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.
If you can't pay your bills, you can't come to work on time and do your job. Yes, like it or not people, prior behavior is a good prediction of future behavior. Can't pay your bills, you are a risk to your employer. PERIOD.
Oh that is such BS! Where are the statistics on this one? Maybe people can't pay their bills because they have lost their job? Ever think of that???? Maybe they have come across hard times? You can't look at everyone's situation and paint it with the same brush.
Traits do carry across job boundaries. I have several coworkers who burn their vacations, sick time, etc within a month of getting a new yearly allowance. Paid on Friday, hung over and broke on Monday.
As soon as another bankruptcy is allowed, guess what happens.
I noticed that there is still no answer to my question. Because like I said, no one can think of a real reason why a company CAN'T do credit checks.
Because it's none of their business. What I do with my personal finances should be no concern with an employer unless it's in the banking/finance industry. Like I referenced earlier, if youre gonna do that then look at their medical bills, high school & college transcripts, relationship history, etc.
Whatever happened to: let's hire the best candidate based on their experience and qualifications. Such a novel concept that still works. Just like the John Lennon song "Imagine, it's easy if you try."
Ya let's just put EVEN MORE more people on welfare and unemployment! And then let's complain about them ripping off my tax dollars in the process while we put up even more hurdles for them to find employment.
Anybody unemployed or struggling with less than stellar credit having a hard time out there, my heart goes to you. Good luck.
Here's the problem with using a credit score to judge employees:
Junior Von Prepschool, III and Blue Collar Brian apply to the same job. They both have good grades, and they've both done internships in their field.
Blue Collar Brian works his ***** off at his job because he has had to work his ***** off all his life, and he doesn't know any other way. His references recommended him because he works his ***** off. He has student loans to pay off, despite the fact that he earned scholarships and worked all through college. His parents are barely scraping by themselves (their circumstances are the reason Brian has worked so hard to carve out a better future for himself), so he can't turn to them to chip in if his clunker breaks down, or for rent, groceries, or a gas bill if he falls short one month. Even with a full-time job plus picking up a few shifts bartending when his main job allows, he can't always make ends meet, and sometimes he has to pay a bill late because when you're barely getting by, food and shelter come first, then utilities and transportation, then paying down debt. Speaking of debt, his student loan balance throws his debt-to-income ratio significantly out of whack.
Junior Von Prepschool, III is an OK worker. His references recommended him because they owe his daddy a favor, and hey, he never set anything on fire during that two weeks he helped them out in 1998. He does just enough to not get hassled, and he plays candy crush all day, because who cares if he gets fired? Daddy's country club buddy always has room in his department for a family friend. Junior doesn't have student loan payments. He spends his income on box seats, bottle service, and blackjack tables. If he overspends at the club one night and needs a few extra bucks for his car insurance, salvation is just a phone call away, because mommy and daddy, who have been absent from his life, use money to assuage their guilt. Junior has a near perfect credit score.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is America. Often, people with privileged backgrounds don't have to work to earn a spot in the starting lineup, they just have to take their position on the field and try not f*** up too much, while those less fortunate have to fight kicking and screaming just to make it to the tryouts.
You "fixed" it wrong. Correlation is NEVER causation. Causation is causation. Correlation is only an indication that two things seem to happen in tandem a certain percentage of the time - the cause has to be determined separately. Always.
I don't know much about this stuff, so bear with me while I think out loud.
If A is in fact the cause of B, are A & B also correlated? If one then says that A & B are correlated, is it correct to say that A is never the cause of B?
There is a big flaw in this logic. That is that bad credit is necessarily the person's fault. Marital debts accumulated by the individual's ex-husband/wife on a joint credit card affects one's credit negatively. Out of control medical bills ruins a person's credit. And what about identity theft? That certainly ruins a person's credit through no fault of his/her own. Bad credit does not equal unreliability or being untrustworthy. It is discrimination when applying for a job, IMO.
You may not like it (or understand it) but employers and job seekers both constantly discriminate in the labor market, and both do so legally, and to their benefit.
Why are they looking at the credit check to begin with?. That's the question that needs to be asked.
Why stop there? Why not confiscate the computers of all applicants and do a database of google searches? If there are two employees with equal qualifications, what advantage would the company have in hiring someone that looks at porn more than someone else.
Why not bring in grocery receipts as well? If there were two equally qualified applicants, what advantage would it be for a company to hire someone who eats more unhealthy?
Nice reductio ad absurdum. If making your point requires the use of a logical fallacy, you might want to re-think your argument.
All those that are against credit checks have now ignored my question 3 times. I suspect it’s because the answer makes almost every argument against credit checks irrelevant. If you can't answer this question then all your other points are moot.
1. Why should a company hire someone with bad credit if they have another well qualified applicant with good credit? WHY? What possible ADVANTAGE can that bring to a company? We live in the USA where companies are free to hire however they like (minus federally protected catagories). So again why should they hire someone with bad credit with PLENTY of other applicants? Especially in this economy?
Likely nobody is responding because you are not asking a question that is really what we are talking about. in your situation, you are right, why hire someone with a low score. However, it's not about a situation where there are two or more equal candidates, its about situations where I am the best candidate AND have a low credit score.
Many financial employers do credit check and don't do drug testing. They don't like people with low credit scores.
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.
