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.
That is why the credit history covers 7 years. As I said in one post, many have episodes with their credit but it's not that that an employer is looking for. It's a pattern of not fulfilling obligations that raise concern. It's a problem if you have a financial meltdown about every 6 months and walk away from your obligations. It's not a big thing if you have lost a job or had a family illness that resulted in a short period of financial difficulty. I never worked for or practiced what you tried to portray above. That's not what it's about after all.
It has been my experience that hiring is very bigotted and information is used to paint people with a broad brush.
-The unemployed are lazy and useless therefore we won't bother hiring them
-People with bad credit are irresponsible
-Anyone with a gap in their work history is hiding something or unmotivated
-Introverts are poor team players who won't fit in we won't hire them
-Anyone ever fired from a job is a bad employee we will not hire them
-Any bad reference must be true
-Anyone nonlocal will not work out and quit when they get home sick
-Anyone overqualified will quit when they find a better offer
Most employers to do not analyze the information they use it as an absolute filter and as a result people keep getting caught in these HR traps and wind up either being long term-unemployed or having to lie to get arround it. I simply do not believe that candidates with a single episode of financial hardship are given consideration that is why I am against allowing credit scores to be added to the list of HR death traps. That and I believe it is an invasion of privacy to alllow someone not extending credit to view a credit report.
The bill prohibits credit checks for all but national security clearance positions. The positions in banks and other financial firms to which I refer will not be part of that exception.
Typically, credit checks are run on candidates who have already been chosen for a job. It's just one more step in the vetting process. One of the reasons is to make sure someone who touches the firm's money thus the exemption for certain positions doesn't have a history of multiple bankruptcy unlikely (but not impossible) to appear on a credit report, due to the amount of time that must lapse between bankruptcies. It is already illegal to take adverse hiring action due to a bankruptcy filing, btw. or a high load of debt for this salary level. Also, it can reveal whether there are liens that might result in garnishment of wages or legal action. If the employee is sued, the plaintiff's attorneys will definitely run this background check and discover any skeletons in the closet, so to protect itself a company ought to know whom it's hiring.Not necessarily but how is this relevant?
It's good to know that you're not a crook, but you're one person out of hundreds of millions, and clearly you're uninformed on this topic. One or two anecdotal accounts simply don't mean anything. I don't have any personal experience of someone ripping off an organization, either, but so what? There are millions of examples of people who do, and from all reports, the situation is getting worse, not better.
As for the wag who says the House is anti-consumer, I have some bad news for them: their pro-consumer champion E. Warren's policies would kill our economic system while jacking up the unemployment rates and the federal debt to new, catastrophic levels, all in the name of "fair employment for all" as the bill is called.Take that tripe over to the Politics forum and try to prove it there.
It has been my experience that hiring is very bigotted and information is used to paint people with a broad brush.
-The unemployed are lazy and useless therefore we won't bother hiring them
-People with bad credit are irresponsible
-Anyone with a gap in their work history is hiding something or unmotivated
-Introverts are poor team players who won't fit in we won't hire them
-Anyone ever fired from a job is a bad employee we will not hire them
-Any bad reference must be true
-Anyone nonlocal will not work out and quit when they get home sick
-Anyone overqualified will quit when they find a better offer
Most employers to do not analyze the information they use it as an absolute filter and as a result people keep getting caught in these HR traps and wind up either being long term-unemployed or having to lie to get arround it. I simply do not believe that candidates with a single episode of financial hardship are given consideration that is why I am against allowing credit scores to be added to the list of HR death traps. That and I believe it is an invasion of privacy to alllow someone not extending credit to view a credit report.
No one forces you to allow a credit check. You must agree to it. And every post I make I make it a point that the single episode is not the issue and it keeps coming back up. I suppose when you have not real issue you must use the straw-man every time.
If you have a history of fulfilling your obligations then you should be proud of that fact.
How do you have so much knowledge of what "most employers do"? What are you sources for this claim?
No, YOU are the one who fails to understand. The bill, to my knowledge, would preserve credit checks for certain classes of positions. This has been explained to you numerous times, so at this point I can only conclude that either you have a deficiency in reading comprehension or you are deliberately ignoring key information because it conflicts with your desire to expound on some ridiculous point that has no actual bearing on the topic.
If you read the actual bill, it does not exempt "certain classes" as you claim it does. The only exception is for positions that require federal security clearance, or "when required by law" (but I could find no law requiring credit checks--if someone else has such knowledge, please chime in).
I believe I linked this bill in a previous posting, but it was obviously missed by more than a few. The bottom line is that the bill completely bans the practice outside of federal jobs and defense/national security related firms. Think about why this exception was made--should bad credit affect your ability to work for Raytheon any more than it does for Bank of America? Even Elizabeth Warren understands that there is a need for credit checks, yet she removes the practice from the financial industries which are the very industry, you may recall, that she strongly criticized throughout her senatorial campaign.
Submit to a credit check or I'll shred your application is not a choice. Hence the need for a law. For the record I have great credit but I find the idea of a potential employer rumaging through my credit report invasive and the idea that if I ever did have a financial catastrophe that even as an applicant for a chemist position my applications would be summarily rejected to be extremely ascinine behavior and on my last job hunt I was subjected to enough ascinine behavior by potential employers and their HR to last me a life time and to convince me that yea the only way to stop them from acting ascinine is with regulations sad as it is. People should not do ascinine things because they have shame not because they will be fined or arrested.
Submit to a credit check or I'll shred your application is not a choice. Hence the need for a law.
Yes, that's the philosophical difference that has been splitting the entire country these past few decades: laissez-faire versus regulation.
You are entirely free to walk away from a potential employer that insists on doing a credit check. If enough people backed their principles with actions, employers would stop doing it for all but the most necessary cases--financial, national security.
In the end, a job is a mutual dependency: you need to make a living, and they need you to do the work. This is a relationship of trust. Unfortunately, the trust is sometimes broken by one side or the other through various forms of misbehavior.
The question is, do we restore trust through legislation, or through education? I believe in education, because legislation is never perfect, always leaves big gaping holes, and always comes with unintended consequences. In this case, the obvious hole would be: independent contractors. Companies will increasingly rely on contractors, which are not "employees", to do the work. Thus, the unintended consequences will be that the work will become increasingly part time, increasingly temporary, and thus companies will avoid the whole question of vetting full time employees. Problem solved and you can thank Sen. Warren.
It is surprising that people fail to see the trends, which are away from full time employment and toward part time or subcontracted employment in this country. The long term prospects for the full time employee in the United States are rather poor. I think it's a shame, and I think we should be pushing to restore the voluntary trust and mutual reliance of the full time employee-employer relationship by rolling back the statist rules and regulations that have constricted businesses from hiring whom they want for what they need done.
Submit to a credit check or I'll shred your application is not a choice. Hence the need for a law. For the record I have great credit but I find the idea of a potential employer rumaging through my credit report invasive and the idea that if I ever did have a financial catastrophe that even as an applicant for a chemist position my applications would be summarily rejected to be extremely ascinine behavior and on my last job hunt I was subjected to enough ascinine behavior by potential employers and their HR to last me a life time and to convince me that yea the only way to stop them from acting ascinine is with regulations sad as it is. People should not do ascinine things because they have shame not because they will be fined or arrested.
Some people don't apply for jobs where they do drug screen's. (wonder why) and some do not apply for job's that check credit history (wonder why). It is your choice. And it is the employers choice to require it. I would never hire anyone again without it. If it becomes against the law I will just shred any application that does not include one at their expense. I won't require it but I can choose not to hire those who do not supply it. It will save me money too. This might not be a bad idea after all. Perhaps a statement with the application packet like "while we do not require a credit history for you to submit an employment application, if you would like to provide one to demonstrate your trustworthiness may we suggest the following web-site" I need to run this by my lawyer. This may be a great idea.
Some people don't apply for jobs where they do drug screen's. (wonder why) and some do not apply for job's that check credit history (wonder why). It is your choice. And it is the employers choice to require it. I would never hire anyone again without it. If it becomes against the law I will just shred any application that does not include one at their expense. I won't require it but I can choose not to hire those who do not supply it. It will save me money too. This might not be a bad idea after all. Perhaps a statement with the application packet like "while we do not require a credit history for you to submit an employment application, if you would like to provide one to demonstrate your trustworthiness may we suggest the following web-site" I need to run this by my lawyer. This may be a great idea.
Unfortunately, Believer, the proposed law would forbid you from using even a voluntarily supplied credit report. Even if the applicant says, "I have great credit and here's my report I printed out this morning, please take it and read it and hire me!" you will not be allowed to do so. Clearly they put that in so that people won't feel pressured to "voluntarily" submit to a credit report. But as a result--you won't be able to do that. You can look into farming out the work to some subcontractor that you can sue or terminate as necessary. No more employee, no more problems.
Some people don't apply for jobs where they do drug screen's. (wonder why) and some do not apply for job's that check credit history (wonder why). It is your choice. And it is the employers choice to require it. I would never hire anyone again without it. If it becomes against the law I will just shred any application that does not include one at their expense. I won't require it but I can choose not to hire those who do not supply it. It will save me money too. This might not be a bad idea after all. Perhaps a statement with the application packet like "while we do not require a credit history for you to submit an employment application, if you would like to provide one to demonstrate your trustworthiness may we suggest the following web-site" I need to run this by my lawyer. This may be a great idea.
And anyone who's truly good at what they do, and knows they have marketable skills, will pass you by like the lousy employer you sound like you are. Even those without credit problems will be offended by that approach, especially if it's seen as a blatant attempt to circumvent the law.
Enjoy working with employees with good credit but bad skills, and those who are OK with disregarding the law with a wink and a nod, like yourself apparently. That's all you'll end up with.
Moderator cut: snip
Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 12-23-2013 at 07:57 PM..
Reason: Removed unnecessary remark
Some people don't apply for jobs where they do drug screen's. (wonder why) and some do not apply for job's that check credit history (wonder why). It is your choice. And it is the employers choice to require it. I would never hire anyone again without it. If it becomes against the law I will just shred any application that does not include one at their expense. I won't require it but I can choose not to hire those who do not supply it. It will save me money too. This might not be a bad idea after all. Perhaps a statement with the application packet like "while we do not require a credit history for you to submit an employment application, if you would like to provide one to demonstrate your trustworthiness may we suggest the following web-site" I need to run this by my lawyer. This may be a great idea.
There is an incontravertable need to have employees not under the influence of mind altering substances on the job and a definate logical correlation between drug use and poor work performance. That is not the case with credit checks.
I can guarantee your proposal will repel good workers, bring public condemnation upon your company, and even if heavily adopted a law will be passed within months that will make that approach just as illegal after the deafening public outcry. I think you should be next in line for a drug test. The more people like you behave like moral creatins the more laws will be passed to stop such behavior.
Last edited by MSchemist80; 12-23-2013 at 11:14 AM..
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.
