As someone who checks credit for employment...

[Modem Butterfly]

I think everyone needs to calm down.

An awful lot of people have made mistakes in their past. In fact, very few people have "perfect" credit. Your credit is probably a lot closer to average than you may think. Employers are generally looking for an indication of responsbility. It's not so much the fact that you HAVE debt as much as are you PAYING OFF your debt? Owing a lot to Visa and/or Master Card isn't nearly as having multiple vehicle reposessions, a history of bad checks, or tenant evictions. Pay your debts or make agreements with your creditors and it will be reflected on your credit report. Dispute items that are in error. It will look a whole lot better than multiple collection items.

[Trajan]

1. Thanks ....

'Self Delete'

[Bluzmann57]

2. As someone who has been turned down for a job because of

past credit problems, I can say that I am working my ass off to pay off all my debts and now, wait a minute, it's really none of your business. What is the potential employers business is the type of work a person does, do they show up every day, do they do quality work? Maybe I was trying to get a better job because I wanted to improve my credit rating. Sorry, I do not buy your line of logic.

[complain jane]

5. I'm with you. What's the point of a resume and references?

Credit checks now run by potential employers? WTF? Check my references, look at my work history, talk to my past employers and read the resume. Credit history is none of anybody's damn business unless I'm asking YOU for a loan.

[MacCovern]

8. References don't mean squat

Credit report is a much better indicator. Anyone can have someone make up anything as a reference.

[Modem Butterfly]

10. That's very true

I like to call former supervisors as well as listed references.

[question everything]

125. Then, if you don't trust the references

don't hire the person.

I really hate it when someone is trying to go around the list of references to talk to "someone else.' If you need to go around this mean you do not trust the applicant and you should not hire him/her

[Media_Lies_Daily]

139. I'll go one step farther...why ask for references at all? Most major....

...corporations no longer allow their employees to give references at all because of the fear of lawsuits.

Based on what can be found in the public record, there is no need for references at all.

The best employees are those that are referred by two or more current employees. That should be enough to make a good hire.

[Modem Butterfly]

264. If you do that only, you'll have a very undiverse employee base

Referrals come into a company with many of the same experiences and politics (from a workplace, not a red/blue perspective). Referrals are good, but shouldn't be relied upon solely.

[complain jane]

387. I think a credit report is none of an employer's business, period.

That's absolutely ludicrous.

A credit report shows negatives without explanation.

A credit report won't show if you've had major financial troubles due to something beyond your control, or if you've been laid off unexpectedly.

Sorry but that's just total bullshit.

[Modem Butterfly]

6. Employers want to know how responsible you are

Having debts is one thing, but not paying debts is another.

If you're not comfortable submitting to a credit check, then you do have the option of not authorizing a credit check. Express written permission must be obtained before a credit check can be conducted. So if you really feel strongly about this, don't do it. Of course, then you lose the opportunity to explain yourself and show how responsible you are and using that as a potential selling point...

BTW, according to the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) you should have received a letter stating that you were denied employment due to information provided by the particular credit bureau that they used. If you didn't receive this letter, and you have proof that you were denied employment based on credit, you should report the employer. Violating the FCRA is a serious offense and comes with big fines.

[maveric]

30. See post # 27.

Do they take into account "circumstances beyond one's control"? Bad luck?
Evil bastards!

[susanna]

147. That SOUNDS great...

...but I am willing to bet lots of employers take their chances and do not disclose it, knowing full well that an employee with rough credit does not have the resources to fight/prove the company has violated the FCRA.

I do NOT think a credit check is necessary for a job and am really appalled at how widespread the abuse of credit checks is...mostly for things that your credit has no bearing on (insurance, jobs, etc.)

In the interest of disclosure, I have very good credit and own my own home. I am quite frugal and hate debt, though I do use credit cards rarely, and then only in order to maintain a credit history.

I have been in my job for 15 years. Shouldn't that type of history (longevity in a job) count for more than whether someone was young and/or stupid and got in over their head financially? I think employers are just making excuses to further their draconian hold over employees (or potential employees), and find it disgusting, frankly.

[Modem Butterfly]

148. A credit report is only part of the picture

Some employers will give it too much weight, just as some employers give too much weight to appearance, Greek affiliation, and where you went to school. My point here is to tell people how to deal with employer credit checks and to explain why they are done. I think it's probably more productive than whining about the fact that they are an increasing part of the employment process.

[susanna]

158. Productive HOW?

Your statement "tell people how to deal with employer credit checks and to explain why they are done," really blows me away. What can an average job-seeker DO about the potential for unfair weighting (as you mentioned is a possibility)? NOTHING. This is the crux of the argument.

You call many others' opinions, including my own, "whining," but I disagree. We are simply stating our opinions, with our reasoning behind it. You are the one implying "that's the way it is, suck it up." Sweet.

If you read many of the posts in all the threads about this subject, you are in the minority and should have probably seen this coming when you made your original post, IMHO. You can rationalize your employer's practices all you like...in fact, please do. I like to know your side of the story, even if I disagree.

Whining indeed.

on edit: clarity

[Modem Butterfly]

190. Actually, job seekers can do plenty

Get your credit report. Fix whatever mistakes you can. Take the bull by the horns in an interview situtation, don't wait for employers to find mistakes or negative information.

[Occulus]

182. Using denial of employment as a punishment for past financial mistakes is

unbelieveably wrong. I can't understand why you are even allowed to do this in the first place. This really ought to be illegal as hell, similar to forcing employees to work off the clock, violating child labor laws, or any other business crimes.

I also can't believe anyone here needs to explain why this is wrong to anybody else, as the fact is self-evident, and I'm absolutely stunned that I find myself needing to explain exactly that to one of our own DU members.

My dear MB, asking for my credit report is asking for things that don't affect you, and if you do ask, I hope you're prepared to allow me to go through all your company's internal financial, billing, and employee records before I'm hired, so I know that you are a company I can trust to work for. I have the right to examine any pending lawsuits in detail, I have the right to look at your board minutes (without being a stockholder, mind you) and I get to stand in prior to my hiring and watch your company in operation, so I can know if I can work with the people I'll be assigned under.

If you can't accept that, then you shouldn't be asking about what is, in effect, my own personal equivalent to all those things. If my privacy can be treated in such a trivial fashion by a potential employer, then that employer better be prepared to reciprocate, or never ask to begin with.

[Modem Butterfly]

192. That's a gross misinterpretation of my statements and the law.

No one is getting punished for past financial mistakes, except perhaps by lenders.

[jayfish]

213. It May Be A Misinterpretation Of What You Have Said,

but that's exactly what it is whether you like it or not.

Jay

[Modem Butterfly]

215. Well, at least you admit it.

That's refreshing.

[Occulus]

247. No it's not, and I didn't mention what the law IS, only what it SHOULD BE.

I stand by my statement: you are helping someone punish people for their past financial mistakes by helping to ensure they may not be able to rectify those mistakes.

Shame on you.

edit: I don't believe I misinterpreted anything, but I DO think you're trying to make something you know is wrong, unethical, and punitive into something honorable. Sorry, but a cake made of feces with the yummiest chocolate frosting ever made is STILL just a cake of feces.

second edit, for clarity: this should be damnably illegal, as illegal as violating child labor laws or forcing an employee to work off the clock. SHOULD be.

You are making it harder for some to find work. Shame, SHAME, SHAME on you!

[Tansy_Gold]

313. I agree, kgfnally.

And even though I haven't read through all of this thread, I'm mad as hell.

My daughter and son-in-law were almost denied a mortgage because of details on HIS credit report left over from his EX-WIFE's bankruptcy. She had obtained a credit card before the divorce and didn't disclose it at the time of the divorce, so it remained on his credit report. They were able to correct the error and were able to get the mortgage, though it ended up costing them an extra $1200. Ooops, sorry it was a mistake, but you still have to pay.

What if this had been a job interview? What if the company had seen the credit report, denied him the job, and only later, after he found out it was an error that cost him the job, did he get it corrected? Is the company going to come back and say, "Okay, we'll fire the person we hired and hire you instead"? Not likely.

Once again, this is all part of the corporate mentality of hiring people who really don't even need the job, people who are "just like" the people doing the hiring, and people hiring people based on who they are rather than on what kind of work they do.

[Modem Butterfly]

329. I've said it before, I'll say it again

Check your credit before you interview and be prepared to confront any errors or mistakes head on.

[Tansy_Gold]

358. Yes, of course, it's always THE EMPLOYEE'S responsibility,

never the corporation's. Corporations have no responsibility, save to produce profit for their stockholders. No responsibility to behave in a morally, ethically, or environmentally sound manner.

All hail the corporations and their minions!

:sarcasm:

As far as I'm concerned, the whole cult of "personal responsibility" is nothing but a GOP tactic for pushing all -- not some, but ALL -- the burden onto the individual while keeping all -- not some, but ALL -- the benefit and resources in the total control of the corporation, whether that "corporation" is a fascist government or a for-profit business.

The whole defense of the credit check as a requirement for employment seems to be on the side of the employer, and particularly the corporation that has the resources to both investigate and control the individual.

I don't consider that the stance any good democrat, Democrat, or progressive would take. I always thought we stood for the RIGHTS of the individual and protected those rights, rather than defending and protecting the corporate entity.

[Modem Butterfly]

361. Corporations are made up of employees

You seem to forget that. And anyway, individuals certainly have the ability to check on corporations.

Personal responsibility may have been taken over by the Republicans, but it's a very Democratic idea; take ownership of what you've done and clean up your own mess. If we had followed that ideal, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

[Tansy_Gold]

365. No, corporations are made up of stockholders

Employees are not owners, have no control or management rights, and rarely participate in the profits of the corporation. The corporation does not have any responsibility -- other than wages -- to the employees nor can the employees "fire" the corporation.

Do read "Divine Right of Capital" by Marjorie Kelley.

Then read my sig line.

[Modem Butterfly]

376. Wow.

An absolutely stunning POV.

[complain jane]

390. Amen!

Excellent post.

[dejaboutique]

183. who cares HOW they weigh it

I don't care how much employers weigh it - it is still a violation of privacy. What happened to resumes, background checks (criminal), and references. was this post supposed to justify credit checks?

[dogday]

263. Well Let's Not Stop at Credit, Let's Get Dr.'s Records and Find Out

if they have any illness they are not disclosing. After all we would not want to cost the precious Corp any sick time now would we. See where this is going?

[MacCovern]

7. Depends on the job,,,

"It's really none of your business". Are you kidding me????????????
If you applied for a job dealing in banking, finance, or anything dealing
with other peoples money it sure is their business.
If someone can't handle their personal finances, how are they supposed to have a job in which part of their duties are being responsible for someone elses money?
A company would be negligent to not check someone's credit report for these type of jobs.

On the other hand, if you applied for a job pushing a broom, repairing automobiles, or one of the thousands of other type jobs out there not dealing directly with the money of others than you may have a legitimate gripe.

[Bluzmann57]

14. The job I was turned down for had nothing to do with finance

It was a factory job that I have college level training in. It is a huge corporation that pays very good wages. I have straightened out a few things since then and have a reasonably good job in another place. But it still burns my butt that they wanted a credit check.

[MacCovern]

16. Factory job is a stretch to check credit

Many companies use a credit report now to see how responsible a person is, but for that type of job it sounds inappropriate to check credit.

It's to the point now that many insurance companies check credit before you can get auto or homeowners insurance and then base the rate on your
credit score. Of course, I could create a whole new thread on that one.
Personally, I think insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to determine insurance rates based on credit scores.

[toddaa]

31. Credit check cannot be the sole factor

I work for an insurance company and can assure that all the states we write in do not allow us to decline insurance or base your rates solely on credit score. Yes, it is factored in, but so are good driving records, prior claims, and the number one big whammy, teenage drivers. That said, it is one of the first things we check. And no, I don't particularly like it, especially given the fact that we get it from Choicepoint, which scares the hell out of us based on how little information we have to give them for them to turn around and give us a credit report. They don't even require a social security number. Call your congressman and demand tighter control of information brokers. They are the ones who are truly out of control.

[Gormy Cuss]

50. YES-- regulate the data brokers.

Choicepoint in particular should be regulated out of existence unless it is willing to accept responsibility for inappropriate use of data by its subscribers, and severe punitive damages paid to individuals who are harmed by Choicepoint's dissemination of inaccurate data.

As for insurance companies, they hide behind proprietary actuarial models when asked why they give a hoot about my credit rating. The CLUE database goes so far as to ding current owners for a pattern of homeowner's claim by previous owners, as if that makes any sense. There was a case near here where the new owners were denied standard coverage because the previous owner had filed three claims for theft, and CLUE labelled the house high risk. Yeah, that's logic for you.

Companies who demand invasive data are the source of most of the large scale ID theft and credit fraud schemes, often committed by their own employees. So much for credit checks.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

160. Maybe your's doesn't

but my insurance raked me over the coals based on credit scoring. I had homeowners and auto with them for over 18 years. I have never had one ding, not one, on my driving record, paid my premiums on time EVERY time for all 18 years. I had one 700.00 claim for hail damage 13 years ago. When credit scoring became the latest scam they moved me out of my "good driver" company and put me in high risk county mutual and more than doubled my rates. So... tell me again how credit scoring is not the main thing they use to screw you.

[Modem Butterfly]

193. That's a separate issue

I have no experience in the insurance industry except with regards to employee benefits, and credit scores don't really weigh into that.

[toddaa]

291. Not saying that it didn't screw you

But they can't use it as the sole factor. That's illegal. The hail damage is more problematic. Currently, if you make a hail damage claim, we'll drop you. And it's not just us. Many insurance companies are pulling out of areas with a history of storm claims. Last year, Florida killed a lot of P&C companies and if storms are strong this year, expect to find a lot of people on the coast unable to get homeowners insurance. Global warming and climate change are becoming major issues for insurance companies.

[susanna]

161. Thank you for understanding that.

I have a great driving record - no points, no tickets, nothing for the last ten years...and I REALLY drive only 3-10 miles each way to work, I don't just say so.

My auto insurance jumped a huge amount in the last quarter. I called to ask why and they said, "your credit check." I got livid, knowing I have good credit, and found out they checked the wrong person's credit score (same name, same city) and negligently attached it to my file! It still isn't off and I am paying for it as we speak. I doubt I will recover the lost money, even when it is cleared up.

Can you imagine if they got this person's credit file when I tried for a new job? This is my argument. The credit card companies play fast and loose with information they think MIGHT be right. That is wrong, on every level.

edit: clarity again sorry

[Modem Butterfly]

194. An employer sees a different credit report than a lender...

...and, AFAIK, an insurance company (I believe they see the same one as a lender). In any event, this is a very strong argument for checking your credit file often and making sure you're prepared to confront any discrepencies and issues head on in an interview situation.

[toddaa]

293. Here's what's scary

I can call up Choicepoint today and using only your name and your zip code, I can get your MVR and your credit report. And I don't even have to spell your name correctly.

[Modem Butterfly]

332. You'll need the Social Security number and date of birth as well...

...and in some states, you'll need gender and possibly racial information. In other states, you'll need a signed authorization. And in any event, you'll need to be an established ChoicePoint customer.

[toddaa]

352. That's what they claim to require

But we've got agents who key 999-99-9999 into the SSN field and 01-01-1960 in the DOB field and get back a valid credit report. When we called Choicepoint to declare this as a but (I work in IT), they responded that it was working correctly.

[Modem Butterfly]

355. I call bullshit on this

Period.

[toddaa]

392. I wish I could too

But I've got a database filled with the credit reports of everyone in a small town in Utah with an SSN of 123-45-6789. We had an agent enter everyone in his town's phonebook into our report ordering system and Choicepoint returned a report for each one it could find based on nothing but first name, last name, and mailing address. We terminated our contract with the agent.

[Occulus]

249. Your company would LOVE to deny people based on their credit score.

Thanks to people like MB, this is becoming common practice.

We NEED to outlaw this. Employers have NO business knowing this, and no, good/bad credit is NOT a good measure of responsibility, simply because there are so many ways a responsible person's credit can be ruined, and through no fault of their own.

Again, this should be out-and-out ILLEGAL.

[Modem Butterfly]

259. How much power do you think I have?

Seriously?

[Mizmoon]

265. Enough to demand a credit report and detailed answers

about the contents even though it's none of your damn business. And your fellow DUers clearly think that it's waaaay too much power.

[Modem Butterfly]

269. You flatter me

Number one, I don't demand credit reports and detailed answers. Prospective employees give the company permission to pull their credit and I'm the one who reviews it, among other things.

Number two, the act of applying for a job (i.e., attempting to get involved in a company's business) means opening your past, including some of your personal business, to that company. You'd never dream of telling the girl who bags your grociers at Alpha-Beta how much you currently make, but prospective employers do what to know.

[Occulus]

294. You do realize, I hope,

that each time an employer does this to someone looking for a job, it costs them on their credit record. Too many requests, in too short a time period, can itself make it harder to qualify for credit-based services.

For example: I submit ten applications/resumes in a single month (not too far a stretch, since I myself have filled out nearly that many in a single day in the past). Each employer requests a credit check.

What will happen to my credit score if ten credit checks are done in a single month? I'll give you a clue- you'll be begging for your loans. Which is exactly where many banks want you to be.

I just learned this from my loan officer. Multiple credit checks harm a person's credit. Not by much, mind, but too many checks in a given period is a red flag to lenders.

Simply requesting a credit check shouldn't come at an even slight cost to one's overall score, but it does. That's only another way handing this information to a prospective employer can harm the applicant.

You shouldn't get my SS number until you hire me, nor should you be able to perform a credit check upon me as a condition, or even a recommendation, of employment. It should be illegal, with jail time, for even asking for either of these things, simply because this is deeply personal and, if misused, devastatingly dangerous information; far too much so for any reasonable person to hand off to a total stranger.

They're like your internet passwords- anyone asking for those should be treated as immediately suspect, because no legitimate purpose exists for such a request. The same is true for my SS number; as an employer, the only available information should be limited to references and work history (and I don't much like the 'employment gap' crap either; a gap in employment indicates no more or less personal responsibility- a deeply Republican term, by the way, akin to 'abortion on demand' with regard to how it's being used here- than the presence or lack of dirt on one's car being used in an employment decision), personal references who are not family, education, name and address, and possibly criminal history, in cases where that history counts.

The key here is the reasonableness of releasing that information to a stranger before a formal relationship is established. I personally am against any employer asking for even my SS number prior to being hired; it's simply far, far too easy for that information to be misused, and should not be allowed at all on that basis and that basis alone.

[Modem Butterfly]

296. Not exactly

Employment queries don't show on a credit report the same way lenders do, and, IIRC, don't show up on the lender's version at all (employers and lenders see different reports).

The same is true for my SS number; as an employer, the only available information should be limited to references and work history (and I don't much like the 'employment gap' crap either; a gap in employment indicates no more or less personal responsibility- a deeply Republican term, by the way, akin to 'abortion on demand' with regard to how it's being used here- than the presence or lack of dirt on one's car being used in an employment decision), personal references who are not family, education, name and address, and possibly criminal history, in cases where that history counts.


We just did a background check on an employee who did ten years for vehicular assault and forcible rape. His resume was made up out of thin air. He even got a buddy to lie for him. I sure as hell wouldn't want to work next to him, let alone have to be the one to tell him his job performance was sub-par.

[jayfish]

300. But How Was His Credit? -NT-

Jay

[Modem Butterfly]

302. Abysmal

He'd been out for two years or so and had multiple bad checks, one repo, and a judgement based on eviction.

[Horse with no Name]

51. This reasoning doesn't make sense

My cousin has been in drug treatment, attempted suicide because of out of control life (mostly financial from a lousy divorce), and has filed bankruptcy twice.
You know what she does for a living now?
She is a Senior Bankruptcy Specialist for Bank One. She has been promoted from clerk on up to a very nice living because she did a good job, regardless of her credit history. She has a beautiful home in an upscale neighborhood, drives a nice car, met a nice guy, and got remarried.
All she needed was a chance at that corner office to show that she could do a great job for someone.
It's a hell of alot easier to get ahead when you have a good job than when you are making minimum wage.
It's easy to judge someone when you haven't lived in their shoes.
But, when you can't pay your bills, get depressed, get divorced--some people feel that their options get very limited. Some turn to suicide. Others to drugs. Some to both.
The problem is, that once you obtain bad credit from a divorce or whatever, then you have to pay more for less and the truth is, you never get ahead.
You need a car? You can't buy a new one. So you end up buying a beater from a dealer of ill repute. You pay almost as much for a car that is 8-10 years old than you would for a new one. Usually encumbered with high interest rates and no guarantees.
When the car breaks down--and it will, then you have repair bills on it. This on top of higher payments and a less efficient car.
Most people can barely afford car payments, but when you add repairs on top, many times that is enough to spiral them into financial catastrophe.
So now, a person that might have been hanging on a ledge credit wise, just toppled down a couple rungs on the ladder.
You pay higher deposits for everything--utilities, rent, deposits, etc. Again, someone that can ill afford paying more.
Our society is such that one mistake can topple you into an endless spiral financially, now, employers are taking away their opportunity to put an end to it. I find that reprehensible.

[susanna]

169. HWNN, I'm with you.

This is EXACTLY the problem I see. I have sister in a difficult spot because of her former husband's penchant for buying crap they couldn't afford. In the divorce, he was supposed to make good on the debt. He didn't, and now it's hers, too.

There are so many things that factor into the credit score that to use it unwisely is to cripple the least among us. It is a horrific thing in the wrong hands, and that could be anyone (person)/anything (corporation).

It boggles the mind.

[Pushed To The Left]

187. This might be a good campaign issue

Has any politician ever tried to outlaw this practice?

[markus]

204. Do institutions have credit statements?

If they can see ours, we should be able to pull one of their's for free. Or perhaps our future managers.

This is just the continued rampage of corporations over citizens. I don't blame MB for what she does. My wife is an HR manager whom has not yet drunk the SHRM kool-aide.

But we have to reign in corporate power.

[northzax]

255. certainly

you mean you wouldn't investigate a company before taking a job there? If it's a public company, read the quarterly filings with the SEC, check the S+P Bond Rating, see how much cash they have on hand, see if they make money, or will make money. Ask other people, especially in the field, "hey, what do you know about XXX? Good place to work? Good company?" you don't do that? If it's a non=profit, check the latest 990 on file with the IRS. If it's a private company, check the Better Business Bureau. Ask questions. Personally, I want to know if my new employer is going to make payroll next quarter, I want to know if they're going under or up, don't you? I want to know if they have a subsidiary killing orangutans in Borneo, I want to know what their energy policy is, how they treat employees, whether or not they dump toxic waste. you don't?

If you simply take the first thing offered, because it's offered, without doing any homework, then you'd be as remiss as they would be in not learning everything about a potential employee.

[babylonsister]

3. Weird! Just got this in an e-mail:

Could provide add'l info, but I haven't looked into it further.

Published Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Free Credit Files Available Today
Reporting bureaus must provide yearly reports by law, but you have to ask.

By JOHN HIELSCHER
New York Times Regional Newspapers

Starting today, Floridians can obtain free copies of one of their most important financial documents -- credit reports. Last year, the phasing-in of the program started in the western states, and now it's time for residents in the South to get theirs.

The no-cost reports are required by a 2003 federal law. Individual reports from the three nationwide consumer reporting companies -- Equifax, Experian and TransUnion -- typically cost about $10 each.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act now requires each of those bureaus to provide everyone with a free copy every 12 months. But consumers must ask for it; it won't be sent automatically.

The Federal Trade Commission recommends that consumers review their credit reports from all three bureaus because each uses different databases to compile information. The three reports can be ordered all at once, or consumers can stagger them over the course of a year.

WHAT'S IN A CREDIT REPORT?

Credit reports chronicle a person's debt and payment history, detailing mortgages, car loans, credit cards and payment records. They also list any pastdue accounts, bankruptcies, foreclosures or actions by collection agencies. The bureaus collect this information and sell it to lenders and other businesses that have permission to obtain it. The free reports lack one piece of data available in the paid versions: They don't contain a person's credit score -- a number reflecting creditworthiness based on the report -- that lenders often use as a benchmark. Those can be purchased separately from each bureau for about $6 to $8.

WHO USES CREDIT REPORTS?

Lenders use the reports, along with the credit score, to decide if a potential borrower qualifies for a mortgage, a credit card or other form of credit. They also can be used to set interest rates on loans. But others use credit reports, such as landlords checking on a potential tenant's payment history or an employer considering hiring someone who will handle large sums of money.

WHY SHOULD THEY BE REVIEWED?

Credit experts say consumers should review their credit reports at least once a year. The reports may contain errors and might reveal the first evidence of identity theft.

"Consumers can use this new tool to monitor their credit, check for accuracy in their personal information, and help protect themselves from identity theft," said Lydia Parnes, director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

A 2004 survey found that 79 percent of credit reports contain some kind of error.

WHAT IF THERE ARE ERRORS?

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, both the credit bureau and the information provider (such as a credit card company) are responsible for correcting inaccurate or incomplete information. Contact the credit bureau online or in writing about what information you think is wrong. The bureau will contact the data provider and respond, usually within 30 days. If the company agrees, an updated report will be issued. If not, the consumer can put a written statement in the credit file.

Web address: www.annualcreditreport.com. The report will appear right away after entering information.

Request form available at the Web site and mailing it to Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281. Reports will be mailed within 15 days of receiving form.

For more information, visit the Federal Trade Commission Web site at www.ftc.gov.

[frylock]

4. and what about personal bankruptcies?

[Modem Butterfly]

9. Depends on the number, duration, and current status

I've hired plenty of people with bankruptcies. Anyone can make a mistake, and everyone makes a few. But numerous bankruptcies in consecutive or nearly consecutive years is a red flag, IMHO.

[Occulus]

295. here's another red flag

"numerous bankruptcies in consecutive or nearly consecutive years"

How does that happen, exactly, when one has to wait several years before filing again even once?

My BS meter is topping out over here.....

[cap]

379. Yup, you must wait seven years before filing another bankruptcy

eom. That's why as soon as you clear your bankruptcy. The subprime credit card companies are all over folks. They cant wipe that debt out for a long time... Oh yeah... remember they just changed the bankruptcy law so you cant wipe out the debts like you used to. You're on the hook for a lot more than you used to be.

[Liberal In Texas]

11. Frankly, I don't see how a credit history has anything to do with job...

...performance.

There are sure a lot of people who show up every day, don't steal, work their butts off, but have terrible credit histories. Divorce, medical problems, bad money managers, family problems, etc.

Unless you hire CPA's or something, looking up someone's credit history seems like a lazy way to determine if an applicant is qualified for a job. It has more to do with thier personal life than their professional life. And that is none of your business.

I would think that you could find out better from past employment, references, resume history, education, and job interviews.

But I guess all that checking might take time.

[Modem Butterfly]

15. Credit histories are only part of the story

The vast majority of employees will never be in a position to steal. But a history of bad debt, multiple repos or evictions can point to an employee that, frankly, may be more trouble than he or she is worth.

On the other hand, an employee that has a history of debt and has taken responsibility for that debt by repayment may actually be more desireable than an employee who hasn't been in that position (the logic being that the employeewho has brought him or herself back from the brink has shown themselves to be responsible and able to learn from his or her mistakes).

[Liberal In Texas]

20. And I still think that applies ONLY to their personal lives.

I've worked with a lot of people who have terrible personal lives, can't manage their finances to save their lives, and yet are shining stars in their corporate life. Without their job, they would be miserable failures as people.

So, Modem, do you check references? Do you contact previous employers? Do you check with the institutions of higher learning that people claim to have graduated from? Do you look at employment history?

Maybe you do, but too many HR people don't. I'm sure it takes a lot less time to run someones credit check than call all those references on the resume and the previous employers.

[Modem Butterfly]

22. Are they?

From a management perspecive, people who have messy personal lives can be a nightmare to manage in ways that aren't apparent to their coworkers. I'll spare you the horror stories, just realize that what a coworker sees may very well not be the whole story. The best organizations keep that stuff confidential.

I've never seen (or even heard of) an HR organization that didn't check references and call employers. It is much more common for employers to skip the background investigation than the reference check. For one thing, it costs money to run background checks. For another, you open yourself to a lot of legal risk in the process.

[Liberal In Texas]

26. Far as I could tell. They seemed to hold he job for a damn long time.

I've been listed as a reference countless times by friends/co-workers interviewing for jobs. I think I've been called once.

Oh, it's cheaper to just do a credit check, is it? That explains it.

If I had my way, there would be legal problems running a credit check on a candidate as well.

[Bunny]

Well, with regard to your being a reference for others:

I check references, and I won't bother calling someone who wasn't or isn't in a supervisory position over the applicant.

You said your name is listed for countless friends/co-workers, but you've received very few calls? Well, unless you were the supervisor of these friends/co-workers, I wouldn't call you either. Anyone can get their friends to give them a good reference - they're next to useless when hiring. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[Liberal In Texas]

61. For friends, it was a personal reference. For co-workers, my position was

considered supervisory.

Not that it matters, just setting the record straight.

[Modem Butterfly]

64. So your co-workers misrepresented you as a supervisor?

No wonder you're so opposed to anything other than references. Sheesh!

[Liberal In Texas]

72. Excuse me, What the F is that supposed to mean?

[Modem Butterfly]

77. It means references are too easily faked

As a hiring manager, I want as much information as I can possibly get. A credit report may not be perfect, but it's a lot more objective than getting one of your co-workers to play supervisor for the reference check.

[Liberal In Texas]

87. I didn't say play.

And I considered the people I was surpervising my co-workers.
I considered the managers co-workers. We were all working together, see? For a common goal.

You're company sounds monolitihic and Big Brother-ish. What a horror to have to work there.

I hope you don't screw up too many people's lives.

You have made a brilliant example of why we need more regulation in business.

[Modem Butterfly]

91. Yeah, right

You supervised people you didn't hire, fire, review, or pretty much anything else, since that was left to the managers. That pretty much leaves you with, what, supervising coffee break? Please.

I don't blame people for trumping up fake references, but I sure won't hire them if I find out about it.

[dsc]

98. I have to ask

just where this post comes from. I have read the whole exchange and nowhere does that poster say he didn't do those things. He doesn't say he did but he says his position was considered supervisory. To make an analogy. The assistant prinicpal I most often dealt with this year didn't hire me, didn't evaluate me, couldn't fire me, but did happen to be the administrator to whom most of my write ups of students went. I would have zero problem listing her as a supervisory reference, though apparently you would think me a liar for doing so.

[Modem Butterfly]

102. Posts 76 and 82

Bunny asks if Lib has hire/fire, review, benefit, and/or time responsibilities and Lib says no.

[dsc]

105. Sorry I saw that later

but my other point still stands. Wouldn't the assistant principal I listed be a supervisor of mine?

[Modem Butterfly]

110. That depends

Does the assistant principal have hire/fire/review/attendance and/or benefit tabulation responsbilities?

[dsc]

114. For me no

We work by department for evaluations and she doesn't do math. But she is the adminstrator who is most familiar with my work due to having dealt with well over 2/3 of my referrals. By contrast, the two people you would want listed either in one case never, as in not one time, came to my classroom, and in the other came only on evaluations (three times). The fact is the supervisor who would most likely know how I did this year would be her not the two you would insist on. She would know my attendence as I also taught 5th period and she was responsible for that class having a teacher (ie she had to find someone if I was absent).

[Modem Butterfly]

129. I'd list her as a co-worker reference, since strictly speaking...

she isn't supervising you.

[Liberal In Texas]

155. This is getting tedious, so this will probably be my last reply to this...

post. You seem to have started enough fires to keep you busy.

I don't really think I need to justify to you what I did. I'm not sitting in your office quivering wondering if my credit score is good enough to be hired by your company so I can come aboard and play mind games with you and the staff you've undoubtedly built.

As far as the coffee break crack, I'll leave the coffee break management to you. I'm sure you have strict rules about those.

If you must know, I woked in the broadcast television industry as a director. A director's word is like God on the set or in the control room, and you bet the crew did what I told them to. They did it because they knew what they were supposed to do and how the chain of command worked. Good people hired them (not HR people -- department heads) and we did great things without close supervision, annual appraisals, or credit checks.

It was a pretty good industry up until about 10-15 years ago when corporate jerks got hold of it. Apparently we started to make too much money. Now we have no managers with practical experience (but great "qualifications" and I imagine great credit scores). And now look at what a miserable state it's in. Fox, CNN, reality programming, infotainment, mega-mergers, on and on.

I am so glad I'm now independant and away from playing office politics with people who wouldn't know a news story from an urban legend, or digital Beta SP from VHS.

[Modem Butterfly]

195. Sorry, but I simply don't find you credible

A TV director that had no say in attendance, hiring/firing and reviews? Whatever.

[Tansy_Gold]

393. Hey, it's okay.

Some of us don't find you credible either, so I guess we're even.

[Bunny]

94. Well, you've now crossed over into ridiculous.

"I hope you don't screw up too many people's lives.

You have made a brilliant example of why we need more regulation in business."


Nothing like a little hyperbole, huh? I agree with many things Modem Butterfly has said on this thread, and my company does not now and never has checked credit records for any current or prospective employees. And my company is a small non-profit, not a "monolithic Big Brother".

[Liberal In Texas]

164. Er, that wasn't in reply to you. n/t

[Bunny]

189. Yeah, I know that.

[elehhhhna]

221. You have to much faith in the accuracy of credit reporting co's., MB.

[Modem Butterfly]

230. Not really, I just know how the hiring process works

As I always tell people, pull your credit report, fix the errors, dispute inaccurate or unfair debts, and work to fix your mistakes.

[Bunny]

76. If your position was 'considered' supervisory, why do you call

them co-workers? I'm trying to understand your point. Did you have any hiring/firing/disciplinary responsibilities toward these people? Did you have input into their performance appraisal? Did you schedule their work hours, keep track of attendance, benefit time, etc?

[Liberal In Texas]

82. People I directed on the job.

No on the clerical stuff. Managers did that.

[Bunny]

89. Well, that doesn't tell me alot. But, as you said, it doesn't matter

much.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

168. Lib

it would appear that the crux of this conversation, if that's what you want to call it, is to make sure everyone knows what important positions are held. I mean my God, if you don't hire and fire people daily or do their reviews yourself you are a mere commoner. The high and mighty tone in here is mind boggling.

For what it's worth, I don't solely hire or fire. I maintain all the employee files, payroll and I handle ALL of the money for this company. Hiring, firring and reviews are a joint effort at my company. I consider everyone there my co-worker right on down to part time help. You see, we are all a team. TOGETHER we make the company run and profitable. And when a call comes in for references, you guessed it. I take the call. What a novel concept this team work environment. Just a group of people all working for a common goal and no one feeling as if they have to be labeled king. Who'd of thunk it?

[fishwax]

181. my supervisors call me a co-worker. I don't think it uncommon at all.

I've called people i've supervised co-workers. This has been the case not just at the job I'm in now but in previous jobs as well. I don't think it's that unusual. :shrug:

[Modem Butterfly]

196. That's part of the problem

Employees have a great potential for misrepresentation. Employers seek as much verifiable information as possible in order to navigate around that, but it's an uphill battle.

[fishwax]

267. I just don't get the reaction to Lib's use of co-workers

Bunny didn't get why he would call people he supervised co-workers. And earlier when he mingled the two terms, you implied that his co-workers had misrepresented him as a supervisor when using him as a reference, when in fact that might be entirely reasonable in that line of work and not a misrepresentation at all. I can understand and respect the difficulty of getting verifiable information, though, particularly as business structures become more fluid.

[Modem Butterfly]

55. No, it's not

It's not cheaper to run a credit check than to check references. Background checks (which include credit checks) cost money.

Friend/coworker references are useless.

Every employer has a number of relatively long-term employees that, had they known then what they know now, they wouldn't have hired.

[susanna]

171. self-delete. n/t

[elehhhhna]

224. Mo, every manager makes hiring decisions that turn out poorly,

and they should be judged not by whether they made a bad hire (we ALL have), but how fast they cut the stinkers loose.

Credit checking for non-money-handling positions wil probably give one a false sense of security.

In 15 years of Headhunting and managing legal (Attorney) temps--I was a VP--and I've seen it all. I've had many Fortune 500 clients as well as several of the top law firms in the country.

PM me if you want to know how to really get deep reference checks.

[Modem Butterfly]

238. It doesn't work that way

A history of bad hires can really work against a person. It's bad for the department and bad for the company. Moreover, termination is much more problematic than not hiring in the first place.

I was a headhunter myself for 10 years. We should compare notes some time.

[elehhhhna]

254. The you KNOW how to do a deep ref check, I assume?

Consistent bad hiring decisions are another story. You know by now, however, that Sociopaths give EXCELLENT interviews.

[elehhhhna]

219. Cheaper & lazier than calling references. Period.

[Modem Butterfly]

222. Actually, calling references is much cheaper and much easier

There are no data to secure, no letters to send, and few responses to track.

[Occulus]

298. Good LORD, you want to take this WAY too far!!

"multiple repos or evictions"? You're kidding, right?

You want some college kid who got evicted three times for excessive noise to be haunted by that in employment???

You'd like someone trying to live on a fast food wage who tries to buy a car twice and ends up not being able to make the payments each time to have a harder time getting a job?

How many of each, presicely, does it take for you to feel comfortable doing this to someone? Three? Five? More?

"has a history of debt and has taken responsibility for that debt by repayment"

There's that "personal responsibility" thing again, without regard to difficulties that can put someone in that position through no fault of their own. As an employer, I suppose, you don't have to care about the why portion of the story- which is why it should be an illegal practice.

And reposessions and evictions should be equally taboo. As an employer, you shouldn't even be able to ask.

My GOD, but you do seem to want to know everything you can about your employees' personal lives- much like that Weyland company (or some such name) here in MI that told its employees to quit smoking, even at hyome, or be terminated.

Is that wrong, in your estimation? Just exactly how far do you think an employer or prospective employer should be able to go regarding their employees' personal lives and tribulations? Just how deep is it okay with you for them to dig?

What, in your opinion, should an employer not be allowed to do in that regard?

[Modem Butterfly]

304. I'm not sure what you're thinking is here...

...but I assure you, I don't have much control over every employer in the US.

Evictions show up on your credit report when you end up owing money. So a college kid who doesn't pay rent and/or burns down a few apartments may very well not be a good bet as an employee. Someone who has had multiple reposessions may very well have an attendance problem. Someone who's overcome those things in their past may very well have learned from them. A credit report is part of a total picture.

How far should companies be able to go? That's a good question. I feel that current law protects candidates quite well, but current law will be inadequate as science advances (specifically in the area of biometric and genetic testing). My hope would be that the ADA would cover prospective illnesses, such as a tendancy toward heart attacks, just as it covers actual illnesses now. But, all of this is in the realm of science fiction at this point.

[welshTerrier2]

12. corporate arrogance !!

employees owe employers an honest day's work ... reference checking to determine if they've done an honest day's work in previous jobs is fine ... checking PUBLIC criminal records is fine ...

checking private credit information is NOT at all fine ...

what's next? should we make the whole family come in for an interview to see what kind of parent the person has been ??? should we require a detailed sexual history (and interviews with former "partners") to determine whether the person is promiscuous ??? should we allow employers to see your library records to see if you've been reading the "wrong kind of books" ???

credit information is only relevant if you are going to lend someone money ... it has no fucking place whatsoever in the hiring and employment arena ... advocating this kind of intrusiveness does nothing but empower the corporate state at the expense of workers ...

human resource people should not condone this invasion of privacy ... it's nothing but corporate arrogance, plain and simple ...

[Modem Butterfly]

17. Actually, if you authorize a criminal check...

...you've probably authorized a credit check, too, since both kinds of background checks are covered under the FCRA. Most employers use the same authorization form whether they check credit in addition to criminal or not.

And frankly, most reference checks will touch on personal issues. One company I worked for had a standardized form asking the references to comment on any "personal issues" that the prospective employer should know about, purposely leaving the question open-ended.

[Liberal In Texas]

21. That borders on gossip.

I suppose you can rationalize it.
But, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, and you shouldn't even ask the question.

[Modem Butterfly]

25. If someone is a security threat, I want to know

If someone has multiple garnishment that are going to end up costing my company money (in administrative and real costs), I want to know.

If someone has a serious attendance problem, I want to know.

If someone has a history of making racist/sexist jokes or comments at work, I want to know.

All of these things lead directly to job performance, workplace morale, and my legal risk.

[Liberal In Texas]

32. Aside from the garnishments, you find out that stuff on a credit check?

I think you find that out by contacting past employers. Last I looked at my credit report, I didn't see a category that had anything about my attendance, or joke telling correctness.

As far as garnishments go, that can also be determined by contacting previous employers.

You don't NEED the credit check, you just like it. It helps you make some moral judgement about the person your interviewing. That "performance, morale, and legal risk" is total BS.

I would not want to work for your company.

[amazona]

38. past employers often not allowed to comment

The world has moved on. Many employers are not allowed to give references. All they can do is tell the dates of the person's employment. So credit check, etc. does become more necessary than it did in days gone by.

[Horse with no Name]

57. It's just a legal way to find out information that you aren't allowed to

ask.
The only things an employer is allowed to legally disclose about a former employee is dates of employment and title.
You can't tell about their attendance.
You can't tell why people were fired.
You can't even tell if they are eligible for rehire.
If the people who know what type of "illegal inquiries" are being made about them, then they could sue the company that divulges the illegal information.
That would cost alot more than what you are assuming they will steal from your company.

[Modem Butterfly]

67. That's simply not true

Employers are not legally bound from revealing any information, however, in revealing information, they open themselves to legal risk.

[amazona]

81. right that is what I meant

Many employers have made the decision that they no longer choose to open themselves to this legal risk. So they no longer give references, just dates of employment. My friend still gives references but very, very cautiously. I don't give references. What do I stand to gain?

[susanna]

175. Last I checked, all forms of capitalism are a risk, legal or otherwise n/t

[elehhhhna]

227. a fine distinction, but true.

[Bunny]

86. That isn't true.

Employers are not allowed to reveal information that is untrue. Anything that is true, such as an atrocious attendance record, is allowed to be revealed. A smart employer, however, will reveal nothing. There's nothing to be gained from it, and much to be lost. It's just not worth it.

[yankeedem]

157. Why stop there?

If the person is single, I want to know. They may be sleeping around, or horrors, gay!

If the person has kids, I want to know (after all, they may miss work to take care of them when they are sick). Especially if they are single parents.

If the person has medical conditions, I want to know (after all, they may miss work, and drive up my insurance premiums.)

If this person doesn't go to church, I want to know. People who don't believe in god have no morals, and will steal, right?

You see how ridiculous this is? This is why we have LAWS preventing employers from finding out this information.

We don't have laws about checking credit history. But that makes the practice no more ethical.

BTW, the company that I work at has a policy that no supervisor is allowed to give references, for fear of lawsuits. Am I unemployable?

[Singular73]

167. The hell it is

What else do you want? Complete invasion of privacy? Screw you. Thats fucking fascist.

[cap]

372. if the garnishments are in relationship to bankruptcy

you cant refuse to hire that person. That's in the bankruptcy code.

[welshTerrier2]

45. OK ... well put this in your pipe ...

how about we give employees the same rights as employers ?????

suppose an employee does not want to work for an employer who is corrupt or unreliable ... they are making a major commitment when they choose a company to work for ... their livelihood and their ability to provide for their families is on the line ...

so, how about letting prospective employees run credit checks and criminal background checks and "personal information" investigations on all key managers at your company ??? now i'm sure you don't think employers should have more rights than employees do ... the business relationship is every bit as important to employees as it is to employers ... let's respect the rights of each group equally ...

so, what do you say? do we have a deal?

[dweller]

156. . . .

<crickets>




dp

[welshTerrier2]

159. welllllll, close ...

actually, they're mice ...

you know, it's funny (at least to me), but i've really become addicted to the little guys ... it's kind of become not just how i write but how i think ... there's something rather truncating about ending a sentence or a thought with a period ... it's so final and all ... there's always more to say or think about in any given sentence ... ending them with three blind mice seems far less tyrannical ... after all, who are we to say when a sentence or a thought has been exhausted ... there's always room for more ...

[dweller]

166. (((!!!))))

(the mice when welshterrier2 walks into the room)


:D

dp

[welshTerrier2]

170. hickory dickory dock ...

the mouse ran up the clock ...
the clock struck one ...
and the rest got away with minor injuries (((!!!))) ...

[BuelahWitch]

174. Or even why their turnover rate is so high

Why are they constantly advertising for new employees? Do they have managers with anger issues? Expect the employee to be "flexible" when it comes to working overtime at the last minute, but they on the other hand are not "flexible" with an auto breakdown, etc.?

[LostinVA]

208. Oh, like the employer who fired me 15 years ago for being gay?

And then told every potential employer calling references that I was a "sexual predator," who had done things to minors? And he kept doing it until a lawyer called HER boss? Personal issues should NEVER be discussed in a reference it's moot. And, I have hired and fired several hundred people in my life.

[Modem Butterfly]

279. Funny you mention that...

We just hired an employee who had a former supervisor say all kinds of things about her. We were able to determine the things that were said were untrue by looking at her background investigation.

[elehhhhna]

339. for example? & by Background investigaton do you mean

credit report, specifically?

[Modem Butterfly]

348. In part, yes

Though criminal played a part.

[elehhhhna]

225. So you ask the previous employer to violate the employees rights directly?

[Cleita]

13. As someone who has excellent credit, I would resent this

intrusion into my private business. I think there needs to be a law against it and many other background checks that employers have no business doing. I once refused to take a lie detector test for a job because I felt perfect strangers really didn't need to know whether I lied or not unless I had committed a crime against them.

Needless to say I didn't get the job then, but months later they hired me because of my past references. Of course, they were desperate for help too. They made a point of saying that they were making an exception for me, but the point was that they didn't need that stupid intrusive test. My past job references were all that was needed.

[Misunderestimator]

35. I'm with you on that...

and I know that my credit score is quite high, since I've been shopping for homes recently. This is potentially even a worse invasion on personal privacy than drug testing. There are MANY legitimate reasons for someone's credit to be poor, not the least of which is this awful economy.

It will be another case of "My credit is fine, so I'm not worried about my privacy" ... same song as "If you didn't do anything wrong, why worry about the Patriot Act"

[Cleita]

63. My list that employers should not demand of an applicant....

Do not ask me to me to pee in a cup, or for that matter take a physical. If a physical is required for insurance, then I will deal with the insurance company directly about this. My health is none of your business if I am able to come to work and do a full day's work of what my job requires.

I will not take a lie detector test.

If you demand a smoke free working environment, I will honor your wishes but don't ask me if I am a non-smoker. (I am, but that is none of your business.) What I smoke or drink on my free time at home or away from the job is my business.

All an employer needs to know is what kind of training does the applicant have that is relevent to the job.

What is his past experience and references.

What is his level of education.

Anything else is none of the prospective employer's business.

I used to hire people when I was an office manager. Back then we had a kind of IQ test we gave to applicants. I found it very helpful because the company that made the test would suggest what point level would be a minimum for each type of job. For instance a receptionist could do a great job if she scored twenty points. Under that she probably would do a great job in the lunchroom. Above that she would be a good secretary and so on. I'm sure *W would have scored a ten, which would have made him eligible to be a sanitation engineer (one of the silly euphemisms companies used in the past for the janitor).

But this type of test was made illegal. I never understood why because it avoided finding out that the person you hired for a certain job was too dumb or too smart for it. I never had to fire anyone that I hired when the test results matched up to their job.

