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.
It isn't just about trusting them with money. A low score is often if not usually correlated with a disaster of a life that spills to the job. If you are careless about making payments you are probably more likely to call off sick more, etc.
People with good credit almost always have the rest of their lives in order.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt isn't just about trusting them with money. A low score is often if not usually correlated with a disaster of a life that spills to the job. If you are careless about making payments you are probably more likely to call off sick more, etc.
People with good credit almost always have the rest of their lives in order.
People with good credit almost always have the rest of their lives in order? Come on. Do you have any actual proof of what you're writing?
Quote: gamerfreakI was asked to sign a credit/background check release form before I even went in for an interview.
They can have you sign whatever you want, but if they run the check before they make an offer, they're opening themselves up to unnecessary liability. It also doesn't make sense to run these checks before they make an offer because they cost money.
Quote: FinsRuleWhich is why that legally they need to tell the applicant why they have been disqualified, so the applicant has 7 days to respond.
I really appreciate you weighing in on this stuff. You seem to be in that field or very familiar with the process.
I really agree with those that say any kind of check, whether drug, credit, social, etc. should be directly pertinent to the job, or not allowed. It's way overdone now and entirely too invasive.
It's also prejudicial and stereotypical to relate credit checks to reliability. Medical bankruptcies are common, as are house short-selling and foreclosures in the last decade. And the extreme job losses in the 00s before things started turning around left many people screwed. Add those up, almost all of which were circumstances that ruined millions of people who were otherwise solid, and you unjustly penalize people trying to pick themselves up and recover.
As in any field, there are some people that don’t know what they are doing. It gives the rest of us a bad reputation.
Doesn’t mean we are all “scum of the earth”...
Not sure I would want to hire someone who bought an overpriced house they couldn't afford with loans they didn't care to understand.Quote: beachbumbabsI really appreciate you weighing in on this stuff. You seem to be in that field or very familiar with the process.
I really agree with those that say any kind of check, whether drug, credit, social, etc. should be directly pertinent to the job, or not allowed. It's way overdone now and entirely too invasive.
It's also prejudicial and stereotypical to relate credit checks to reliability. Medical bankruptcies are common, as are house short-selling and foreclosures in the last decade. And the extreme job losses in the 00s before things started turning around left many people screwed. Add those up, almost all of which were circumstances that ruined millions of people who were otherwise solid, and you unjustly penalize people trying to pick themselves up and recover.
Obviously, I don't think you should automatically exclude someone due to bad credit, however, I can see how it can help someone make a decision. A credit report might also tell you if someone was lying on their resume or during an interview.
Whatever the case, If you had the choice between two identical people, one with bad credit or one with good credit, who would you pick?
personally(assuming it was a chick), I would first check to see if they were part of any #metoo movements.
#metooplease = outo hire.
As I had a guaranteed job out of college, I never had to make one but I remember the panic these things caused. Even the paper you selected was a reflection on the person.
Now people customize resumes by the job, hoping they emphasize the proper key words so the computer scanning it kicks it into the right pile.
Carny jobs are guaranteed? J/K.Quote: billryanResumes have become a joke.
As I had a guaranteed job out of college, I never had to make one but I remember the panic these things caused. Even the paper you selected was a reflection on the person.
Now people customize resumes by the job, hoping they emphasize the proper key words so the computer scanning it kicks it into the right pile.
But seriously, what job did you have guaranteed?
Quote: AxelWolfNot sure I would want to hire someone who bought an overpriced house they couldn't afford with loans they didn't care to understand.
Obviously, I don't think you should automatically exclude someone due to bad credit, however, I can see how it can help someone make a decision. A credit report might also tell you if someone was lying on their resume or during an interview.
Whatever the case, If you had the choice between two identical people, one with bad credit or one with good credit, who would you pick?
personally(assuming it was a chick), I would first check to see if they were part of any #metoo movements.
#metooplease = outo hire.
The argument is faulty because there is no such thing as two identical people. (Even my identical twin nephews are different)
If two people have equal qualifications and experience, pick the one with the better personality.
Quote: AxelWolfNot sure I would want to hire someone who bought an overpriced house they couldn't afford with loans they didn't care to understand.
Obviously, I don't think you should automatically exclude someone due to bad credit, however, I can see how it can help someone make a decision. A credit report might also tell you if someone was lying on their resume or during an interview.
Whatever the case, If you had the choice between two identical people, one with bad credit or one with good credit, who would you pick?
personally(assuming it was a chick), I would first check to see if they were part of any #metoo movements.
#metooplease = outo hire.
Stereotyping again. Millions of people bought houses 10 or more years before the 2007 crash, thought they had equity building, were put in a position thru divorce or movement where the house needed to be sold, and all their equity had been lost in depreciation of 60% or more in a single year, where it stayed for 7 years or so.
You saw it in Las Vegas. You and Florida were both the hardest hit, and the slowest to recover. If you looked up the address of my house I short-sold during those years, you would be shocked at the change in valuation.
My credit rating before the short sale was 760-780, for 20 years before that. After the short sale, they knocked me down to 560, and it's been nearly 5 years of perfect credit since to get it back to 720+. That single transaction ruined me for years, and they claimed it wouldn't damage me like that. Had I known they lied, I would have kept the house. I'm still furious about it. And it still shows up as a negative.
Somebody who knew you put in the good word for you ("juice") and then you greased the palm of your boss.
Simple and easy to understand.
Quote: FinsRuleThe argument is faulty because there is no such thing as two identical people. (Even my identical twin nephews are different)
If two people have equal qualifications and experience, pick the one with the better personality.
In other words, you're saying you shouldn't look at the differences between applicants because no two people are identical OR that I should use your values, not my own values, in determining which applicant I hire. Next it's going to be, "Don't worry about the applicant's experience, because no two applicants will be identical".
Of course no two applicants are going to be identical, but if there were two identical applicants, I'm not going to choose the guy who spends his free time giving tug-n-chugs in the alley for a hit of meth. But ohhhh, no, don't worry about that -- because no two people are identical! wtf really????
Why should I hire the guy with a better personality? Using the anti-credit-checker's logic: "What in having a 'better personality' (subjective) would make someone a better employee?" If I'm hiring an accountant, I'd rather hire one that's as boring as a door knob but is financially stable than the guy who took out a mortgage to invest in bitconnect or is trying to sell me Mary Kay products.
This is not about my values, this about what the research has shown makes better hires, and what the law says you can do.
You can always use extreme examples to make a point, but decisions typically don’t work like that.
If for some reason it was legal for me to check everyone’s credit history before I made an offer, and one applicant had a 700, and one had a 600, I would not use that in any way to make a decision.
I’d find something that has a higher predictability of job success.
I don’t think this is too controversial.
Quote:to ensure that creditors have the information they need to make lending decisions. Typical clients for a credit bureau include banks, mortgage lenders, credit card companies and other financing companies.
IMO, the bar has moved if this is common practice.
Quote: beachbumbabsStereotyping again. Millions of people bought houses 10 or more years before the 2007 crash, thought they had equity building, were put in a position thru divorce or movement where the house needed to be sold, and all their equity had been lost in depreciation of 60% or more in a single year, where it stayed for 7 years or so.
You saw it in Las Vegas. You and Florida were both the hardest hit, and the slowest to recover. If you looked up the address of my house I short-sold during those years, you would be shocked at the change in valuation.
My credit rating before the short sale was 760-780, for 20 years before that. After the short sale, they knocked me down to 560, and it's been nearly 5 years of perfect credit since to get it back to 720+. That single transaction ruined me for years, and they claimed it wouldn't damage me like that. Had I known they lied, I would have kept the house. I'm still furious about it. And it still shows up as a negative.
Ouch. That's really messed up how one bad transaction damaged(Luckily not DESTROYED(Damage is reversible, destroyed is not reversible IMHO) your very good Credit Score that was Good for 20 years in the 700's and dropped it to the 500's. So sad to hear that. :(
Quote: billryanResumes have become a joke.
As I had a guaranteed job out of college, I never had to make one but I remember the panic these things caused. Even the paper you selected was a reflection on the person.
Now people customize resumes by the job, hoping they emphasize the proper key words so the computer scanning it kicks it into the right pile.
I agree. If I don't get hired somewhere because I used the "wrong" paper for my resume, or my name was in the "wrong" font, then that's a place I don't want to work anyway because their priorities are obviously completely out of whack. Your resume should not be the determining factor in your getting a job. I have one basic resume that has my contact info and general job responsibilities for the last few jobs I've held. It's clean looking and simple, and if someone doesn't like it, that's their problem.
Quote: AxelWolfCarny jobs are guaranteed? J/K.
I actually applied for a carny job once. I never heard back from them.
Quote:But seriously, what job did you have guaranteed?
I had a guaranteed job when I graduated. My degree was a niche industry with a shortage of workers and the school had a 100% placement rate for years. If you wanted a job, you had one. The only bad thing is the salary cap for the kind of work I do is MAYBE $50k-$60k if you're lucky.... Maybe a little higher in big cities. I'm only at $40k right now and I have the degree, years of experience, and multiple certifications, but luckily I'm in a LCOL area.
(I prefer not to say what the job is for privacy reasons... it's a fairly small industry.)
