Dealing with Employers Who Perform Credit Checks? 1418
Rick asks: "I recently accepted a Director level position at a small, 40 person, technology company. On my first day, I was provided with all of the standard employment paperwork such as the W2, NDA, healthcare, etc., as well as a document that is to provide my permission for the Company to do a comprehensive background check on me, including a credit history check. I am now in a stalemate position with my employer in regards to this background check document. I have refused to sign on the grounds that my personal credit information is of no business to the company and that they have no basis of need. The company argument (COO level so far, CEO is next) is that the company instituted this policy over a year ago for all existing employees and new hires, and to maintain consistency, every employee must comply. The company also maintains that the information allows them to identify potential problems with candidates or employees, in that people who cannot manage their own finances may not be good employees, or that those with troublesome credit may be more likely to steal from the company. The COO used less direct terms, but ultimately that was the argument. Have Slashdot readers successfully negotiated out of a mandatory employee credit check in the past? What arguments did you use?"
You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
MOVE (Score:0, Insightful)
Take youre brain elsewhere. US lost.
Credit check... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they're issuing you a joint credit card, it might have grounds to stand on, but the best piece of advice you can get here will most likely be: Consult a lawyer in your own jurisdiction.
my opinion.... (Score:1, Insightful)
I consider it a small price to pay to obtain unemployment. After all, if you won't take the job, and the check, there are thousands of other people who would jump at the chance. Its your choice though...
Negotiating Visibility and Terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe - Maybe not (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're not at that level, I'd probably fight it, unless I really wanted that job.
Don't take the job (Score:2, Insightful)
Let your skills be your selling point...not your credit report.
Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
They also read your email and monitor your surfing habits... them's the dregs. But it's their company, their rules, they're hiring you. If you don't like it, vote with your feet and walk away. Right?
Personally I'd be more worried if they told me they were going to do a check to make sure I didn't have Smurfs (replace with your race of choice) in my family lineage going back 100 years. Now that would be problematic.
That's the world today (Score:2, Insightful)
And the shadowy credit-scoring companies, largely unregulated, are the ones wielding all this power.
In your situation, you can try your argument, but then it will come down to submit to the check or don't take the job. The company is perfectly within its rights to ask for this information, especially for a managerial position.
not to crazy (Score:2, Insightful)
Security Clearance yes, Private industry no (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the joys of seeing the shoe on the other foot. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's best to look at this as an exercise in schadenfreude: all of those wanna-be technolibertarians who spent most of the 90s shuddering and twitching at the mere mention of unions, collective bargaining or any other manifestation of labor rights now get to find out the hard way what life is like when management holds all of the cards.
That cold, unwelcome sensation invading your rectum? That's the invisible hand you professed to adore so much last year. Enjoy!
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd be reluctant to let an employer do a credit check on me, of course, even though I've never had a problem with my credit. But the trouble you get in because of your credit are a matter of consequence. They check your criminal record because it's an indicator of character and, indirectly, how well you might be able to handle a certain job. This is the same thing.
It's interesting that people will authorize a nuissance credit card company to check their credit history but shy away when someone they'd like to start a career with asks.
the reverse is unthinkable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
so it's whichever company you decide to apply for a job at's responsibility to help you build your credit
Err yeah, you see because if you have a paycheck, you can pay your bills. Denying someone a job because they have bad credit is ridiculous. How are they supposed to correct it if no one will give them work.
No Worries (Score:4, Insightful)
That aside, I worked as a contractor many years ago for a very large software company (whose name ends in "soft") on a project dealing with a large financial institution. The process of checks was nearly as involved as those to get top security clearance. I understand the reason behind that, of course: by working on the project I became privy to information about how the large financial institution did business.
I am going to assume that the poster has bad credit. That in itself is not a reason to *not* get the job, especially if you are honest with your employer and state something like "I have had some bad luck in recent years, but, hey, who hasn't with the economy the way it is?"
All of that being said, I would sign the release. Companies need to cover their asses, and this is just one more way of them doing so.
Re:Hate to say this to you... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are looking for a quality employee, it does count. 6% unemployment is still pretty low. If you are good enough that they really want you, they'll waive the check. If not, take what you can get.
Re:Maybe - Maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)
Just Say No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not such a credit check is deemed "necessary" for a Director-level job is not really relevant, in my opinion: if it's personal information that you don't want to give, don't give it, and if they don't like it, tough.
