• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should employers be able to run credit checks?

Should employers be able to run credit checks?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 34.6%

  • No

    Votes: 17 65.4%
  • Total voters
    26
99percenter

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
10,658
Reaction score
3,773
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Should employers be able to run credit checks for prospective employees? I personally think if a person is unemployed and has trouble paying bills it would just make things worse if you cant get a job because of your credit.
 
I could see a valid reason if the prospective hire was a finance person such as a financial planner.

For your average person, they should not.
 
megaprogman said:
I could see a valid reason if the prospective hire was a finance person such as a financial planner.

For your average person, they should not.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Although in Illinois and other states, credit checks are illegal as a screen for new-hires. Probably as it should be, I guess. A background check ought to suffice really.
 
A credit check will show your debt repayment history. Unless you have access to money that doesn't belong to you -- say, a bank teller, armored truck guard, etc. -- I don't see that this aspect of your private life is relevant to any employer.
 
99percenter said:
Should employers be able to run credit checks for prospective employees? I personally think if a person is unemployed and has trouble paying bills it would just make things worse if you cant get a job because of your credit.
Click to expand...

due diligence by the employer
given the abundance of prospective employees it allows the employer to select the one who has the qualifications and a clean credit history
a blight on one's credit report may be an indicator of irresponsibility
 
justabubba said:
due diligence by the employer
given the abundance of prospective employees it allows the employer to select the one who has the qualifications and a clean credit history
a blight on one's credit report may be an indicator of irresponsibility
Click to expand...

It may be other other factors as well especially in a bad economy.
 
justabubba said:
due diligence by the employer
given the abundance of prospective employees it allows the employer to select the one who has the qualifications and a clean credit history
a blight on one's credit report may be an indicator of irresponsibility
Click to expand...

More likely, an employer who is inundated with applications will use a credit check to winnow them down even when the applicant's private financial dealings have no bearing on the job being filled.

The risk of harm to long-term unemployed with marked up credit is so significant, it is just not worth the risk, IMO.
 
99percenter said:
It may be other other factors as well especially in a bad economy.
Click to expand...

it very well could be
possibly an error
or an unresolved dispute
or an instance of identity theft
or massive medical bills

but when provided a great number of prospects, this is a way to make sure a new hire is not going to be someone who was irresponsible and thus incurred credit issues

now, if the required skill set is so narrow, the employer will likely not be so particular
likewise when labor supply is tight
 
Doesn't bother me. If a person doesn't pay their debts, then that knowledge should be available to anyone contemplating doing business with them.
 
I voted yes, but it is conditional.
Only after hiring.

This allows the employer to know without it being an obstacle to employment.
 
I am for extremely limited background checks in any employment scenario. You should be judged on your ability to perform the duties required by the position, not on your ability to pay your bills on time.

Also worth noting;

I was called recently by the largest hospital in my area. They found my resume' in their system. They had a position that paid less than what I make now, and was beneath my skill level. The HR lady asked if I had a Bachelor's degree. When I told her no, she immediately acted as though I would not be competent enough to handle the position. Little did she know what I currently do, and how much I make, let alone that I previously worked at one of the most well known data-centers in the world. This particular position she called me about has been coming available every year for the past 5 years. Moral of the story? Human Resources is probably the worst thing to happen to the economy since the Great Depression.
 
99percenter said:
Should employers be able to run credit checks for prospective employees? I personally think if a person is unemployed and has trouble paying bills it would just make things worse if you cant get a job because of your credit.
Click to expand...

A good number of us don't borrow money and have frozen our credit histories to help prevent identity theft. A check of our credit histories returns an ' insufficient information' response. We don't have bad scores, we have no scores at all.
 
Yes, if you're trying to get a job in the few fields where that information might be relevant. Otherwise, it's none of the company's business. The other reason I don't want them doing it is because having too many checks on your credit in a short period of time can actually hurt it. If every company started doing this, and you were applying to lots of jobs, your credit score might actually end up going down just because of all the companies running credit checks on you.
 
Neither yes nor no...
This depends on the job at hand.
But, generally - yes !
The employer should OPENLY be able to run a credit check..
Here , communications can be greatly improved.
 
Human Resources is probably the worst thing to happen to the economy since the Great Depression.
Strange conclusion......
I'd say that the worst thing is those who are making decisions without being particularly bright.
 
megaprogman said:
I could see a valid reason if the prospective hire was a finance person such as a financial planner.

For your average person, they should not.
Click to expand...

The law as it is is good.
 
