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.
I think credit and background checks can be invasions of privacy. While clearly some jobs merit in-depth background checks because they involve security or finance or other activities requiring a high level of trust and discretion, other jobs do not warrant such an invasion. I think workplaces are entitled to have application/resume verifications performed, but that the information that workplaces require should be limited by what the job requires. If a job requires a person have a skill or proficiency, then verifying that the applicant, who says they has that skill or proficiency and supports their assertion with education or job history, should understand that the employer may need to verify that information. But the employer doesn't need to know that the employee's credit cards are maxed out.
I also think that insurance companies have no need to check a person's credit, and more importantly, insurance companies have no need to figure in a person's credit score to determine the premium they should pay.
False, there is a large body of evidence to support my assertions. Your willful ignorance on CD does nothing to change reality. Otherwise the DOJ and EEOC wouldn't be launching large initiatives to combat this kind of workplace discrimination. The far right always grandstands on dubious moral positions.
From the study An extensive body of research has established that a felony conviction or time in prison makes
individuals significantly less employable. This effect is not simply that individuals who commit
crimes were less likely to work in the first place. Rather, the best available evidence suggests that
felony convictions or time in prison has an independent impact that further lowers the employment
prospects of ex-offenders.
Its pretty obvious that someone who has had a problem in their past are pretty limited in their future employment opportunities, no matter how rehabilitated they are.
And a felony conviction is from a criminal background check, not a credit check.
So how does that compare to some who declared bankruptcy ?
Any kid growing up should have the common sense to know that going to jail will impact your future.
I think credit and background checks can be invasions of privacy. While clearly some jobs merit in-depth background checks because they involve security or finance or other activities requiring a high level of trust and discretion, other jobs do not warrant such an invasion. I think workplaces are entitled to have application/resume verifications performed, but that the information that workplaces require should be limited by what the job requires. If a job requires a person have a skill or proficiency, then verifying that the applicant, who says they has that skill or proficiency and supports their assertion with education or job history, should understand that the employer may need to verify that information. But the employer doesn't need to know that the employee's credit cards are maxed out.
I also think that insurance companies have no need to check a person's credit, and more importantly, insurance companies have no need to figure in a person's credit score to determine the premium they should pay.
What types of jobs do not warrant those types of checks ?
And a felony conviction is from a criminal background check, not a credit check.
So how does that compare to some who declared bankruptcy ?
Any kid growing up should have the common sense to know that going to jail will impact your future.
You're comparing apples to oranges here.
I think Zephyr's point was that in the job market, an employer considers his time to be valuable. And that when they conduct background checks and credit checks to weed out applicants pre-interview, that a person never gets the opportunity to explain what happened. These people are essentially exiled from the mainstream workplace. And as background checks and credit checks become less and less expensive, and increasingly utilized, the exile becomes more and more permanent. Even more troubling is that background and credit checks are commonly littered with errors, so a person may be unjustifiably discriminated against by potential employers. Added to that problem is that potential employers often will not even share with applicants why they didn't get an interview. So if a person lost the chance at a job because of an error on his or her credit report, they will likely never know.
While many of us check our credit reports regularly, we are checking the big three. But businesses aren't always dealing with the big three, there are numerous businesses out there now that will do the checking for you, and they will access a person's driving record, criminal record, social websites history, employment history, credit history not just through the big three, but also through local credit bureaus, and even sometimes some medical records. The problem with these internet searches is that an error might have been corrected, a mistake on a credit report, a lien having been paid, a conflict with a bill collector, an identity problem, all these mistakes may have been corrected at the source, but because data is disseminated so widely on the internet, that it can be almost impossible to correct the error everywhere. And when these private agencies perform research on an individual, they don't notify the individual that the research is being conducted, or the results of their research that they shared with the person paying for the research. So misinformation gets perpetuated.
I think Zephyr's point was that in the job market, an employer considers his time to be valuable. And that when they conduct background checks and credit checks to weed out applicants pre-interview, that a person never gets the opportunity to explain what happened. These people are essentially exiled from the mainstream workplace. And as background checks and credit checks become less and less expensive, and increasingly utilized, the exile becomes more and more permanent. Even more troubling is that background and credit checks are commonly littered with errors, so a person may be unjustifiably discriminated against by potential employers. Added to that problem is that potential employers often will not even share with applicants why they didn't get an interview. So if a person lost the chance at a job because of an error on his or her credit report, they will likely never know.