I wouldn't work for a company that wanted to a credit check, drug test, etc. on me, simply on principle.
Re:Credit check... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Often part of a security check (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I don't know what the law says about it with respect to general employment. Check with a lawyer before you do anything to rash (either way) if it really concerns you.
Whatcha hiding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't hold water.
Fess up, bro. What don't you want them to find? You can tell us - we don't care. I learned long, long ago that if I can live my life like an open book, live my life like I have the cameras on me 24x7, and confess early and often of any mistakes I have made
Funny thing is that the norm was to order the thing, look at it for about 6 seconds and then toss it - but now that you have made a Federal case out of it they are going to go through it with a fine tooth comb once they get their hands on it - and trust me, if you want to continue working there they are going to get their hands on it.
With rare exceptions, even your most dark skeletons in the closet won't register on their radar screens.
Re:not to crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't take the job (Score:5, Insightful)
Negotiating salary is one thing, and is expected in higher level positions, but arguing over their policy is another matter entirely, and likely won't go over well with the higher-ups at the company.
At the very least, if they cave-in, you'll have forever tarnished the all-important first impression.
That being said, I see absolutely no reason for an employer to stick their nose into my personal finances. They're trying to make a relation between your finances and your performance where there is no basis for one.
If your personal finances were indicative of your job performance or ability, you might as well go ahead and list them on your resume.
Can you say "Enron?" I thought so. (Score:4, Insightful)
I know of too many cases of executive malfeasance to agree with your assertion that your financial history is none of their business. Particularly given that people are generally afraid these days to say anything honest in a reference because they might get sued.
Re:Negotiating Visibility and Terms (Score:5, Insightful)
It was only a few years later that he discovered that a small, resolved issue of child support was misreported on his credit history, and it made him look like a deadbeat dad who owed $40k.
Re:w00t (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and more importantly, the more people who refuse to submit to this the less companies will do it. It is hard and expensive to go through stacks of resumes, find a good candidate, interview, make an offer, get it accepted, etc.
I walked out on 2 different offers for this very reason. Just the looks on their faces made it worth it. They were back to square one. And my credit was average, OK. If we all would've used our integrity a little more when it would've really counted, and said NO we wouldn't have to pull down our pants and pee in a jar to get a job today. Now its probably too late.
Do yourself and everyone else a big favor, refuse to do it. Period. And make sure the company knows why.
Re:Google (Score:2, Insightful)
People with mod points, please keep this at level 5. The URL is a pointer to a site that describes both state and federal laws regarding this situation.
Re:my opinion.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens if you've had some bad luck in your life (e.g. your last business went bust in the recession, or you had some ridiculously expensive medical bills) and you're working your way out of bad credit? Does that mean you're going to be a bad employee?
This kind of information should remain irrelevant to an employer. It's none of their business, and they run the risk of convicting you of "pre-crime" (to use a Minority Report expression). If they get away with this, it will encourage them to get away with more in the future. Just because you're okay with it now doesn't mean that you won't be in the future, but for now you've supported the scheme. Just because somebody wants to hide something (or as I prefer, keep it private), doesn't mean that that something is bad. If you're lucky, the worst that will come of it will be somebody creating an invalid character profile that you will have to work hard to rememdy.
What is worse for this guy is that it is his first day on the job. That means he's already quit his previous job. His new employer has him in a bind because refusal could lead to unemployment, which is rather undesirable at any time, let alone in today's market. His new employer has been deceitful in someways as they should have been up front about the background checks and carried them out before offering him the job.
Re:Credit check... (Score:5, Insightful)
First I would consult with a lawyer. Then if I couldn't get them to drop that portion of the job requirement I would tell them to take the job and shove it. These types of requirments are just as good of an indicator into the character of the company as a criminal background investigation is into the character of a prospective employee. If the requirment makes you uncomfortable, don't expect to enjoy working there.
Re:Bad Position (Score:2, Insightful)
In that case, they should be able to hire only big breasted, white women and make fellatio
part of the job description. If there are laws to prevent discrimination based on other factors then why not on credit worthiness?
If they are asking for your credit history then it is safe to assume that they will not hire you if you have bad credit. Unless they can prove a specific correlation between bad credit and bad work habits then I think they have no right to do so.
Personally, I don't have bad credit (never miss a payment) but I am pretty far into debt. This doesn't mean I am a bad employee. On the contrary I like to think that I am pretty highly regarded (and I have the bonuses and reviews to back it up).