Quote: AxelWolfNWhatever the case, If you had the choice between two identical people, one with bad credit or one with good credit, who would you pick?
Unless you know how they got into financial trouble you can't really say. Going under for medical treatments of a family member is different than missing payments on the sports car you couldn't afford.
Quote: rxwineUnless you know how they got into financial trouble you can't really say. Going under for medical treatments of a family member is different than missing payments on the sports car you couldn't afford.
Good point.
Why waste their time finding out when they have many other qualified job applicants? It's all about streamlining the prosses.Quote: rxwineUnless you know how they got into financial trouble you can't really say. Going under for medical treatments of a family member is different than missing payments on the sports car you couldn't afford.
If it comes down to a few people who all seem like good candidates that are all equally qualified, I'm going the 850 and not the 300.
I don't care what the real reason is. If someone is in financial trouble there's a good chance they are bogged down with financial problems in real life and that can affect their work performance.
Assuming they are both close in all other aspects, who do you pick between a 300 and 850?Quote: FinsRuleIn other words, I’m saying you should use proven job-related criteria to distinguish between people.
This is not about my values, this about what the research has shown makes better hires, and what the law says you can do.
You can always use extreme examples to make a point, but decisions typically don’t work like that.
If for some reason it was legal for me to check everyone’s credit history before I made an offer, and one applicant had a 700, and one had a 600, I would not use that in any way to make a decision.
I’d find something that has a higher predictability of job success.
I don’t think this is too controversial.
Quote: FinsRulePeople with good credit almost always have the rest of their lives in order? Come on. Do you have any actual proof of what you're writing?
I know what I have seen. Really it is simple. People who pay their bills do so because they are responsible people. Responsible people are less likely to buy a car or house they cannot afford in the first place. They do this because they are both responsible and careful. This spills over to all parts of their life.
That is my proof. Anyone doesn’t like it can lump it.
Elbert Hubbard.
Quote: billryanThe recipe for perpetual ignorance is to be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.
Elbert Hubbard.
Those who are accusing others are often the ones doing exactly what they're accusing others of doing.
Somebody
Quote: AZDuffmanI know what I have seen. Really it is simple. People who pay their bills do so because they are responsible people. Responsible people are less likely to buy a car or house they cannot afford in the first place. They do this because they are both responsible and careful. This spills over to all parts of their life.
That is my proof. Anyone doesn’t like it can lump it.
People with good credit don’t get divorced? They don’t get health issues or have family members with health issues?
Quote: AxelWolfAssuming they are both close in all other aspects, who do you pick between a 300 and 850?
I don’t know enough about credit scores to know what it takes to get a 300.
Quote: AxelWolfAssuming they are both close in all other aspects, who do you pick between a 300 and 850?
If it were a higher level job, I would use it as a criteria.
If it were for a job as a cashier at Walgreens, I wouldn’t have ever asked, so I wouldn’t know. But then again, is it a red flag if someone with a 850 credit score wants to work part time at Walgreens?
These situations are all complicated, so I’m not trying to evade the question. It’s just that these are not situations that really ever come up.
Someone with bad credit needs a job to pay the bills on time and will work hard to keep that job to improve credit.
Someone with excellent credit is really good at embezzling and getting away with it.
These are schools for kids who distinguish them selves and have parents motivated enough to get them in. Waaaaaay better than regular schools.
So I'm semi-teaching and a cop shows up with a German Shepard. All of the students get in a line and march out of the room. The dog goes around to sniff through their belongings.
Obviously this is routine.
I know the arguments aleady. Hey, the kids can "choose" to pass up a golden opportunity to make a stand on the matter.
Whuu whuuu what about Columbine? What about drrruuuuuuugs?
I'm sure many of the bootlickers liked it. They knew they'd pass inspection and it made them all tingly.
That's where we are going. Your boss probes your body. Monitors your private conversations. Rifles through your finances. And some people get all tingly at the prospect of his approval.
Me, I don't like it. Guess it boils down to that. Some people like authority and some don't.
Quote: KevinAAPlaying devil's advocate here...
Someone with bad credit needs a job to pay the bills on time and will work hard to keep that job to improve credit.
Someone with excellent credit is really good at embezzling and getting away with it.
Trumps America. Up is Down and sideways is straight ahead.
Just remember that what you see and hear isn't real.
Quote: billryanTrumps America. Up is Down and sideways is straight ahead.
Just remember that what you see and hear isn't real.
I am thoroughly confused by your post. Could you explain that? Thanks.
Quote: FinsRuleThey don’t get health issues or have family members with health issues?
It is usually cheaper and better on the credit score to just let them die. That is the guy I am looking for when hiring.
Once the company makes you an offer, you now have all the power. You can choose to accept or decline.
From the company's standpoint, it is difficult to gather the same information in an interview as I can from a credit check. Credit checks and drug tests cost the hiring company money, so you can be sure there is value in them if the company chooses to use them,
Quote: RigondeauxWhen I subbed in LAUSD I went to a magnet school.
These are schools for kids who distinguish them selves and have parents motivated enough to get them in. Waaaaaay better than regular schools.
So I'm semi-teaching and a cop shows up with a German Shepard. All of the students get in a line and march out of the room. The dog goes around to sniff through their belongings.
Obviously this is routine.
I know the arguments aleady. Hey, the kids can "choose" to pass up a golden opportunity to make a stand on the matter.
Whuu whuuu what about Columbine? What about drrruuuuuuugs?
I'm sure many of the bootlickers liked it. They knew they'd pass inspection and it made them all tingly.
That's where we are going. Your boss probes your body. Monitors your private conversations. Rifles through your finances. And some people get all tingly at the prospect of his approval.
Me, I don't like it. Guess it boils down to that. Some people like authority and some don't.
I'm assuming all the ppl who liked this post want to privatize education which I agree with.
Quote: RogerKintI'm assuming all the ppl who liked this post want to privatize education which I agree with.
Why on earth would that be your takeaway?
My Veterinarians son became a Veterinary Surgery Specialist and is married to a Vet. They literally wrote their own ticket when they were job seeking. When they were leaning one way, another clinic offered them use of a ski lodge and a private plane.
There are more ways than ever to make money. If you don't want to work for the man, become the man.
Quote: gamerfreakWhy on earth would that be your takeaway?
Some people like licking government boots or corporate boots, but not the other kind.
In any case, obviously this would be much worse if corporations took over schools.
Quote: RSMaybe I'm off here.....but isn't the USA 'known' for having crappy public education (K-12)? Yet, we're also known for having some of the best universities in the world. You don't usually think of state-run schools (universities) when thinking of our excellent universities, but Ivy Leagues, MIT, Stanford, etc. Yeah, there are some great public ones, but they aren't at the top and there are few of them, compared to private universities.
All my K-12 schooling was in Minnesota and Iowa public schools. They were consistently rated among the best in the country back then, but I don't know where that is now.
On an international basis, though, back then, any comparisons showed we were equal or better than most countries in comprehensive learning. For some reason, that has slipped decade to decade. There are a lot of discussions about why that is, and it's a complex problem.
Quote: RSMaybe I'm off here.....but isn't the USA 'known' for having crappy public education (K-12)? Yet, we're also known for having some of the best universities in the world. You don't usually think of state-run schools (universities) when thinking of our excellent universities, but Ivy Leagues, MIT, Stanford, etc. Yeah, there are some great public ones, but they aren't at the top and there are few of them, compared to private universities.
Part of the problem with public K-12 is that in most areas they are funded with property taxes, which are based on property values. So shithole areas get shithole funding.
And part of the issue in making higher education affordable is paying professors. A lawyer or engineer who could pull $300k+++ at a firm isn’t going to become a professor at an affordable state university for $100k/yr. But Harvard Law can afford to pay them much more because it costs $60k/yr to attend.
Professors at cheaper universities tend to be individuals that were not successful in their industry for one reason or another.
As the saying goes: “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach”
And as my dad (a gym teacher) always adds “And those who can’t teach, teach phys-ed”.
Quote: RSMaybe I'm off here.....but isn't the USA 'known' for having crappy public education (K-12)? Yet, we're also known for having some of the best universities in the world. You don't usually think of state-run schools (universities) when thinking of our excellent universities, but Ivy Leagues, MIT, Stanford, etc. Yeah, there are some great public ones, but they aren't at the top and there are few of them, compared to private universities.
Private universities have to offer a good product to get all that tuition. People without means have choice in K-12.
The biggest defenders of public K-12 often do not send their own kids there.
Quote: FinsRulePeople with good credit don’t get divorced? They don’t get health issues or have family members with health issues?
Like I said, you can lump it.
Quote: AxelWolfNot sure I would want to hire someone who bought an overpriced house they couldn't afford with loans they didn't care to understand.
But why do you have a problem hiring someone like myself who uses a debit card, rents, and pays for a car in full? Why possible job skills could I be lacking based on those life choices? Last time I checked the credit agency wouldn't give me a score because I had never never used credit. (I have since been pre-approved for a VA loan so that may have changed; but I include my military service on my resume, so why should that be what matters?)
It's easier for me if I think of them as cattle, that can talk.Quote: djatcyou think kids are dumb, come over to Las Vegas, I think the worst in the country for education