While many of us check our credit reports regularly, we are checking the big three. But businesses aren't always dealing with the big three, there are numerous businesses out there now that will do the checking for you, and they will access a person's driving record, criminal record, social websites history, employment history, credit history not just through the big three, but also through local credit bureaus, and even sometimes some medical records. The problem with these internet searches is that an error might have been corrected, a mistake on a credit report, a lien having been paid, a conflict with a bill collector, an identity problem, all these mistakes may have been corrected at the source, but because data is disseminated so widely on the internet, that it can be almost impossible to correct the error everywhere. And when these private agencies perform research on an individual, they don't notify the individual that the research is being conducted, or the results of their research that they shared with the person paying for the research. So misinformation gets perpetuated.
That's not always the case.
I know when my son applied to Target the interview came first and then the checks and drug test.
There were a series of them and my son told me each successive trip there were less and less applicants.
Same when he applied to a regional supermarket.
Group interviews and then the weeding started.
I can see that the small business owner can't afford to do that.
All they can rely on is doing the checks.
Same with individuals that rent out their homes.
Sometimes all you have to go on is the checks done.
And that's why it pays to be responsible and follow the law.
Warren said the deck is stacked and she wants to level the playing field.
She said it's not fair that financially stable and responsible people are getting jobs over those with credit problems.
This is what our country is turning into.
Do all the right things and it seems you're the enemy now.
What types of jobs do not warrant those types of checks ?
If you work on the line at a chicken processing plant, your employer probably doesn't need to know your credit history. If you are a golf pro at the local country club, they probably don't need to know your credit history. If you are a waitress at Denny's, they probably don't need to know your credit history. If you are a chef at a BBQ joint, if you are selling Neutrogena products at the local Belks, if you are a mechanic at Pep Boys, if you are a receptionist at a seed/fertilizer company, if you are a secretary for a Methodist minister, if you are a clerk at an auto parts store, if you work in logistics at a trucking company, if you manage an apartment complex or a shopping center or mall where tenants send their payments to a corporate office, if you work on the factory floor at Spalding or Rawlins or Nike making sporting equipment, or if you work on the factory floor at Rubbermaid or Whirlpool or Emerson or whatever, manufacturing things, if you work in the back at the dry cleaners...they probably don't need to do an in-depth background and credit check. And as these background check companies proliferate on the internet, people are being subjected to such checks, even though it has nothing to do with their jobs.
If you work on the line at a chicken processing plant, your employer probably doesn't need to know your credit history. If you are a golf pro at the local country club, they probably don't need to know your credit history. If you are a waitress at Denny's, they probably don't need to know your credit history. If you are a chef at a BBQ joint, if you are selling Neutrogena products at the local Belks, if you are a mechanic at Pep Boys, if you are a receptionist at a seed/fertilizer company, if you are a secretary for a Methodist minister, if you are a clerk at an auto parts store, if you work in logistics at a trucking company, if you manage an apartment complex or a shopping center or mall where tenants send their payments to a corporate office, if you work on the factory floor at Spalding or Rawlins or Nike making sporting equipment, or if you work on the factory floor at Rubbermaid or Whirlpool or Emerson or whatever, manufacturing things, if you work in the back at the dry cleaners...they probably don't need to do an in-depth background and credit check. And as these background check companies proliferate on the internet, people are being subjected to such checks, even though it has nothing to do with their jobs.
Well that wouldn't be Texas cause the illegals have those jobs.
Sanderson Farms to be exact if you care to know.
Raided several times. Pay the fine and right back to business.
Keep that in mind next time you see "Sanderson Farms" on that chicken in the supermarket.
If you are a waitress you most certainly want to know.
They take the customer CC into the back.
A dry cleaners ? Sure until expensive clothes start showing up "missing" when the customer comes to get them. (Yeah..that one happened in my old neighborhood)
A credit check and background/criminal check tell a lot about the person whether or not they deal directly with cash/finances.
One bad ding on your credit check most likely won't hurt you but a string of closed CC's with collection agencies hounding you will tend to set off flags.
That's not always the case.
I know when my son applied to Target the interview came first and then the checks and drug test.
There were a series of them and my son told me each successive trip there were less and less applicants.
Same when he applied to a regional supermarket.
Group interviews and then the weeding started.
I can see that the small business owner can't afford to do that.
All they can rely on is doing the checks.
Same with individuals that rent out their homes.
Sometimes all you have to go on is the checks done.
And that's why it pays to be responsible and follow the law.
Warren said the deck is stacked and she wants to level the playing field.
She said it's not fair that financially stable and responsible people are getting jobs over those with credit problems.
This is what our country is turning into.
Do all the right things and it seems you're the enemy now.
I don't think the issue is "do all the right things" and become the enemy (and that's a victim mentality that is completely irrational), the issue is "make one mistake" and become worthless to society. I appreciate that your son applied to Target and went through a process. But with on-line applications being so common, do you not think that some people might have been weeded out prior to the initial interview?
I'm not opposed to all background checks or credit checks. My posts clearly reflect that I think employers are entitled to verify that a person is competent and able to perform the job successfully. I just think that employers are using background checks preemptively to weed out applicants, and going beyond the qualifications and requirements of the job. That, to me, is where it needs to stop. Employers should not go beyond the qualifications and requirements of the job to invade a prospective employee's privacy.
Privacy is a key component of freedom. Without privacy, you cannot have freedom. That's the whole point of why our voting system does not allow a person's vote to be tracked.
I don't think the issue is "do all the right things" and become the enemy (and that's a victim mentality that is completely irrational), the issue is "make one mistake" and become worthless to society. I appreciate that your son applied to Target and went through a process. But with on-line applications being so common, do you not think that some people might have been weeded out prior to the initial interview?
I'm not opposed to all background checks or credit checks. My posts clearly reflect that I think employers are entitled to verify that a person is competent and able to perform the job successfully. I just think that employers are using background checks preemptively to weed out applicants, and going beyond the qualifications and requirements of the job. That, to me, is where it needs to stop. Employers should not go beyond the qualifications and requirements of the job to invade a prospective employee's privacy.
Privacy is a key component of freedom. Without privacy, you cannot have freedom. That's the whole point of why our voting system does not allow a person's vote to be tracked.
I definitely could, but I just have no desire to do so. I have no idea where the credit bureau's are getting the employment info, but it has no real impact in a lender's decision process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Nurses can steal drugs to sell.
Fair enough, but wouldn't current bad credit be a more telling indicator than previous bad credit? Moreover, if there is a link between credit and theft wouldn't current bad credit of a current employee be equally as important?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
HR people can get involved in embezzlement scams really easy.
How exactly? I've never worked in HR, so I am genuinely curious. The IT guys would have more ability to embezzle than HR would - at least where I work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
There's an inordinate focus on "behavior."
Two candidates, all things being equal, one has a better credit score than the other, I'm taking the one with the better credit score.
I specifically asked that poster for a study because I looked for one and found a lack of studies. One study I did find found a relationship between personality and credit scores, but found no link between credit scores and theft.
I also found a study that found a negative correlation between job performance and the number of late payments on a credit file. Meaning, the more late payments, the better the job performance. I don't think either research should be taken as "God's word", but when you have a deficiency of research you take what is available.
Do Job Applicant Credit Histories Predict Performance Appraisal Ratings or Termination Decisions?
With regard to correlations between the predictors and performance ratings, none of the credit history predictors were correlated with performance ratings in the expected direction. Virtually all of the correlations between the predictors and performance ratings were near zero. The only significant correlation with performance occurred between the number of times 30 days late with performance ratings. In other words, employees who had a higher number of 30-day late payments were slightly more likely to receive higher performance ratings. This correlation was in the opposite direction of what was hypothesized.
Further investigation of the data revealed this result may have been skewed by two outliers: two individuals who had the largest number of 30-day late instances also received “Outstanding” and “Meets Expectations” ratings. In sum, there was virtually no relationship between credit history and performance ratings, thus, our hypothesis was not supported.
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.
