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.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,909 posts, read 2,081,356 times
Reputation: 4478
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
I'm the wrong person to answer that question. I don't believe that there should be any protected classes.
Perhaps someone else that holds that belief could weigh in.
Believe it or not I agree with you, if for no other reason than the process that we use in determining who can and who can not be part of such class in inherently flawed.
Truly, it's about bondability. If you're in a job that handles money in any kind of fiduciary capacity, most companies writing a bond on your conduct in this role will not underwrite someone with XXXXX dollars in bad debt, write offs or collections.
Absolutely. In these cases and these cases alone, credit worthiness is relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadWarrior12
Poorer credit ratings consistently coincide with increases in criminal activity, riskier driving habits and consequently - a riskier employee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adams_aj
EVERY job for every employer involves spending company money. EVERY job. Your pay is "spending company money". At minimum, someone with money problems is a more distracted employee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjd07
It is about overall character and one's sense of responsibility. Of course, that doesn't matter in certain jobs but being dependable/reliable is required for quite a few of them.
I know someone who is accounting. She routinely uses her company credit card for personal purchases and then borrows money from others to pay it back before they do the monthly audits. She has filed backruptcy several times and generally pays ALL her bills late every month. In the meantime, she tries to "keep up with the Joneses" and has recently been talking about buying a boat. She has liquidated her retirement fund and her 401K accounts because of overspending. She has a credit score in the 400s now and would probably never be hired for her job if she were ever let go from her company. Yet, her playing around with company money is a way of life for her.
All of the rest of these show incredible arrogance and ignorance in my opinion. There are too many scenarios to make these blanket statements, yet employers are doing it. At the very least, an employer needs to ask why instead of simply moving on.
Due to a family member almost dying and having extreme 7 digit medical bills I had to file bankruptcy several years ago. Of course it killed my credit, but it saved the life. No houses were foreclosed on and, no cars repossessed as I eventually paid all of those. The loss was to a few credit card companies and the hospital. Ironically if the hospital and CC companies had simply been a bit more flexible they too would have been paid as I make very good money. Prior to that I had maintained a low 800 score my whole life. So now, maybe 5 years later it still shows and effects my rating. I recently lost a job offer because of this and the position had nothing to do with handling money or bonding. The company simple had a hard rule with a line and if you were below the line you were a problem. That is completely unfair and the process should be made illegal except where justifiable due to higher risk positions.
I read a study on this a while back. Basically it was discovered that there was a high correlation between poor credit, and theft. People who will be handling cash, assets, or in a position like that are usually given credit checks in order to curtail theft.
Location: Olde English District, SC (look it up on Wikipedia)
243 posts, read 368,039 times
Reputation: 299
I knew someone several years ago (a former roommate of SO) who had been employed for many years with a well-known package delivery company as a driver. He had great credit (the good money he earned on his job probably helped quite a bit), but his character in other areas was much less than stellar: He was openly bigoted (including saying racist things to people in public places), a heavy drinker, had a violent temper (was nearly imprisoned for assault as a young adult, but made some kind of deal), mistreated every girlfriend he ever had (also extremely promiscuous, patronized prostitutes), and smoked pot on the job in his delivery truck (hit a mailbox and paid someone to fix the damage to the truck before the end of the work day).
If someone like this guy gets laid off, should he get a free pass for future employment due to his nearly perfect credit score?
One can't simply "use" someone else's credit to purchase a home. If the purchase was made based on the wife's credit, it was because she signed on the bottom line. To claim that she has no responsibility is silly.
Yes, they can. I don't know quite how they manage it - but they do. I had a friend whose sister used HIS credit to buy a house - probably by having her boyfriend impersonate him. Con men can do all sorts of things the rest of us think they shouldn't be able to do. Hence, the "con" part of "con man".
Two candidates, ceteris paribus but for one having a much better credit rating. The one with the better credit rating is getting hired, as there would be no reason to hire the candidate with the lower credit rating.
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.
Yes, they can. I don't know quite how they manage it - but they do. I had a friend whose sister used HIS credit to buy a house - probably by having her boyfriend impersonate him. Con men can do all sorts of things the rest of us think they shouldn't be able to do. Hence, the "con" part of "con man".
Identity theft is a different matter, and isn't what was initially described.
If the wife is living in the house, it is highly unlikely that she is clueless and that her identity was stolen by the husband.
Truly, it's about bondability. If you're in a job that handles money in any kind of fiduciary capacity, most companies writing a bond on your conduct in this role will not underwrite someone with XXXXX dollars in bad debt, write offs or collections.
This topic gets brought up around here every once in a while. I believe credit history should be part of the hiring process for folks who work in roles similar to the ones you mention above, most anything financially related. However, it seems most any larger company these days looks for credit ratings, and so much so that it is overused in all sectors.
Overall, I'm not sure where the line in the sand should be drawn, but just like with other things such as certifications or requiring college degrees, I think the credit score factor is way overused for a potential applicant in many cases.
I think it's crap, and just another way to snoop into my personal business. I don't need a potential employer to see where I shop, what my credit limits are, if I've paid my car off, what I drive, etc...
This is non judgmental and commonsensical. If someone is unemployed, their credit score will naturally go down.
They will continue to pay for their housing, their vehicle and their insurance, as well as food and utilities. Sometimes they do this with assistance from their family, a part time job, odd jobs, or the job of a spouse. Or a combination of all that I've mentioned.
No one is going to pay Visa before their house payment. Or worry about a FICO score before feeding their family and keeping the lights on.
The current punitive and judgmental attitude of many companies in running credit checks on job applicants - and those who cheer them on, sickens me.
Would people prefer that job seekers with bruised or poor credit seek public assistance?
People with "poor credit" are mostly not convicted felons.
The impact of Calvinism upon our country amazes me on a daily basis.
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.
