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.
My guess is that retail employers will get around it by requiring all employees to be bonded, and if they are not bondable, that will be the reason to not hire them. It seems that's only going to raise costs for everyone, as the cost of onding will surely be passed on to the consumer.
My guess is that retail employers will get around it by requiring all employees to be bonded, and if they are not bondable, that will be the reason to not hire them. It seems that's only going to raise costs for everyone, as the cost of onding will surely be passed on to the consumer.
Yep. And someone with poor credit history and reasonable explanation is currently hireable. No bond = no job. Those who support this law ought to think a little more about it.
Besides, what difference does this all make? Where are these supposed jobs anyway? If all we are speaking about is retail jobs then we need more mercy than this law would ever bring.
My guess is that retail employers will get around it by requiring all employees to be bonded, and if they are not bondable, that will be the reason to not hire them. It seems that's only going to raise costs for everyone, as the cost of onding will surely be passed on to the consumer.
Actually, since bonding is a form of insurance that requires an annual fee, I think most retailers would believe it unnecessary to bond the majority of their employees. Most retail employees are monitored closely by their employer's security, and presumably they would be caught before causing a significant loss to their employer -- a loss so large that a retailer would want to insure against it.
It's more likely that retailers would use criminal checks to screen potential employees. Criminal checks would incur a similar one-time fee during the screening/probationary process, and would be a far more accurate predictor of criminal activity than a credit check.
In addition, swapping a criminal check for a credit check would not incur any excessive additional overhead.
Actually, since bonding is a form of insurance that requires an annual fee, I think most retailers would believe it unnecessary to bond the majority of their employees. Most retail employees are monitored closely by their employer's security, and presumably they would be caught before causing a significant loss to their employer -- a loss so large that a retailer would want to insure against it.
It's more likely that retailers would use criminal checks to screen potential employees. Criminal checks would incur a similar one-time fee during the screening/probationary process, and would be a far more accurate predictor of criminal activity than a credit check.
In addition, swapping a criminal check for a credit check would not incur any excessive additional overhead.
In all honesty what they will do is require them to be "bondable." They will ahve a bonding company give them a yes or no. it doesn't mean they will actually bond all of them, just require them to be bondable. That's how they will circumvent the law if it's passed.
And criminal checks only identify those who have been caught committing a crime, not those in a desperate situation that might give in to temptation and unfortunately do something foolish as a result.
In all honesty what they will do is require them to be "bondable." They will ahve a bonding company give them a yes or no. it doesn't mean they will actually bond all of them, just require them to be bondable. That's how they will circumvent the law if it's passed.
And criminal checks only identify those who have been caught committing a crime, not those in a desperate situation that might give in to temptation and unfortunately do something foolish as a result.
Have you lost complete trust in America and it's citizens? It sure seems like it.
Have you lost complete trust in America and it's citizens? It sure seems like it.
I worked in retail operations for 3 1/2 years, I've seen it happen far too many times.
But my real issue is that government needs to back off things like this and concentrate on keeping jobs here in the US instead of in 3rd world countries.
I worked in retail operations for 3 1/2 years, I've seen it happen far too many times.
But my real issue is that government needs to back off things like this and concentrate on keeping jobs here in the US instead of in 3rd world countries.
While I do agree that government needs to back off many things they have passed or are proposing I do not see this as one of them. A bad credit report does not make one a criminal. All companies must maintain oversight over their employees; a test or a report cannot do that.
These jobs are minimum wage, or close to it, and they don't currently run credit reports or do drug tests.
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.
