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.
Gladly? No, as it would be a waste of everyone's time since I don't drink. But I would submit without argument, because THAT'S WHAT I AGREED TO DO WHEN I APPLIED FOR MY DRIVER LICENSE.
So what do I get for your guarantee? You going to send me a check or something?
Why would I send you a check? I don't believe your response. End of story.
HAHAHAHAHA, that is HILARIOUS! Wow. So you would gladly take a breathalyzer if you're pulled over by cops for no reason? Bulls*it.
Actually, I would refuse knowing they would then have probable cause to initiate the warrant/blood test process. I'd do it because I never drink and drive, and I am a huge fan of annoying the agents of tyranny and wasting their time. Plus, the initiation of the blood test/warrant thing means I now put them into situations where they have a lot more rules to follow, like my care and handling once cuffed, my Miranda rights, safe withdrawal of my blood, etc. It's a useful exercise to be a pain in their collective ***** even though I know I am innocent.
No you don't. You agree if there is probable cause.
Totally true. Also totally irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Even then you can deny it as long as you accept the repercussions.
Wait a minute - are you saying that I would have a CHOICE, and that I can exercise EITHER OPTION, as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences of my CHOICE?
You probably don't realize it, and you certainly won't admit it, but you just made the exact same argument I've been making and you've been arguing against for 50 pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
With the case of ones credit rating, there has been no probably cause outside of a few people misplaced ideas.
Probable cause doesn't enter into a business transaction - that's a legal term, used in the context of law enforcement. It doesn't apply to a private transaction between two entities entering into a mutually agreed upon contract.
The post I quoted said, "Many people are in debt through no fault of their own".
Losing your source of income has nothing to do with why you're in debt. You're in debt because you signed on the dotted line, and your employment situation has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
I a way it does though. Say you cousin gets a job and lasts the probationary period and makes 65K yearly income. They now spend that 65K on needs expenses, wants expenses, savings (401Ks and stocks included) and taxes. They likely made decisions that they would make 65K. When that income is gone by demotion or job elimination, that throws your FUTURE spending. However, you still have racked up bills to pay off that you based off of your old 65K income. You could have spent within your means and had a rainy day fund but because that next job wouldn't happen, you could burn through that and still have your previous debt.
I a way it does though. Say you cousin gets a job and lasts the probationary period and makes 65K yearly income. They now spend that 65K on needs expenses, wants expenses, savings (401Ks and stocks included) and taxes. They likely made decisions that they would make 65K. When that income is gone by demotion or job elimination, that throws your FUTURE spending. However, you still have racked up bills to pay off that you based off of your old 65K income. You could have spent in your means and had a rainy day fund but because that next job wouldn't happen, you
Then the smartphone gets turned in for a dumb phone.
The cable gets cancelled.
The car goes back to the dealer.
And you call the mortgage company to work out something.
And you borrow against your 401K and use your "emergency savings".
Unless of course you were living at $100K on a $65K salary with no savings.
Then your SOL.
Americans have a dismal savings rate.
And most Americans live beyond their means.
I a way it does though. Say you cousin gets a job and lasts the probationary period and makes 65K yearly income. They now spend that 65K on needs expenses, wants expenses, savings (401Ks and stocks included) and taxes. They likely made decisions that they would make 65K. When that income is gone by demotion or job elimination, that throws your FUTURE spending. However, you still have racked up bills to pay off that you based off of your old 65K income. You could have spent within your means and had a rainy day fund but because that next job wouldn't happen, you could burn through that and still have your previous debt.
This is all choice behavior though.
Spending what you have is wise. Spending what you think you will have is a gamble, thus unwise.
So if one makes $65k and spends what they have each day/week/month left over after paying the mandatory bills, then they are wise. If they accumulate debt based on the thinking they will always make $65k as they are now, then they are gambling, thus unwise.
Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Pretty easy axiom to live by. Do so, and credit checks will never be a bother.
@pknopp - don't mistake my point here. I think anyone asking for a credit check for most jobs is wasting time, effort and money on something frivolous and largely meaningless. For stuff like what I do, where I get all the keys to a corporations data secrets? Sure, check every last detail of my life to be sure I am trustworthy. You risk not only my nifty compensation, but your data secrets too, so take extra care with jobs like mine, no problem.
But if a company feels like wasting their time, effort and money on absurd and meaningless hiring criteria...it's their job and their money. Do I think them foolish? Sure, of course. But do I think being foolish where a fool and their money are concerned should be illegal? Heck no.
It's my private information. Should they get it just because they can afford to? No. Should they get it if there is a valid reason? In some cases.
There is coercion going on. If I have something you want, and I compel you to do something that you would not voluntarily do otherwise, for just a chance at that something you want, then that's coercion.
So having a dress code is coercion? Requiring that you're at your desk and ready to work by 8am is coercion? Demanding that you adhere to basic rules of hygiene is coercion?
All of those things are required by virtually every employer out there, and all of them are things that you might not voluntarily do otherwise. You understand that those things are a condition of employment, if you want the job. A credit check is no different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
If an employer can demonstrate the relevance of a credit check, then fine. If not, it's private information and should be protected.
[the bulk of your post was just beating a dead horse, so I clipped it out]
How is your private information not protected? If I need your permission to access it, it's protected. This is really a very simple concept, and your constant "coercion" rebuttal simply doesn't stand up.
Perhaps that's why this law hasn't been passed when brought up previously...
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.
