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

The Giant Noodle said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree. I think they should be able to hire based on any criteria they wish. And yes, that includes religion. To your employer, you are an investment. They should be allowed to gather as much info about that investment as they wish and make their decision based on whatever criteria they find important to their company.

rivrrat said:

Well, I disagree. I think they should be able to hire based on any criteria they wish. And yes, that includes religion. To your employer, you are an investment. They should be allowed to gather as much info about that investment as they wish and make their decision based on whatever criteria they find important to their company.

Click to expand...

They can go online then. Hey... you look like a muslim or a indian or something in your avatar... we arent going to hire your type of freaks. :roll:

Your father seems to have had alcohol problems. So has your grandmother. Too risky
Although you drove a nice car to work, you have owned to many crappy cars. That tells us you havent achieved enough in a certain peroid of time. You dont have enough drive
Also you mother was overweight. You probably will be too according to our statistics. That will raise our health insurance premiums plus they tend to take too many days off.

NO JOB FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Giant Noodle said:

They can go online then. Hey... you look like a muslim or a indian or something in your avatar... we arent going to hire your type of freaks. :roll:

Your father seems to have had alcohol problems. So has your grandmother. Too risky
Although you drove a nice car to work, you have owned to many crappy cars. That tells us you havent achieved enough in a certain peroid of time. You dont have enough drive
Also you mother was overweight. You probably will be too according to our statistics. That will raise our health insurance premiums plus they tend to take too many days off.

NO JOB FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Yup, no job for with that company. And good thing too, I surely wouldn't have wanted to work for them. Would have been a waste of my time and theirs.

rivrrat said:

Yup, no job for with that company. And good thing too, I surely wouldn't have wanted to work for them. Would have been a waste of my time and theirs.

Click to expand...

AH! Youre RIGHT! BUUUUUUT..... all the other companies that are interested in you also have the same company that does background checks. OH!!!! And youre also unemployeed.

All the "good" companies do a VERY through background check. Maybe you can sell vaccum cleaners door to door? :roll:

The Giant Noodle said:

AH! Youre RIGHT! BUUUUUUT..... all the other companies that are interested in you also have the same company that does background checks. OH!!!! And youre also unemployeed.

All the "good" companies do a VERY through background check. Maybe you can sell vaccum cleaners door to door? :roll:

Click to expand...

LMFAO If all the "good" companies do that, then all of the "good" companies don't have very many employees, which means they're not going to be "good" companies any longer. Not to mention the seriously bad PR that's going to be going on. All the boycotting and whatnot.

In this day and age, the free market takes care of that ****.

chickie said:

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

Click to expand...

Does a credit history tell you why someone was late on payments? Does a credit report tell you that Joe Schmo didn't pay his debts simply because he didn't feel like it? Are there little notations that say Joe Schmo has a job and no other obligations, no family emergencies but simply just refused to pay? Seeing how a credit report does not say any of those things you can't say someone lacks honor, integrity or is a deadbeat(someone who deliberately does not pay their debts even though they have the ability to do so). Stuff does come up, people lose jobs, people or their kids have emergencies, and all kinds of other stuff happens that would cause a person to be tardy in their payments.

Kandahar said:

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.

Click to expand...

It would be very unfair to applicants who have worked really hard and planned and been responsible and built up good credit scores to not allow them the opportunity to have their credit report checked, if that would help them get a job. Just like it would be very unfair for people who have perfect driving records, or no criminal convictions, or good grades in school, or college degrees to be denied the opportunity to prove that also.

If these things don't matter to an employer, they won't check. If they do matter, they need to be ABLE to check with applicant permission of course.

I've never been perfect, but I always try to do the right thing. It would be very unfair to me to loose a job opportunity to someone who is less worthy or qualified just because some stupid beurocrat decides that he wants CONTROL employers.

jamesrage said:

Does a credit history tell you why someone was late on payments? Does a credit report tell you that Joe Schmo didn't pay his debts simply because he didn't feel like it? Are there little notations that say Joe Schmo has a job and no other obligations, no family emergencies but simply just refused to pay? Seeing how a credit report does not say any of those things you can't say someone lacks honor, integrity or is a deadbeat(someone who deliberately does not pay their debts even though they have the ability to do so). Stuff does come up, people lose jobs, people or their kids have emergencies, and all kinds of other stuff happens that would cause a person to be tardy in their payments.

