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.
Many companies in the U.S. today (and seemingly only in the U.S.) use credit reports as part of their background checks. Many hiring executives think they will get better employees by screening them for their credit, yet this is inaccurate for some people - for example, one who had an unforeseen medical problem and incurred tens of thousands of dollars in hospital debt, or a person whose now-resolved drug addiction caused them to never pay their bills.
Should companies be permitted to use these in screening applicants?
No. It used to be that we gauged people when we were in their presence. We used gut instinct and relied on word of mouth to help gain another's trust. Now, employers ask people to pee in a cup, scour their Facebook page, test their mental state, and do background checks. All that has done is create an even more distrustful environment. Checking credit scores is wrong since they are hardly a measure of an individual.
As an employer, I would want to use credit reports as a screening tool. If you have mitigating circumstances that have negatively affected your credit, you are free to attach a statement of explanation to your credit report. Problem solved.
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.