• 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
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maggie, if I were to choose to, I could seriously disrupt the electrical operations of the third largest electric company in the United States based on my job location. Don't you think the company I work for should have the ability to know whether or not I might be in a financial position to be influenced into doing so by someone who might be able to take advantage of any financial and credit issues I might have? I certainly think so. So does the Federal Government, because it's the NERC and FERC that REQUIRE these checks BY LAW.

Then again, my father worked in a job where he was legally restrained from going to certain foreign countries due to the security clearances he held.
 
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 say no.There is no reason for an employer to know your credit history. Your credit history basically tells your ability to pay off your debts, not how well you do a job. The only way a credit history would be relevant is if the job you are applying for requires that you use your own name instead of the Company's name to borrow money and I seriously doubt there are any places like that.A poor credit history doesn't make you a thief or some other bad person.
 
jamesrage said:
I say no.There is no reason for an employer to know your credit history. Your credit history basically tells your ability to pay off your debts, not how well you do a job. The only way a credit history would be relevant is if the job you are applying for requires that you use your own name instead of the Company's name to borrow money and I seriously doubt there are any places like that.A poor credit history doesn't make you a thief or some other bad person.
Click to expand...

What it does is to place you in a position to possibly be blackmailed into using your influence, information, and access to do things you are not supposed to and that may be damaging to the company, it's clients/customers, and its operations.
 
Tigger said:
What it does is to place you in a position to possibly be blackmailed into using your influence, information, and access to do things you are not supposed to and that may be damaging to the company, it's clients/customers, and its operations.
Click to expand...

How so? You can be black mailed regardless if you have a good credit history or a poor credit history.
 
jamesrage said:
How so? You can be black mailed regardless if you have a good credit history or a poor credit history.
Click to expand...

True. However it is much easier to blackmail someone who is in financial/credit trouble. Especially since it shows a tendancy to not be able to deal with money and is likely to mean they're just going to get in deeper trouble as things go on.
 
Tigger said:
True. However it is much easier to blackmail someone who is in financial/credit trouble.
Click to expand...

Having a low credit score does not make you any more prone to black mail than someone with a high credit score.Last I checked it is not illegal to have a low credit score,so there is nothing to black mail someone over.So that is not something to black mail someone with.Its like blackmailing someone because they have a ford truck,absolutely pointless. Again a poor credit score is not a indicator of a poor character.Having a poor credit score does not make you any more susceptible to bribery than someone with a good credit score.


Especially since it shows a tendancy to not be able to deal with money and is likely to mean they're just going to get in deeper trouble as things go on.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.A credit score is a indicator of how easily you can borrow and pay your debts off. There are all sorts of valid reasons for having poor credit.Job loss, family emergency, medical emergency and so on.
 
This is something that really bothers me. For a while, I had bad credit. I had an ex husband who loved to borrow money, but instead of paying it back, he wanted to buy video games or go out to eat. My credit was absolutely shot when we finally divorced. Slow pays, no pays, collections - everything. It took me years and years and lots of money to rebuild my credit. My credit is good now, but 10 years ago, I couldn't borrow enough to buy a pack of Juicy Fruit.

I think that a solid work history, and a criminal history / background check is more than sufficient, and if you are driving as part of your job, an MVR. Nothing else is going to affect how well you do your job.
 
jamesrage said:
Having a low credit score does not make you any more prone to black mail than someone with a high credit score.Last I checked it is not illegal to have a low credit score,so there is nothing to black mail someone over.So that is not something to black mail someone with.Its like blackmailing someone because they have a ford truck,absolutely pointless. Again a poor credit score is not a indicator of a poor character.Having a poor credit score does not make you any more susceptible to bribery than someone with a good credit score.
Click to expand...

I disagree. More importantly the Federal Government disagrees in the case of the job I do. NERC and FERC require these things for electrical dispatch employees.
 
Superfly said:
This is something that really bothers me. For a while, I had bad credit. I had an ex husband who loved to borrow money, but instead of paying it back, he wanted to buy video games or go out to eat. My credit was absolutely shot when we finally divorced. Slow pays, no pays, collections - everything. It took me years and years and lots of money to rebuild my credit. My credit is good now, but 10 years ago, I couldn't borrow enough to buy a pack of Juicy Fruit.

I think that a solid work history, and a criminal history / background check is more than sufficient, and if you are driving as part of your job, an MVR. Nothing else is going to affect how well you do your job.
Click to expand...

no
the employer is entitled to vet the prospective employee in a way which is beneficial to that employer
if given the opportunity to hire two qualified employees, but where one had a blighted credit history and the other did not, it would normally be wise to select the one with the unblemished record
the employer might want to inquire further to assess whether the credit history was reflective of bad judgment rather than bad luck, but all other things being equal, the clean credit history should work to that applicant's advantage
this is but one tool in an employer's tool box; making good hires is essential to sound business operations
 
As someone who has had to hire and fire countless people, their credit never meant diddly to me, and I ran businesses where my employees were responsible for quite a bit of cash. Credit checks were ran on each employee (against my better judgement but it was company policy) and some of the best people I've ever had had lousy credit. I never let someone's credit affect whether or not I would hire them.
 
Superfly said:
As someone who has had to hire and fire countless people, their credit never meant diddly to me, and I ran businesses where my employees were responsible for quite a bit of cash. Credit checks were ran on each employee (against my better judgement but it was company policy) and some of the best people I've ever had had lousy credit. I never let someone's credit affect whether or not I would hire them.
Click to expand...

and have you gone back to your hiring and firing history and compared those who have done well and those who have not and examined whether their credit history was predictive of their success or failure
if not, you offer us nothing other than you ignored your company's hiring criteria (relative to evaluating credit history) which may have been a bias introduced because of your own credit history circumstance

if someone is making poor personal credit decisions why would it not be likely that they would also be more likely to make poor decisions as my employee, when compared to someone without a blighted credit history
 
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...

Or it might just be an indicator that one needs a job.
 
this would hinder recovery efforts and widen the gap between the lower and middle and the middle an upper classes.
 
No employer should not have access to credit scores as it is superfluous and onerous. I have never used that when I hired people. Access and use of a credit score in the hiring process can be used to create an imbalance in the negotiation of salary process.

The hiring company has many other methods of discovering who the prospective hire is, whether they are trustworthy and have the wherewithal to do the job. Employers should have insurance that should cover losses should their employees misappropriate funds. I have handled many situations where heavily vetted financial people absconded or otherwise embezzled company or pension funds. A credit check did not serve to "flush out" those who would be more prone to such activities or show who would be more trust worthy. A credit check, alone, does not show who has more sense when it comes to handling money.
 
justabubba said:
and have you gone back to your hiring and firing history and compared those who have done well and those who have not and examined whether their credit history was predictive of their success or failure
if not, you offer us nothing other than you ignored your company's hiring criteria (relative to evaluating credit history) which may have been a bias introduced because of your own credit history circumstance

if someone is making poor personal credit decisions why would it not be likely that they would also be more likely to make poor decisions as my employee, when compared to someone without a blighted credit history
Click to expand...

Well I certainly was glad that someone looked past my blighted history and gave me a chance. Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes people get involved in bad circumstances like spouses who don't want to pay the bills. Do you know what the housing crash has done to people's credits now? In Las Vegas, 12% of the homes are in foreclosure. That means 12% of the people who have credit scores probably in the low 500s, and will be there for a long time. That's just the people who own homes. That's alot of people to be snubbing your nose at, just because they don't meet your hiring criteria.
 
No, employers should not be allowed to do this.

They shouldn't be allowed to drug test either (unless it's necessary for that specific role, like handling heavy machinery or law enforcement)

They also shouldn't be able to find out about expunged/sealed records and hold that against potential employees.
 
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...

As long as it's a soft pull, it would have no bearing on your credit score.
Only hard pulls, those made seeking credit, are counted.
 
Voltaire X said:
No, employers should not be allowed to do this.

They shouldn't be allowed to drug test either (unless it's necessary for that specific role, like handling heavy machinery or law enforcement)

They also shouldn't be able to find out about expunged/sealed records and hold that against potential employees.
Click to expand...

I agree. Businesses seem to be getting way into people's personal lives and into things that are really totally none of their business. Stay out of my private life!
 
OnWisconsin said:
Or it might just be an indicator that one needs a job.
Click to expand...

it may be an indicator of a lot of things
but for an employer wanting to minimize the risk of a bad hire, disqualifying those with blemished credit histories could be prudent
 
Connery said:
No employer should not have access to credit scores as it is superfluous and onerous. I have never used that when I hired people. Access and use of a credit score in the hiring process can be used to create an imbalance in the negotiation of salary process.

The hiring company has many other methods of discovering who the prospective hire is, whether they are trustworthy and have the wherewithal to do the job. Employers should have insurance that should cover losses should their employees misappropriate funds. I have handled many situations where heavily vetted financial people absconded or otherwise embezzled company or pension funds. A credit check did not serve to "flush out" those who would be more prone to such activities or show who would be more trust worthy. A credit check, alone, does not show who has more sense when it comes to handling money.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]

i do not believe the discussion is about the use of credit reports ALONE to make a hiring decision but whether they should be allowed among the array of tools to evaluate prospective hires

with few exceptions, a credit check most definitely does show who has more sense when it comes to handling money
otherwise lenders would have no reason to conduct credit checks
just as those with no arrest records are more likely to be obedient those with sound credit histories are more likey to be fiscally prudent
 
Superfly said:
Well I certainly was glad that someone looked past my blighted history and gave me a chance. Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes people get involved in bad circumstances like spouses who don't want to pay the bills. Do you know what the housing crash has done to people's credits now? In Las Vegas, 12% of the homes are in foreclosure. That means 12% of the people who have credit scores probably in the low 500s, and will be there for a long time. That's just the people who own homes. That's alot of people to be snubbing your nose at, just because they don't meet your hiring criteria.
Click to expand...

an employer could find the blighted credit history and probe deeper by asking more questions about the circumstances which led to the blemishes
i do not believe anyone is saying don't hire people only because of tarnished credit histories but to use that information as one factor among others when effecting the hiring decision
 
Voltaire X said:
No, employers should not be allowed to do this.

They shouldn't be allowed to drug test either (unless it's necessary for that specific role, like handling heavy machinery or law enforcement)
Click to expand...
sure they should
the employee becomes the face of the company. it is not unreasonable for them to want that face to be one which does not indicate signs of impairment

They also shouldn't be able to find out about expunged/sealed records and hold that against potential employees.
Click to expand...
if something has been expunged, how would they know about it?
 
ChrisL said:
I agree. Businesses seem to be getting way into people's personal lives and into things that are really totally none of their business. Stay out of my private life!
Click to expand...

no one is compelling you to apply for a job where such background checks are conducted
the price of possible admission is a willingness to comply with the employer's needs
 
Eh, credit checks aren't nearly as awesome as FB checks. Much more information through FB, though you'd have to do more than look at a credit rating number to interpret it.
 
justabubba said:
[emphasis added by bubba]

i do not believe the discussion is about the use of credit reports ALONE to make a hiring decision but whether they should be allowed among the array of tools to evaluate prospective hires

with few exceptions, a credit check most definitely does show who has more sense when it comes to handling money
otherwise lenders would have no reason to conduct credit checks
just as those with no arrest records are more likely to be obedient those with sound credit histories are more likey to be fiscally prudent
Click to expand...

That was my opinion about credit checks. My FICO score is very high thankfully. but that is meaningless when it come to demonstrating whether I would be a good employee. In fact, I am a very bad employee, which is why I opened my own shop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom