Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 97

Thread: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

  1. #71
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Sure give me the link to your post..


    Tim-
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058911340
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  2. #72
    Educator
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-15-10 @ 08:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    718

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Quote Originally Posted by TOJ View Post
    I am a hirer, not a hiree.

    We do full background checks, including credit, on all employees before hire and periodically thereafter. If you don't like it, don't apply for a job with us.

    .
    What's the name of your business? Just want to be certain that everyone who prefers not to let you invade their privacy knows who you are.

    Just tryin' ta help.

  3. #73
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    I dont think you can look at an ill-defined concept of loss from that and determine that those with lower credit scores are more likely to steal from you. There are many more studies to suggest that employees who feel unappreciated and mistreated are more likely to steal from an employer than those with low credit.

    I object to credit checks because I see it as a form of economic discrimination and the check is usually out of context.
    Is this what you're referring to?

    I'm not seeing any "point" I need to address? There are a lot of studies, of various types that weigh risk. A low credit score is one of them?

    Does that about sum it up?


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  4. #74
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Quote Originally Posted by The Uncola View Post
    What's the name of your business? Just want to be certain that everyone who prefers not to let you invade their privacy knows who you are.

    Just tryin' ta help.
    We are very upfront about our employment requirements. Anyone that inquires about a position is told they will have to pass a background check, credit check, and drug tests, including tobacco. If they cannot pass them or do not want us to do them, they should not apply.

    We are not interested in employees that are criminals, deadbeats, drug users, or smokers.

    .

  5. #75
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Is this what you're referring to?

    I'm not seeing any "point" I need to address? There are a lot of studies, of various types that weigh risk. A low credit score is one of them?

    Does that about sum it up?
    The basic point is that you are asking for personal information that you will see un-explained and out-of-context as a basis for judging if you can trust them when in reality there are much bigger influences that determine if an employee is going to make good choices or steal or whatever that dont involve personal and out-of-context information. Furthermore, you're making a decision about someone's character without having all the facts of why their situation is as it is AND they aren't there to defend themselves or their situation.

    If you want to ensure you have good employees who dont steal from you, pay them well, give them benefits, make them feel appreciated, dont treat them like crap. Demanding personal financial information and using it as a basis for a character assessment is, in my opinion, economic discrimination.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  6. #76
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    God I always wanted to make a difference. I dont have 100% proof that my call DID make that difference but I would love to think so. I called 2x a week to my Reps for 2 months to get this Bill introduced. Not sure I even made a difference there.
    Honestly, it's not important if your particular call tipped the scales -- what's important is that you did it.

    We disagree a lot (although not on this issue), and I applaud you, sir, for taking your civic duty into your own hands like that.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Hoplite -
    The basic point is that you are asking for personal information that you will see un-explained and out-of-context as a basis for judging if you can trust them when in reality there are much bigger influences that determine if an employee is going to make good choices or steal or whatever that dont involve personal and out-of-context information.
    And these would be....? Remember, this is "prospective" employees, not current employees.

    Furthermore, you're making a decision about someone's character without having all the facts of why their situation is as it is AND they aren't there to defend themselves or their situation
    People lie, and without tangible proof of one criteria over another, what else do you have to make these judgments; as an employer?

    If you want to ensure you have good employees who dont steal from you, pay them well, give them benefits, make them feel appreciated, dont treat them like crap.
    And even then you will have those that will cause you a loss.. So what's magical about your theory?

    Demanding personal financial information and using it as a basis for a character assessment is, in my opinion, economic discrimination
    When the risk for loss is measured in finance, then it is incumbent on the employer to measure that risk in those terms.. It's discrimination, but so what? Everyone discriminates for whatever reason. The criteria for the discrimination is what differentiate between just, and unjust.


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. #78
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    And these would be....? Remember, this is "prospective" employees, not current employees.
    http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/library/too...tation_508.pdf

    Happy Employees Are Critical For An Organization's Success, Study Shows

    Happy Workers, Better Workers - CBS News

    Workers with a happier outlook may perform better at work - Job.com

    People lie
    So your solution is an arbitrary number that tells you absolutely nothing?

    and without tangible proof of one criteria over another, what else do you have to make these judgments; as an employer?
    Their performance on the job. If you're worried about sticky fingers or poor performance, keep them away from anything critical for a probationary period.

    And even then you will have those that will cause you a loss.. So what's magical about your theory?
    That's a risk you take with ANY employee, I dont care what you check. But you can minimize your chances by treating your employees well.

    When the risk for loss is measured in finance, then it is incumbent on the employer to measure that risk in those terms.. It's discrimination, but so what? Everyone discriminates for whatever reason. The criteria for the discrimination is what differentiate between just, and unjust.
    It's unjust because you arent discriminating on solid ground. If a guy who just served 15 years for bank robbery walks into your bank and asks for a job, yeah that's a pretty measurable risk. A low credit score, by itself, means nothing. You are seeking to quantify a person's trustworthiness by using a number and you cant do that.

    I dont think you have the right to discriminate just to shave a few percentage points off the chance that you'll get a bad employee.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

  9. #79
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Hoplite -
    So your solution is an arbitrary number that tells you absolutely nothing?
    NO people cannot be trusted to tell the truth about themselves. I also noticed that you posted studies that have nothing to do with deciding who, and who not to hire.

    Their performance on the job. If you're worried about sticky fingers or poor performance, keep them away from anything critical for a probationary period
    So hire them, and hope?

    That's a risk you take with ANY employee, I dont care what you check. But you can minimize your chances by treating your employees well
    No argument there, but then again, this isn't what the thread is about now, is it?

    It's unjust because you arent discriminating on solid ground. If a guy who just served 15 years for bank robbery walks into your bank and asks for a job, yeah that's a pretty measurable risk. A low credit score, by itself, means nothing. You are seeking to quantify a person's trustworthiness by using a number and you cant do that.
    No, but again, this was not my assertion. All things being equal between to individual prospects, you are left with that of a poor, vs. great credit score to decide on your new hire. What would you choose, Hoplite?

    I dont think you have the right to discriminate just to shave a few percentage points off the chance that you'll get a bad employee.
    Fair enough, then when you have a business you can do whatever you please.

    Good luck!

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  10. #80
    Technomancer
    Hoplite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    05-08-11 @ 03:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,779

    Re: Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Hoplite -

    NO people cannot be trusted to tell the truth about themselves. I also noticed that you posted studies that have nothing to do with deciding who, and who not to hire.
    What you're looking for, a magical way to sort out good employees from bad, doesnt exist. The best you can do is go by an interview and their resume or have a probationary period where they arent trusted with anything hardcore and see how they do.

    Economic discrimination is not going to automatically weed out all the bad employees.

    So hire them, and hope?
    If you're going to put words in my mouth, at least put some sauce on them.

    No, but again, this was not my assertion. All things being equal between to individual prospects, you are left with that of a poor, vs. great credit score to decide on your new hire. What would you choose, Hoplite?
    This is a completely irrelevant hypothetical as you will NEVER have this situation come up.

    However, if it were up to me, I'd hire both of them and have a probationary period with a performance review at the end of the allotted time. The better performer gets the job for keeps.
    I'm Done

    See my last post

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •