Credit checks by potential employers should be illegal

[dong20]

The cynic in me wonders if (along with the other valid comments) the reason isn't also an equally cynical rationale that - if you're badly in debt (as in payment arrears etc) you'd perhaps be more likely to seek any opportunity to steal from the company to deal with the debts. I appreciate the some jobs would offer more such opportunities than others, retail being a good example.

I appreciate there are many flaws with that argument, but not every employer thinks through their hiring policies (in this case indebtedness equates susceptibility to fraud) with absolute logic or integrity. After all we'd do a credit or deeper check on a potential tenant.

 

[viking1]

I agree, but employers can do anything they want. We need a laborer's revolt!

 

[D_Kaye Throttlebottom]

I think it's also used as a deterent to filter out unresponsible people from applying.

I don't think they make decisions about your credit score, rather, assessing if you are trustworthy. Are you going to steal from me, are you living beyond your means...I think they are looking for another way to verify that you are who you say you really are.

Also for government checks, they only get a limited profile of your information - they don't get a FICO score, they just get a copy of what's in your file (the same info you would get if you wrote to the credit reporting agency to challenge something on your report). They will show your accounts and history, just not a calculated score.

 

[swordfishME]

I agree that a credit check is an invasion of privacy but I see the importance of the check for potential employers. A bad credit rating should not disqualify you from a job, but it may indicate your unsuitability for a job.

It is fairly obvious that people having jobs related to finance and in financial departments of companies should have their credit checked. The potential for fraud and abuse is there and companies need to protect themselves against it.

I think bad credit may indicate serious concerns about an employee's honesty and loyalty in any given job. What is the gurantee that an employee will not part with sensative internal information to outsiders to help relieve their financial crunch. It can happen regardless of financial circumstances but someone in financial trouble is more likely to engage in such activities.

 

[MovingForward]

I totally understand.

My roommate/boyfriend once wrote me a check for rent, and then I wrote the rent check to the landlord. The check bounced, because his check bounced so that was one instance.

Then his checks kept bouncing, and it was either pay the rent or don't pay your credit cards.
So I paid rent, and had credit cards go to collection.

I think we should credit check people who we date.

I have restored my credit back to good standing from where it was in 2002, and I can't wait until 2009 when everything will fall off.

 

[swordfishME]

Some of the experiences on this thread beg another question: Should you be allowed to get a credit check on potential spouses and common-law partners?

 

[rob_just_rob]

Some of the experiences on this thread beg another question: Should you be allowed to get a credit check on potential spouses and common-law partners?

Why not? My understanding is that the person whose credit is being checked must consent, though (as they must for all credit checks).

 

[Ethyl]

I think we should credit check people who we date.

Some of the experiences on this thread beg another question: Should you be allowed to get a credit check on potential spouses and common-law partners?

Why not? My understanding is that the person whose credit is being checked must consent, though (as they must for all credit checks).

The irony in my particular case is that my ex had good credit (as did I) when we met and we continued to build on that. We made an agreement that he would put me through school after he finished his graduate degree. Well, he left when I was 3/4 's of the way through my program. He basically disappeared for a few months and I was saddled with a mortgage and all the other household expenses when I was working only part-time. We got the typical "no fault" divorce where everything was basically split in half but that also meant I was responsible for half the debt that accumulated while we were married (student loans, etc). The courts weren't interested that I was forced to drop out of school, had considerably less earning potential, and no medical insurance. I'm still waiting on my settlement from part of his pension to come through so I can pay for the rest of the aforementioned outstanding debts. The company's HR department is so inept, it's taken me this long to receive it. My point is, whether you're responsible for your debt or not, that doesn't show on the report. Employers will naturally assume what they will when they see it.

I can inform an employer about my problem in detail (and have done so), but they may not be interested and would prefer to move on to the next applicant. hence my predicament.

 

[Drifterwood]

I am a big bad nasty employer.

We do not do credit checks on staff in the UK, but I can tell you some of the problems that I have faced with staff who have been in debt.

a/ Theft - yes it happens, one case cost me $80,000 and then about $10,000 in management time etc.

b/ Data theft - if your company has any brains, this is about the scariest thing that can happen and one of the easiest.

c/ Moonlighting on the job - like running an ebay store or other online business from work.

d/ Moonlighting out of hours. Whilst perfectly legal, it doesn't help a team if a member is half asleep during the day.

e/ Constantly asking for subs on wages - the company is your employer, not your bank.

f/ Being harassed at work by debt collectors.

g/ with the above really, but the general stress that debt causes people, thereby affecting their ability to do the job.

Having said all that, I would not have a credit check policy. Ability to do the job would always come first. If debt became a problem, I would then get rid of the person.

Don't we expect people to be in debt? And these companies are largely responsible for not stopping the sub prime disaster. So great, they fucked a lot of people's mortgages, now they're fucking their employment.

 

[mindseye]

Fact-check!

I got this emailed to me a few days ago, I think it fits:

NBA OR NFL?​

Don't believe everything you get e-mailed (and don't pass it on without checking!)

This has been floating around the internet since at least 1999, and has "morphed" a few times since then. You can find an earlier version of the same report at:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

(...and the 10000+ Google hits suggest how widely and indiscriminately the report has been circulated.)

Note how vague the language is: 36 have been "accused" of spousal abuse, 19 have been "accused" of writing bad checks. How many of these accusations were supported by evidence? How many were convicted?

And which ones? By not mentioning names or specific details, this misinformation is vague enough that people like Osiris mistake it for current nine years after the original was written.

 

[MidwestGal]

!. It's an invasion of privacy.

2. The main reason it's done is to determine if you're responsible with money. But, as we all know, people go into debt for many reasons: catastrophic illness that health insurance won't cover, divorce (me), being laid off from work, victim of internet or other fraudulent activity - none of these reasons show on a credit check. All it shows is that you owe someone money. It doesn't show if you've made arrangements to pay or if you're waiting for money from another source in order to pay the debt. All it takes is one run of bad luck.

3. If you refuse to consent to a credit check, then you might as well walk out the door because the employer thinks you have something to hide.

4. Employers mistakenly think that a clean credit report ensures against theft or embezzlement. Unless you're an accountant or applying for work in finance, there's no reason to think someone with less spotty credit will show more character, better judgment, or is more trustworthy than someone with a score of 760. I'd wager Arthur Anderson from Enron had an impeccable credit score.

5. Employers are required by law (in the US)to inform the applicant if they've decided not to offer them the position based on the credit check. They conveniently skip this part as i'm discovering for myself. The last few companies I've interviewed with asked for credit checks. I said yes each time and even took the time to explain my debt situation to one potential employer. They made it clear they were very interested in me and I've gone back for second interviews. The last second interview I was told they would schedule me to start in two weeks. I've called them twice and they haven't returned my calls. I'm fairly certain it's because they checked my credit and despite my discussion with the general manager about my debt and how I planned to repay it, they decided against hiring me.

Three years ago, I would've had my choice of any of the last few positions I applied for. Now they won't touch me. Even the staffing agency I spoke with today asked me if I could provide proof that my debt was due to divorce. WTF?

I don't get it. I'm educated and experienced in my field and it means absolutely nothing now.

Oh, well. Next time the gov't wants something from me, I'll just tell them "I'm sorry, you have a $9 trillion dollar debt therefore I cannot in good conscience recognize your plea".
*Sigh*

I totally agree with you. My financial situation has no bearing on my skills and how I did my job or even how I relate to others.

 

[nakedwally]

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18738.pdf

 

[Osiris]

Fact-check!



Don't believe everything you get e-mailed (and don't pass it on without checking!)

This has been floating around the internet since at least 1999, and has "morphed" a few times since then. You can find an earlier version of the same report at:

Urban Legends Reference Pages: Congress Wrongdoings

(...and the 10000+ Google hits suggest how widely and indiscriminately the report has been circulated.)

Note how vague the language is: 36 have been "accused" of spousal abuse, 19 have been "accused" of writing bad checks. How many of these accusations were supported by evidence? How many were convicted?

And which ones? By not mentioning names or specific details, this misinformation is vague enough that people like Osiris mistake it for current nine years after the original was written.

Mindseye, I have only one thing to say to that...

D'OH! :biggrin1:

In my defense, I didn't vouch it as fact, I just said it kind of fit. Factual or not.

BTW, I did bludgeon the person who sent it to me and clipped his credit cards for good measure. :wink: