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.
Checking to see if someone is irresponsible is not idiotic, it makes practical sense.
Idiotic would be to hire someone with poor credit who mismanages their own money and makes poor decisions concerning it into your business to which they continue such at your own expense.
I am actually engaged in hiring and contracting process. We don't see eye to eye on this. I don't assume a person's capabilities resides in his/her credit ratings. It is similar to assuming that a person looking for job, after being let go, is in the market because he/she did something wrong. And lately, there have been reports of companies doing that too. Something you agree with as well?
No Unemployed People will be Considered At All (http://www.clickorlando.com/jobs/23752759/detail.html - broken link)
I look for talent. Work history, knowledge and vision demonstrate a person's qualification to do a job far better than a tunnel vision that is credit check. Criminal background check is more reasonable, and understandable, but most companies don't dismiss a candidate on its basis, they tend to be pragmatic about it.
BTW, companies weren't doing this in mid 90s otherwise I would have had a tough time getting a job despite my qualifications, talent and skills. I didn't have a decent credit history because I didn't maintain anything but an American Express card for the first 3-4 years to which I always paid the balance in full. I had that card because it allowed me to rent cars as I traveled around. Later, I was forced to get into credit building ponzi scheme and got two cards. Yet another example of the system that is stuck like leaches on the American way of life.
Really? That's what you got out of it? Read the entire paragraph slowly, one more time.
Or, I can break it down piece by piece.
Translates to: No matter the background, people can be criminals and/or have bad credit.
Therefore, the article (that says using these criteria [criminal records and bad credit] is affecting minorities) is pathetic.
So.
To sum it up.
No matter the background, people can be criminals and/or have bad credit. Therefore, the article is pathetic.
Now where's that easy button?
*chuckle*
My apologies, I most certainly misread it then. I had a list of posts I was responding to that were all in the same theme and I guess I misread yours. Caulk it up to dyslexic context syndrome. *chuckle*
I am actually engaged in hiring and contracting process. We don't see eye to eye on this. I don't assume a person's capabilities resides in his/her credit ratings. It is similar to assuming that a person looking for job, after being let go, is in the market because he/she did something wrong. And lately, there have been reports of companies doing that too. Something you agree with as well?
No Unemployed People will be Considered At All (http://www.clickorlando.com/jobs/23752759/detail.html - broken link)
You didn't mention the part where I stated that they may ask for reasoning as to why their credit is bad. This solves the assumption part. And yes, a person who is irresponsible with their credit, has a very poor rating and no valid reasoning as to why (over spending or claims that you were making a lot more at the time are not valid reasons).
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I look for talent. Work history, knowledge and vision demonstrate a person's qualification to do a job far better than a tunnel vision that is credit check. Criminal background check is more reasonable, and understandable, but most companies don't dismiss a candidate on its basis, they tend to be pragmatic about it.
Talent is important, but it is irrelevant if it comes with a monkey on its back. I remember we had a security auditor who was very talented, he was up on all of the latest policies and knowledge concerning exploits, etc... He could break into network with his eyes closed and track an intrusion almost as fast as a well designed IDS could.
His problem? He was lazy, he didn't document well, he took short cuts and missed deadlines, as well as ignored many structured processes in our development and planning. He also had a terrible credit rating because he chose to pay his bills 30 days late constantly.
Is this a guarantee that they will always be such? Nope, but I will bet you a wooden nickle that it is more consistently related than you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
BTW, companies weren't doing this in mid 90s otherwise I would have had a tough time getting a job despite my qualifications, talent and skills. I didn't have a decent credit history because I didn't maintain anything but an American Express card for the first 3-4 years to which I always paid the balance in full. I had that card because it allowed me to rent cars as I traveled around. Later, I was forced to get into credit building ponzi scheme and got two cards. Yet another example of the system that is stuck like leaches on the American way of life.
So your personal experience then trumps all? I didn't say "all businesses", I said many businesses were. Maybe during that time only specific ones. I worked in the financial sector during that time, and they did as well as all of the companies to which had some relation to such types of responsibility and security.
Forced? How were you forced to get two cards? I see a lot of blame placed on the cards and the institutions, were you tied, gagged and drug to make the decisions you did? The way you explain it, it certainly seems that way. No responsibility to your decisions? None? Maybe a little?
*chuckle*
My apologies, I most certainly misread it then. I had a list of posts I was responding to that were all in the same theme and I guess I misread yours. Caulk it up to dyslexic context syndrome. *chuckle*
Eh, it's cool. I figured as much, but I have fun breaking down posts (even my own) into their core concepts.
I'd imagine that, to some people, minorities are the only ones with weird names, bad credit, and a criminal record a mile long. To those people who would never want to hire more than the token "black", I could see them hiding behind the use of these criteria instead of outwardly saying "No Blacks need apply". And, of course, other "criteria" for a job, too.
But I also see that blanket rule being used to justify a manager who doesn't want to hire anybody who is: Jewish, Black, Whale-Sized, Irish, Hairy-as-a-bear, Redneck, Pregger, etc, etc, etc. In fact, there are just so many reasons that a manager could use to turn away an applicant. And while these people choose to be unethical, they'll find a way to keep certain groups they abhor at bay.
