potential employers and credit checks

[wetatnight]

this isn't diaper related, but I would like people opinion
many potential employers check your credit as part of a back ground check to determine if they will hire you or not
my question is should they be allowed to do this?
I know my credit suck, but it shouldn't keep me from getting a job
I feel that this Information is nobody else's business and is a form of discrimination!

what do you guys and gals think ?

 

[Sapphyre]

Hmmm, interesting question. I suppose they view it as one of their very few measures of someone's character before they actually get to know them. Not that it's very accurate or anything, but it's maybe what they grasp for out of desperation.

I'd wish them good luck catching sociopaths that way, for example.

 

[Sapphyre]

I think it's way too intrusive. I feel the same way about employers who give you (or try to give you) those canned psych/aptitude tests. I've walked out on a couple of those over the years. Just because.

I can understand why an employer might want to know how you are at managing money, especially for certain positions relating to that, but then again, isn't being broke a pretty massive motivator to get and keep a good job.

I think for once I might agree with you, Maxx. ^.^;

 

[Traemo]

Maybe it's my background, but I always figured it was so the employer could get a feel for how responsible you are, how susceptible to outside coercion you might be, etc.
Then again, I've submitted an SF-86 seeking a TS, so . . . .

 

[MotherFaith]

I think for once I might agree with you, Maxx. ^.^;

Dont upset the status quo! :hug:

Tbe only reason I see for credit checks and employment could be if the position involved looking after other people's money. For example, a job at a financial adviser firm or being a mortgage broker. Not that I agree with employers being so intrusive but can just about understand why they would want to know for jobs involving others money. If you cant keep ypur own finances in check how can you help other people. Overall though think its way overboard.

 

[Sapphyre]

Dont upset the status quo! :hug:

You're right, I forgot myself. Maxx, everything you say is wrong, you conservative freak of nature!! LOL ^.^;

 

[Slomo]

this isn't diaper related, but I would like people opinion
many potential employers check your credit as part of a back ground check to determine if they will hire you or not
my question is should they be allowed to do this?
I know my credit suck, but it shouldn't keep me from getting a job
I feel that this Information is nobody else's business and is a form of discrimination!

what do you guys and gals think ?

I'm all for it. If a company has two nearly identically qualified amplicants, don't you think they would want the person who has proven they know how to handle their finances?

Because, lets face it. A person's credit score is not abut how much money they make, it's about how well organized they are with their money. And if someone can keep their personal finances in check, then that's a good indicator they can keep their work in check too.

Plus, a poor credit score is a good indicator that person is having financial and/or personal problems. Problems that could bleed over into their work environment. A good credit score would indicate no such problems, which would be better for their work.

 

[wetatnight]

I disagree
many people can be one medical or some other issue away from a devastating financial situation not of their own making and to use this against them is wrong in my
also as far a if someone has had problems handling other people money a criminal back ground check should show that

 

[KimbaFoxNatsume]

''Hmm, let's see, I need a job to pay off my debts. Oh, I can't get a job because I have debt!''

One of the stupid ideas at play in America.

I don't know what potential employees think about me because... I've never had a credit card. Although I'm sure I never even get to the stage of requiring a credit check.

 

[dogboy]

Haha.....I too have to agree with Maxx. The irony here is that most people when they're starting out in life, have bad credit. Most of us start out with low paying jobs. I did and so did my wife. When we first got married, we had a poor credit rating. It takes years of hard work, getting promotions, etc., to become financially secure.

On the other hand, I'll bet Donald Trump's sons started out in life with great credit ratings and who wouldn't want to hire them!

 

[Cottontail]

I'm not generally against using various heuristics to whittle down the number of qualified applicants, but credit ratings are an odd one. It seems a bit mean-spirited, at least if we're talking about entry-level jobs, but I think I could listen to the reasoning with an open mind.

