. (For a recent refi on my house, I had an erroneous medical collection removed from my wife's report in 3 weeks. Further back, I had a valid collection from DC's traffic bureau removed in six weeks. There's always a way!) The point is that job hunters nowadays should be aware that credit reports are likely to be examined and some pre-emptive action on cleanup, if possible, should start early. Errors can be removed in a reasonable amount of time, and the option exists of placing an explanatory statement on your report to account for certain things and this may be put on before any potential employer ever looks at it. For others, who are chronically late and irresponsible, they serve as a clear indicator of character. The courts have agreed that CR's can be used so this is a reality that we have to live with.
I think that credit checks are, for the most part, a valid indicator of how someone deals with responsibilities and a good snapshot of someone's financial standing. No one wants to hire a fox to guard the hen house. I think that to take away this screening tool, and lower the standards would be a mistake. It's like polygraphs - they're inadmissable in court but sure are a good leading indicator of guilt or innocence. (I've been through that process also - it's harrowing!)
I know people with good credit who are liars and theives also - they're mostly lawyers and politicians.
I hope your situation turns around, and thank you for a well-thought response to my original post.
I'm sorry to hear that this has happened to you, and no, it's not fair. But one answer, or one theory, or one opinion never covers all possible situations. Mine is no exception but I do believe that it covers more than it misses, and yours is one where it is not applicable.
I don't see many instances where bad credit will stop someone from getting *a* job, but may not allow them to get the one they want. The exception invalidates the rule, but I never said it was an absolute rule that anyone with bad credit under any circumstances is unreliable - it's just a pretty good generalization when applied across a broad spectrum of applicants. The best solution may be a combination of credit checks in conjunction with face-to-face interviews and NRC (Nat'l Records Check), allowing for explanation if needed. However, I think a bad credit report riddled with medical collections for a distinct period of time is much more explainable than someone who has a report filled over the entire time tracked with collections from car loans, credit cards, student loans, payday loans, etc. Companies, however, might find this to be too inefficient as part of the hiring process. That's their perogative to hire as they wish.
Correcting errors on credit reports, for those entries which really are errors, can be made in a few months at most. (For a recent refi on my house, I had an erroneous medical collection removed from my wife's report in 3 weeks. Further back, I had a valid collection from DC's traffic bureau removed in six weeks. There's always a way!) The point is that job hunters nowadays should be aware that credit reports are likely to be examined and some pre-emptive action on cleanup, if possible, should start early. Errors can be removed in a reasonable amount of time, and the option exists of placing an explanatory statement on your report to account for certain things and this may be put on before any potential employer ever looks at it. For others, who are chronically late and irresponsible, they serve as a clear indicator of character. The courts have agreed that CR's can be used so this is a reality that we have to live with.
I think that credit checks are, for the most part, a valid indicator of how someone deals with responsibilities and a good snapshot of someone's financial standing. No one wants to hire a fox to guard the hen house. I think that to take away this screening tool, and lower the standards would be a mistake. It's like polygraphs - they're inadmissable in court but sure are a good leading indicator of guilt or innocence. (I've been through that process also - it's harrowing!)
I know people with good credit who are liars and theives also - they're mostly lawyers and politicians.
I hope your situation turns around, and thank you for a well-thought response to my original post.
You've been incredibly lucky. I have a friend who was the victim of identity theft, and five years later is still trying to clean up the errors. I had an error several years ago, and yes, it only took a month to get the error removed, but then the error came back, and I had to get it removed again. With three big credit reporting agencies, and local agencies, errors have a habit of being reborn.
I also know someone who had no criminal record, but was turned down for a job because a background check said they did. The prospective employer wasn't just concerned about the criminal record, but was also convinced that this person was trying to be deceptive and reported it to the employment agency who had referred him. It turned out that someone in the police system had entered the wrong information, and that the criminal record belonged to another person with the same name. But it didn't help this person who lost the opportunity for this job and several others because of an error in the system.
They're astounded to find I've never had credit or loans. I pay cash for things.
I know several people who do this. When they checked their credit score, it was abysmal. Your credit score isn't about how you handle money, it's about how you handle credit. If a prospective employer disqualifies you for a job based on your credit score, so that you don't even get an interview (and that's what background and credit checks are for, screening people before they use up any of HR's time), will you still be a happy camper?
I'm saying it's a poor screening tool. The fact that I don't get things on credit disqualifies me from doing a job? Really?
It actually can. I know this seems alarmist, and I don't think the use of credit scores for employment screening is widespread, but it is being used these days. Given the current economic climate, when a job posting can garner hundreds and even thousands of applications, human resources staff look for easy ways to narrow down the number of applications they have to go through. It's called weeding. And a blip on a background check, a low credit score, a misspelling on your resume, a typo on the dates you worked somewhere, can get you into the discard pile faster than you can blink.
It's really funny (not ha ha) to see all the negativity from people on this site. I suppose all the news reports of the unemployment rates is just a work of fiction. Many many responsible people have fallen on HARD times and not by any choice of their own. That's not to say that some already lazy people are not taking advantage of the system. I'm a long standing hard worker. With a profession no less. I have put in many applications. On line and in person. I was snuffed for a job at McDonalds to two college students they transferred from another store.I'm forty years old and lost employment to COLLEGE students at MCDONALDS. They don't do credit checks. Nor should any job/career that isn't involved with brain surgery, rocket science, etc. Just goes to show there are too many stuffy and holier-than-though people in this "great" country of ours. Our last administration made greedy self-serving decisions and by what I'm reading I an see how that happened. Good LUCK (LUCK?) to us all.
I agree. It's a bit like using a butter knife to tighen a screw. It might sorta kinda work sometimes, but it's the wrong tool for the job.
I think employers use it because they are either too lazy and/or stupid to do actual, meaningful background checks. They don't want to have to "think" or use good judgement, they want to be able to look at a number and say "aha, candidate "b" is the one for the job".
It's sloppy "science" and a poor use of math (algorithms). Drives me nuts.
When we read British fiction or watch Masterpiece Theatre, we are all shocked and amazed that even into the 20th century, a person in Britain could have his life ruined and all prospects dashed by a simple incident that would militate against his "references". How proud we were that in America, a person could make a mistake and still be in a position to flourish on his own merits. Oh, well--nice try.
It actually can. I know this seems alarmist, and I don't think the use of credit scores for employment screening is widespread, but it is being used these days. Given the current economic climate, when a job posting can garner hundreds and even thousands of applications, human resources staff look for easy ways to narrow down the number of applications they have to go through. It's called weeding. And a blip on a background check, a low credit score, a misspelling on your resume, a typo on the dates you worked somewhere, can get you into the discard pile faster than you can blink.
Very true. HR seeks to do some quick winnowing and then the hiring manager does some more. I've received a 20-candidate pile of resumes and down a quick narrowing based on experience and also on where someone graduated from, giving more credit to those who went to brick-and-mortar schools over those who got online degrees. There may be a lot of preferences in thr hiring chain which you will never be aware of. And I highly recommend making sure you have no grammatical or spelling mistakes on a resume - that'll get it pitched faster than anything!
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.