While it just plain sucks, what honestly can be done to get racist KKK'er Joe White from hiring Joe Brown? Should the government be stepping in and saying "YOU MUST HIRE AT LEAST ONE JOE BROWN - NO EXCEPTIONS"?
You didn't mention the part where I stated that they may ask for reasoning as to why their credit is bad. This solves the assumption part. And yes, a person who is irresponsible with their credit, has a very poor rating and no valid reasoning as to why (over spending or claims that you were making a lot more at the time are not valid reasons).
Talent is important, but it is irrelevant if it comes with a monkey on its back. I remember we had a security auditor who was very talented, he was up on all of the latest policies and knowledge concerning exploits, etc... He could break into network with his eyes closed and track an intrusion almost as fast as a well designed IDS could.
His problem? He was lazy, he didn't document well, he took short cuts and missed deadlines, as well as ignored many structured processes in our development and planning. He also had a terrible credit rating because he chose to pay his bills 30 days late constantly.
Is this a guarantee that they will always be such? Nope, but I will bet you a wooden nickle that it is more consistently related than you think.
So your personal experience then trumps all? I didn't say "all businesses", I said many businesses were. Maybe during that time only specific ones. I worked in the financial sector during that time, and they did as well as all of the companies to which had some relation to such types of responsibility and security.
Forced? How were you forced to get two cards? I see a lot of blame placed on the cards and the institutions, were you tied, gagged and drug to make the decisions you did? The way you explain it, it certainly seems that way. No responsibility to your decisions? None? Maybe a little?
You assumed that after credit and background check, the recruiters will actually reach out to applicants to clarify the "issues" reflected on the results. And yes, I would take my personal experience above anything spewed in these forums. Wouldn't you?
To clarify something you didn't get, no, I wasn't forced to get two cards. I was forced by the leaching based system to dip into credit market if I were to ever consider having a good credit score and get loans at reasonable rate. Paying cash, and maintaining a no-balance-forward card (AMEX) was NOT enabling that. I eventually got a Discover and a MC to ensure I'm fully covered in the future. This is nothing but crony capitalism at work.
Your example of the security auditor points negatively not at him but the people who hired him. Clearly they didn't look past his talent (note, that wasn't the only word I used as a qualification, as there is a lot more to it, and nothing to do with people's personal lives... I could use even divorce as an issue, if I chose to be as irrational as these companies are).
I'm hoping for an America that is credit and debt free. Not one that relies more and more on those troubling issues. Not on proliferation of a the sucking-like leach system in vogue. Sorry.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 08-13-2010 at 10:40 AM..
Many employers abuse their opportunity to review information on applicants.
I submitted a resume online and was able to arrange an interview. While in the waiting area for said interview I could see a couple of gals going thru whatever info they were researching on the computer, occasionally glancing at me. Finally they found what they were looking for and I was asked into the interview room.
After confirming my name, date of birth, sex (obvious)... I was asked if I had ever been to Virginia. Thinking there might be some link to training or work I just simply replied that I'd driven thru there a couple of times and it was an okay place. Then the gal asked if I had even been charged with a sex crime.... NO! ! !
She then showed me a profile report, from their investigation website of some guy about my age, similar name but middle initial was different and in VIRGINIA. And then suggesting that unless I could prove I was NOT that person then I was suspect and we could have no further employment conversation. Again, I've driven thru Virginia but never been there long enough to go to jail or even stand for a trial.
Other than have the police investigate me and create documentation of my innocence there really was no recourse. I contacted an attorney who really wasn't interested in making a case. I believe this really was a case of either sex or age discrimination but really just don't care anymore.
You assumed that after credit and background check, the recruiters will actually reach out to applicants to clarify the "issues" reflected on the results. And yes, I would take my personal experience above anything spewed in these forums. Wouldn't you?
Some may, some might not. It really is up to those doing the review. Do we really have a right to force a workplace to hire someone and does a person really want to work for a place that they forced to hire them? I know I wouldn't. I know its irrelevant to the point we were discussing, I am just adding a bit of additional perspective of how in the long run, it doesn't matter anyway.
As for personal experience. I understand why it would be given weight, I do the same, but I don't use it as support to claim a generalization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
To clarify something you didn't get, no, I wasn't forced to get two cards. I was forced by the leaching based system to dip into credit market if I were to ever consider having a good credit score and get loans at reasonable rate. Paying cash, and maintaining a no-balance-forward card (AMEX) was NOT enabling that. I eventually got a Discover and a MC to ensure I'm fully covered in the future. This is nothing but crony capitalism at work.
Don't need credit cards to get credit. You can get it many other ways, credit cards are simply one way to establish it. Also, one who doesn't trust themselves with a credit card can pick up a secured one. It gains credit like any other and there is no risk of drawing more than you have. In the end, bad credit is a result of individual choice. The fault lies on the user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Your example of the security auditor points negatively not at him but the people who hired him. Clearly they didn't look past his talent (note, that wasn't the only word I used as a qualification, as there is a lot more to it, and nothing to do with people's personal lives... I could use even divorce as an issue, if I chose to be as irrational as these companies are).
