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.
"An employer should first determine if there is a sound business reason to obtain a credit report. Unless the information in a credit report is directly job related, its use can be considered discriminatory."
So the burden of proving it is DIRECTLY job related is on the employer. How would a credit report be DIRECTLY job related to a classroom teacher?
Also, seems it may actually become downright illegal shortly via "The Equal Employment for All Act"
"An employer should first determine if there is a sound business reason to obtain a credit report. Unless the information in a credit report is directly job related, its use can be considered discriminatory."
So the burden of proving it is DIRECTLY job related is on the employer. How would a credit report be DIRECTLY job related to a classroom teacher?
Also, seems it may actually become downright illegal shortly via "The Equal Employment for All Act"
Despite provisions for government jobs seem they must meet the requirements given by the HR article.
The link you provided on the Equal Employment for all ACT is from 2009. I believe it died in committee when introduced last year. It has been reintroduced but has little bi-partisan support and most similar efforts at the state level have died after intense lobbying by the business community.
The link you provided on the Equal Employment for all ACT is from 2009. I believe it died in committee when introduced last year. It has been reintroduced but has little bi-partisan support and most similar efforts at the state level have died after intense lobbying by the business community.
You sort of ignored the part where even human resource experts say that if a credit report is not directly related to job duties it could be consider discriminatory.
You sort of ignored the part where even human resource experts say that if a credit report is not directly related to job duties it could be consider discriminatory.
Thoughts?
Didn't ignore it all. I had already dealt with that in a previous post when I raised the process of legal review by the districts attorney's and board of governance. They logically will deal with that aspect of the process and establish guidelines that comply with their interpretation of the law. Didn't see a need to repeat what I had already said. Please review my previous post.
Not if the employer complies with the letter of the law. That's why laws are written to establish the rules of the road. The lawyer needs something to hang there hat on and the school district attorney will have advised the district how to comply. They are already doing it on a much larger scale in private industry and where are the law suits? The link I provided has legal information regarding compliance. Where in the absence of passed legislation can you offer anything to corroborate they can't do it? Where is there a body of evidence other than from teachers that it isn't smart? A district doing so I imagine would go through normal channels of approval with their elected board of governance and legal counsel.
In case anyone missed it I will repeat the post and hopefully my point about legal review will answer if I dealt with it or not prior to their post! Note the use of words like comply, compliance etc.
Not if the employer complies with the letter of the law. That's why laws are written to establish the rules of the road. The lawyer needs something to hang there hat on and the school district attorney will have advised the district how to comply. They are already doing it on a much larger scale in private industry and where are the law suits? The link I provided has legal information regarding compliance. Where in the absence of passed legislation can you offer anything to corroborate they can't do it? Where is there a body of evidence other than from teachers that it isn't smart? A district doing so I imagine would go through normal channels of approval with their elected board of governance and legal counsel.
Discrimination. What happens when they turn down someone perfectly qualified for the job because of adverse credit history?
Credit history and teaching aren't in any way related. Using something like credit history can be seen as targeting people who come from lower-income households, or minorities, who typically have lower credit scores due to a variety of factors.
You're assuming the district attorney or legal counsel even looked at this, which is a dubious assumption, at best. Even if they did, that's no guarantee of anything. Plenty of practices have passed scrutiny from legal counsel only to be found in violation of the law, or made the company using the practice at fault in some way.
The point is, it's totally unnecessary and opens up a door to lawsuits that they don't need to open.
Discrimination. What happens when they turn down someone perfectly qualified for the job because of adverse credit history?
Credit history and teaching aren't in any way related. Using something like credit history can be seen as targeting people who come from lower-income households, or minorities, who typically have lower credit scores due to a variety of factors.
You're assuming the district attorney or legal counsel even looked at this, which is a dubious assumption, at best. Even if they did, that's no guarantee of anything. Plenty of practices have passed scrutiny from legal counsel only to be found in violation of the law, or made the company using the practice at fault in some way.
The point is, it's totally unnecessary and opens up a door to lawsuits that they don't need to open.
They as the appointed board of governance will make those decisions and modify them as appropriate if precedent law dictates that. That's the way it works. If the local teachers association objects they will do that and their thoughts will be factored in along with parent groups etc. My hunch is that forum opinion will not be weighted very highly. Do you realize how many qualified teachers get turned down for jobs for reasons that are subjective as they have met the objective part of the process successfully.
They as the appointed board of governance will make those decisions and modify them as appropriate if precedent law dictates that. That's the way it works. If the local teachers association objects they will do that and their thoughts will be factored in along with parent groups etc. My hunch is that forum opinion will not be weighted very highly.
"Precedent law"?
Don't know much about the legal system, I see.
Regardless. I'm not saying it's against the law. I'm saying they are needlessly walking a very, very fine line.
They as the appointed board of governance will make those decisions and modify them as appropriate if precedent law dictates that. That's the way it works. If the local teachers association objects they will do that and their thoughts will be factored in along with parent groups etc. My hunch is that forum opinion will not be weighted very highly. Do you realize how many qualified teachers get turned down for jobs for reasons that are subjective as they have met the objective part of the process successfully.
Even the guidelines set forth by the HR profession states that it should not be used in this case since it would be discriminatory. That sets up the district for a lawsuit, plain and simple.
That's rich. So, somebody who may have had trouble with finances years ago when they couldn't find quality employment now will forever not be able to find future employment?
If demonstrates several things. An immaturity regarding money, a lack of sound personal finances, an intense need for self-gratification, and an inability to plan for the future.
You should have enough money to cover all of your living expenses including all of your debt payments for at least six months.
If you don't, then re-read the second sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyway31
The cycle never ends lol.
That isn't completely true. Bad credit is only reported for seven years following the charge off date (a credit card then ends up being 7 years 6 months, but defaulted mortgage only 7 years 4 months).
However, your credit file is exactly that, your credit file. Certain agencies, such as the FBI, can see your entire credit file, from the very first account that you ever opened, even though employers and creditors can only see the last 7 years (ie the FBI can see that you had one late payment 12 years ago, but employers and creditors cannot).
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyway31
I think it's pretty horrific to think employers of workers working in jobs not related to managing money would do a credit check to decide to hire somebody or not.
I need to promote someone to a supervisory or management position.
Candidate A has a stellar credit report, while Candidate B has credit that sucks. Who should I promote?
Very obviously Candidate A. At least Candidate demonstrates key traits like common sense, restraint, planning etc etc etc.
If Candidate B can't even handle his personal finances, I doubt he's gonna properly manage over-time, production, expenses etc etc 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.