[Big Kahuna]

18. "an indication of responsib[il]ity"

I have been around the block a few times, and have found that a person's "responsibility" has alot to do with their ability to retain steady employment. Most of this country would be completely screwed if they missed a few paychecks. Credit checks as a condition of employment just make sure that those who are down, stay down!

I have been an extremely hard working, but struggling business owner for the past 4 years. If you saw my credit rating, you would think I was the antichrist. But if I came to you for a job, I would probably be the best employee you ever had.

[Modem Butterfly]

19. Are you paying your debts, or are you a dead-beat?

It's really that simple. All things being equal, I'd rather have an employee who has made some mistakes, and is working to fix those mistakes, then someone who just allowed their debt to be charged off or who has never had experience with credit to begin with.

[Neshanic]

24. Yes, by all means. Those upstanding Enron perfect credit guys.

What a treat to have all perfect credit people working for you. Enron, Global Crossing, Nortel...oh the list is endless with those upstanding citizens with their perfect credit.

Of course, who would want a "deadbeat" working for them. You know those types. Sick elderly parents that they take care of and get behind, or a medical condition from a couple of years ago that they are still struggling with the bills, or the out of school new doctor with all that debt. My God, who would go to such a doctor! He has past due bills!

Yes, our America would be a better place if all of us acted like the Enron guys and made sure our credit was oh so spotless and manageable. That's our goal, that's our dream. Them and US, and you know THEM....they have bad credit. No job for them.

[Modem Butterfly]

29. Again, it's not about spotless credit

If a person has debt and is making an effort to pay it, it's very apparent from looking at their credit report. Anyone can make a mistake, and everyone does. It's the way you deal with the aftermath of that mistake that matters.

[Neshanic]

33. Then why the importance in checking? Bad man good credit...

good man...bad credit.

It's none of your companies business. It's that simple.

Oh, and to the financial services worrywarts about bad credit people doing bad things, those people who sell information about you and do all those other nasty things, it's not that they owe BofA money, they just want more money. That's usually the case, not the rule.

[Modem Butterfly]

40. Of course it is

You'll be spending the majority of your waking hours at your employer making any number of decisions that will affect that employer. Good person, bad person has nothing to do with it. Responsible person does.

[Neshanic]

43. Yes, its's called employee reviews. They are not indentured servants.

Oh I forgot. The employer would rather not have those because then a raise may be asked for. So much better to let the perfect credit types have a run at it...you will know something is wrong when the accountants from downstairs come up and look worried.

[Modem Butterfly]

88. It's a lot easier to never hire a problem employee...

...then to have to get rid of one later. Saves money, too. Giving a poor review itself brings a lot of risks and headaches. Better to do your homework on the front end then clean up your mistakes on the back end.

[Neshanic]

115. Wow. You need to moonlight for Rove. That was brilliant.

[Modem Butterfly]

121. It's reality

Plain and simple.

[Tansy_Gold]

394. I think it is.

n/t, if you know what I mean.

[Big Kahuna]

46. Yes, by your yardstick, I am a deadbeat.

I owe the phone and electric co. $1000 each. I have two outstanding master cards, that I owe about $2000 each. The economy sucks, I have no other "income" besides my business running at a loss. I really have no stable income with which to offer a payment to creditors,. And thanks to like you, if I want to close shop, and try to find a steady job, I can't because my credit sucks.

Have you considered changing your party affiliation?

[Modem Butterfly]

58. Not necessarily

If you're upfront about it and you have a good reason (and, of course, you're qualified for the job), then it won't be much of a problem for most positions. Don't let potential employers be surprised, and do your best to come to some sort of agreement with your creditors and you should be fine.

[elehhhhna]

231. There's the catch: You tell the potential employer EVERYTHING

they cannot ask by being "upfront" about past problems before they check your credit. Sick kid? Wife with chronic med. problem? No hire! (Guaranteed to jack the company's insurance rates). Elderly parent @ home? Might need family leave or be unwilling to do tons of OT.

[Modem Butterfly]

243. It's all in how you state things

But as a headhunter, you know that, right?

[elehhhhna]

252. Yes. And this makes people state things that are NOYB.

[Horse with no Name]

66. Who died and made you judge

of who is a deadbeat?
How can you work to fix mistakes when you don't have a job?
That just doesn't make sense.

[Modem Butterfly]

68. It's pretty objective, really

Are you paying your debts, making arrangements to pay your debt, or just letting them get charged off?

[maveric]

92. What if you're a single parent and DONT have the $$$ to make any payments?

Then would that, say, single mother fall into the "deadbeat" classification?
Its quite often not a Black or White scenario.

[Modem Butterfly]

96. You would be surprised the length creditors will go to...

...when the other option is to charge off debt. And I speak from personal experience on this, as a reformed dead-beat who worked very freaking hard to get debt-free.

[maveric]

116. Would wage garnishments, say 5-6 years ago show up?

I went through a divorce and the ex left me with a mortgage, car payments, 3 kids,then she ran up $15,000.00 on our credit cards and left the country. The credit card companies got together and sued ME, garnishing my wages for a year. I was suddenly the only income in a 2-income situation, raising 3 kids all by myself.
Should someone in my situation at the time be penalized for the sins of my ex-spouse, and not be considered for employment?
Would I be classified as a "deadbeat"?

[Modem Butterfly]

119. Did you settle the garnishment? How has your credit been since?

It sounds like you have a good explanation for what happened. Garnishments cost employers in administratve and real costs, and most employers are understandably reluctant to hire someone who they know at the outset will be garnished (on the other hand, changing employers is the perfect time to come to a better arrangement with the garnisher).

[maveric]

132. All accounts were paid via garnishments.

From then on I have been a "cash-only" guy. I dont use credit cards and if I cant afford something I just dont buy it. So I have Zero credit activity for the past 5-6 years. I dont owe anyone anything either.
Now will the fact that I dont use credit now, work against me?

[Modem Butterfly]

140. Good for you!

I would use this as a selling point in interviews where a credit report will be requested. Explain how you got into the situation and how you've disciplined yourself to get out of it. In a case like this, you can really play it to your advantage.

[maveric]

145. Thank you for the advice! I may be using that measure soon.

[Modem Butterfly]

229. It's worked for me

I had an abysmal credit report when I got out of college. I had to work hard to clean it up, and I am not debt free, but it's still there. When I interview, I use it as a selling point, and it's worked every time I've used it.

[elehhhhna]

233. Mo, you are inviting a lawsuit from prior applicants.

You'd better have some standard, black & white, written criteria for "good people" vs. deadbeats (as opposed to gut instinct or "who's the best bluffer"). Y'all could earn yourselves an EEOC class action filing.

[Modem Butterfly]

244. ROFL

Yeah, thanks.

[elehhhhna]

253. Have fun at your deposition.

[Modem Butterfly]

256. LMAOPIMP!

[elehhhhna]

261. what does the PIMP mean? Please do not pee your pants at work--

it's unprofessional.:-)

[dejaboutique]

184. who are you?

who are you? I thought you just did some hiring..are you now a credit counselor? my credit would pass but I do NOT want people looking at it - that is none of your business. what is a dead beat?

[elehhhhna]

342. credit counselor plus employment law expert.

not.

[elehhhhna]

340. Your company must attract a lousy candidate pool.

[LostinVA]

134. About those charged off accounts and ID Theft

My partner has an extremely common name, and has three charged off accounts on her credit record that are NOT hers. The credit bureaus refuse to take them off, because the credit card companies say they are hers. So, too frigging bad. She's is constantly getting calls and letters in the mail from lawyers threatening to sue, and there is nothing she can legally do. Not a thing. Two lawyers have told her this.

And yes, they are definitely not heres. ID theft? Filing mistake? Who knows. She is seriously thinking about legally changing her last name because of this.

[Modem Butterfly]

138. If she's disputed the charges, the credit bureaus must show that

It's the law, and if they're not, your partner has a case under the FCRA. She should be prepared to be upfront with potential employers and provide documentation if requested. Changing her last name won't help much since credit reports are tied to social security numbers.

[LostinVA]

206. She has disputed that

And the credit bureaus said too bad too sad, and two consumer law lawyers said there was nothing else they could do. FCRA has nothing to do with this -- it doesn't cover the consumer. Trust me, we've paid out several hundred dollars to have lawyers tell us this. Consumers ahve no real rights when something like this happens.

What documentation can she give them? She doesn't HAVE any, since they aren't here accounts. Being "upfront" with potential employers and loan officers hasn;t helped her one bit. She even had one person say, "I hear that all of the rime." They called her a liar. Why should she have to be upfront about something she didn't do? especially for a job that has NOTHING to do with finance?

I KNOW credit reports are linked to SSN numbers. But changing her last name may help stop other charges not hers from being put on her record.

I often agree with your posts MB, but this time we have to agree to disagree. Credit records are too screwed up (over 70% with mistakes), and there are too many variables in people's lives. Credit reports shouldn't be used for employment, unless it is a HIGH level finance or security job. That's not why credit reports were invented.

[Modem Butterfly]

223. Hmmm...

If the creditors can't (or won't) validate that she owes the debts, the debts must be droppes off her credit report, period. If she disputes the debts, while they're being investigated by the bureaus, a notation will appear on her credit report stating that the debts are in dispute. In my experience, this notation shows up for a year or more after the dispute is filed. If the creditors can validate that she owes the debts, she must be given proof, and if no proof is forthcoming, she has grounds for a suit against the creditors and the bureaus. Given some of the fines and bad press the credit bureaus have gotten they are much more likely to remove the items based on a slow or non-response from the creditors.

She should be upfront about the state of her credit report with potential employers so that she can control the perception of that credit report. Better to deal with it up front and put the best possible spin on the situation than wait for it to bite her in the butt.

[Bryn]

135. Charge-off accts. are...

actually "included in bankruptcy" sometimes. I just had my free report today and found 3 of them listed as 'charged off" ..should have listed as "included in bankruptcy". I filed for bk 2 years ago and have started all over since then. Also one of "charged off" accts. was "transferred" so some creditors can be slimy, transferring accounts to collection agency several times. Long before bk thing when I had good credit, I found one acct. on my credit report that was actually paid off, but was listed as "charge off", of course, I disputed it and got it off, so it's not always correct.

[nonconformist]

141. I suspect you will start seeing more and more of what you call

"dead-beats" now that the Bankruptcy Bill is becoming law.

[Modem Butterfly]

146. I fear you're quite right about that

Job seekers need to take the bull by the horn, deal with their debt as best they can and be pro-active with potential employers.

[elehhhhna]

235. "Proactive" meaning "tell them EVERYTHING & come off like a nutball".

[Modem Butterfly]

260. Actually, it means "Practice how you'll deal with this..."

"... just as you practice how you'll deal with why you're leaving your current job and how much money you want for a position,"

Thinking it's wrong and wishing it would stop won't solve anything. In the short term, a lot of folks will be dealing with this, and they need to think ahead. Forwarned is forarmed.

[Pithlet]

303. A person's credit is irrelevant.

Employers who decide to use credit as an indicator are only giving themselves false security. Credit history is not a determination of the worth of an employee. There is no possible way you can know why a person's credit score is bad. There are simply too many factors outside of a person's control. A good credit score does not tell you that that person will make a good employee any more than a bad score tells you they are a bad hire. Therefore, there is no justification for such an invasion of privacy. You are simply wrong, here. This is no different than using a person's age, or how many times they've been married, or what race they are. All things that are irrelevant to an employees worth.

What could the fact that a person had difficulty paying bills possibly tell you about what type of employee they'd make, when you can't know the exact circumstances? The answer is, it tells you nothing. Your defense of this practice has no basis.

[elehhhhna]

345. It IS an effective way to get candidates to volunteer personal info (the

story of their credit problems)that cannot legally be asked on an interview.

[bloom]

23. If I checked credit for a living

and it were up to me - I might give the person who need it the most the job - all other things being equal.

I think it's better not to know. It shouldn't be a factor - and people aren't going to know everything about someone anyway - nor should they.

[maveric]

27. So if I got into credit trouble due to a divorce or a catastrophic medical

problem/last job didn't offer Medical insurance. I would be considered "irresponsible" and not considered for employment?

Thats one of the most fucked up things I've ever heard.

Screw Them!

[quiet.american]

28. Conflicting feelings about this

Modem, I appreciate your post because it explains what employers are looking for when they run a credit check and in that sense it is reassuring.

However, I can't wholly agree with the reasoning of looking for "responsibility" in an employee through examining their credit record.

Personally, I've had a split personality in the past. Excellent accountablility with business finances, live and let live with my own. Now, years into my work life, I see how impactful credit ratings have become.

In interviewing for a temp job two years ago, I was asked to submit to the following in this order:

Credit check (only A+ credit would do)
Drug test
Reference check

This was for a desktop publishing job making maybe $23/hr!

I know employers are trying to use what's available to gauge potential hires, but it also becomes a Catch-22. If prospective employees can't get a job so that they at least have the opportunity to turn things around through receiving a steady salary, then how are they supposed to become credit-worthy again so that they can work?

I know others irresponsibility with their personal finances is not the worry of employers -- it just seems sometimes "credit" has become the mark of the beast. :)

[BlueJazz]

34. Modem Butterfly ...You (Maybe) have forgotten one thing.

I know a very responsible, nice lady who has been turned down for numerous jobs. Her credit sucks the big one..Why?...Because some low-life stole her identity and destroyed her credit rating. She's been trying for a year to "get it right".

Every time I talk to her my heart just breaks seeing her cry because people don't want to hire her.

Damn..I get pissed just thinking of it.

Also...Her "situation" is becoming more and more common...Lots of crooks out there..

[amazona]

41. I wonder if you know the whole story

I've been a victim of identity theft myself and it just isn't that hard to have copies of police report, etc. on hand to show that the problem is not your fault. Even the credit card companies have provided letters, both to me and to the credit rating companies, explaining the situation.

I can't help but wonder if there is another side to the "responsible, nice lady" that you don't know about.

[BlueJazz]

60. I suppose it's possible.

I've seen her letters and stuff but she tells me that Employers are still weary of her because she "isn't handling it well" (One interviewers own words)

[Modem Butterfly]

70. I find that difficult to believe

Since background checks (including credit) cost money, most employers only use them on the final round of candidates. And once you get to that stage, the more you say to the candidates who don't get the job, the greater your legal risk.

[BlueJazz]

126. You obviously have never lived in Florida...

[Modem Butterfly]

131. Well, that's where you're wrong.

[LostinVA]

209. What police report???

My partner has several charged-off credit cards on her credit report from credit cards she has NEVER had. EVER. And yeah, that's the "whole story." The credit card companies say they are her debts and the credit bureaus won't take them off. She gets calls and letters from "attorneys" threatening to sue her weekly. She has never had her wallet stolen, but something has happened. So, I believe the other poster and his friend.

[Modem Butterfly]

42. Victims of identity theft are identified on their credit reports

Disputed debts and accusations of identity theft show very prominently on a person's credit report. Moreover, a victim of identity theft gets a lot of documentation from banks, creditors, and investigator that they can present to prospective employers (and do at the drop of a hat, in my experience).

[undeterred]

36. there is a context to interpreting a credit report properly

You cannot tell from a credit report whether or how long someone was unemployed, what the economy was like, whether they had health insurance when they needed it, whether they bought $600 shoes or whether they ever had to take a cash advance to pay the rent.

Judging someone to be irresponsible without knowing anything about what was going on in their life at a given time (which would require that they explain and defend everything on the report to you, a stranger) is like Bill Frist making moral and medical diagnoses of Terry Shiavo by watching a video.

[Neshanic]

37. Ding Ding...we have a winner. Perfect summation.

[Modem Butterfly]

44. The credit repots an employer sees is more complete than usual

Employers see credit reports that are more complete in some respects (and less complete in others) than the credit reports lenders see.

[Neshanic]

47. So much more the reason to flay them out when they just want a job.

[Liberal In Texas]

48. Oh, that makes me feel better. n/t

[undeterred]

56. I'll bet GWB's credit is perfect -if he wasn't too stoned to remember

to pay the bills- and he's the most irresponsible asshole on the face of the earth.

[elehhhhna]

236. Thank Gid the Saudis were there to bail out his businesses.

[maveric]

39. Your company should keep tabs on all employees credit during employment.

And if someone gets into trouble, whether its a low-level or upper-management, they should be terminated.
OK?

I'm not condemning you Modem Butterfly, its just a raelly shitty way to judge who would be a good employee and who should even work there.

[Modem Butterfly]

49. We check credit prior to employment and prior to some promotions

In addition, if we find someone has lied on their application (i.e., we find out they misrepresented their education) we will terminate them. Beyond that, we base our appraisals on performance.

[Liberal In Texas]

52. OH! You don't bother to check on their education claims before hiring ...

Like I said. Credit check is easier than doing it the old fashioned way.

[Modem Butterfly]

59. Actually, it's part of the same service

Criminal, credit, and education. References we check on our own.

[Neshanic]

53. Credit first...performance last. How many good people have ..

not made the cut? God only knows. But in my experience in large firms, and I have ALOT, the ones to watch out for are the type you probably hire as a rule, as credit trumps all.

[Modem Butterfly]

62. I'm not sure why you would think that "credit trumps all"...

...since I've never said that and, in fact, have consistantly made the point that it doesn't.

[undeterred]

54. I find that absolutely nauseating

I would not want to work for any company that was snooping around into my personal life like that.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Neshanic]

71. "Beyond that, we base our appraisals on performance"

How could you get appraised if you don't have the job?

[Modem Butterfly]

79. If you're applying for an internal transfer/promotion

[seabeyond]

65. our accountant hides from husband she no longer has a savings

account. she borrows money then has to pay back out of check for months, keeping things tight. she buys incessively from internet and has it mailed to work. all the time there are personal things coming to her. she is always talking about needing a raise though she is paid well, especially since she has no degree. she has a good twenty thousand of dental bills to pay for her sons mouth.

yes, i am concerned with her spending habits especially considering she is dealing with the companies money. someone who doesnt have this spending habit, and is not hiding purchases and how much money is in bank account from husband would allow me to be a lot more comfortable with who is dealing with company money.

[elehhhhna]

237. You might want to hire an outsider to audit the books, seabe.

Just sayin'

[seabeyond]

273. of course, lol

i got bothered on another thread attacking employer. but yes, this is what we are doing next week, after her vacation. organizing records, gathering to see what we see. the money is acting odd. like all i want, is an employee i can pay, well, and that be it. that is not it. we deal with people. desperate is, what desperate gets.

so i guarentee when i go in and tell her the weekly reports she stopped sending, i want them every week. so i can follow the money. she will be offended, hurt. picked upon.

and i will tippie toe all over the place not to step on any ego.

personally my style would be to think i had a right and expectation to this information and actually demand it. bet that bothers some here. and if she wanted to quit cause of "harshness" so be it. husband, the owner and worker, is nicer. gets screwed all the time.

i am going to be putting in a sign in and out log for service men to have some idea of the hours we should be billing. bet i will get bitch and the prema dona on this one too.

f* i had employees actually tell me how hard it was to remember to clock out and in. i go to pay them their money, and i have no idea. i would get comments like, i worked around, ......8 hours. not around. not more, not less.

[elehhhhna]

290. She's stealing from you. Bet on it. Audit during her vaca, and

I'd love to hear what you find.

Make sure the last checks in the co checkbook are there--they LOVE to take them from the back of the checkbook. Verify your vendors exist, etc., and are truly being paid.

Expext to find some forgery. It's a felony, btw.

[maveric]

69. Are all the "good credit rating" employees model workers/citizens?

Do you prsonally feel that this is the best way in judging who is responsible, trustworthy and would be a great employee?

Should one's credit rating be a factor?

[Modem Butterfly]

73. I've probably reviewed 500 or 600 credit reports in the last year

I can count on one hand the number of people with really good credit ratings.

The point of my original post was that employers are looking to see how you handle the debt you have and that you aren't, say, constantly getting evicted for non-payment of rent or kiting bad checks all over town.

[maveric]

78. I hear what you are saying and are not slamming you. I just hate the

invasion of privacy and the way corporate america judges and condemns people who may have had a bad break or two.

Peace!
:pals:

[Modem Butterfly]

83. The people who make those judgements are just that: people

Explain your position to them. You may very well find they are more reasonable than you first thought.

[valis]

101. So, what is a "good" and an "excellent" score, in your experience?

[Modem Butterfly]

103. Employers don't see credit scores

That's on the lenders report.

[valis]

109. Oh... Sorry, I misse that. But do they see some summary?

The equivalent of a credit score, perhaps including broader factors?

[Modem Butterfly]

122. Not as such

It's a complete credit history, including each credit card, bad check, student loan, mortgage, tax lien, garnishment and some info on previous employers (mostly what you report when you apply for credit). It also includes info on recent inquiries.

[seabeyond]

74. you have two perspective employees.,.....

all other things equal. one perspective employee cannot seem to pay down debt, no matter income, pays late regularly accumulating late fees, (loss of more money). the other pays on time and regular debt.

employer says, who will be the most demanding and needy employee. who will be more responsible.

it isnt a hard one

in our company we dont check credit history. but i have seen the difference in employee that is fiscally responsible with money and those that arent. and i have seen the hassle to me the employer because of the others inability to be fiscally responsible, compared to the employee that is responsible.

hiring, this wouldnt be a tough one for me.

just like, one walks in neat, tidy, groomed, the other a mess, .....

does it make one better than another, i dont know, but does leave an impression

[G_j]

75. is it true that credit problems fall upon the poor

most often and tend to be harder for the poor to escape?

[Modem Butterfly]

84. Yes and no

Anyone can be overtaken with credit problems. Divorce, illness, job loss can happen to anyone.

Edited to add: I've seen people with perfect or near perfect credit who I know for a certainty have never made more than $10 or $12 an hour in their life because they've been very careful and responsible. I've known people who've made six figures for years who seem allergic to the idea of paying their Visa bill.

[G_j]

90. so you wouldn't think that

screening people for credit works in a way to cement a class system of sorts? I understand how anyone can over extend themselves, but isn't the deck stacked against the lower echelons who would try to break out of the cycle?

[Modem Butterfly]

95. No, I don't

People with money can be just as irresponsible as anyone else. People without much money can be just as responsible. And anyone who takes responsibility for past mistakes has it a huge advantage over someone who doesn't.

[elehhhhna]

240. How do you know the 10 dollar /good credit people aren't

having Mom & Dad bail them out of debt? You don't.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. Yeah? How about personal or business bankruptcies?

[Modem Butterfly]

85. Again, it depends on duration, current status, and frequency

It's a lot easier ep explain one bankruptcy that's settled or being settled than three or four. Of course, it's always better to explain it on the front end than letting the employer find out on the background check.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

130. I can understand checking everything including financial history if....

...you're filling a position that requires advanced clearances, or an high-level financial position that requires a clean record.

But, I would be a lot less likely to understand the need for a financial background check on an individual applying for an hourly job, and/or one that did not require the handling of money, and/or did not require an advanced clearance.

IMHO, as one that was in Human Resources for many years, this kind of prying into someone's background for no apparent reason other than data-gathering is just plain wrong. Period.

[Modem Butterfly]

197. We're not looking at credit as a measure against theft

But rather as a verification of information on the application and an indicator of overall responsbility. Most employers I've encountered are looking at it from that perspective. A criminal check is a much better indicator of who's going to steal and who isn't, in my experience.

[cap]

381. again, if people are out of work for over a year

they arent going to have stellar credit. It ends up red-lining women and minorities. Have you race/gender/age normed your denials due to bad credit? If you havent, you are up for a lawsuit.

[dweller]

93. Say BossLady, BossMan, since You will be paying me

for my honest day's work, how about letting me look at YOUR credit history?

i want to make sure i'm going to be paid when due.

Do you think that's Ok to ask when applying for a job?

dp

[Modem Butterfly]

97. You can certainly review our annual report

In fact, I present a copy to all candidates I interview.

[dweller]

100. thanks anyway

but that's not what i asked.

YOUR credit history. . .

dp

[Bunny]

106. SHE isn't paying you. But then, you knew that.

[dweller]

120. and it's none of her business

what my credit history is, since i'm not paying her.

but then you knew that.
dp

[Modem Butterfly]

124. But if you are applying for a job at our company, it is our business

And I'm the one designated to look at it.

[dweller]

142. god that's convoluted.

since i stated above...i'm not the one paying you. All you've said is "because i say so"

You are the one (as a company) paying me for my services (labor, skill, intelligence, etc).

what business of it of yours HOW i spend, or how carefully i spend, my earnings/exchange in this bargain?

dp

[Modem Butterfly]

144. Because if you're irresponsible...

...your irresponsbility may very well come back to haunt your employer.

[dweller]

152. LOL

you are reading that from a handbook, right?

as if there were room in the conscience of Corporate America for a few more 'irresponsible haints'.

dp

[Bunny]

191. Now you're just being silly.

You may not agree with the basic premise here, but you certainly know what it is. To pretend otherwise just makes you look foolish.

[dweller]

368. me looking foolish??

:popcorn:

i've been checking in regularly watching OP (and you by extension) having your ass handed back to you by 90%+ of the respondees..

believe me, i DO understand the basic premise here, and i certainly hope the both of you do too by the time this is over.

:popcorn:

dp

[Bunny]

386. I guess it's all a matter of perception, isn't it?

NO ONE here has handed me MY ass, thank you very much. What I do see is a lack of reading comprehension on the part of some. Good thing employers don't test for that, isn't it?

See ya! Enjoy your popcorn!

[dweller]

398. Yes! reading comprehension, i'll agree

my comments were directed to the OP originally, and your defense of her (or attack on my 'silliness, foolishness, reading comp.) allowed me to 'lump' you ...BY EXTENSION...to what i perceive as a redass taking place.
my apologies if you are offended.

:popcorn: ?

dp

[Modem Butterfly]

107. Why do you want to see my credit history?

Since I'm not the one paying a prospective employee (that would be the company, and I make that info available at the interview), and since I'm not viewing your credit report, why do you want to see my credit report? If I pull yours for a job interview, I'm bound by the FCRA. If you, as a private citizen, pull mine, you aren't, and all the protection the FCRA gives goes right out the window.

[dweller]

127. if i owed $$ to a credit card cos.

or the utility providers, or the local car repair shop and had some difficulty making those payments, then they have the right to refuse me business. NOT put my job or prospect of a job in jeopardy.

Would the local auto mechanic calling you and raising hell about my inability to pay them affect my job with you?
Would you give me a raise so i could make ends meet more successfully?

Or would it be any of your damn business, or problem?

which was my point. Are you willing to share YOUR personal credit history with your employee?

afterall i may want to see just how your personal life is reflected in your spending history and affiliate you with oh.. class status and such.
dp

[Modem Butterfly]

137. Absolutely

If you don't pay your bills and you get served with a lawsuit at work, then yeah, it's my business.. If you're getting garnished then yeah, it's my business. If you're asking your co-workers to handle collection calls for you at the office, then yeah, it's my problem.

I check applicant's credit as a representative of the company, in my corporate capacity. If you are in a similar position and I apply for a position at your company, then you can see my credit history (assuming, of course, you're abiding by the FCRA).

[dweller]

149. that's a leap

bad credit history = criminal, social misfit, unable to handle responsibility, passing off to others not involved...

You do this for a living and don't know collection agencies calling at place of emp. is against the law...but let's just go ahead and hold that against the employee too.

jeez, i'm done here...i'm going to bed.

and i thought being unemployed in Amerka was reason to lose sleep...little did i know how tough it was for Big Business.

dp

[Modem Butterfly]

198. Not really

Credit history is no indicator of criminal behavior or social skills. Credit history can be an indicator of responsibility behavior however.

Collection agencies can and do call employees at work. They aren't allowed to discuss the details of the debt with anyone but the debtor, but they can sure disrupt the work environment and play hell with team cohesion and morale.

[dsc]

205. Not if either you or the debtor tell them not to

They may not call you at work if you or the employer inform them that personal calls at work are forbidden.

[Modem Butterfly]

218. Unfortunately, most employees either don't know that...

...or don't take the steps necessary to end the calls.

[dsc]

226. They should but regardless of if they do

you can. It is your phone and you can tell them not to call it.

[Modem Butterfly]

242. No offense, but I have enough on my plate...

...without managing my employee's personal business matters. I'll bet most managers do. And I think policies against personal phone calls are pretty draconian.

When these situations come up, I advise the employee of their rights and responsibilities in the matter. But I can't do much for the gossip and suspicion among co-workers that these sorts of calls create.

[LostinVA]

207. No, it is against the law for CAs to call you at work

FEDERAL law. They can call you at home between certain hours, but NEVER at work.

[Bunny]

211. No, they CAN call you at work. You have to tell them not to call

you, and THEN they are not permitted to call. But this is only after you tell them not to. Also, if they call at work, they are not permitted to disclose their reasons for calling to anyone but you.

[jayfish]

154. And If Private Citizens Were Covered Under The Umbrella Of FCRA,...

,would you be willing to part with your precious credit report?

Jay

[Modem Butterfly]

232. What's your point here?

[jayfish]

248. You Seem To Think It's Ludacriss...

that potential employees should have access to their potential employees credit reports. Rather than discuss the merits of the idea you used the law to skirt the issue. I gave a hypothetical that will allow you to refocus on the idea.

I want to know if this company has ever bounced a payroll check
I want to know if this company has ever missed a payment to it's health insurance provider
I want to know if this company has any judgments against it related to worker safety
I want to know if this company has ever gone into receivership.

Jay

[Modem Butterfly]

257. I'm not defending anything

But I do think that people should know what employers are looking for, what the justifications for a credit check might be, and how to deal with issues that may come up before the fact.

[cap]

377. It's the Dun and Bradstreet report that you want...

a corporation's credit history. Not cheap.

[elehhhhna]

241. Enron had some gorgeous annua reports. Simply mouth-watering.

[valis]

99. I have a question:

Why is it that just HAVING the credit cards is bad, even if one never use them? I heard that you should cancel those you don't use and your credit score would go up. Basically just keep 2 or 3 max. Is that true?

[Modem Butterfly]

111. That's more from a lender perspective

Employers see amount of available credit and do see when accounts are closed due to inactivity, but don't see a credit score.

[wakeme2008]

104. BS from somebody out of work for near 3 years in Bush's economy

My credit report is bad, and you want more people to deny me a job based on it.....

[Modem Butterfly]

112. What makes you say that?

[libnnc]

108. so, as an employer...

is there ANY part of my life that's none of your fucking bee's wax?

You want me to bring in my garbage for you to inspect too?

[Castilleja]

186. Well, there it is, you have condensed this whole

idea down into 2 sentences! Sounds like a full medical/mental workup as well as a full sexual history will be next... I think this is business overstepping bounds, for the most part.

[Neshanic]

113. Judgement. Everyone wants the sure thing. Companies included.

Well now that we have dispelled all the myths of fiscal responsibility and work ethic linkages, I find myself so at peace with the knowledege that the truly just and wise sit in judgement of the poor souls that come in to get a job.

You know the Mexican immigrant that works his ass off and provides for his family. Better get that credit report. Oops...he's illegal.

But that's another topic. The ease and casualness of judgement of things that concern you not, without reason, because you take a bail of hay from here to there for a person and get paid is mind boggling. What is capitalism all about? Working and getting paid. But not in the early 21st Century. We have to have all the outs, all the failsafes. We do not want any risk. ANY RISK.

That's the problem and the box it came in. It's ok to have everyone take the brunt of risks, as long as it is not you or your company. The perfect republican world. No risk. Bad credit? No. Smoke? No. Drink a beer? No. Engage in whitewater rafting? No.

The message is that in our rush to enable our corporations to have no risk to them, be it health care, or pensions...they want YOU to be uber -responsible, as they whistle away. That is why credit is wrong on so many levels. A toe hold to...weight issues, smoking, lifestyle, genetic?

They want the money but no downside. They don't want to take chances, but will with your money and health. God forbid that they hire someone that has dinged credit. They may be...what?

More likely to NOT steal, and embezzle, and do creative accounting. Just because you "rate the credit worker equation" for a living does not make it right. Try that argument when in five years you are looking at genetic displays of potential employees.

[Horse with no Name]

117. Because of my profession

I have to be fingerprinted and have an FBI and criminal background check done if I decide to become licensed in another state.
However, that doesn't bother me nearly as much as what you advocate because there is a real purpose to this--human lives are at stake.
However, I don't think such stringent attacks on privacy should be tolerated when the only thing at stake is the bottom line.
I just think it is wrong what you do--although I don't begrudge you for having to make a living, I just wish you hated it just a bit.

[Zorra]

118. FUCK THAT! And employers should also be able to check our medical records,

our library accounts, travel records, purchases for the last ten years, and how much shit we leave on our assholes after wiping?

Most of them already sniff through our urine.

No offense, but it is high time we put our foot down on protecting our privacy, and completely reverse all the legalizations of invasions of our privacy that corporations have impressed upon us through their control of our government. The Declaration of Independence says "WE THE PEOPLE", not "we the corporations"

[Singular73]

172. Awesome sig pic

LOVE IT.

[DeaconBlues]

123. wow

So, in order to get a job in this country, you have to go through the following:
1.reference check
2.criminal background check
3.interview process
4.driving record check
5.sexual violations registry check
6.urinalysis
7. for certain jobs - a physical and insurance check
8. and now, a credit check

What's next, an anal probe? People rightfully worry about the government violating our rights, but by far the biggest violators of privacy rights are corporations. We are giving our liberties away for the almighty buck. But we have no choice, its either give in or starve. What a sorry situation.

[Modem Butterfly]

128. Actually, that depends on the employer and the position

Most employers are happy with 1,2, and 3 (which usually encompasses a credit check).

[BlueJazz]

136. That's the big advantage of being self-employed (Like Myself)

...You get to tell Nosy Scum to go Fuck Themselves.

[Modem Butterfly]

143. Well, there is that. But most people aren't in that position

And those of us who aren't may very well be in the position of having our credit evaluated for a job. It's not fun and it's not comfortable, but it is the truth.

[BlueJazz]

220. Oh..I understand that there are 2 sides to the issue but as I said...

...before, they're truly individuals that have had their identity stolen (and they might not even know it..yet).

[Modem Butterfly]

258. Again, check your credit reports

I can't stress that enough. Check your credit report twice a year for general principals. Check it before you apply for a loan (home loan, car loan, student loan, whatever). Check it before you start interviewing. Keep an eye on it, fix what you can, dispute what you must, and realize that you may have to confront your credit report in an interview situation.

[UdoKier]

133. I don't think you should be looking at my underwear drawer.

OR my credit report. I've never missed a payment, but it's none of your business. You want to know how responsible I am or how good an employee? ASK A FORMER EMPLOYER!

You want to see people's credit reports? Why don't you show them YOUR Equifax report, to show that you're a good risk and will pay for services rendered.

[jayfish]

150. How Long Will It Be Before You Are Checking...

medical histories as well? I mean, every argument you have made in regards to credit can also apply to a persons medical condition. It's all about money in the end ...right?

" It's a lot easier to never hire a problem employee then to have to get rid of one later. Saves money, too. Giving a poor review itself brings a lot of risks and headaches. Better to do your homework on the front end then clean up your mistakes on the back end."

Sounds like that could apply to someone whose family has a history of cancer or some other expensive, genetic ailment.

Jay

[Nobody]

153. Ever seen GATTACA?

There are already companies that do random urine tests to make sure you don't smoke. Ever. Even in your own home on your own time.

This almost makes me want to go out and buy a Whizzinator even though I don't smoke, but I do like to drink wine and other spirits once in a while.

[trumad]

165. LOL

I was waiting for the right post to mention Gattaca and you beat me to it... The reason I thought of Gattaca was that I watched it on HBO about an hour ago...

[Modem Butterfly]

199. Disability is a protected class

And currently, genetic testing is not feasible. But no doubt, some employers will want to use it when it becomes feasible. The time to fight that is now.

[jayfish]

212. Not Talking About A Disability.

I'm talking about the potential that a person has to develop a serious and costly illness later in life. After he/she has started working for your company of course. And why would you want to fight it. It sound like it's right up your companies ally.

Jay

[elehhhhna]

246. I know of a urinalysis lab that tells the hiring authorities EVERYTHING

the applicant's listed as "current medication" (a direct violation of HIPPA). You pass the "drug" test, but the employer's told that you're taking paxil, or insulin, etc. (legally, with a prescription).

Then you mysteriously do NOT get an offer.

I know stuff that would curl your hair, folks.

[cap]

395. in fact, since medical bills account for half the bankruptcies

looking at a medical history is a good indicator of future creditworthiness, right? Oh please.

[Nobody]

151. As someone with perfect credit I resent this and here's why

I'm sure you know that frequent credit checks bring down your rating. This came up when it was proposed to check credit at airports. (I'm not sure where this went, I hope it didn't fly - pun totally intended)

And what if your credit rating sucks because you're a computer tech looking for a job in the IT industry and you've been diligently sending thousands of resumes out? If each of these results in a credit check, that alone will kill your rating.

[REP]

178. Not All Queries "Hit" The Same Way

ModemB or a site like MyFico.com can explain it way better than I can, but there are two types of queries, and one of them does not affect your rating.

[democracyindanger]

162. So if you're in debt, you'll have a tough time getting a job to pay it off

That's pretty messed up.

[chalky]

163. "multiple vehicle reposessions" and "tenant evictions" my ass.

This is an issue that's been stuck in my craw since way back in February.

Something as small as a six month old debt for $400.00 can kill you. One closed Cingular account can kill you. How do I know? Because these are some of the transgressions that kept us from hiring some of these people.

It's very nice to see that your company cares enough to look at circumstances, but trust me, not all companies give a damn. And I suspect the companies that don't give a damn outnumber companies that care by 100 to 1.

[Modem Butterfly]

200. Are you actually reviewing the background checks?

If you're involved in the hiring decision, what are you doing to resolve this situation?

[Catherine Vincent]

173. This is wrong.

This country reeally sucks at times.

[OneBlueSky]

176. bottom line: it's none of their damn business! . . .

my credit record is personal, and the only people who have a right to see it are those who I say have a right to see it . . . if I want a loan, I give my consent to the bank to check my credit record . . . but applying for a job is a whole different story . . .

hiring me or not hiring me should be based solely on my qualifications and experience, not on my personal credit history, my personal family history, my personal sexual history, or any other aspect of my personal history . . . none of these have anything to do with whether or not can do the job . . .

if I applied for a job and was asked to sign away my right to privacy, I'd tell them to take said job and shove it . . . it's none of their damn business! . . .

[Modem Butterfly]

201. Employers need written permission to review your credit

Just FYI.

[jayfish]

216. And If You Refuse?

You don't get the job right? Typical scenario for the average Joe. I know that you have to do this as part of your job. We all have to do things that we don't like as part of our jobs. But why do you defend it? This is corporatism at it's worse and it's not the least bit progressive. I don't get it.

Jay

[Modem Butterfly]

228. You may take yourself out of further consideration

I would be very skeptical of someone who refused a background check. Unfortunately, there's a lot of good people who are looking for jobs right now and who will jump through hoops to get one. If someone is that uncomfortable with a particular employer's process, then they have every right to not follow that process. But most folks are either in the position of having to jump through the hoops, either out of necessity or desire. Those people should know what an employer looks at, the justification behind it, and how to deal with issues when they come up. Whether or not it's right is a seperate argument to me.

[jayfish]

239. Lets Take A Look At That Other Argument.

"Whether or not it's right is a separate argument to me"

That statement leads me to believe that you may, indeed, think this is wrong. Why come to a progressive sanctuary to defend then. What's your motivation?

Jay

[Solon]

177. What about those with almost no credit?

I remember getting my first "Pre-Approved" credit card in the mail back in the teen years. Opened it, looked at the fine print, and said thanks, but no thanks. Since then, they go in the trash, never had a credit card, the only card I have is a Visa Debit card for automatic bill paying, and petty spending for home(food, etc.). The only debts I had are all paid off, a student loan(apparently never counted on a credit report, either negative or positive) even though I paid it off early. One car payment that my father co-signed on, back when I was a teenager(my first car!). Took over the payments on a second car, my second car, because my sister couldn't drive a stick, and it was a convertable, always wanted on of those :), rod broke 2 days ago though, have to get another car now, looking for another convertable, have to get a co-signer AGAIN! :grr:

As far as I can tell, from when I got my lease for my second apartment, being sued is enough to ruin your credit, even if you are only guilty of putting yourself on a lease with a dumbass roommate. Settled out of court, for less than half the original amount(paid that day), yet the original amount of over 2 grand is still on my credit report. As far as I can tell, most of the employers I looked into check credit when you are considered for employment before the first interview. I even called one, and they actually said it was the credit report that made them not consider me for employment before I could even say what my side of the story was. How is that fair?

I was told that disputing the debt would do nothing, even if paid off, because of practical reasons, there are several companies that do credit reports and no central database, that I can tell. May have changed since this has occured though. Even so, I refuse to spend one cent on correcting a mistake on my credit report that shouldn't have been on their to begin with.

[Modem Butterfly]

202. Again, it depends

Some people simply don't use credt, others are too young or too new to the US to have a credit file. Just to be on the safe side, you should pull your credit report periodically (and especially before a job search) to make sure there's no errors or identity theft.

A settled legal matter shouldn't show up on your credit report as an outstanding debt. Make sure you dispute that.

Employers simply can't legally check your credit without your written permission (and they can't do it without your social security number, complete name and date of birth in any event). If you feel someone has violated the law, you should file a complaint under the FCRA. Credit checks do cost money, and I find it difficult to believe there are employers who are checking credit prior to even a first-round interview.

There are three central repositories for credit reports, not several. Their information is usually, but not always, identitical.

[cap]

179. except that it's illegal to do a credit check unless there is a direct

relationship between credit worthiness and the job at hand. For example , you cant run a credit check on a graphics designer if he/she isnt handling money. You cant run a credit check on a nurse. It doesnt matter if you've been evicted six ways to sunday if your job doesnt involve handling money.

[Modem Butterfly]

203. That's smply not true

Employers can check the credit of anyone who has given written permission under the FCRA.

[cap]

276. it is illegal to run the credit check in the first place

permission granted under FCRA not withstanding. You have to have a need to know. People can sue for being under duress during the negotiating process and throw out that permission. Just because your company has been doing it does not mean that it is legal.

Here's NOLO's take on it.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/2D373C3B-D78C-47E3-858ACC095D1F396A/catID/A353C662-F63B-4FB9-8CCC3B667D1711AE/111/259/231/ART/

[Modem Butterfly]

297. Did you actually read the link before you posted it?

[cap]

299. yes, the key paragraph is the one on relevancy.

see post below as to why the Federal Government doesnt do this for Secret clearances. It's not relevant.

[Modem Butterfly]

301. Best read this part.

Ask for consent. You are on safest legal ground if you ask the applicant, in writing, to consent to your background check. Explain clearly what you plan to check and how you will gather information. This gives applicants a chance to take themselves out of the running if there are things they don't want you to know. It also prevents applicants from later claiming that you unfairly invaded their privacy. If an applicant refuses to consent to a reasonable request for information, you may legally decide not to hire the worker on that basis.

[cap]

318. but a good attorney can throw this one out later on

by stating that you gave up your right to privacy under duress. I've had a dispute with an employer and we went back to the hiring process and he threw out a number of things. An illegal contract is not enforceable.

The article states you are on safest ground by asking for consent to a background check (including credit check) provided that there is relevancy to the job at hand. Regardless of consent, if there is no relevancy, the credit check is illegal.

[Modem Butterfly]

322. Not if you authorize it

A case could be made for current employees being under duress, but not someone who has just walked into the company for an interview.

[cap]

371. Yes... most definitely in the hiring process

undue duress during negotiating. That was one of the points that my attorney made.

[Modem Butterfly]

373. Sure.

[cap]

383. as a manager, I've sat through some employment seminars

given by attorneys. I've been on both sides of the fence. Managers are still employees themselves (although some refuse to see it that way). The attorney who told me that is one of the top attorneys in the business. He represented a friend of friend of mine. She won a lawsuit against Newsweek...Shall we say she is happily retired on a vineyard! Doesnt have to work anymore.

[elehhhhna]

250. Can you back that up? Links would be very welcome! Thanks.

[seabeyond]

180. how many werent bothered with employer not highering a smoker

and thinking that was totally legit.

for the grace of god, there go i

[Pushed To The Left]

188. I think the ACLU is taking action

on that Michigan case. I abhor smoking, but I think penalizing somebody for what they do off the clock is way over the line.

[jayfish]

217. Not Many,...

if I remember correctly.

Jay

[U4ikLefty]

185. Do you take their blood & check their DNA

for any possible genetic "problems" that may occur down the line & may cost the company big $$$ in medical costs???

...hey, it's the real world baby!!!

[Gormy Cuss]

210. Thanks for volunteering an employer's perspective.

I object to the ever expanding use of credit reporting data. Pulling credit reports on every potential employee shows a blatant disregard for privacy. Your company may use credit report data in a responsible way, but it's still one short step away from abuse. In a situation where there are many highly qualified candidates, the hiring decision is generally done on the soft and biased indicator known as a 'good fit.' There are laws designed to protect certain classes (e.g. race, gender) from exclusion systematically under the guise of 'good fit' but these laws won't prevent a creative hiring manager from making the decision based on her own squirrelly interpretation of a credit report. A manager who believes people with Amex cards are more likely to be pro-business, for example. A manager who thinks those who grew up rich won't work as hard (address history and bank balances are part of credit reports.) A manager who assumes any one who grew up in a poor neighborhood is a bad risk regardless of the credit history. None of these reasons would be stated of course.
Here's a real life example of a squirrelly hiring rule. The CEO of a company with a couple hundred employees believed that middle children were the hardest workers. If everything else was equal, he would favor a middle child over an only child. The job application form asked age of siblings, until a new HR director nixed it.

I'm another person with an excellent credit history who believes employer access to credit data should be severely restricted.

[Modem Butterfly]

214. Hiring is always a very subjective act

You can't base a hiring decision on race, gender, age, national origin, veteran status, marital status, disability (where a reasonable accomodation can be made) or on past bankruptcy, but that's pretty much it. I've seen hires based on all kinds of intangibles, such as how someone looks (particularly visible tattoos, very long hair or nails, the state of someone's shoes), where someone sends their kids to school or even whether or not someone is a dog or a cat person. What makes one candidate better than another is based on intangibles and is often very subjective. Anyone involved in the process, particularly HR managers, need to work very hard on ensuring that the process is as fair as possible under the circumstances, while ensuring that the best possible candidate gets the job. The more objective data you have at your fingertips, the higher liklihood of making good and fair hires. It's not ideal, but it is the current state of the matter, and people are better off discussing it here than getting blindsided by it during the interview process.

For what it's worth, most companies severly limit who sees the actual background check, including the credit report. The more people who see it, the more you open yourself to legal risk.

That being said, I'm not crazy about credit as a measure of potential performance, but I rank it as more fair than birth order!

[elehhhhna]

251. Perry Homes (Swiftboat Liars Financier) REQUIRES their field managers

(Construction Managers) to drive trucks which are less than 5 years old. 2000 Ford Truck in excellent condition? NO HIRE unless you upgrade within 30 days of hire. Period. They DO NOT have a co. fleet, it's your truck, your money (though they give a small car allowance , as do ALL builders for employees in this position.)

[Mizmoon]

234. I would /never/ work for someone who demanded my credit report

or my urine. It's clearly just the tip of the invasive and abusive iceberg. And anyone who does needs to get some self-respect. There are tons of employers out there who need you. You don't need to work for someone who thinks that they own every aspect of your life.

[SmokingJacket]

245. Still think it's none of your business.

Employers should take the risk of hiring an "irresponsible" employee in the name of privacy. You can't check my mental health records, even though the info found there would probably tell you a whole lot more about what kind of employee I would be...

[elehhhhna]

262. Nom for Greatest. n/t

[DavidFL]

266. Questions:

In reading your posts, it appears what you're saying is even if a person has past due debts, you're looking to see that they make good on them. What about a situation where the applicant has past due debts that are outside the statute of limitations in their state, meaning they cannot be sued by the creditor to collect on those debts, but, at the time they apply with your company, it's still within the time period prior to those debts being dropped from their credit report. For example, assuming the statute of limitations in the applicant's state is 5 years, and the last day for the creditor to sue the applicant just passed -- say 5 years + 1 day, but the past due item won't be cleared from the applicant's credit report for another 2 years. In this instance, it would actually make sense for the applicant not to pay the debt because commencing repayment would restart the statute of limitations all over again, and the reporting period for the debt, as well as subject them to legal action by the creditor if, for some reason, they missed a payment. Even better, assume the statute of limitations has passed and it's 6 months before the past due item drops off their credit report. Again, it would still make sense for the applicant not to pay this debt for the same reasons listed above. Would you consider non-payment in these instances acceptable? If not, aren't you essentially asking applicants to choose between improving their credit score, and thus the ability to obtain better financing terms, etc., or a job at your organizaton?

Assuming the same facts as above, what about an instance where a bottom feeder collection agency or debt collection attorney buys the aforementioned past due debt from the original creditor. The original creditor has reported it to the CRAs as a write off, in compliance with the law. However, the bottom feeder reports the same debt as past due debt in order to reset the 7 year reporting period. Of course, this is highly illegal and would subject the bottom feeder to potential liability under the FCRA, but it happens. What would you do in this instance as most people are not aware that the bottom feeder's move is illegal?

Second, could you clarify what you mean by duration of personal BKs? The duration of the time between a person files their petition for a Ch. 7 or 13 BK and the court granting the debtor a discharge is pretty standard. Ch. 7s last anywhere from 3-6 months, depending on factors such as whether the debtor must commence an adversary proceeding against a creditor, or vice versa, in which case you're looking at the longer end of the time frame. Ch. 13s last anywhere from 3-5 years depending on the repayment plan the debtor comes up with and the court approves.

Further, people cannot file for the same type of bankruptcy again until 6 years after their previous case was discharged. Some people do what's called a Ch. 20, which is a Chapter 7 followed by a Ch. 13, but it would be a very unusual situation that these two kinds of cases would be filed in subsequent years; the Ch. 13 usually immediately follows the Ch. 7. So what exactly do you mean by duration?

Third, in my experience, "deadbeats" are few and far between as most people fall behind on their bills because of unemployment, for medical reasons, divorce, etc.; things that are out of their control. Yet I notice you used this term several times in the above posts. Just to be clear, to me, "deadbeat" means someone who otherwise has the ability to repay their debts, but consciously chooses not to do so; even though I hate that term with a passion. Also, I don't necessarily consider someone who knows they don't have the ability to repay a debt they run up a "deadbeat" because in some circumstances, it's understandable as it's essential in some cases in order for the person, or their chidren, to live, eat, etc. Do you have a lot of people that I would consider a "deadbeat" applying to your organization? What type of industry are you in that attracts them to your company?

[Modem Butterfly]

270. Point by point:

What about a situation where the applicant has past due debts that are outside the statute of limitations in their state, meaning they cannot be sued by the creditor to collect on those debts, but, at the time they apply with your company, it's still within the time period prior to those debts being dropped from their credit report.

Well, the first thing to realize is that employers see your total credit history (also, lenders for loans over a certain amount). Personally, if someone has made a lot of mistakes in the distant past but has been doing okay since, it's not an issue. But it's still better to bring it up on the front side than leaving the employer to wonder about it.

Second, could you clarify what you mean by duration of personal BKs?

Some bankruptcies take longer than others to resolve, some folks file multiple bankruptcies of different types, or make failed attempts at bankruptcies. Most people who have one have just one, but some people have one and several attempts, or immediately go back into bankruptcy, or otherwise seem not to have learned anything from the experience. BTW, it is against the law to deny employment based solely on a bankruptcy.

Do you have a lot of people that I would consider a "deadbeat" applying to your organization?

We have a fair number, probably 10-20%, which is consistant for other companies I've worked for and in other industries. Other factors may balance this out, such as the job they've applied for, how old the debt is, or if they also have bad checks, repos, evictions, or a criminal record, but what makes the biggest difference is how the candidate explains him or herself, just like in any interview situation.

[elehhhhna]

277. Sociopaths can explain anything away, beautifully. That dog don't hunt.

[Modem Butterfly]

280. There are relatively few sociopaths running around

And no hiring process is perfect. But then, with fifteen years as a headhunter under your belt, you already knew that. ;)

[elehhhhna]

288. Mo, you're in denial then about the number of excellent liars that

get hired. With your big 10 years versus my running a 10 million dollar boutique agency, surely you SHOULD know that.

I appreciated that you've opened yourself up to flaming by you attempt to explain the "other side" of this, for that, I applaud you.

You smug attitude tells me I'd never want you for a client, though, and if I can work well with Jack Welch (and have), I wouldn't need your business, anyway.

btw, What's your policy on internet use on the job?

[Modem Butterfly]

289. You're on a roll today, that's for sure!

ROFLMAO!

;)

Tell Jack I said "hi".

[slackmaster]

268. I've seen people with atrocious credit records hired

One company I worked for hired a South African citizen who had a three-year history of defaults on credit cards and a student loan. Not just slow or late payments, these were writeoffs which look even worse than bankruptcy. He'd been evicted from two dwellings for failure to pay rent, AND had a car repossessed.

We hired him because he had exactly the right skills for the job. It was not a money-handling position. :D

[CreekDog]

271. Calling them deadbeats b/c they have bad credit problems --problematic!

Also, being responsible means a number of different things, but your statements don't indicate that anything is a better indicator to you in your job than the credit report. Yikes.

Unfortunately, you seem to be biased in favor of the credit report as a tool for determining responsibility as a character trait, because in YOUR case it was a reflection of responsibility in your own life, but credit report is a poor tool for assessing someone's character.

I would argue that you are more responsible for having dealt with your credit problem, but that like a reformed smoker, drinker, born-again Christian (okay only some), your fault lies in fairly bald statements that indicate what worked for you is best for other people.

One frustration I find is that people get tunnel vision with respect to some tool, method, line of thought, etc. So the credit report, the longer it is used, becomes more relied upon because of it's history.

Not exactly thinking out of the box is it?

ps-my credit is fine, but things pop up on my report faster than i can fix them (and they will be back soon I'm sure)...like they keep listing alternate spellings for my last name and have reported that I have a spouse (never have).

[CreekDog]

272. I guess my other complaint is the sureness of your evaluation

You don't seem to doubt your conclusions.

Taking responsiblity for your decisions and having confidence in them is one thing.

However, that does not mean overlooking the limitations on your ability to know.

Also, some change in your tone with respect to the people you evaluate would be nice. They are people, even if you have to evaluate 1000 of them.

And your mistaken decision can harm people --it would be nice if you expressed some cognizance of your role and some respect for the authority you wield. (You seem to respect it in terms of the company, but not in terms of the subjects you evaluate.)

I personally prefer to give more power to people who recognize their limitations, than those who seem not to recognize them. Both can be bold, dramatic, and risk-takers, but power without limitation by conscience is a recipe for disaster.

[cap]

278. the correlation between credit check and good employee is dubious

You can get a secret clearance in the government without a credit check. That is the lowest level of security clearance that is -- it's a minimal check in the criminal databases of the FBI, CIA etc.

Top Secret is when they go back and talk to your neighbors and run more detailed checks including credit checks.

Ergo, the federal government will let you have detailed knowledge about a cruise missle without worrying about your credit but not permit you to work with cryptography at NSA without understanding your financial situation.

Most employer's data/information (except for financial) isnt as confidential as data on how high the cruise missle can fly. So I see no need for credit checks unless people are handling financial data.

[slackmaster]

282. What "evaluation"? Are you responding to something I wrote?

I think you may have your thread twisted.

How about an explanation or apology?

[Modem Butterfly]

283. Well, that's just how it seems

Honestly, I didn't really feel this post warranted a deep exploration of the psyche of Modem Butterfly. Actually, I still don't. And if I sound dispassionate on this subject, it's because I am. My goal is to ensure as much fairness as I possibly can, and to me that means evaluating the candidates on an even playing field. Just because someone went to the same school I did is no reason to overlook a lack of qualifications for a position, and just because someone has a huge W sticker emblazoned on their briefcase is no reason to judge them more harshly.

[slackmaster]

281. What the FUCKING, BLAZING HELL are you talking about, CreekDog?

Who did I call a "deadbeat"? :shrug:

...your statements don't indicate that anything is a better indicator to you in your job than the credit report....

Actually my post said pretty much the opposite. In spite of his credit problems he was the right person for the job.

Unfortunately, you seem to be biased in favor of the credit report as a tool for determining responsibility as a character trait...

What a crock of shit! I never said any such thing.

I would argue that you are more responsible for having dealt with your credit problem...

For the record, I have NEVER had a credit problem in my life! The worst thing that ever happened to MY credit was when someone stole my identity, used it to acquire credit cards, charged some stuff, and didn't pay for it. I was arrested on a Failure To Appear warrant for his arraignment in another county. I got that taken care of.

My FICO score is over 800.

[CreekDog]

369. My comments weren't to you slackmaster, but to Modem

[slackmaster]

378. That's a relief

Thanks!

[elehhhhna]

350. I know a headhunter who won a car from his employer, based on

his production (top biller for his region.) His coworkers were very happy for him because he'd been LIVING in his crappy car for the past several months.

Believe it or not.

[Modem Butterfly]

356. When I started out, we had to pawn just about everything...

...'til the guarantee periods were up and the commission started coming in.

[elehhhhna]

357. Good times...good times...

;-)

[progressivebydesign]

274. Thanks, but that's just ONE person who checks.

You cannot speak for other companies. Multiple collection items still does not indicate a bad employee.

[Modem Butterfly]

285. Actually, I can

I have a good deal of experience in this area.

[Deep13]

275. Creditors are parasites.

Making deals with them will get you nowhere. Frankly, your remarks only reinforce my concerns. Working is not borrowing and failure to pay predatory lenders for want of funds does not indicate irresponsibility. No one chooses not to pay creditors. People are unable to do so because of economic reasons. Employment history and an effective interview is a far better guide to a prospective employee's reliability than a credit check, anyway.

[elehhhhna]

284. might I add MULTIPLE effective interviews?

Meet the candiate twice--no matter how good. You'd be surprised what comes up at a second meeting.

[Modem Butterfly]

286. Plenty of people choose to not pay creditors

As I said earlier in the thread, I've seen people with very good credit who've never made more than $10 or $12 an hour in their life and people with terrible credit who make six figures.

[Pithlet]

306. How, as the employer, do you know which is the case?

How do you know that the person simply neglected their bills? You don't. You're using personal anecdotal experiences to influence your position on this issue, and making judgments against people that are completely baseless, exactly way most prejudiced people do.

[Modem Butterfly]

308. It's indicated on the credit report

Whether someone makes arragements to pay or the debt is sold to a collection agency is indicated on the credit report.

[Pithlet]

312. No

It does not tell you on the credit report whether someone's credit is bad because they're lazy and irresponsible.

I worked in banking. I've pulled credit reports. I know what they look like.

[Modem Butterfly]

314. Employers credit reports look different from lenders

I guess banks can't see when a debt is under settlement or sold to collection.

:sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

316. Sorry, no.

Employers may get a different report (I'm skeptical as to how different they are), but I highly doubt it tells them the character of the employee. Really. Are these extra special super duper employer only credit reports compiled by people who know the potential employee personally? They have categories like Hard Worker? Honest? Dependable? I seriously doubt it.

[Modem Butterfly]

320. I didn't say they do, that was your statement

Character is not indicated by a credit report. Responsibility, however, can be.

[Pithlet]

325. No, it can't

A credit score does not tell you how responsible someone is. It tells you they did not pay their bills. There is simply nothing in a credit report that allows you to judge a person's character, and yes, responsibility IS a character trait.

It is arguable that positions of accounting have an interest in whether or not a person paid their bills. But that's it. And even then, that doesn't tell the whole story. Bad credit is often not a reflection of ability to handle money. At any rate, that is only a minority of positions. A vast majority of employers simply have no need to know whether or not a person missed payment on their bills at any time in their past. That is personal information that has no bearing on employability.

[Modem Butterfly]

327. Employers reports don't have credit scores

They also go farther back then lender's reports. FYI.

You say responsibility is a character issue. I say it isn't. Please don't continue to say that I equate credit with character, because I don't. And frankly, as I've said before, over and over again, I'm not so much concerned with bad credit as I am with how the candidate has handled that credit. You could go into consumer counseling and that might make lenders not want to extend credit, but to an employer, it says that you are taking responsibility for your previous actions.

[Pithlet]

331. You equate it with responsibility

You said so, yourself. Okay, so semantically you don't call that character. It doesn't matter. You still can't determine responsibility based on a credit report. Any credit report. You said earlier in the thread that a bad report may be an indication of choosing not to pay bills. And it isn't.

I've read everything you've said. I simply disagree. You are still making a judgment using information that doesn't speak to that judgment. Goind into consumer counseling is a good thing, sure. It still doesn't tell you if the person will make a good employer. Often those counseling services will only take you if you have a certain amount of debt, so failure to use one doesn't necessarily speak to responsibility. Using a counseling service can effect your score negatively, and many people know this. Another reason not to use one, a decision that doesn't have to do with responsibility.

All using a credit report is doing is potentially screaning out people who would make great employees, and making misguided decisions to hire people who may turn out to be damaging.

[Modem Butterfly]

334. Part of the picture, not the total picture

Considering credit is like considering job experience, education, interviewing skills, etc. It's part of the picture, but not the whole picture.

[Bryn]

287. Cool! You don't need a B.S. or M.A. degrees any more, all you need is

a good credit report. Wow!

[Modem Butterfly]

292. Not really

Some positions don't require degrees, some do. Most positions don't require good credit, but bad credit is a really good way to not get a job.

[Pithlet]

305. "bad credit is a really good way to not get a job"

The reason for that is because people like you think a credit check is perfectly reasonable. When, in fact, a creid check will not tell you a thing about what kind of an employee a person is. Nothing. Credit worthiness has nothing to do with a person's ability to perform a job. All a bad credit score tells you is a person was unable to pay bills. You have no way of knowing WHY that is so. You're buying into the right wing notion that a failure to pay bills is a character issue. Particularly now, this is very often not the case.

[Modem Butterfly]

307. It's not a question of character...

...but rather a question of responsibility. How do you deal with your debts? Do you pay them, make arrangments to pay them or do you just ignore them until they get charged off while continuing to rack up more debt?

[Pithlet]

309. Exactly. Character.

If you are judging whether or not a person is responsible, isn't that a character assessment?

You have no way of knowing any of those things about me unless you know me personally, and are intimate to all the details of my life.

[Modem Butterfly]

311. Not to me

He could be a great person who's just really, really slack. In any event, it's to the candidate's advantage to check their credit report first and to be upfront with any issues.

[Pithlet]

"Could be"

That's my point. You don't know. You are making a judgment using information that really doesn't tell you what you want to know. Really, you could decide to use hair color as a factor in making the decision, and it would be just as useful.

It's to the candidates advantage to check information that is going to be used against them because there are people like you who will erroneously use it against them. There are plenty of reasons to check one's own credit report. Whether or not a job depends on it shouldn't be one of them, and none of your arguments have made the case otherwise. Really. Your defence of this practice is "They should know better?" That's ridiculous.

[Modem Butterfly]

319. I'm not sure why you think that

I certainly am not using credit reports "erroneously" against anyone, and it's a very rare situation where the hiring decision comes down to the credit report. Credit reports are not the entire picture of a candidate by any means, but they are much more relevant than hair color, and frankly, I'd rather be evaluated based on my spotty credit than on where I went to school.

[Pithlet]

337. You started a thread

defending the practice. That is what I'm responding to. I don't care if it is only a part of it. It shouldn't be a part of it at all.

A credit report is no more relevant than hair color. Because neither tells you a single thing about whether a person is a good hire.

A person's financial past, like any other aspect of their life, is personal. Just as a divorce doesn't mean that a person is incapable of personal relationships, a bad credit score doesn't mean that a person is irresponsible with money, or just plain irresponsible, period. Neither status should be used against them for that reason.

[Modem Butterfly]

349. Strictly speaking, no

I started a thread explaining the practice and telling people how to deal with it. Whether it's a good practice or not is, to me, a separate issue that most job seekers won't have an opportunity to confront directly.

[Pithlet]

354. The wording

may have been a bit unfortunate. The whole "Calm down" thing. It also seemed as if you were defending the practice by saying that employees are only doing it tolook for indications of responsibilty, and in subsequent posts it appeared as though you agreed with this. People have every right to be very upset about this. Employers rights have been growing, and employees rights dwindling, and the trend of checking credit is yet another step in the direction of intrusive corporations doing whatever the hell they feel like just because they can. They dangle the carrot of employement over our heads, and we should have to jump through their hoops. An every time a new hoop is added, it is rationalized and justified by them as necessary. It isn't right.

[Horse with no Name]

359. I've known people who deal drugs

and they have always paid their bills on time--although they usually pay them in 10's and 20's,lol.:shrug:
I guess they'd get a job over someone who went through some bad times that are essentially honest and law abiding.

[cap]

310. Let's put this in perspective of a period with the largest job losses

since the Great Depression. We've had millions of people lose their jobs with an average period of 5 months unemployment. In some industries such as the computer industry, senior people have been without work for over 1 year and many more have taken jobs at 15-30% of their former income. I know people who are working at Fortune 500 companies who are in this position. I have heard of someone who was too sick to hold a job (he literally collapsed at work and urinated on himself and was taken to the emergency room) and didnt have a car (he walked 2 miles from the train station) show up at a major defense company and begged not to be fired. No lack of work ethic there.

Middle aged women and minorities have been very hard hit and have traditionally had worse credit. If your hiring process weeds out too many people in protected categories it will not stand up in court (Disparate impact).

Most people depend on 2 jobs to support their household and made plans to pay for a house, 2 cars and a mild amount of credit card debt based on a given income level. Now, their income is down 15-80% of what it was. They fall behind on bills. The foreclosure rate in Pittsburg is at "Depression levels" (see article in Washington post) and other cities have been hit hard as well.

A credit rating isnt going to tell you whether that person was a moral person and just had the underpinnings of their life ripped out from underneath them. Failure to hold a steady job these days is not due solely to a character flaw on the part of the employee. Go check out the Wharton alumni web site for New Jersey and take a look at the resumes. Read betwen the lines. People are listing jobs held by the years to cover for the fact that they've been unemployed for months in between them. Look at their experience. Very solid experience and top-of-the-line education. Unfortunately, that didnt help them. I would bet that some of these people have lousy credit. I dont think they should be penalized and not hired for work that doesnt involve handling money.

[Modem Butterfly]

315. Again, part of the picture, not the whole picture

And the whole point of the thread was to tell people to know what their credit reports say and to be prepared to discuss it with employers ahead of time so as to guarantee the best chance of getting a job.

[Pithlet]

317. That would be fine

Wise advice. But, your post also seemed to think that you agreed with this practice, and that you think employers actually gain anything from it. And that those who disagreed were being hysterical.

[Modem Butterfly]

321. There's a great deal of misinformation and ignorance on this issue

And yes, a fair amount of hysteria as well.

[cap]

326. People are getting hysterical these days...

If you've been out of work, and you are behind and harrassed by creditors, and you are not granted a job that doesnt involve handling money based on your credit history, you aren't going to be completely rational.

[Pithlet]

328. I don't see it.

There have been posts that disagree with you, yes. Also, you were misinformed on at least one subject in this thread. People cannot claim bankruptcy year after year, for example. All anyone is doing is countering your insistance that credit is an indication of responsibility.

[Modem Butterfly]

330. People can attempt multiple claims at bankruptcy

I guess you haven't read the rest of the thread. That's okay, it's getting a bit long.

[Pithlet]

335. I've read the whole thread.

Your argument that a credit score speaks to a person's employability is simply wrong. The practice of judging a person's employability based on factors that have no relevancy is damaging. It groups a bunch of people together to be judged adversely, based on factors that are too often outside of their control. It is no different than if employers were prejudiced against divorcees, because obviously they don't handle interpersonal relationships well.

[Modem Butterfly]

336. On that, we'll have to disagree

But in the meantime, the fact remains that job seekers will have to deal with employers who use credit as a factor in hiring decisions, and they should be prepared to deal with it when it comes up.

[Pithlet]

338. They should

Because it is obvious the practice is growing. It doesn't make it right. It is unethical and immoral.

[Bryn]

380. A Perfect Corporation Talk, Not "Us, The People" Walk

Congrats!! I bet you are your CEO of the Corporation's Dream Hire

:applause:

[cap]

323. frankly, just out of principle, I would refuse the credit check

unless the position involved money. Employment check is OK, criminal check is OK. Fortunately, I am in the position to do so (my credit is stellar, BTW. I just dont like people poking around in my personal business. I also dont give out Social Security Numbers to recruiters (am happy to work with coming up with a unique identifier).)

[Modem Butterfly]

324. That's your perogative

Are recruiters really asking for SSNs now? Good night!

[cap]

370. Yup, someone recruiting for JPMorgan

and this has happened more than once for JP Morgan.

[MadHound]

333. Sorry MB, you're giving good advice here, but the fact of the matter is

That asking for a potential hire's credit history is wrong, period.

It is part of the corporate creep we've been seeing for the past twenty five years. Corporations are prying more and more into their worker's personal lives, where they have no business being. What's next, the old school Ford villages, where a supervisor comes around each evening to see that the workers aren't drinking or other things that could possibly affect their work? Sorry, no sale there.

Yep, first it was the piss test, then the lie detector, then the physical, now the credit check, what's next, DNA testing? Psychological profiling? All to get a fucking low wage job with piss poor benefits.

Sorry, but corporations have waaay too many entitlements anyway, they don't need anymore. And quite frankly, in many places it is entirely too easy for this type of information to get into the wrong hands. I've worked at several places where when they were hiring for our dept. all the resumes and other potential hire's info was passed around the dept. in order to insure compatibility within dept, and that we all had a hand in making said hiring decision. So my credit info gets passed around, and some sneaky SOB copies off vital information and I'm now in a world of hurt.

You seem like a very nice person MB, but I think you should get out of the biz you're in. I know, I know, following orders and all of that. But still and all, you are aiding and abetting the enemy, and you know what they say about not being part of the solution.

[bloom]

341. "corporate creep"

I agree. I don't see how someone can be against fascism and corporatism on the one side and defend stuff like this on the other.

Except that people will defend what they do for a living just because it's how they eat.

[Modem Butterfly]

343. Aiding and abetting the enemy?

Yikes.

The act of applying for a job invites the employer to look into your life. You present yourself as a candidate to the employer and, in that act, present yourself and your credentials for evaluation, even while the employer presents his or her company for evaluation. I really don't see much difference between looking at someone's credit and verifying someone's criminal or educational history. But to each their own. Unfortunately, there's a large number of employers who look at credit when making a hiring decision, and people should know how to deal with that before hand. After all, fore warned is fore armed.

I have heard horror stories, but have yet to actually see, companies that shared the results of background checks outside of one or two people in HR, simply because of the potential for identity theft from within. While I don't doubt your story, I must say that that is quite a risky practice. In our case, I'm the one who reviews all the background checks. If it's a failure for anything other than criminal, my boss gets to look at it as a check on me. If it's really borderline, corporate council might get involved. Once a decision is made, the information is either destroyed immediately or retained until FCRA requirements are fulfilled, then destroyed. Our interview and evaluation process is certainly subjective and fallable, but the information we receive remains confidential.

[Pithlet]

346. Yeah, I agree, that was over the top

You aren't the one that made the decision to implement that policy.

[MadHound]

360. It is one thing for the corporation to look into my public life,

Such as references, employment history, criminal record, etc. But my credit history, health issues, DNA, pee, etc are my PRIVATE LIFE, and nobody has any business looking there, unless I invite them to. There is a distinct difference, and your indication that "I really don't see much difference between looking at someone's credit and verifying someone's criminal or educational history." says to me that you have been in this snooping biz entirely too long, and that you are quickly losing perspective.

A person's education, employment, and criminal record is a matter of public record. Give me a name and location, and anybody can find these matters out for themselves. However a credit check is not a matter of public record, and is indicated as such because you have to get the applicant's permission to run one, at least for now. And basing employment decisions off of a record that is, in many ways, very subjective, and quite possibly erroneous, probably isn't the best way to go. Doing so penalizes those who are poor, a single parent, has or lives with somebody with a chronic medical problem, and many others. YOU may be aware of these sorts of circumstances, but many, if not most HR people aren't as understanding and scupulous as you are.

And while you don't pass around this information outside of the HR/mgmt level, you do, at least, temporarily store some of it. Do you have a central records dump like most larger institutions? Then one or more of those employees would have access to my personal information. Mail clerks or couriers? More people with access. Janitors cleaning up after hours? Even more people with access. And don't tell me that it is under lock and key, please. Anybody with a misspent youth like myself can easily pick any lock that a corporation is going to cough up money to buy.

And yes, while it is harsh to call corporations "the enemy", I don't think that it is off the mark. In the name of ever greater profits, corporations are raping the earth, killing living beings up to and including humans, operating with more rights than a breathing human, destoying vast areas of this planet, using up resources at an unsustainable rate, and yes, invading our privacy. Thus those actions make corporations an enemy in my book. Granted, there are some good corporations that do not perform these practices. But the vast majority, especially in Bushco's America, do. And we need to take them out now, for they are ruining our lives and have taken over our government. You know what they called the unholy unity of government and corporate power eighty years ago? Fascism, and boy did those fascists love to invade the privacy of ordinary citizens, starting with their employees. Get the picture now?

[Modem Butterfly]

363. Not really

person's education, employment, and criminal record is a matter of public record. Give me a name and location, and anybody can find these matters out for themselves.

Not really. Most educational institutions require written authorization from the student or alum to share information, likewise employers. And criminal records are also difficult to get without a social, date of birth, and in some states, gender, race, and written authorization.

Do you have a central records dump like most larger institutions?

Not sure what you mean by this, but our backgrounds are kept separate from other files in a secure location until they're destroyed in a secure shredder.

Mail clerks or couriers? More people with access.

Nope. They're not even allowed in the file room. Heck, building security doesn't even have access.

Janitors cleaning up after hours? Even more people with access.

Nope. And I've never worked anyplace where they did.

And don't tell me that it is under lock and key, please. Anybody with a misspent youth like myself can easily pick any lock that a corporation is going to cough up money to buy.

See? More justification for background checks! ;)

[ima_sinnic]

344. #(* that shit!! I CAN BARELY FEED MYSELF!

let alone pay off my debts!
anyone who is going to judge me by my credit report can GO FUCK HIMSELF.
my debts and credit record have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I have been and will be one of the best employees anyone could want.
if someone is going to judge me by my credit report I will not apply to that company. they can hire their "perfect credit" asshat and kiss my BUTT.
and I have to agree with poster way above--why even ask for references. just snoop into my background, you think you've got all your answers there, why should I waste my time dredging up school and employment records and getting letters of reference from people?

EAT SHIT.

[Modem Butterfly]

347. Actually, letter of reference are pretty useless, too

Letters of reference can be quite easily faked. Anyone who accepts them in lieu of a conversation with a reference or a background check is a fool. Beyond that, you're welcome to put me on ignore.

[ima_sinnic]

351. hey, guess what? in my field (academia) letters of reference

are ASKED FOR.

you must work for some money-grubbing corporate hog where the CEO makes 30 times what the workers make, right? the low-paid groveling "perfect credit" workers that is.

[Modem Butterfly]

353. LOL

That's about the funniest post I've read today. Thanks!

[Horse with no Name]

362. I suppose I should just go throw away all of the glowing

letters I have received from doc's all these years.
Oh wait!
Most places find them adequate.:shrug:

[Modem Butterfly]

364. Most places do background checks and check references, too

If someone gives me a letter, I thank them and keep it with their app. But I call their references and past supervisors and check their backgrounds just the same.

[Horse with no Name]

367. Absolutely.

But most doctors are very difficult to get hold of for references.
Written letter usually have to suffice.

[CreekDog]

382. Is ModemB's company in violation?

By running credit reports on all hires (if that's the case) for all jobs or for vast categories of jobs as well as using the credit report to determine whether or not an employee is responsible.

It would appear that these requests cannot all be 'reasonable' requests for information. Worse still is that the requests are being used to determine fitness for employment, but is actually being used to gauge someone's 'responsibility' which is not actually in the credit report and cannot be legally inferred from it.

Needless to say this information is not being used properly.

Any litigators out there that can weigh in?

[Modem Butterfly]

384. Have at it

Here's the actual FCRA, rather than a third-hand interpretation:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#604

[CreekDog]

388. Court Cases under Title VII re: good credit for employment

Findlaw says that:

"Court cases under Title VII have held that requiring good credit as a condition of employment can have a discriminatory result, since disproportionately more non-whites than whites live below the poverty level. "

[Modem Butterfly]

391. Same can be said for pretty much every stage...

...of the hiring/employment process.

[cap]

397. see my post above about disparate impact...

eom

[Horse with no Name]

385. I understand this is her job

and I understand that everyone needs to work.
I can't hold that against anyone. Families have to eat.
However, I would like to think that if I were in her position, I would try to get my "higher ups" to understand what an infringement this is and fight for employee rights from within the belly of the beast.
Not fight for the beast.:shrug:

edited for syntax error:)

[dejaboutique]

366. Aren't you supposed to be working

You seem quite busy on this thread, how are you getting any work done? aren't there credit checks to do? I wouldnt want my employee sitting on the web all day posting - is there anyway to determine that in a credit check - whether my employee will be doing things other than the job description.

[Modem Butterfly]

374. Good question, but I'm taking a couple of days off

[Gormy Cuss]

396. THIS is how you're spending your day off?

Wow, a little bit of a bus man's holiday isn't it?
Thanks again for braving through all the questions and rants.

Now my question: are you aware of any unbiased, neutral research (i.e., not produced by Choicepoint and its ilk with a vested interest in pushing this product) on the reliability of credit reports in screening out bad candidates? How good a measure? Does it weed out 5% more of the stinkers* than other methods? Is it only useful as a secondary indicator?

Info brokers make a fortune by convincing businesses that these products are worth it. I have never seen any independent research in that regard.

*stinkers is not an H.R. term IIRC

[nolabels]

375. I think the time is NOW to declare WAR on ALL CREDITORS

The payments in the mail :silly:

This apparatchik that holds up and monitors credit status one of the few legs that prop up this Capitalism and the Corporate agenda. These power hungry fools are going to regret effing around with the way it functions.

[sarcasmo]

389. It is still WRONG no matter which way you spin it.

[cap]

399. as someone who hires people

I dont use credit checks. My folks won't handle money; ergo, there skill in managing money is irrelevant. I have low turnover due to:
understanding of how to match employees to job (looking at the whole employee, the skill set, the education, the personality, the type of company/projects the person has done), knowing how to weed out BS (people who lie about their qualifications generally cant keep their stories straight when asked about things a couple of different times in the same way), managing workload appropriately, and managing people appropriately.

There are many time honored rules and practices that keep you out of trouble.