• 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!

Quinn signs bill limiting employment credit checks

The Giant Noodle said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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-
 
Hicup said:
And these would be....? Remember, this is "prospective" employees, not current employees.
Click to expand...
http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/library/toolkit/pdfs/presentation_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
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hoplite -
So your solution is an arbitrary number that tells you absolutely nothing?
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, then when you have a business you can do whatever you please.

Good luck!

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hoplite said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've been following the conversation, but havent' posted. I have to say, though, this just cracked me up.
 
Not really. I'd rather just laugh at you without you apparently having any idea why :)
 
buck said:
Not really. I'd rather just laugh at you without you apparently having any idea why :)
Click to expand...
So you dont actually have any concrete problem with it, you just feel like being contrary for giggles. Gotcha
 
I dunno... This sounds like it can be a bad idea... People with money troubles can be more tempted to bribes than those with a stable cash flow, but it might not always be the case.... Well, I can't say which position im on in this.
 
Hoplite said:
So you dont actually have any concrete problem with it, you just feel like being contrary for giggles. Gotcha
Click to expand...

No, that's not quite it. I guess i'm just being a jerk by not informing you as to the reason it's funny. But, I promise you it is :)
 
buck said:
No, that's not quite it. I guess i'm just being a jerk by not informing you as to the reason it's funny. But, I promise you it is :)
Click to expand...
Sure, I bet it is
 
buck said:
No, that's not quite it. I guess i'm just being a jerk by not informing you as to the reason it's funny. But, I promise you it is :)
Click to expand...
I doubt he's ever gonna understand. :shrug:

.
 
jujuman13 said:
Phooey, As a business owner it is my intention to make a profit for myself, in order to do this I may expand my business, I have no intention of hiring anyone who cannot be trusted.
I already have way too many regulations to adhere to as well as additional costs by virtue of having an existing pool of employees.
Click to expand...

Those regulations you must follow were created to keep dishonest businesses and their owners in check. If businesses and their owners could be trusted to be honest, those regulations would not exist.

As to credit reports, an employee's credit report is not relevant to employment and it is not your business. That it is useful is an idiotic republican myth created for the sole purpose of discrimination. One state has stepped up and others are soon to follow.
 
Caine said:
So let me get this straight....

The public both wants cities employing police officers to do thorough background checks and make damn certain that they do not hire someone into a position of authority that will abuse said position or act irresponsibly...
But...
At the same time, we can't discriminate against someone who has a very bad financial record as an indicator that said person might be more inclined to abuse their power for their own financial gain.

I don't get "the public" I seriously don't......
Click to expand...

One thing has NOTHING to do with the other. To say otherwise is simply backwards republican logic. Discrimination is wrong and those who allow it, participate in it, or preach its laurels are not good people.
 
Vader said:
One thing has NOTHING to do with the other. To say otherwise is simply backwards republican logic. Discrimination is wrong and those who allow it, participate in it, or preach its laurels are not good people.
Click to expand...

I can't help it... between this and the other thread I can't take it anymore so Im just going to eat it..

STFU with calling everyone a republican, YOU STUPID ****ING TROLL
 
Caine said:
I can't help it... between this and the other thread I can't take it anymore so Im just going to eat it..

STFU with calling everyone a republican, YOU STUPID ****ING TROLL
Click to expand...

Does the truth hurt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom