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.
Is there any published research that finds a useful correalation between a candidate's credit score and her or his actual job performance once hired? Is the 781 applicant really better suited for a particular position than the applicant with a score of 620? Does a low credit score trump verified experience and excellent recommendations? Should the person with the high credit score be given benefit of the doubt for a padded c.v.?
There are just too many variables to make a credit check all that useful in the hiring process. It seems as if people are trying to use credit scores to quantify attributes of character that can be better and more accurately assessed with different means.
Is there any published research that finds a useful correalation between a candidate's credit score and her or his actual job performance once hired? Is the 781 applicant really better suited for a particular position than the applicant with a score of 620? Does a low credit score trump verified experience and excellent recommendations? Should the person with the high credit score be given benefit of the doubt for a padded c.v.?
There are just too many variables to make a credit check all that useful in the hiring process. It seems as if people are trying to use credit scores to quantify attributes of character that can be better and more accurately assessed with different means.
That's a silly argument. As I said before, it's a soft credit check usually conducted by companies whose employees have sensitive roles in areas where money is handled. If you can't control your own expenses, how do you expect a company trust you to handle theirs?
And if you start your own business, you're going to have to deal with credit checks anyway, and those will be a lot more invasive than a business you're an EE of.
And this is a silly counter-argument. People have a complex array of attributes and competencies. Sometimes there is unequivalency in those aspects of a person's character. People can also compartmentalize. Someone can be falling apart in their personal life and doing a superb job at work (and no one would ever know). The "psychology majors" doing the hiring at these companies are at least smart enough to know this. Unless they are the young unquestioning robots or the authoritarians who also never question corporate propaganda, they also know that equating creditworthiness with job suitability is a royal line of major (bleeping) B.S.!!!!!!!
Defenders of this b.s. have no problem with this employment practice because it is part of the apparatus of custodial wealth. The custodians are practicing containment of jobs and that benefits a certain segment of society and disproportionately harms the economic well-being of outgroups. They know exactly what they are doing.
And this is a silly counter-argument. People have a complex array of attributes and competencies. Sometimes there is unequivalency in those aspects of a person's character. People can also compartmentalize. Someone can be falling apart in their personal life and doing a superb job at work (and no one would ever know). The "psychology majors" doing the hiring at these companies are at least smart enough to know this. Unless they are the young unquestioning robots or the authoritarians who also never question corporate propaganda, they also know that equating creditworthiness with job suitability is a royal line of major (bleeping) B.S.!!!!!!!
Defenders of this b.s. have no problem with this employment practice because it is part of the apparatus of custodial wealth. The custodians are practicing containment of jobs and that benefits a certain segment of society and disproportionately harms the economic well-being of outgroups. They know exactly what they are doing.
Actually, it's not.
If you are hired to be a truck driver, they want you to have a clean driving record.
If you are hired to handle money, they want you to have a clean financial record.
This has nothing to do with job performance and everything to do with risk management in hiring someone.
You also deflate your argument with the multitude of exclamation marks. Don't be that guy.
From the abstract, agreeableness is in fact negatively correlated. I don't see the word "cooperation" in there; where did you get that from?
In any case, this is pop psychology pseudo-science.
It's a peer reviewd study. Sorry you don't like that credit scores can predict more than credit. Yes, agreeablenes is negatively coorelated, it is still predictive!
Think of all of the decent people who lost jobs and homes due to the financial crisis.
Think of how many big banks fired tens of thousands of people, who then lost their homes - and now those same banks refuse to hire those people back because they lost their jobs and had a foreclosure?
I worked for a financial company during the crisis, and I lost my job. I wasn't some corporate big wig, I wasn't even a manager.
The difference is that your credit score exists to be queried, which is not the case for your medical records. It exists for no other purpose than to prove to other people that you can or cannot be trusted with money or information.
And for the record, some employers do require polygraphs and the disclosure of pertinent health records. It's all about what is necessary for the job, and a credit check is relevant no matter what the position.
....which is not the case for your medical records. Hmm
Well, in this day and age when everything about your medical history (and eventually your genetic history) is part of a massive dispersed data mine (of sorts), the day may be not far off when we will be reading that some federal court, or SCOTUS, will be delivering a smackdown to civil libertarians challenging employment practices requiring invasive inquiries into our medical records. I am talking about more broad than "pertinent" -which can mean anything once it comes out of the mouths of the employer class.
I would go on to say that a person's general health is more likely to have an impact on the employment relationship than the credit check - just think about it...if in fact you are thinking and not just spewing talking points (I direct that comment to anyone). So caught up in the churn of talking the talk, you went way far afield in stating that a credit check is relevant no matter what the position.
If you are hired to be a truck driver, they want you to have a clean driving record.
If you are hired to handle money, they want you to have a clean financial record.
This has nothing to do with job performance and everything to do with risk management in hiring someone.
I think we're all in agreement that it's appropriate to look at a driving record for a driving job, a credit check for a money handling job. What myself and a few others in this thread are arguing against is the use of credit checks as a general "character" assessment and assumptions that are made from it.
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.