Possible mean-spiritedness aside, though, remember that these sorts of things, in general, don't create unemployment. I think that's a misconception that people love to feed off of. The qualifications may exclude you, but somebody else who needs a job is going to get one. In an ideal business world where time and money were completely disjoint, every applicant would get an interview and a chance to demonstrate his/her relevant skills. Pity about the non-ideal one we're stuck with. Heuristic cuts are here to stay.

But if a prospective employer told me that they wanted to search my cell phone or my Facebook profile or whatever, I'd say, "Kiss my ass!" and walk out.

 

[Cottontail]

What's even worse is gaps in your work history. What!?!? You don't have a job???!! We can't hire you if you don't have a job!!!

Yeah, I think I might like that one even less than the credit check. On the other hand, when I was doing technical recruiting, I was pretty quick to pass over an applicant who'd had what I deemed to be to many jobs. If I saw a string of three or more jobs, each of which lasted less than two years, it was on to the next resume. Training new employees is a major drain on the productivity of an engineering team, so if I was going to pay for an experienced engineer, it was going to be somebody who I felt would stick around. We referred to the too-many-jobs applicants as "walking sponges"--people who'd stop, soak up your team's resources, and then keep walking. And they're fairly common. Do not want!

 

[ArchieRoni]

Haha.....I too have to agree with Maxx. The irony here is that most people when they're starting out in life, have bad credit. Most of us start out with low paying jobs. I did and so did my wife. When we first got married, we had a poor credit rating. It takes years of hard work, getting promotions, etc., to become financially secure.

On the other hand, I'll bet Donald Trump's sons started out in life with great credit ratings and who wouldn't want to hire them!

There's actually a bit of a misunderstanding here though. Being poor or paying for things in cash doesn't give you a bad credit rating (although if you have no credit at all, your lack of history might). If you have even a small low limit credit card, paying it consistently on time every month will actually give you a fairly solid credit rating. It might not be the highest possible as your total available line of credit goes into the score, but just paying off a small credit card on time every single month will give you a credit rating in the top 70% or so of the population. People mess up their credit by making late payments primarily, or not paying things off.

Anywho, I don't think credit checks make sense for most jobs at all. They make sense to me for a few jobs. For example, I think a credit check to give someone security clearance makes some sense because if you're giving security clearance, you want to do something to make sure the person isn't vulnerable to bribery and credit checks are the best we've got right now. Similarly, credit checks for jobs in which the person is going to be in charge of managing other people's money make some sense. They're not the best tool in the world, even in the above contexts, but they're information that's relatively well understood and easily available and does at least function as a general heuristic of how well a person has managed the debt that they have acquired in their life.

 

[Slomo]

I disagree
many people can be one medical or some other issue away from a devastating financial situation not of their own making and to use this against them is wrong in my
also as far a if someone has had problems handling other people money a criminal back ground check should show that

I never said having a bad credit score is always the result one's own misfortune. However, failing to work through that misfortune most certainly IS one's own fault- which is what then determines a credit score.

And I'm saying this all from personal experience. I've had a devistating medical issue which rendered me unable to work. I've been fired and unemployed through no fault of my own, and I've had big unexpected expenses pop up on me too. Do you honestly think it was easy maintaining a 750+ credit score while unemployed AND going to college AND trying to recover (financially and physically) from a major surgery?

My having been able to organize, budget, and work through all of those expenses reflects on my ability to organize my work load, budget my time, and work through through projects at my work. My credit rating therefore does reflect on my ability to do my job. And that ability or lack there of is something every place that hires has a right to know.

Don't like it, then how about you work on that credit rating.....

 

[Cottontail]

Or it took a year for the employers to figure out they didn't have "it".

Yeah, that too. In the tech industry, though, you have quite a population of workers--and this was especially true at the peak of the dot-bomb bubble in the early 2000s--that view their degrees as guarantees of stable employment. As a result, they see jobs as disposable, and when a tough problem lands and a job becomes less than fun, they just pack up and move on. And with R&D cycles that are often measured in years, that can be pretty devastating.