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.
Let me put it to you in a practical sense. If you were trying to hire a nanny for your 2 year old who would you hire?
A. Nice lady, with experience but is a convicted felon (for forgery)
B. Nice lady with experience with no criminal record
Everyone who is not insane will choose option B.
The OP wasn't talking about criminal background checks. Someone with bad credit is not a criminal, just someone bad with money. Granted you wouldn't want someone like that in a role that requires spending of company money but most jobs don't require that.
If you can't pay your bills, you can't come to work on time and do your job. Yes, like it or not people, prior behavior is a good prediction of future behavior. Can't pay your bills, you are a risk to your employer. PERIOD.
Well, I am sometimes late paying bills - I get those reminders (and then I pay them). Not sure what my credit history is like, I have never missed out on a job because of it. My work performance has never been a problem, and I am always early in.
If you can't pay your bills, you can't come to work on time and do your job. Yes, like it or not people, prior behavior is a good prediction of future behavior. Can't pay your bills, you are a risk to your employer. PERIOD.
This is not necessarily true, I work with quite a few people with less than perfect credit or just bad credit but are hard working dependable people. I been on my current job for 17 years now and over the years you get to know people and talk about almost any and everything. Some people started out with good credit but got into financial trouble long after they started that job, It is very possible to separate the two. Also many people got into financial trouble when the economy crashed back in 2008, and millions of people find themselves out of a job and were not able to pay their bills on time or not at all. I would be more worried about the criminal background instead.
The OP wasn't talking about criminal background checks. Someone with bad credit is not a criminal, just someone bad with money. Granted you wouldn't want someone like that in a role that requires spending of company money but most jobs don't require that.
I just used that as an example. My point was who would I rather hire if all things were equal in terms of qualification. A person with good credit or bad? Why in the world would I ever hire the guy with bad credit if the other person had the same qualifications? It just wouldn't make sense.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,073,312 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon652
I just used that as an example. My point was who would I rather hire if all things were equal in terms of qualification. A person with good credit or bad? Why in the world would I ever hire the guy with bad credit if the other person had the same qualifications? It just wouldn't makesense.
What doesn't make sense is hiring based on personal biases which only add to the perception, but are far removed from reality. I guess that explains why up to 95% of all managers deliver sub-par performance.
As far as the relationship between credit and job performance goes, science says it is non-existent:
Truly, it's about bondability. If you're in a job that handles money in any kind of fiduciary capacity, most companies writing a bond on your conduct in this role will not underwrite someone with XXXXX dollars in bad debt, write offs or collections.
....and a job that handles money should be the ONLY job invading someone's private credit history. EVEN though you should consider that someone's bad credit might be due to someone else in their family screwing it up, and not be their fault directly. I know a husband who used his wife's perfect credit to buy a house they couldn't afford and ruined her credit forever through foreclosure! With no fault of her own. She always paid the bills on time. I think these employers need to be a bit more understanding and not ASSUME that it is entirely the applicant's fault when the credit is not spotless.
There's more, but I'm sure you have google too. Bottom line is that it's about numbers - large ones, not the outliers on one side or the other - for many employers.
State of New York has an estimated deficit of $1.7 billion. So by their logic and yours since you seem to subscribe to it, every employee that works for that state is a red flag for potential employee fraud, and is therefore deemed unhireable.
After all, if they can't handle their finances, they are irresponsible.
EVERY job for every employer involves spending company money. EVERY job. Your pay is "spending company money". At minimum, someone with money problems is a more distracted employee.
What doesn't make sense is hiring based on personal biases which only add to the perception, but are far removed from reality. I guess that explains why up to 95% of all managers deliver sub-par performance.
As far as the relationship between credit and job performance goes, science says it is non-existent:
Did you even read the article that YOU posted to support your argument?? It says that they DO think higher credit score is an indicator of better job performance. Your study just stated that lower scores doesn't have a direct correlation with ethics.
Notice I never made any mention of unethical behavior being correlated with credit scores in any of my posts. I was reffering to more obvious traits. People with higher credit scores are more likely to (in general) be responsible, think before acting, have more self-control etc. The study in your link won't dispute that fact. Here is a part from your link:
"Those who feel credit scores have no place in the hiring process will, however, be disheartened by some of the other findings. Bernerth says researchers found correlations between credit scores and what he terms task performance” and “citizenship behavior.” The first addresses how well people do in their day-to-day job functions, such as whether or not they complete assignments properly and on time. The second is characterized in the research report as discretionary actions that benefit either the company or the individual.
High performance in both task and citizenship categories have a positive impact on businesses, the report says. And Bernerth’s team found that people with higher credit scores were better both at task performance as well as citizenship behavior"
Hmmm so people who are more responsible at paying their debts on time are also more likely to finish office work on time? Who knew??
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.
It says that they DO think higher credit score is an indicator of better job performance. Your study just stated that lower scores doesn't have a direct correlation with ethics.
