Should employers be able to check credit history?
Quote: FinsRuleIt’s almost always the hiring manager that makes these requirements. Why would I make the decision about how many years programming experience a programmer needs?
I don’t know how all of this works. I worked at one company for several years, and then was self employed for several years after that.
You want to look at my bank records? Uh, no. Did they get by without all this crap before in the days of yesteryear. Yes they did.
(Yes I can see exceptions for some jobs)
Quote: FaceIt is breaking my brain watching AZD promote the freedom impinging, privacy violating, MBA-type generated horseflop being bandied in this thread. You alright, hoss? The city getting to you? Just bought a boat (paid cash, #hustlelife) if you need to go fishing or something...lol
I'm with gamer, Rig, et al. I completely get the intention, and I don't doubt for a minute that the correlation of bad credit = disaster employee that AZD claims actually exists. But think, people. Even if the purpose or intention of the restriction is righteous, look who's implementing it.
I'm with y'all. Was it Rig who mentioned "creep"? That it's, my friend. Who here hasn't been reminded "You represent the company at all times employed regardless if off the clock"? How about f#$% you? Because I ride my wheeler down the road, that somehow means I will take chances in co. vehicles, more prone to defraud, or am less trustable? 12 years of daily opiate use, no one bats an eye. Burn one at the pond to get a few more hours out of my ailing back, and everyone loses their jobs. FOH.
I
Good points. But I'd emphasize how really very mucho IDGAF about the effectiveness of this info in making better hires. Totally irrelevant.
I'm sure many serious and horrific crimes could be prevented and many lives saved if we all wore body cams 24/7. IDGAF.
But I'm going to let my boss monitor what I say on facebook because he thinks it will be helpful to Acme Flavored Personal Lubricants LLC?
This is one of the little areas where we are lobsters in slowly warming water. I'm pretty sure nobody would be down with companies policing your private correspondence and stuff till recently. Somehow we've internalized the idea that business interests should take priority over our own.
Quote: RigondeauxIt's going to get worse. You're competing with many other people for the same jobs. The employer has all the leverage. There is almost no limit to what they could demand as long as it is a gradual creep. How about your browser history? The books you've purchased? Your medical history?
Once they can hook you up and read your mind, they'll want to do that too. It there are not commonsense limits to what they want, then there will be no limits to defend.
Quote: FaceIt is breaking my brain watching AZD promote the freedom impinging, privacy violating, MBA-type generated horseflop being bandied in this thread. You alright, hoss? The city getting to you? Just bought a boat (paid cash, #hustlelife) if you need to go fishing or something...lol
I am just pointing out that the correlation exists. Remember, I have worked in credit for a decade and seen what the bad is and what it is like. I have seen men unable to deploy for war due to bad credit. I have seen people who should not get credit from the local pizza shop for a delivery try to purchase yet another car. I have had people working for and with me who's credit was jacked up and their life was also jacked up. Problems just followed them.
Debt of course is a good motivator. But when you see a lot of lates and collections you find problems. One goof who was applying for a loan said he had stopped making payments because his watch stolen and he "wasn't going to keep paying for something he no longer had," A dopey chick tried to get a loan to pay her attorney to file her bankruptcy paperwork. I wish I got free lunch for every flake who wanted an unsecured loan for "bills."
Any of these people would not be the best of employees.
Not the biggest fishing guy, but could learn. What's that lake near 86 (formerly 17?)
A credit check shows numerous judgements for getting and ignoring parking tickets.
Is that relevant?
I'm hiring a bartender and a credit check reveals he has a dozen aliases and numerous judgements.
Would you be eager to hire him?
Quote: billryanI'm hiring a person who will be in possession of a company car most of the time, and using it on company business 40 hours a week, traveling to various genders and clients.
A credit check shows numerous judgements for getting and ignoring parking tickets.
Is that relevant?
I'm hiring a bartender and a credit check reveals he has a dozen aliases and numerous judgements.
Would you be eager to hire him?
It also might be helpful to know political opinions, sexual tendencies, medical history. etc.
A woman who has had an abortion likely made some bad decisions. A guy who can't get a girlfriend is more likely to be angry and resentful. A very religious person might not fit in with a relaxed corporate culture.
I don't care. None of your bees wax.
I care about my right to privacy.
Why on earth should I surrender it to arguably help some business hire people more efficiently?
Business, like gov, is an entity we fabricated to serve people. Not the other way round.
You would be in prison.Quote: RigondeauxHow about your browser history?
Quote: AxelWolfYou would be in prison.
DJAC assures me that if it is legal in the country where the web site is based, you are fine.
Quote: RigondeauxA very religious person might not fit in with a relaxed corporate culture.
Like where? Penthouse?
Actually a good interviewer will see how people would fit. That is part of their function. I have seen women quit because they could not handle the language the guys used.
Quote:I care about my right to privacy.
Why on earth should I surrender it to arguably help some business hire people more efficiently?
Because they are the customer.
More than one employer out there, you do not like the hoops find another. I don't apply to places that make the application too hard. When it takes an hour for a first level application online when a resume will do just as well, I skip it. I don't demand an easier application. Sooner or later they will see the problem and change.
Quote: FaceI hired a majority of alcoholics and active drug users. By the time I was rolling good, there wasn't 5 clean people on the job. Exactly ONE quit on me, 3 or 4 moved up and on,
...and a finer pirate crew never sailed!!!
R R R <---- that's pirate laugh for you landlubers.
Not sure why your concerns are their problem. You seem to feel someone is entitled to a job with a business. Or with any company.
Businesses serve clients, not employees. Unless you are valuable enough to warrant a contract, you are an at will employee.
Make yourself invaluable or work for yourself. Otherwise you are at the mercy of the market.
Quote: AZDuffman
More than one employer out there, you do not like the hoops find another. I don't apply to places that make the application too hard. When it takes an hour for a first level application online when a resume will do just as well, I skip it. I don't demand an easier application. Sooner or later they will see the problem and change.
Maybe they will see the problem or maybe they won't.
Maybe the person willing to give up their history from birth, pee and poop in cups for lab analysis, take a anal exam on demand will have access to the most jobs and people who refuse to bend over and take whatever is dished out will have limited access to jobs.
History shows employers don't automatically protect workers on their own. Shows it over and over. If certain information can be shown to be irrelevant, you shouldn't have to legally give it up and you should be legally protected from having to do it.
Quote: rxwineMaybe they will see the problem or maybe they won't.
Maybe the person willing to give up their history from birth, pee and poop in cups for lab analysis, take a anal exam on demand will have access to the most jobs and people who refuse to bend over and take whatever is dished out will have limited access to jobs.
History shows employers don't automatically protect workers on their own. Shows it over and over. If certain information can be shown to be irrelevant, you shouldn't have to legally give it up and you should be legally protected from having to do it.
Who would you have decide what is relevant? Congress?
I don't see most businesses spending more to investigate prospective employees than they think necessary.
My businesses were all cash driven and I hate to think about the money that disappeared over the years. It's not always theft, employee mistakes add up rapidly. I once spend $300 shipping a massive G I Joe toy because an employee didn't realize free shipping applied to comic books, not 8 foot tall boxes.
If I get back in business, of course I will scrutinize my employees backgrounds to the best of my ability.
Quote: gamerfreakThis is part of the reason why I am pushing my career away from software development and more into IT.
Not that IT work is completely immune from this type of thing, just look at what Disney did with H1B visas, but it’s a much harder process because IT infrastructure is a more localized, physical thing.
So many companies are sending their software development jobs to India. American devs/engineers want $120k+ in many areas. The writing is on the wall.
And it's been on the wall for a while. Mind you the company I work for now hired Canadian not because I am cheaper but because I am awesome. Software developers are a dime a dozen, and as long as they can write code and people like me can interface with them (by writing great documentation, taking to them directly, and troubleshooting their code) it works out great for the business... Especially if you can end your day sending work offshore at the end of the day and wake up the next morning with the work being done.
And as for IT, the writing on the wall is there. Companies that dont require kickass security are moving into the SAAS model which allows them to effective outsource their IT, leaving in place a few security and infrastructure folks.
I could show you some really high functioning addicts, that get around drug tests on a routine basis. And their attendance is impeccable. They don't miss, because they need the money.
Same with this checking credit scores, or social network. It won't affect an employees performance, but for an employer or control freak HR person, this furnishes up people who are more likely to surrender . Many times they aren't looking, for the absolute best, they are looking for someone that fits.
I thought this economy was great guns, what's this searching for work crap?
Although retired, I find reasons regularly to be thankful I had a portable trade. If you have one, you can do other things with your life but always have that to fall back on.
Thought I wanted a career, turns out what I really wanted was a paycheck.
Quote: billryanWho would you have decide what is relevant? Congress?
I don't see most businesses spending more to investigate prospective employees than they think necessary.
My businesses were all cash driven and I hate to think about the money that disappeared over the years. It's not always theft, employee mistakes add up rapidly. I once spend $300 shipping a massive G I Joe toy because an employee didn't realize free shipping applied to comic books, not 8 foot tall boxes.
Probably a hard question to answer, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't try. I don't think I'm up to it by myself.
Already, because more information is available more information is sought these days than used to be. I'm not comfortable with open season on whatever an employer may want. That's what I'm saying.
Releasing lots of information about yourself unnecessarily probably makes you more vulnerable to other problems as well. And now when it gets out there, it stays.
Quote: Rigondeaux[
I'm sure many serious and horrific crimes could be prevented and many lives saved if we all wore body cams 24/7. IDGAF.
But I'm going to let my boss monitor what I say on facebook because he thinks it will be helpful to Acme Flavored Personal Lubricants LLC?
.
So the answers are:
Shut up. It's none of your concern. We're in charge here.
If you don't like it you can go hungry, and that's freedom.
If you had an advanced degree from Harvard you could get around it because you'd be in such demand. Everyone should just do that.
Quote: petroglyphThe reason for employers being able to demand drug tests isn't about drugs, it's about control.
Yep. Nobody even touched on this yet.
Quote: RigondeauxDJAC assures me that if it is legal in the country where the web site is based, you are fine.
aint none of what you been looking at is legal in any country bruh
Quote: rxwineMaybe they will see the problem or maybe they won't.
Maybe the person willing to give up their history from birth, pee and poop in cups for lab analysis, take a anal exam on demand will have access to the most jobs and people who refuse to bend over and take whatever is dished out will have limited access to jobs.
History shows employers don't automatically protect workers on their own. Shows it over and over. If certain information can be shown to be irrelevant, you shouldn't have to legally give it up and you should be legally protected from having to do it.
You don't have to legally give up any of that information. You are legally protected from being forced to do those things. Those things, after all, are all voluntary.
Quote: RigondeauxYep. Nobody even touched on this yet.Quote: petroglyphThe reason for employers being able to demand drug tests isn't about drugs, it's about control.
Huh?
If I'm hiring someone for a position in my company, I'm probably not going to want to hire the guy that has 15 drugs in his system. He is likely a threat to the company as he may show up to work high one day and cause lawsuit level problems, he may not even show up to work because he overdosed the night before or ended up in jail.
Granted, the same can apply to alcohol. But if someone has drunk alcohol in the past week, he probably isn't the same type of threat as someone who has done heroin, meth, or even marijuana in the previous week (since you can end up in jail for weed in many states, and it also shows a "willing to break the law" type attitude at a level most people don't).
But when you are DENIED a job because of bad credit, that is much more serious. That's like telling someone they can't buy auto insurance AT ALL because of their bad credit.
If you think that it's okay for employers to rifle through one's personal life before they will consider hiring, then at least make the personal intrusions something that will actually increase the probability of the business making a good hire, rather than this ditzy HR feel-good-ism... so just do these:
blood test (catches lots of diseases and drug use)
mental health questionnaire (with a polygraph to cut down on mentally unstable liars sneaking through)
interview your neighbors and friends
a physical of you
a physical of your parents and siblings (excluding adoptions, which requires documentation)
There is one of the tricks right there. The longest list of drugs on a screen that I've had lately was about 8 or so drugs. Most screens test for THC, and that's unfortunate seeing as how it's about the most peaceful drug on the planet, but also some kind of speed [meth etc.] or opiate, maybe some SSRI's, I don't remember what else and I don't want to go pull my file and check.Quote: RSHuh?If I'm hiring someone for a position in my company, I'm probably not going to want to hire the guy that has 15 drugs in his system.
I get why an employer wants a pre hire drug screen, but any decent druggie is going to foil most attempts at getting caught. Also there are at least 20 things people frequently get high on, that don't get tested for. Work arounds for tests are all over the web and at any head shop.
So forcing the test doesn't really do much to prevent drug usage at the work place. A prospective employee that fails a pre hire or even a random drug screen, is only proving that they are to stupid to conceal their usage. But what testing does do, is teach the serfs who's in charge.
A professional drug test taken at a routine screening facility uses a testing protocol, which includes urine temp, signature etc. Before the tests, the testee's are given the opportunity to list any drugs they are taking. If they list an opiate, and they have a legal scrip, a positive result on the test won't go to the employer, because it's medicine. Same way if somebody has a need for speed, I don't know the names other than Adderal or similar uppers. Same thing, if they got a scrip, it's medicine, not illegal substances.
Don't lower your guard and think that test does more than satisfy the insurance company, every single person signing a w-2 is a liability. Anyone of them can crack at any moment, even while taking their prescribed ssri's.Quote:He is likely a threat to the company as he may show up to work high one day and cause lawsuit level problems, he may not even show up to work because he overdosed the night before or ended up in jail.
Go ahead and test pre hire, but after that a better predictor is job performance.
Congress doesn't have to drug test, and they can declare war. last I was told cops don't have to, or random tests for firemen. Just the lowly truck driver, or hopeful IT guy.
Really, booze is pretty much the worst drug. Pot is lol. Coke just turns you into a horny chatterbox for a while. Booze wrecks you, creates violence and leaves you with a hangover and a scrambled brain the next day, for work.
Ill grant, a hardcore meth or crack addict might be worse, but they are rare and easy to spot.
But you have to pull down your pants and produce bodily fluids for your new boss anyway.
A lot of this stuff is just about making you lick the boot. Schools are moving in the same direction. Our whole culture is. Many enjoy it.
Quote: billryanI'm hiring a person who will be in possession of a company car most of the time, and using it on company business 40 hours a week, traveling to various genders and clients.
A credit check shows numerous judgements for getting and ignoring parking tickets.
Is that relevant?
I'm hiring a bartender and a credit check reveals he has a dozen aliases and numerous judgements.
Would you be eager to hire him?
In both of those cases, legal judgments and any aliases would have shown up in a regular background check, right?
If that's true then a credit check is superfluous and unnecessary.
Quote: gamerfreakI saw a job listing that required 8 years experience with the Swift programming language. Swift was only released 3 years ago.
Some of these HR departments are a joke.
There might be a few people with about 8 years of Swift Experience. Apple began developing Swift about eight years ago even though it wasn't released until about four years ago. Maybe they are hoping to get some of the original development team. An old acquaintance of mine was on the Swift team at Apple.
Quote: petroglyphThe reason for employers being able to demand drug tests isn't about drugs, it's about control.
It's a cost-savings play. Insurance offers the company lower premiums if their hires show a clean drug screen.Quote: RigondeauxYep. Nobody even touched on this yet.
Also, in many workplaces, a drug screen will be administered to an employee who was involved in an accident on the job. If something shows up on the screen, the insurance company won't pay a dime.
I get the frustration with IT jobs, but that doesn't mean these aren't useful.
Oh, Thanks King, I'm glad to see you want to pawn off the bad employees on the guests so they can get their stuff stolen!!!!Quote: KingoftheEyeIt won't always be disqualifying, may just need to put them in housekeeping instead.
I get the frustration with IT jobs, but that doesn't mean these aren't useful.
)-;
Credit score can also be hurt more credit checks, which means applying for more jobs that run a credit check would be seen as bad for someone's credit score.
To the best of my knowledge I am never to pay off any loan, because I have never taken one out and I never plan on doing so (I have borrowed $20 from people at times -- lets just call it loans linked to my social security number). Why should that have any significance on my ability to deal cards or know how to use a computer?
The only job I have ever had where management asked for credit histories was the US Army, and that was only done for soldiers who required security clearances. If we compare credit checks to drug testing: Outside of the military, any workplace that I have been a part of that required drug testing had a much weaker workforce and much greater recruiting problems than places that spent their resources in more productive ways.
Should credit checks be banned from employment screening like genetic testing or racial profiling? Probably not. Should employers be doing it? Not if they want to be as competitive and profitable as possible
Quote: KingoftheEyeLet's say I'm hiring a dealer with <600 credit score and active collections. Would this be someone I'd want in front of thousands of dollars in chips? It's possible that they may be the most honest person in the world, but I don't know them. As an employer, I'd like to have this info. It won't always be disqualifying, may just need to put them in housekeeping instead.
I get the frustration with IT jobs, but that doesn't mean these aren't useful.
If you ask the applicant questions about why their credit sucks, that might be OK. But I suspect that these HR automatons aren't doing that. They just use that as a way to cut down on the number of applications to process. It makes their job easier.
I know someone who has crummy credit but just got a job as a dealer. His credit sucks because he is from Canada and spent several years working in both Canada and the U.S. When he got a full-time job in Canada, the U.S. bank (an evil bank with two words that start with W and F) REFUSED to accept payments FROM Canada. Seriously, these stupid morons insisted that he actually cross the border every month in order to make a payment. He is not an idiot, unlike the bank, and refused to do that. If a money order made out to a U.S. bank in USD is unacceptable to them, well then screw them. I don't blame him one bit.
And you're going to extend the bank's idiocy to hiring? Lord help us all....
So if you’re being denied because of it, they must tell you why.
Michael Scott
Quote: FinsRuleIt’s illegal to run these checks pre job offer.
So if you’re being denied because of it, they must tell you why.