Click to expand...

Actually, everyone has a legal right to have rebuttels or explainations attached to their credit report. I have done this several times.

If someone applied for a job with my company, and if I checked their credit report (which I dont by the way), and they had 14 loans that were all defaulted on, I would think that it is a pretty good indicator that they are not responsible. Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. But if they had 14 loans and all were marked "paid as agreed" except for one, I probably wouldn't be concerned about it. One "strike" does not an "out" make. If I was on the edge about the applicant, then I would certainly call the applicant in for a second interview (which I do anyway) and discuss the issue with them. The job applicant deserves that.

If we start outlawing credit checks, then whats next? Outlawing school transcripts? After all, some people had unreasonable teachers who consistantly gave them bad grades. Should we then outlaw criminal background checks? Some people probably have lenthy criminal records - but they were setup all 23 times. Maybe we shouldn't allow hospitals to verify that doctors are actually licensed. Driving record checks should be outlawed also - never can tell when someone was just down on their luck when they got caught driving 105 in a 35 zone. And certainly musicians shouldn't have to audition for a gig, every musician has an occasional bad performance so it would be unfair to judge them based upon an audition. And of course we shouldn't give color blindness tests to printers either, that would be unfair to discriminate against someone just because he is physically incapable of doing a job. Certification requirments for IT specialists or dental hygeniest - hogwash, they shouldnt have to PROVE that they can do a job before they are hired. Whats this world coming to, the next thing you know the patient is going to start asking me if I went to medical school before I perform brain surgery on them.

imagep said:

Actually, everyone has a legal right to have rebuttels or explainations attached to their credit report. I have done this several times.

If someone applied for a job with my company, and if I checked their credit report (which I dont by the way), and they had 14 loans that were all defaulted on, I would think that it is a pretty good indicator that they are not responsible. Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. But if they had 14 loans and all were marked "paid as agreed" except for one, I probably wouldn't be concerned about it. One "strike" does not an "out" make. If I was on the edge about the applicant, then I would certainly call the applicant in for a second interview (which I do anyway) and discuss the issue with them. The job applicant deserves that.

Click to expand...

Loans are between that individual and the lenders. Not the employers and employees(unless of course that employer is lending money to the employee).

If we start outlawing credit checks, then whats next? Outlawing school transcripts?

Click to expand...

And if we keep allowing employers to peek in private affairs of their employees, then what's next? Video cameras in the homes of their employees? Mandatory phone taps of employees? Forced/coerced chip implants of employees? I agree that an employer should be able to hire and fire you any reason they want, however your right to privacy and other constitutional rights to a certian degree should not be compromised.

jamesrage said:

Loans are between that individual and the lenders. Not the employers and employees(unless of course that employer is lending money to the employee).

Click to expand...

True. But what does that have to do with anything? Employment relationships are between individuals and their employers. No one (in America at least) forces anyone to work for a particular employer. If you don't like their policies, then quit. If the employer doesn't like your policies, they they should be able to fire you.

Should a business hire someone to be an accountant or manager or money handler that can't even manage their own finances? I think that we are all in agreeance that employers shouldn't check someones credit report just to be nosey, but has there been any problems with that? It's not exactly like we are seeing protests in the street over the issue. I don't see any reason not to trust our employers to make a reasonable decision to whether or not they have a legitimate need to check employee credit reports. No where in the constitution does it say that people with bad credit have a right to a job at just any workplace. Good companies want good employees, that's what makes them good. Should we expect all companies to settle with being mediocre?

And if we keep allowing employers to peek in private affairs of their employees, then what's next? Video cameras in the homes of their employees? Mandatory phone taps of employees? Forced/coerced chip implants of employees? I agree that an employer should be able to hire and fire you any reason they want, however your right to privacy and other constitutional rights to a certian degree should not be compromised.

Click to expand...

I don't see any issue with any of that assuming that the employee is willing to concent to it. There is nothing wrong with most anything when mutually concented between adults. Heck, I would be willing to wear a head-cam 24 hours a day, be credit checked, be drug tested, be lie detector tested, be photographed nude, and to be strip searched every day and if the job paid enough.

You are basically suggesting that private employers are evil and that private companies and private individuals need to be constantly supervised by government.

imagep said:

It would be very unfair to applicants who have worked really hard and planned and been responsible and built up good credit scores to not allow them the opportunity to have their credit report checked, if that would help them get a job. Just like it would be very unfair for people who have perfect driving records, or no criminal convictions, or good grades in school, or college degrees to be denied the opportunity to prove that also.

Click to expand...

...and just like it would be unfair to people who have never committed adultery to not be allowed the opportunity to have their potential employers station a private investigator in the bushes outside of their bedroom window.

The privacy-destroying precedent that this would set is a much more important concern than the "opportunity" for employees with nothing to hide to allow employers to check. Are there really a lot of good-credit individuals who are beating down the doors of potential employers, demanding that they check their credit? I don't think so. Chances are, a lot of good-credit individuals resent having to submit to a credit check too.

imagep said:

If these things don't matter to an employer, they won't check. If they do matter, they need to be ABLE to check with applicant permission of course.

I've never been perfect, but I always try to do the right thing. It would be very unfair to me to loose a job opportunity to someone who is less worthy or qualified just because some stupid beurocrat decides that he wants CONTROL employers.

Click to expand...

If there is a legitimate reason why someone with a poor credit history is less worthy or qualified for a particular job, then I completely agree. If the employer just wants to check because he can, then that simply isn't a good enough reason to justify extensive snooping.

Invasions of privacy are invasions of privacy, whether they come from government bureaucrats or corporate bureaucrats.

Kandahar said:

...If there is a legitimate reason why someone with a poor credit history is less worthy or qualified for a particular job, then I completely agree. If the employer just wants to check because he can, then that simply isn't a good enough reason to justify extensive snooping.

Click to expand...

So how many times have you hear about potential employers stationing a private investigator in the bushes outside of their bedroom window? Is that an issue in your village? Did they do this to you with or without your consent? Did they take pictures? That's just really creepy, I will agree.

Thats the thing, not a single poster has suggested that employers check credit "just because he can". It cost money for a company to do that, why in the world would they do that without a legitimate reason? If they choose to do so, without any evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that they have a reason to do so. Also, not a single poster on this forum ever indicated that they had been in any way harmed by an employer checking their credit. It's not a normal policy of any employer, other than employers who have a need to do so.

Now if anyone can provide any links to news stories that indicate that the practice of credit checking employees without a legitimate reason, and that employees or potential employees have been unfairly harmed, is common place, I may be willing to reconsider my position.

chickie said:

Good point. I don't care but it's an interesting question.

Click to expand...

So you care more about the integrity of your employees and less about the integrity of the people you do business with?

rivrrat said:

LMFAO If all the "good" companies do that, then all of the "good" companies don't have very many employees, which means they're not going to be "good" companies any longer. Not to mention the seriously bad PR that's going to be going on. All the boycotting and whatnot.

In this day and age, the free market takes care of that ****.

Click to expand...

I agree! Bill may ban pre-employment credit checks

rivrrat said:

LMFAO If all the "good" companies do that, then all of the "good" companies don't have very many employees, which means they're not going to be "good" companies any longer. Not to mention the seriously bad PR that's going to be going on. All the boycotting and whatnot.

In this day and age, the free market takes care of that ****.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this blind faith that the free market always produces the socially optimal result. Businesses are motivated by profit, not by being good citizens of the world. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's absurd to think that bad PR is enough to keep companies in line 100% of the time. Sometimes the law needs to step in and say "enough is enough." Invasions of privacy aren't more tolerable just because they're being perpetrated by a corporate hack instead of a government hack.

Kandahar said:

I don't understand this blind faith that the free market always produces the socially optimal result. Businesses are motivated by profit, not by being good citizens of the world. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's absurd to think that bad PR is enough to keep companies in line 100% of the time. Sometimes the law needs to step in and say "enough is enough." Invasions of privacy aren't more tolerable just because they're being perpetrated by a corporate hack instead of a government hack.

Click to expand...

I do believe I said that the prospective employee must consent. If you consent, it's hardly an invasion of privacy.

rivrrat said:

I do believe I said that the prospective employee must consent. If you consent, it's hardly an invasion of privacy.

Click to expand...

So if they wanted to put a tracking chip in you, tap your phones or put a video camera in your home to monitor you it would be okay and not invasion of privacy because you gave consent as a precondition for employment?

jamesrage said:

So if they wanted to put a tracking chip in you, tap your phones or put a video camera in your home to monitor you it would be okay because you gave consent as a precondition for employment?

Click to expand...

If that's what I agree to, that's what I agree to. I have the choice NOT to agree to it.

rivrrat said:

If that's what I agree to, that's what I agree to. I have the choice NOT to agree to it.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that because you think that kind of stuff would never happen?

jamesrage said:

Are you saying that because you think that kind of stuff would never happen?

Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that because I have a choice to agree to those conditions or not. It's my choice.

chickie said:

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


Good point. I don't care but it's an interesting question.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you never had hard times.

rivrrat said:

If that's what I agree to, that's what I agree to. I have the choice NOT to agree to it.

Click to expand...

No, because some people WILL give their consent. This will give them a leg up in the hiring process, which will cause more people to give their consent. This will put everyone who DOESN'T consent at a disadvantage, which will result in a situation where nearly everyone "consents" to it even though they'd rather not and even though it doesn't serve any legitimate business purpose. Eventually it would just become ingrained in our cultural mindset that this is what you are supposed to do when you want to get a job.

Setting precedents that protect privacy is more important than being allowed to bully your potential employees into "consenting" to ridiculous invasions of their privacy.

Kandahar said:

No, because some people WILL give their consent. This will give them a leg up in the hiring process, which will cause more people to give their consent. This will put everyone who DOESN'T consent at a disadvantage, which will result in a situation where nearly everyone "consents" to it even though they'd rather not and even though it doesn't serve any legitimate business purpose. Eventually it would just become ingrained in our cultural mindset that this is what you are supposed to do when you want to get a job.

Setting precedents that protect privacy is more important than being allowed to bully your potential employees into "consenting" to ridiculous invasions of their privacy.

Click to expand...

Yeah... when I worked for the DoD and they required a background check before I could be hired, boy they really bullied me into it and set a horrible precedent of privacy invasion when I AGREED to allow them to do it. :roll:

rivrrat said:

Yeah... when I worked for the DoD and they required a background check before I could be hired, boy they really bullied me into it and set a horrible precedent of privacy invasion when I AGREED to allow them to do it. :roll:

Click to expand...

Requiring a clean background for a job at DoD is a legitimate job-related concern.

Now if an employer wants to use a credit check for a job involving finances, that's fine. I'd certainly understand that. But just using a credit check to get a vague sense for how "responsible" an employee might be is an invasion of privacy.

Kandahar said:

Requiring a clean background for a job at DoD is a legitimate job-related concern.

Click to expand...

So they said.

Now if an employer wants to use a credit check for a job involving finances, that's fine. I'd certainly understand that. But just using a credit check to get a vague sense for how "responsible" an employee might be is an invasion of privacy.

Click to expand...

I think doing a credit check is utter horse**** and isn't going to give an employer any legitmate insight whatsoever into a prospective employee, but it's not an invasion of privacy if the prospective employee consents. And, the employer should be perfectly free to use their own guidelines for hiring people. If that means they want to see a good credit score, so be it. If you don't want them to see yours, don't consent and find work elsewhere.