And how does one look past such? Many states disallow asking about specifics when checking past jobs, so that is of no help. You can talk to references, but they will all be singing a tune of praise about the person. Credit check is just one element, as you said... It would have brought up something rather relevant to his actions that led to his firing. Not really a stretch to link someone who doesn't pay their bills on time as being a probable reason for them being irresponsible with their responsibilities in work.
In fact, my wife works with a person right now who pays his bills 29 days late every month and low and behold, he is also a massive procrastinator at work as well. Not a big surprise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I'm hoping for an America that is credit and debt free. Not one that relies more and more on those troubling issues. Not on proliferation of a the sucking-like leach system in vogue. Sorry.
That would be great, it starts with a responsible public. It starts with not excusing people of their responsibility. It starts by holding them to the consequences of their decisions. No other way to have it happen.
Some may, some might not. It really is up to those doing the review. Do we really have a right to force a workplace to hire someone and does a person really want to work for a place that they forced to hire them? I know I wouldn't. I know its irrelevant to the point we were discussing, I am just adding a bit of additional perspective of how in the long run, it doesn't matter anyway.
As for personal experience. I understand why it would be given weight, I do the same, but I don't use it as support to claim a generalization.
Might be true to some extent if the employer truly cares for the applicants and is not overwhelmed by applications. Rarely the case during times of high worker demand, much less now. Coupled with the long term economic disaster this has been, I fully expect a lot of people whose credit has been shot but they could be more productive and better employees than those currently holding their jobs. Credit can also get shot from medical disasters (bankruptcy), an alarmingly common issue here in America, more so with poor job market.
This mentality is one of those that is pushing American society in the exact opposite direction than "the invisible hand" alluded to when Adam Smith wrote about it in The Wealth of Nations. We're quickly becoming a nation of self-defeaters.
Quote:
Don't need credit cards to get credit. You can get it many other ways, credit cards are simply one way to establish it. Also, one who doesn't trust themselves with a credit card can pick up a secured one. It gains credit like any other and there is no risk of drawing more than you have. In the end, bad credit is a result of individual choice. The fault lies on the user.
The point wasn't necessarily on plastic form, but on credit itself, the crony capitalism that has been pushing this country towards economic disaster.
Quote:
And how does one look past such? Many states disallow asking about specifics when checking past jobs, so that is of no help. You can talk to references, but they will all be singing a tune of praise about the person. Credit check is just one element, as you said... It would have brought up something rather relevant to his actions that led to his firing. Not really a stretch to link someone who doesn't pay their bills on time as being a probable reason for them being irresponsible with their responsibilities in work.
Are you telling me that a person with acceptable credit history is capable of performing the job? Are you telling me that a person with better credit history is better than another with just acceptable credit history to do the job? Or, is there more to doing a job? I've long admired a company for its philosophy and especially its beginning: Honda.
Soichiro Honda went against perceptions. He identified talent, not from their qualifications or history, but from their capacities to get something done. Even today, you would rarely see a Honda CEO holding big degrees, sometimes just bachelors would do. Try that with American manufacturers that have run the company into a disaster zone.
This is where the hiring failed. As an employer, the priority should be identifying strengths and weaknesses from the person sitting in front of you, not from his personal life. Do you support the idea that companies shouldn't hire single parents (unmarried) because they exhibited irresponsible behavior? Or that are divorced because they've now demonstrated a lack of making proper choice or at least inability to resolve conflicts? Or, fire an employee who was caught cheating on his/her spouse because that is a sign of irresponsibility and unreliability?
Quote:
In fact, my wife works with a person right now who pays his bills 29 days late every month and low and behold, he is also a massive procrastinator at work as well. Not a big surprise.
And I've known, worked with, procrastinators with excellent credit history. What was the point?
Many employers abuse their opportunity to review information on applicants.
I submitted a resume online and was able to arrange an interview. While in the waiting area for said interview I could see a couple of gals going thru whatever info they were researching on the computer, occasionally glancing at me. Finally they found what they were looking for and I was asked into the interview room.
After confirming my name, date of birth, sex (obvious)... I was asked if I had ever been to Virginia. Thinking there might be some link to training or work I just simply replied that I'd driven thru there a couple of times and it was an okay place. Then the gal asked if I had even been charged with a sex crime.... NO! ! !
She then showed me a profile report, from their investigation website of some guy about my age, similar name but middle initial was different and in VIRGINIA. And then suggesting that unless I could prove I was NOT that person then I was suspect and we could have no further employment conversation. Again, I've driven thru Virginia but never been there long enough to go to jail or even stand for a trial.
Other than have the police investigate me and create documentation of my innocence there really was no recourse. I contacted an attorney who really wasn't interested in making a case. I believe this really was a case of either sex or age discrimination but really just don't care anymore.
In an interview, you are not only being interviewed, but you are interviewing the employer as well. Perhaps you dodged a bullet.
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.