I was asked to sign a credit/background check release form before I even went in for an interview.
The famous Frank Zappa once said, " pretty soon they'll be picking up your piss samples off your door step, right along with the milk bottles". Kind of an older saying, but still resonates.Quote: gamerfreakI was asked to sign a credit/background check release form before I even went in for an interview.
With aging comes many humility's.
Quote: FinsRuleIt’s illegal to run these checks pre job offer.
So if you’re being denied because of it, they must tell you why.
Our libertarian members strongly disagree with such laws. This does make a lot of sense though. If it's like drug testing, they have to give you notice. Perhaps these places have no intention of actually doing a credit check for most hires, but just cover their basis by telling people up front that they may do it
Quote: NathanA low credit score doesn't mean that a potential job Candidate shouldn't be trusted with money. Someone could have a Credit Score of 800 and embezzle millions from a Firm and someone who has a CS of 500 can be a really good, trustworthy, and honest Employee.
First, credit scores are not released for employment credit checks. A credit history will reveal disconnects on resumes and bankruptcies and history. A credit check will reveal financial stability which is something I would want to see in someone who is trusted with the ability to create payments or accept payments from suppliers or customers. To me it feels I would hire a comptroller with a clean history over someone with a poor history. Certainly if each candidate was equally qualified I would be following up on the poor history.
For non monetary jobs credit checks make no sense. Neither should office work ve subjected to make drug tests. -- machinery operators on other hand should probably be subject to drug tests but not credit.
Anyway, to me, people can BS a resume and I think its fair for employers to verify as much as possible the work history and experience. In IT I am the subject matter interviewer meaning that I would challenge then applicants knowledge on their resume with questions they should know the answer to based on their experience... You say you have two years working with SQL? Tell me how to write an update to a table for based on data in another table...
Quote: KevinAA
I know someone who has crummy credit but just got a job as a dealer. His credit sucks because he is from Canada and spent several years working in both Canada and the U.S. When he got a full-time job in Canada, the U.S. bank (an evil bank with two words that start with W and F) REFUSED to accept payments FROM Canada. Seriously, these stupid morons insisted that he actually cross the border every month in order to make a payment. He is not an idiot, unlike the bank, and refused to do that. If a money order made out to a U.S. bank in USD is unacceptable to them, well then screw them. I don't blame him one bit.
And you're going to extend the bank's idiocy to hiring? Lord help us all....
There are several bank to bank services who do this now and will accept money from bank accounts in Canada and deposit it in any US bank account for a very low fee. I do all of my cross-border banking this way and saved me 60% of my exchange fees.
And any bank around the world accepts wire payments directly from any bank. I had to do this many years ago on a a regular basis. It's costly but effective.
Quote: boymimboFirst, credit scores are not released for employment credit checks. A credit history will reveal disconnects on resumes and bankruptcies and history. A credit check will reveal financial stability which is something I would want to see in someone who is trusted with the ability to create payments or accept payments from suppliers or customers. To me it feels I would hire a comptroller with a clean history over someone with a poor history. Certainly if each candidate was equally qualified I would be following up on the poor history.
For non monetary jobs credit checks make no sense. Neither should office work ve subjected to make drug tests. -- machinery operators on other hand should probably be subject to drug tests but not credit.
Anyway, to me, people can BS a resume and I think its fair for employers to verify as much as possible the work history and experience. In IT I am the subject matter interviewer meaning that I would challenge then applicants knowledge on their resume with questions they should know the answer to based on their experience... You say you have two years working with SQL? Tell me how to write an update to a table for based on data in another table...
To your last part it will be funny if they answer your question by robotically spouting off information they looked up on Google after a "Quick run to the bathroom." LMAO!
Quote: boymimboFirst, credit scores are not released for employment credit checks. A credit history will reveal disconnects on resumes and bankruptcies and history. A credit check will reveal financial stability which is something I would want to see in someone who is trusted with the ability to create payments or accept payments from suppliers or customers. To me it feels I would hire a comptroller with a clean history over someone with a poor history. Certainly if each candidate was equally qualified I would be following up on the poor history.
For non monetary jobs credit checks make no sense. Neither should office work ve subjected to make drug tests. -- machinery operators on other hand should probably be subject to drug tests but not credit.
Anyway, to me, people can BS a resume and I think its fair for employers to verify as much as possible the work history and experience. In IT I am the subject matter interviewer meaning that I would challenge then applicants knowledge on their resume with questions they should know the answer to based on their experience... You say you have two years working with SQL? Tell me how to write an update to a table for based on data in another table...
DROP *; —