Employers should be able to do whatever employees are willing to tolerate. Employment is a voluntary relationship between two people and both parties have a right to demand specific standards or behavior, so long as those standards don't conflict with EEOC laws, ADA laws, or AA laws. So drug tests, driving records, criminal records, credit checks, etc...I don't really see an issue with it. It's about minimizing risk for the employer, which minimizes costs, which benefits employees and consumers.
 
justabubba said:
due diligence by the employer
given the abundance of prospective employees it allows the employer to select the one who has the qualifications and a clean credit history
a blight on one's credit report may be an indicator of irresponsibility
Click to expand...
. May be is the key. Could also be a woman whose husband ruined her credit and then they divorced. I think it depends upon the position.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, if you're trying to get a job in the few fields where that information might be relevant. Otherwise, it's none of the company's business. The other reason I don't want them doing it is because having too many checks on your credit in a short period of time can actually hurt it. If every company started doing this, and you were applying to lots of jobs, your credit score might actually end up going down just because of all the companies running credit checks on you.
Click to expand...

good point.

in the current job market, there seems to be a trend towards :

not hiring long term unemployed
not hiring those with credit problems
not hiring those with any kind of criminal record
not hiring those who won't submit to exhaustive background checks and tests

now, do we really want a balkanized, permanently unemployable group of people, some of whom are former criminals trying to work their way back up? what could go wrong with this plan?

at my last gig, i had to submit to exhaustive background checks, including a consumer history report. this was so i could work in a lab. additionally, i did so as a contractor with no rights, no PTO, and a definite end date. and this is for a highly skilled job requiring multiple degrees. there is something seriously wrong with the current state of worker rights; we've taken a massive step backwards. i'm aware that those who still have steady, secure jobs don't think a lot about this stuff, but remember : your kids are entering or will soon enter this reality, and if they get nailed for any kind of indiscretion post 18, game over.
 
Helix said:
good point.

in the current job market, there seems to be a trend towards :

not hiring long term unemployed
not hiring those with credit problems
not hiring those with any kind of criminal record
not hiring those who won't submit to exhaustive background checks and tests

now, do we really want a balkanized, permanently unemployable group of people, some of whom are former criminals trying to work their way back up? what could go wrong with this plan?

at my last gig, i had to submit to exhaustive background checks, including a consumer history report. this was so i could work in a lab. additionally, i did so as a contractor with no rights, no PTO, and a definite end date. and this is for a highly skilled job requiring multiple degrees. there is something seriously wrong with the current state of worker rights; we've taken a massive step backwards. i'm aware that those who still have steady, secure jobs don't think a lot about this stuff, but remember : your kids are entering or will soon enter this reality, and if they get nailed for any kind of indiscretion post 18, game over.
Click to expand...

I believe you adequately summed up what I was attempting to say earlier in this thread. I brought into the conversation the HR department being the crux of this issue. I have in the past had hiring managers tell me how to bypass their HR departments so they could actually speak to me. If HR is being a roadblock to employment, and not a facilitator of, then they have become, as I stated, a huge hindrance to the economy, as they alone are creating a class of citizens that are permanently unemployable.

Taken your point further, what about people with misdemeanors (often times falsely charged and/or accused, or stuck with bad lawyers)? Many employers screen and block on that alone, even though it is no indication of someone's ability to adequately perform the duties and requirements of the job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html?pagewanted=all

And where do people with a checkered past go for employment, assuming they have turned themselves around and cannot find work?
More often than not, back to criminal activity.
 
99percenter said:
Should employers be able to run credit checks for prospective employees? I personally think if a person is unemployed and has trouble paying bills it would just make things worse if you cant get a job because of your credit.
Click to expand...

I voted YES. I would suggest that there should be some reasonable limits on it, but there are a large number of jobs where it can be a very important part of the interview process....

I work for an electric utility company. The area of the company I work in, the physical location of my desk, and the information I have access to all make me the sort of person who could be subject to blackmail for sensitive information and access. Due to that, I am required to take security training and testing, and to be subject to a barrage of background checks on a yearly basis. We have a new employee starting tomorrow. He had to pass a full background, CORI, and credit check in addition to a physical and drug/alcohol testing (which I'm also subject to at any time).

Now imagine the potential for damage to a business like a bank, a police department, etc.... that could be in place if someone has a very poor credit rating.
 
Tigger said:
I voted YES. I would suggest that there should be some reasonable limits on it, but there are a large number of jobs where it can be a very important part of the interview process....

I work for an electric utility company. The area of the company I work in, the physical location of my desk, and the information I have access to all make me the sort of person who could be subject to blackmail for sensitive information and access. Due to that, I am required to take security training and testing, and to be subject to a barrage of background checks on a yearly basis. We have a new employee starting tomorrow. He had to pass a full background, CORI, and credit check in addition to a physical and drug/alcohol testing (which I'm also subject to at any time).

Now imagine the potential for damage to a business like a bank, a police department, etc.... that could be in place if someone has a very poor credit rating.
Click to expand...

Discriminating about someone with poor credit isn't much different than discriminating against him because he's been out of work. I think a background check should be sufficient. That, and the proper controls that every business should have in place, ought to be enough. We shouldn't be kickin' people when they're down, in my opinion.
 
Yes, they should. If the job is such that misappropriation of funds is a possibility. What it ultimately comes down to, is that companies disclose what sorts of pre-employment screening will be done. If you're not okay with having a credit check run, then you should probably seek employment elsewhere.

My employer runs background checks with the state and with national registries, an MVR and a drug screen. If I didn't want my employer to have that information, I would have sought employment elsewhere.

People do have a choice.
 
Maybe if your job is to do with handling money, like an accountant or something. Otherwise, no. I don't think an employer has a right know everything about your personal life. Don't forget that bad things on your credit report stay for at least 7 years, even if you pay them off (although they make a notation). And I have to agree with what other posters have said in that in this economy, that is rather harsh.
 
I mean really, what's next? How many relationships have you had because we want to know how loyal of an employee you will be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom