• 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!

Regarding Hiring, Should Companies be able to Check your Credit?

Regarding Hiring, Should Companies be able to Check your Credit?

  • YES! Companies should have the right! Its weeds out bad folks

    Votes: 9 13.8%

  • NO! My finances should NOT dictate what company hires me!

    Votes: 38 58.5%

  • YES! In certain circumstances w/ jobs that handle money directly

    Votes: 19 29.2%

  • Screw you and your Noodle race! Quit asking me things!

    Votes: 2 3.1%
  • Total voters
    65
rivrrat said:
The manager's money is irrelevant. They aren't who you are working for. The company's financial status IS relevant, and if it's a publically traded company, then you'd have access to that information.
Click to expand...

Considering the well-known fraud that has been perpetuated by corporate executives, such as those from Enron and Tycho, I think that how much money they are getting from the company is just as relevant as the credit scores of their employees.

Or how about this? Instead of having the annual income of managers and executives be made available to employees they are instead made available to anyone who owns a share in the company? After all, it's the shareholders' money they are spending.
 
earthworm said:
Yes
This should be done openly and honesty. An employee is a company representative, one with poor credit can be a problem. If they get things straightened out, then their record should reflect this.
Click to expand...

A credit score is an indicator of how good a person is at getting into debt and staying in debt. It is not a effective way to measure the employability of a candidate.

Let me provide an example:
Candidate A and Candidate B are both applying for the same job, paying about $60,000 a year.

Candidate A owes more on his house than it is worth and has a mortgage payment of about $1200. He just bought a brand new car with a $600 a month payment. He has $30,000 in credit card debt. He lives paycheck to paycheck, BUT he pays all his bills on time every month. Because of this he has a good credit score.

Candidate B carries no debt, (except maybe a small mortgage.) His car is paid for and he has no open lines of credit. He has $50,000 in savings and invests a portion of his paycheck every month, but because of his lack of debt he has a low or nonexistant credit score.

Which candidate is more financially responsible? Which one do you think would actually get the job based on their credit score?
 
lizzie said:
I understand your concerns, but a good credit rating does not always correlate to personal integrity. I've known plenty of people of great moral character who are bad credit risks, and plenty of people who are morally bankrupt that have good credit ratings.
Click to expand...

On NPR the other day, they even said that FICO scores today mean less than they used to because so many people have taken a hit that it doesn't reflect their credit integrity. When you have no money and can't pay, that's different from people who were more or less intentionally negligent to their finances.
 
theangryamerican said:
A credit score is an indicator of how good a person is at getting into debt and staying in debt. It is not a effective way to measure the employability of a candidate.

Let me provide an example:
Candidate A and Candidate B are both applying for the same job, paying about $60,000 a year.

Candidate A owes more on his house than it is worth and has a mortgage payment of about $1200. He just bought a brand new car with a $600 a month payment. He has $30,000 in credit card debt. He lives paycheck to paycheck, BUT he pays all his bills on time every month. Because of this he has a good credit score.

Candidate B carries no debt, (except maybe a small mortgage.) His car is paid for and he has no open lines of credit. He has $50,000 in savings and invests a portion of his paycheck every month, but because of his lack of debt he has a low or nonexistent credit score.

Which candidate is more financially responsible? Which one do you think would actually get the job based on their credit score?
Click to expand...

The "score", by itself, should be ignored.
Its the data/facts/story behind this score that is important.
And the personnel man must be able to interpret things correctly...no easy task.
I know that the two examples are at extreme ends of the financial spectrum, but I'd think I'd favor the conservative(example two).
 
lizzie said:
I don't even believe a company should be able to drug test without you giving them a reason to suspect drug use, so hell no, they should not be able to check your credit rating.
Click to expand...
Companies definitely should be able to drug test and they should know a man's credit.
However, what the company is doing with with knowledge should be known by the applicant.
I am not an adherent of secrecy/privacy... ....for the applicant nor the company.
 
theangryamerican said:
A credit score is an indicator of how good a person is at getting into debt and staying in debt. It is not a effective way to measure the employability of a candidate.

Let me provide an example:
Candidate A and Candidate B are both applying for the same job, paying about $60,000 a year.

Candidate A owes more on his house than it is worth and has a mortgage payment of about $1200. He just bought a brand new car with a $600 a month payment. He has $30,000 in credit card debt. He lives paycheck to paycheck, BUT he pays all his bills on time every month. Because of this he has a good credit score.

Candidate B carries no debt, (except maybe a small mortgage.) His car is paid for and he has no open lines of credit. He has $50,000 in savings and invests a portion of his paycheck every month, but because of his lack of debt he has a low or nonexistant credit score.

Which candidate is more financially responsible? Which one do you think would actually get the job based on their credit score?
Click to expand...

But are we talking about just checking a number, or do employers actually look for stuff that would indicate problems? I would think that an employer wouldn't care less about the number but would be very interested to find out that someone had 13 credit cards and never paid a penny on them, or had multiple judgments against him.
 
imagep said:
But are we talking about just checking a number, or do employers actually look for stuff that would indicate problems? I would think that an employer wouldn't care less about the number but would be very interested to find out that someone had 13 credit cards and never paid a penny on them, or had multiple judgments against him.
Click to expand...

However, you're missing the point of the analogy. No one with large amounts of unpaid debt or judgments against them would have a good score anyway. Candidate A is actually the average American. All the numbers I used are fairly middle of the road for people today. I would argue that he is not, in fact an extreme, like someone else mentioned, but the norm. He also pays all his bills on time. He looks great on any credit report, even if you analyze the specifics, but he's riding a very fine line. Many Americans have only one or two paychecks riding as a buffer zone between them and financial hardship.

Candidate B potentially has no credit history at all, so even an in-depth credit analysis will still show him as a big fat zero. Short of contacting his banks and his investment broker, no employer will get any information on him.

Neither candidate is immediately in any financial danger, but there is a larger potential for trouble in the first case. Unfortunately, anyone running a credit check will think that Candidate A is the better of the two. Due to this, I think that credit history has no business being part of a qualification for employment in any circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Yes, check the credit score of EVERY potential employee. Your score reflects your character and integrity.
 
chickie said:
Yes, check the credit score of EVERY potential employee. Your score reflects your character and integrity.
Click to expand...

Your argument is flawed. Please refer and respond to my two posts above. All your credit score tells someone is how efficient you are at acquiring and managing debt. Nothing more.
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
Your argument is flawed. Please refer and respond to my two posts above. All your credit score tells someone is how efficient you are at acquiring and managing debt. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'd be more impressed by the guy who doesn't have any debt at all than the one who manages his debt.
 
theangryamerican said:
A credit score is an indicator of how good a person is at getting into debt and staying in debt. It is not a effective way to measure the employability of a candidate.

Let me provide an example:
Candidate A and Candidate B are both applying for the same job, paying about $60,000 a year.

Candidate A owes more on his house than it is worth and has a mortgage payment of about $1200. He just bought a brand new car with a $600 a month payment. He has $30,000 in credit card debt. He lives paycheck to paycheck, BUT he pays all his bills on time every month. Because of this he has a good credit score.

Candidate B carries no debt, (except maybe a small mortgage.) His car is paid for and he has no open lines of credit. He has $50,000 in savings and invests a portion of his paycheck every month, but because of his lack of debt he has a low or nonexistant credit score.

Which candidate is more financially responsible? Which one do you think would actually get the job based on their credit score?
Click to expand...

Candidate B would havdea lot higher credit score than candidate A would.

I have no debt, a paid up mortgage, money in the bank, and a very high credit score, just like candidate B.

Candidate A might make the better worker, particularly for a less than stellar employer, as he has to keep a job and would be willing to put up with a lot before bailing.
 
theangryamerican said:
Your argument is flawed. Please refer and respond to my two posts above. All your credit score tells someone is how efficient you are at acquiring and managing debt. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Your credit report reflects whether you decided to pay your bills (on time) or not. Whether you decided to be late or not. Whether you decided to be responsible or not. Whether you are honest or not. Whether you have integrity or not. I stand by my post.
 
chickie said:
I disagree. Your credit report reflects whether you decided to pay your bills (on time) or not. Whether you decided to be late or not. Whether you decided to be responsible or not. Whether you are honest or not. Whether you have integrity or not. I stand by my post.
Click to expand...
Looking at a credit score does not tell you those things about a person. The only thing a a poor credit score means is that you didn't pay your bills on time, that's the only thing a credit score means. It doesn't mean that you're a thief, chose not to pay your bills on time when you could have, will be late to work, dishonest or a lack integrity. Emergencies come up and people lose jobs. You don't know why an individual was late on their payments.
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Employers should be able to hire/not hire whomever they want, for whatever reason. So of course they should be allowed to, as long as the prospective employee consents to it.
Click to expand...

REALLY???? Where do you stop huh???? If you live in a high crime area you are more likely to be a potential criminal? How about your PARENTS history??? How about your GENE's?!?!?
Companies have ZERO right to check a persons credit history!!! :2mad:
 
Absolutely not! It's none of their business.
 
chickie said:
I disagree. Your credit report reflects whether you decided to pay your bills (on time) or not. Whether you decided to be late or not. Whether you decided to be responsible or not. Whether you are honest or not. Whether you have integrity or not. I stand by my post.
Click to expand...

People get laid off.
Family members die.
Cars break down or other huge unexpected bills.

Anything could happen.

AIG, GM and the others are and were irresponsible yet they got rewarded for their bad decisions.
 
Companies should be able to use whatever criteria they want to decide how they choose employees. If you don't like what the employer is judging you on, then don't apply there.
 
masonkiller said:
Companies should be able to use whatever criteria they want to decide how they choose employees. If you don't like what the employer is judging you on, then don't apply there.
Click to expand...



I agree with that even though I don't think they should.

I don't like that they do that.

But there shouldn't be a law stopping them from doing so.

I still personally feel that they shouldn't.
 
If being good with money is an important qualification for the job, then yes, they should be able to check your credit. If it has nothing to do with the job and they just want to check it to see how responsible you are, no. I think that should be illegal. I don't like the precedent that it sets for credit checks to become a commonplace, trivial thing. The individual right to privacy is, frankly, more important than the employer's right to snoop around the employee's life to unearth anything that may or may not reflect on the employee's personal attributes, just because they can.
 
chickie said:
I disagree. Your credit report reflects whether you decided to pay your bills (on time) or not. Whether you decided to be late or not. Whether you decided to be responsible or not. Whether you are honest or not. Whether you have integrity or not. I stand by my post.
Click to expand...

Do clients and customers have the same right to get a credit score from those employers to determine those same things before choosing to purchase services or goods from them?
 
The Giant Noodle said:
REALLY???? Where do you stop huh???? If you live in a high crime area you are more likely to be a potential criminal? How about your PARENTS history??? How about your GENE's?!?!?
Click to expand...
If they consent to it, sure.

Companies have ZERO right to check a persons credit history!!! :2mad:
Click to expand...
Without your permission, I agree. But if you want the job, they have the right to lay the ground rules on how you can obtain it. They should be fully free to filter prospective employees however they wish. Just as job seekers are perfectly free to filter prospective employers how they see fit.
 
samsmart said:
Considering the well-known fraud that has been perpetuated by corporate executives, such as those from Enron and Tycho, I think that how much money they are getting from the company is just as relevant as the credit scores of their employees.
Click to expand...
I disagree, but hey.. that's life.

Or how about this? Instead of having the annual income of managers and executives be made available to employees they are instead made available to anyone who owns a share in the company? After all, it's the shareholders' money they are spending.
Click to expand...
Sure, why not?
 
jamesrage said:
Looking at a credit score does not tell you those things about a person. The only thing a a poor credit score means is that you didn't pay your bills on time, that's the only thing a credit score means. It doesn't mean that you're a thief, chose not to pay your bills on time when you could have, will be late to work, dishonest or a lack integrity. Emergencies come up and people lose jobs. You don't know why an individual was late on their payments.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. It tells you everything. If that person has honor, integrity, makes paying their debt a priority, or is a deadbeat.

samsmart said:
Do clients and customers have the same right to get a credit score from those employers to determine those same things before choosing to purchase services or goods from them?
Click to expand...
Good point. I don't care but it's an interesting question.
 
rivrrat said:
If they consent to it, sure.


Without your permission, I agree. But if you want the job, they have the right to lay the ground rules on how you can obtain it. They should be fully free to filter prospective employees however they wish. Just as job seekers are perfectly free to filter prospective employers how they see fit.
Click to expand...

Really? What about religion? They have the right to check THAT? No! And for a great reason. Same with credit.
Companies should have NO right to even ASK for consent for ANY personal information. All they need is you being at the interview(s). Period.

If you do the job, great! If not, you get canned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom