Ravenwood - 02/10/03 04:17 PM
It looks like both Acidman and I are under fire for our shared position on the use of credit checks for employment screenings.
It would seem there are two schools of thought. I share Acidman's view that a good credit rating is an asset. It takes hard work and diligence to make sure that your bills are paid on time, you aren't over extended, and any problems are cleared up quickly and efficiently. I liken it to good grades in school. Whether or not you got an A in freshman English may not really matter a whole lot when you are applying for a job. But if a prospective employer wants to use it as a way to measure your personal habits, so be it. At the very least, it would seem to be a good indication of your personal habits.
My perception of the opposing school of thought is that they seem to think that credit is something that just happens. People with bad credit are 'victims' of the system, and shouldn't be judged when applying for a job.
There also seems to be an undertone that being considered for employment is an 'implicit right' that employers are clearly violating. Some readers have even gone so far as to try to liken the use of credit checks to racial bigotry. Dawn Olsen even called the practice 'morally reprehensible'.
I don't really know what more to say about the issue. Still, you'll find plenty of wonderful comments in the posts on all three sites.
UPDATE: Jack Cluth has rung in on this as well. I disagree with Jack's opinion. While I could care less if people responsibly use illicit drugs, I feel employers still have a right to test for it. The bottom line is that a person has a choice. They can use drugs, neglect their finances, whatever. But when it comes to applying for a job, they may have to pay the piper for their lack of responsibility.
As I've said, just give me the job based on my ability to do the job. Let ME worry about my finances....and that job is gonna help me eliminate my debt.
One way or another, I'll end up getting your money. Would you rather have it because I'm working for you and you're gaining something from the arrangement or would you prefer I just collect unemployment and welfare?
Posted by: Da Goddess at February 12, 2003 4:44 AMProblem with credit checks - if you have paid off lots of debts you have a good credit rating. So is an employer better off employing someone who takes out lots of loans? If you have never had a debt - you do not have a credit rating. What about the people (yes there are a few) that don't live on credit? Should this exclude them from jobs? I personally know a Polish man who baught his house in the 70s in cash. Then in the late 90s he wanted to get a large TV on credit - no luck.
Posted by: Matt at February 14, 2003 4:02 PMWhy would someone with the ability to pay cash for a house, want to finance a TV?
Posted by: Ravenwood at February 14, 2003 4:32 PMIit's a violation of your human rights when your eligibility for being hired to perform a job is being based on your credit score, rather than your ability to perform the job. In addition to that, in a poor economy with many job losses, what are we thinking, this smells of a police state.
Posted by: Tafat at November 6, 2003 9:17 AMWow, you are awfully quick to divine human rights. Gee, I didn't realize that my offering you employment was your right.
How about this. Credit scores are a wonderful measure of how a person manages their life. If they are unsuccessful at managing their life, they are likely to be unsuccessful at managing their work.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 6, 2003 10:11 AMOk, so I have never been late on a financial obligation. I have a debt load, and have been taking money from my IRA to keep financial obligations current. I have also been without employment for most of this year. And, yes, my credit report has caused potential employers to look elsewhere. The inside scoop from an anonymous HR person, FICO score of over 700 with lower than average debt load. Now the reason employers use this tool to screen potential employees, or so I have been told, is this reduces the chance of hiring an employee who might resort to stealing from their new employer.
Posted by: kwdecker at December 4, 2003 1:09 AMYes this is a hot topic!
I find that if we go down this long dark hall wall, we well find ourselves not just be checked for credit but what next are personal lives? How many relationships we have been in and how many times you cheat on you wife?
Its not the credit check but what information that they maybe keeping on perspective employees? When personal information becomes public domain, then you can forget getting health care, or privacy all together.
We as American citizens are now in a position to turn over privacy for a paycheck.
I just don't think that our constitution was written with this view in mind.
I think it takes a very naive person to think that a computer tech could not do their job because of their credit scores! Get a grip…. I think that checking for credit scores on people that are in banking or a CEO or even dealing with others credit should have credit checks done. But if you are picking up trash for a living a credit score show nothing. How any jobs have been lost in the past 3 years and when it comes down to feeding your child or a credit score I think the credit score is the lest of your problems. The only people that think that checking credit score is a good method of judging ones work ethics is those how have a good credit score with a low work ethics… There is times in ones life that is not counted on like being laid off from a steady job, earth quacks or September the 11th we do not know what the future holds but if we put ourselves in a corner in how we are judged we will all lose Good credit or bad it will not matter in the end….
A job application is NOT public domain. You give up all sorts of information (social security number, date of birth, address, etc) that is not public domain information. With employers, you have a choice; either you give up the information or you aren't hired to work for them. It is that simple.
No where in our Constitution does it say that employers must hire employees with a minimum amount of information. Nor do you have a "right" to work at any place for any one.
You can give the slippery slope argument all you want, but that doesn't work in a free market. Employers that ask for too much (and too detailed) personal information are going to find their pool of candidates dry up. That is how the free market works.
Posted by: Ravenwood at January 4, 2004 3:25 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