Re:not to crazy (Score:2, Insightful)
Life sucks sometimes. You or your children get sick. Your car breaks down. You get layed off. The city jacks up the FFA of your house to an unreasonable amount to cover their own mismanagement.
There are a million things that can happen to damage your credit through no fault of your own.
Not everyone with less-than-perfect credit blew it all on big stereos and alcohol.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yesterday I was listening to some financial advisers on the radio take calls from listeners.
Basically a guy called in and needed a loan real badly for his business. He was turned down due to bad credit even though he has never missed a bill! Why?
His ex-wife spent all of his child support checks and his son never got anything out of it. She would buy clothes and nice cars in return. This pissed him off so what he did was a voluntary garnish of his own wages to make sure his ex-wife would never falsely report of never receiving his checks.
Problem solved right? Well he now has on record that he is a "dead beat dad" and had to have his wages garnished because he did not pay. He tried to have on his credit form on why he did this but without proof he was SOL.
My point is would this man be hired at this company? No he is a dead beat dad he does not pay. Right?
I agree this is not fair but in this day and age employers can do whatever the hell they want because they have the power in the current economy. If it improves then the tables can be turned.
Also what about people laid off who have kids they need to care of? Yes some people have no discipline in regards to money but some people like the example above and the unemployed have legit reasons which are not a character flaw.
Sometines, yes, sometimes, no. (Score:2, Insightful)
For some occupations (e.g. top-secret department of defense stuff), they do credit checks on you to determine if there's a risk you'll be bribed to disclose things.
In similar occupations, declaring bankruptcy is a reason for losing your clearance. Lose your clearance, you lose your job.
In other occupations, such as the Financial Industry (I work for a mutual fund company), I was told that they would need to run background checks, credit checks, FBI checks, state checks, local checks, and every other check they could think of as a condition of my working there. I don't know if there is an SEC requirement to do this, or if it's just the company covering their ass, but it's a blanket policy, with no exceptions.
This was discussed with me during the final interview, so I knew what I was getting into. Every employee who works for this company has to be bonded, fingerprinted, researched, yaddah-yaddah-yaddah. Every contractor goes through similar stuff, plus NDA's, etc.
Unless you work in an industry where these types of checks are common (and it doesn't sound like it), I would tell them to stuff it since they didn't talk to you about it in the interview. If they want to push, call the ACLU, get a lawyer, and go kick some corporate ass for wrongful termination, discrimination, and stupidity.
Think about it. What would you do if they asked you to sign a paper stating that you were no longer a member of the communist party? That you were no longer homosexual? That you let your membership in the KKK expire?
they used to have these things ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Re:not too crazy (Score:2, Insightful)
Your theory about personal money management versus corporate, while on the surface makes sense, in actual application you would be surprised. Something about micro versus macro I'm sure. As well, where did the author insinuate he/she was managaing company money? If I'm a programmer or sysadmin, what company money do I get to manage? Usually none, other than casting my vote for a certain product.
Lastly, on "I never understood bad credit" well congratulations. I've never understood people who claim not to understand that sometimes people make mistakes, get laid off, or have problems with personal finances.
You might as well say that you've never understood speeding, over-eating, alcoholism, drug addiction, clinical depression, e.t.c.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I divorced a money spending person, and was given all the bills in the divorce (bad, long story I can only repeat over 10 beers or so). I was in debt bad, and handled it well until I lost my job (laid off). I did anything for work for 8 months until I landed another IT job. It paid less than 1/2 of my former pay, but is stable. My credit- horrible.
How does that reflect my character? I guess I was the asshole for divorcing, huh? (Men are seen as The Reason a marriage ended).
I agree, this should not be allowed to happen. It doesn't show your character, it shows your credit rating/history.
I think of Health Insurance. I worked for one (during my do anything for a buck days) and saw people given higher rates for having ingrown toe nails, among other things. I realized that no one could have perfect health and/or perfect credit. Why do we penalize people for being...people? Everyone gets sick, everyone has dormant diseases in them, everyone is gonna mess up on their money making decisions. Now we decide based on being human that we cannot work at certain jobs anymore?
I almost wish for the pre-computer days now. More trust then. And yes, I understand WHY, but damn it- people could miss out on a great employee because of these stupid 'checks'.
Re:my opinion.... (Score:3, Insightful)
you must live with your mom. (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understood bad credit. Why would someone think he can spend more money he has and get away with it? If you can't afford something, don't buy it. Geeze.
Let me help you understand. When you move out of your mom's house you have to live somewhere and you have to be able to get from where you live to work. These are all long term obligations that might last longer than your current job. Rent that looked trivial with a normal pay check is hard to meet on unemployment. Housenotes plus utilities are worse. If you don't have decent public transportation where you live, you also bought a car. You will go "upside down" on the car as what you can sell it for won't cover the costs of the loan you made to buy it unless you got a really good deal on a used car. Obviously you don't have a wife or children.
Now for something that sucks. A company can look at your credit record and tell the difference between someone who's been honestly screwed as above and someone who blew loads of money on trivial bullshit like a home entertainment system, a sports car, and all the other joys of life worker bees like you and me are not supposed to enjoy. Most companies like for their employees to be good little self sacrificing suckers. Sailing, fishing, sking, that's for the boss. Sadly, companies are in a position to make these kinds of demands.
I'd comply, because I've been a good little self sacrificing fool and I've had family money to fall back on everytime I've been screwed. At age 36, with a 14 month old baby girl and wife to support, my decisions impact more than myself now and I can no longer stand entirely by my principles.
Still, I understand this man's pricipled stand and hope the best. He's right, it's none of the company's business and they can only use it pick out people they think they can abuse. We're not talking about possitions spying for the government where dishonesty is a given, we are talking about normal jobs at normal companies.
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
As already echoed by other posts to this comment, most employers do not require drug screening.
One thing that is really interesting is that, according to what I have heard, pre-employment drug testing in Canada is unheard of. Even companies in the US which do it at all their branches don't do it in Canada.
Apparently one thing we can learn from the Canucks is that they have a higher regard for privacy issues (as evidenced by the Privacy Commissioner's recent and very eloquent report to Parliament [privcom.gc.ca]) and Canadians as a whole are much more willing to show their middle fingers high to any employer whose policies they don't like.
Having said that, as time has gone on, I've become convinced that the employers who do drug testing are doing it because they have bought the line, hook and sinker, of drug testing companies, who claim all sorts of horrible things that happen if you don't do drug testing, and that you must invest in these fairly expensive and tremendously profitable tests. I believe that drug testing policies always come from the department of Human Resources, which is usually collectively as dumb as a branch of the DMV, and not much more sympathetic either.
Someday someone with some balls is gonna invest some money in a real study on drug testing, and show how truly worthless they are, but for right now the drug testing companies are running the show.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
What a crock of sh*t.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If, according to their theory, the person in question is likely to mismanage funds based on his credit history the it follows that the top execs are just as likely to do the same, and that could translate into lost income for the employees or even implication in criminal activity for higher placed employees.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, think about the situation where prospective employers do it, you apply for 5 jobs you like and before you know it, that nice new[er] car you want to treat yourself to when you get the new job may not happen, or at the price/rate you expected...
Now think about the situation where your employer runs regular credit checks on you, the impact again won't be known to you until you apply for credit...
#voxlator
Double Sided Argument (Score:2, Insightful)
While it is true that any kind of backgound check, whether it is a criminal record check, a credit check or your routine drug test, does impose on your privacy, there is a simple question you should ask yourself:
How would I like someone, wacked out on crank, in desperation for more money in order to purchase crank with, perforate me in my own, lowly cubicle with an Armalite AR-10 Carbine-gas powered semiautomatic?
I think the answer to this question is obvious.
This is why companies do background checks. While the criminal record check can be advocated using arguments such as, "We are protecting the rest of our staff from the criminal-likes of you," a credit check basically protects the company (theft wise), which in turn also protects its employees, meaning you. So, unless you have something to hide, as previously mentioned on
pocketdemon.
Time for your body cavity search - smile (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not being (entirely) facetious. Privacy is a matter of degree, of sensibility. It's not about hiding crime and possibly awkward facts (though sometimes the latter -- is it true you have AIDS? impotence?). What if the economy gives you no freedom to "just walk"?
It is remarkable that in some ways the government, with all its investigatory powers, is more limited in some ways regarding our privacy than a private employer. If you're a public employee -- even a file clerk -- the government has to take the first amendment and such into account in dealing with you. Why do we demand more respect from the government than everyone else?
By the way, take down yout curtains at home. Publish your bank balance on the Web. You have nothing to hide, right? Even if you're comfortable with these extremes, most of us are not, and we should stick up for it rather than lose it all an inch at a time.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should a single person who has never missed a payment, never been late, never screwed anyone over by not paying back borrowed money and has a 12-month nest egg that he has painstakingly assembled be treated the same as the majority of people who live pay check to pay check, overspend their income, and do not act with restraint and discipline?
Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
When you are applying for a loan, fine. When you are applying for a job, no you shouldn't be treated any different. More importantly, a bad credit rating does not imply that you are untrustworthy in financial matters, for starters, you don't know what the circumstances were, and secondly that's how you handled your money, not others.
Somtimes a necessary evil (Score:2, Insightful)
I work for a bank and prior to starting they did one on me. My credit is good and I take strides to keep it that way so I didn't mind so much.
HR departments often do Employment credit reports that do not show up, from what little I understand, as a normal credit check.
Some businesses have to go to great lengths to protect themselves. Working at a bank, I am exposed to critical details we use to verify identity of customers - that can be easily abused. If you have an employee who's deep in the hole - there is a higher chance they may abuse some of that information to magically "fix" that debt problem. It also is a way for them to check to see whether a given employee's debt load isn't so high that the salary they are planning to pay them can't cover it.
Would you hire a full time employee knowing that whatever you plan to pay them is in no way possible going to cover what their expenses are? They would either not last, be totally wiped out from working multiple jobs thus ineffective, or at worst screw you out of as much money as they can.
A credit report is no guarantee that a given employee won't screw you/your customers over. I for one would feel perhaps a bit more comfortable knowing X employee didn't have motivations to use me/my identity.
Yes, the check is perhaps a little intrusive. As long as my information isn't leaked/abused I personally have no problems with it. I can understand how it would make things all the more frustrating if I were out of money with bad credit on top of that. It has a very nasty potential for becoming a vicious cycle. As far as I know, there are no laws on the books to protect potential employees from being discriminated against on the basis of credit rating. (is there?)
Changing the terms AFTER you show up? NO WAY! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were in your shoes, I would say no, politely and firmly:
If they didn't let the issue drop, I would talk to a qualified attorney. Pursuing the matter would probably irreparably damage your relationship with your new employer. But, then again, if they really pulled something this weaselly, maybe they aren't the good employers you thought they were when you signed on.
But he's a DIRECTOR (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
Credit reports are not perfectly accurate; stories abound of how bad credit reports cause people no end of hassles.
Credit reports should be treated as "a data point" on the road to assessing credit worthiness. They should be taken as only a very rough guide to indicating who will make a good employee. [I have a relative that is a phenomenally great wafer processor, but his personal finances are always about 0.13 microns away from the abyss. Poor finances; excellent employee - go figure.]
Indeed, the most creditworthy people, such as you yourself are well on your way to becoming, and such as very wealthy people without the need to avail themselves of credit frequently - have short, sketchy or nonexistent credit ratings!
You could become a victim of your own admirable fiscal responsibility in the future as your credit report shrinks to almost nothing. That could be a disaster should you ever need to borrow; but your nest egg should take care of 99% of the emergencies.
Be warned, though, that if you ever do have a change of heart about risk-pool averaging say, due to the onset of sudden kidney or liver disease requiring a $250K operation, that you won't find much sympathy among those who have heard your above-mentioned philosophy. They'll comfort you by just repeating your arguments back to your face:)
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is especially important for privately owned companies, who often seem to be especially secretive and a more than a little fishy about their finances.
What? Is that an unreasonable demand? Well, then maybe the company should think twice before demanding to look at its employees' personal accounts.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if a credit report were to give some inkling into a person's job fitness, your private financial, medical, political and social data is none of anybody's business. If you want to learn about a person's professional competence, investigate his PROFESSIONAL record. Contact his references, ask for a code sample, give him a test. Hell, just take him to lunch and have a conversation.
It's a rough job market out there and plenty of people are willing to sacrifice their principles and ethics just to get a job. Are these the kind of people you want working for you?
X
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
As an employer, I am definitely going to be assuming that this person is going to be even less careful with money that isn't is then he is with money that is. I would likely let him give an explanation, but I'm only going to take so much of a risk.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you call a company and order stuff for the company you work for, like your printer example, the printing company is extending credit to the company. If they are doing this for anyone who calls them up, they are crazy. This is why there are credit checks and contracts...
MG
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you cite cases where that is true? Under our company's policy, only a few senior officers are authorized to buy goods or services in excess of a few thousand dollars.
If I order a Lexus in my company's name, *I* am the one who is liable for it - if the dealer tried to get money out of my company, our accountants would point out the signature, say "that person is not authorized to sign for that amount, not our problem" and then they come after me.
And of course, if I forge someone else's name, I get to go to jail.
Get something in Return (Score:2, Insightful)
1. That they give me a copy of the companie's Dunn & Bradstreet credit check- if they needed to know my history, I would get theirs.
They ended up deciding that my credit score was sufficient, and so I got the companies!
2. That they would give me a copy of their workmans comp/ OSHA review in exchange for my Criminal Background history.
We did do this and everything worked out just fine there.
3. That we would review these items together, they would destroy their paperwork and I would destroy mine. Then we both signed a statement attesting to the review and distruction. The only thing kept in my files is the fact that it was done and I passed.
Just a suggestion as they get what they want but it cost them equally. If they need to know, then you do too and it gives you the chance to review things with them so that they do not get the wrong idea. Also, with the companies info wide open they better understand the privacy issues at stake.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even in this economy I'd politely decline the credit check and tell them that this is a dealbreaker.
Or better yet, ask them for a copy of the credit report for the CEO and a copy of the company's books: after all, you don't want to work for a company that the CEO might be stealing from and causing bankruptcy once you accept the job. Do you think they will agree to that? If not. you've just proven your point and will probably be able to forego the credit check.
If they insist on the credit check even after seeing the hypocrisy, walk.
Time for you to grow up (Score:1, Insightful)
The credit report gives away a lot of information about you:
* How many cars you have owned, how much you pay for them, if they are paid off
* When and how much you paid to go to school
* Your marital status
* How much money you have invested and in the bank
* If you are divorded and paying alimoney or child support
* If you were ever late on a payment
* How much you spend a month
Tons of shit they don't need to know.
And the whole "if you are in debt then you might steal" could apply everywhere. Why not just round these people up right now. They are future bank robbers!
I really don't like this tendency to pre-judge people. Let's judge based on past actions, not on genes, debt level, income level, actions of family, and "profiling".
You'll see more credit reports for more things. Some movie rentals now require them!
And every credit report dings your credit rating slightly (yes, only up to a certain number of points, but still).
As an employee, why can't I ask for all employee feedback to HR? After all, I'm entitled to it since it will tell me if they are likely nice to their employees or not. Oh, that's confidential? Something about privacy? Why doesn't that apply to me as well?
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The local printing place won't ask you for a credit card, they'll just ask for the name & address of the business you represent. Your company is now obligated to pay for the posters.
Bullshit. That's only the case if the employee is authorized. It's up to the printer to find out if that's the case. If not, the printer can go after the employee personally for the money. It's called fraud.
Even in my consulting business, one of the first things that we have to establish when setting up a new account is "which employees at your business are authorized to tell us to do something billable?" When signing contracts, I always make sure that the representative of their company has the authority to sign a contract which will cause legal obligations for that company.
Again, I regret not having mod points today.
Re:w00t (Score:1, Insightful)
"Because he says so?" - No because the people who are hiring him took the time and made the effort to get a good understanding of his character and abilities by actually interacting with him on a personal level as part of the hiring process.
Instead they want to skip that hard work and delegate the responsibility to a computer system, a system that is incapable of even coming close to the kind of personal evaluation that is required for the level of trust involved. Simplistic computer system means plenty more opportunity for error, and if the candidate were actually malicious he could easily manipulate the system to make him look good (via identity theft as one option).
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Too much debt" is subjective: While a couple making $160,000 per year can easily support a very large debt load, the same is not true if they both were suddenly put out of work. "They should plan for that," you say -- Grossly idealistic. If people planned for everything the whole credit industry would not exist because credit, as the foundation of its philosophy, involves the risk, and people making money gambling on that risk.
Likewise, insurance is designed to spread risk of a group of like people to reduce costs for everyone involved. Why should an exceptionally bad risk be glossed over and treated like everyone else? Why should someone with 6 speeding tickets pay the same as me? Why should someone with a recurring disease who requires daily medical care pay the same as a person who is fit, healthy, and requires no such care?
It sounds more like you disbelieve in insurance whatsoever (just as you seem to disbelieve in the credit industry, as in your imaginary world credit doesn't exist): Save yourself the money altogether and simply don't get insurance -- That should do great for a financially secure individual like yourself who is fit, healthy, and requires no such care, and is able to weather any financial storm without a missed payment, late tax payment, legal fee, or other such matter.
The chances are vastly greater that people in desperate financial situations will act desperately - including comitting criminal acts.
Care to back this up with some facts? Firstly a bad credit report often doesn't mean a "desperate financial situation", but instead indicates a historical financial situation. There is a vast chasm of difference (I would worry about an idealist, such as yourself, shitting their pants worried about missing their credit card payment and stealing company supplies to keep their sterling credit rating. That logic doesn't make sense? I can't see why it makes any less sense than your ridiculous conclusion). Criminality is equally distributed across the population: Joe Sixpack might be writing bad cheques, while John CEO is defrauding investors and evading taxes. Attempting to stereotype society reeks of elitism.
You Have A Case! (Score:2, Insightful)
1. It is NOT industry practice! If it were, you wouldn't have brought it up for discussion. You honestly did not expect this.
2. They didn't inform you before hiring you! Again, if they did, this would not have been such a shocker.
3. It's too late! They already told you, that you can have the job! If the IDIOTS were to wisen up, they would figure out that they should have had you sign, and have done the check, and have made their hiring decision based on the check, or the check is TOO LATE.
IMNASHO, if your employer were REALLY interested in this, they should have had you sign it BEFORE the hiring. Now, having accepted the position, requiring this check is tantamount to extortion. It'd be like Motorola waiting until AFTER you are hired to tell you about their drug check policy, and waiting till AFTER you are hired to pee in the collection jar. If I remember right, they tell you about this as you are interviewed, and you have to provide your specimen (and pass the lab test) before they'll hire you. If you have privacy qualms, that's the best time to step out of the situation. This is the way it was 10 years ago when I left Motorola, hopefully they have dropped the entire policy by now.
I'm one of the poor devils that got a job with Motorola before they instituted the drug policy. I don't/won't/never will do drugs, but when they instituted the policy, and presented all us employees with the ultimatum: be tested or get out, I started looking for a new job. My determination was, I've got a family to feed, so I'll provide the sample if requested, but I don't agree with the approach, and I was out of there in less than a year. My ultimate feedback of my opinion about their policy. A co-worker refused the test, on principle, and was immediately escorted out the building.
I guess those looking for a job had best ask what agreements they'll be expected to sign, if the employers aren't smart enough to tell people up front. Not informing is downright dishonest! It has the feel of "playing dirty tricks" on people. It's despicable because a job is no laughing matter to the guys getting hired.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? And which company do you run where employee's are free to spend company money as THEY see fit? Now if it were a position of accountancy, then sure. Or CEO, CIO, COO, CTO, CFO, etc. You'd be in direct management of the company's funds, but if you are the other 96% of the company, anything that has to be purchased goes THROUGH purchasing/management, and in this case, it that's ~4% where the actual decisions are going to be made to where the money will be spent.
Personally, I put in requests for funds, but if my budget isn't going to allow it, then the money isn't going to get spent. I'm decent with personal funds, but frankly whereas you may have done well with your personal finances, others may not have been as fortunate. There are conditions WAY beyond a person's control that will force them into a financial position where they wouldn't be able to help but become endebted to someone. Examples? Get laid off, have stroke. Severance/unemployment may have been enough to cover things like mortgage, car note, and electric, but very likely would not cover the over-excessive costs of COBRA to cover medical. Now you're insurance-less and looking at a $50-100k bill. Lucky you, you're credit is slowly getting ripped apart now.
Another example? How about you're a one vehicle family and that vehicle gives up the ghost and has to be replaced? Well, if you're income is tight to begin with (and you'd be amazed how far 23k won't go), are you to suffer because your field of work doesn't provide a 60k/yr salary?
Overall, I get really irritated with credit reports in general. It usually shows that someone had financial hard-knocks at some point.
If you've got perfect credit (and there's a LOT that is required to have such, not solely on-time bill payments), then kudos for you. But if you're going to get elitest about it (one of the parent comments to the one I'm replying), then piss-the-hell off. You don't know what it's like to be forced paycheck to paycheck, and as karma goes, you'll get your lesson in it a lot sooner than later, most likely.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I recently accepted a Director level position at a small, 40 person, technology company. On my first day, I was provided with all of the standard employment paperwork...
They already had hired him. IANAL, but this sounds kind of like breach of contract to me. The offer should have spelled out ALL of the terms and conditions.
Oh, buy the way we didn't bother to tell you (fill in the blank)
One of the parties is not being straight with the other.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, they want to know too much. It's none of the company's business. It all seems really shady to me. The only justification this company has is that everyone else went along with it. So what? Consistency? Yeah, right.
The company isn't giving Rick a loan. Rather, he's agreed to work for a paycheck. His credit history is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is his performance on the job.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why Credit Checks For Employment Are Unfair. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's that simple! Why should people be denied the opportunity to get back on their feet? It's bad enough that they have to pay late fees through their noses. Isn't that a good enough deterrant? Why should people be bound by this Catch-22?
In case you're wondering, I am one of the "most people". ;)
I have a damaged credit history. I have a "round 3" job interview with a large financial company, and am seriously worried about passing the interview but failing the credit check.
Re:Negotiating Visibility and Terms (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hate to say this to you... (Score:1, Insightful)
considered "good" for the economy when there are more people looking for
work than work to be had. That's good for some people, but it's not
"good for the economy".
Bzzzt ! 6% unemployment is considered an optimal unemployment level since it facilitates the necessary fluidity in employment to ensure optimal allocation of human resources within an economy.
Less than 6% unemployment essentially freezes human resource allocation, and the economy begins grinding down as productivity wanes.
Part of the reason for the current economic situation is that there were too many years of sub 6% unemployment. Productivity has shot up in the last 18 months as unemployment returned to 6% (yes productivity did increase during the years of sub 6% employment, but this was due to technology and, in fact, would have been much higher if it weren't for the coincident low unemployment).
It may not be good for you (if you lost your job I am genuinely sympathetic; it could just as easily have been me), but it is good for the economy.
You are all missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Say you ran up a bill of $20k and a company had to write that off. This and other forms of fraud are notated on your credit report. That's what they're looking for: history of fraud, dishonest or intentionally irresponsible dealings. They have a right to that information, as long as they get your permission to obtain it. If you don't trust them with your credit report then why do you even want to work there?
I have personally had to review these credit reports, and it's not a big deal. Lots of folks have credit problems--that's not the point. W few have a real pattern of dishonesty that only comes out in a credit report. Do you want them having access to your personal financial information at a bank? Or how about medical records?
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now according to your "logic" I don't deserve ever getting the chance to pay that money back, in spite of all the hard work and where I started. Are you kidding? Do you really want to live in a world where no one gets a chance to overcome obstacles placed before them, whether of their own making or not?
Disgusted to be the same species as you.
Re:employment at will (Score:3, Insightful)
why should an employer be allowed to do something to me that will decrease my credit score???
maybe to discourage jumping around to various jobs too often? lemme tell ya, get 10 inquiries on your credit check and you will NOT be happy with your FICO score...
Creditors: The Pillars of Accuracy and Timeliness (Score:4, Insightful)
However, there's another point I haven't seen addressed. Credit companies are sloppy. I know of more than a few cases where it took somebody moving Heaven and Earth to get some error on the companies part rectified.
Creditor: "You owe $500!! Says so here!"
You: "Um, no. That was paid. Infact, I have the reciept here."
Creditor: "Oh! Just fax us a copy and we'll take care of it!"
You: "ok..."
~a month later~
Creditor: "You owe $500!!"
These people aren't exactly the pillars of timeliness and accuracy and certainly not a benchmark to be used in employment. Get a criminal record. Urinanalysis. Something. But not credit...
Re:Here.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The other problem I have with Bush is that he does not act in the best interests of the country. Look at Ashcroft for example; 90% of Americans would think he's a total religious nutcase if they knew more about him (indeed, his father was a minister in a semi-cult, the Assembly of God) and most of us do NOT agree with anything this man has to say. Yet he's our Attorney General. I have a feeling Ashcroft will eventually piss the wrong people off and become a political liability, so the decision might come back to bit him in the ass, but whatever.
</OT Rant>
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:2, Insightful)
your credit report each time somebody asked for
it? That way, you'd know exactly who saw what,
and when. The bureaus could charge the cost to
whoever's making the inquiry, so it wouldn't cost
the bureaus anything. Is there any reason for
the bureaus not to do this?
For that matter, why would the credit bureaus not
want you to have a copy of your rating? They
should want you to bring up problems. After all,
their business is giving out information. Credit
companies pay them for that information; I would
think they'd want it to be accurate. Further,
credit companies would rather know that your
credit is okay (when it really is) because then
they can make money off of you.
This practice is somewhat legit, but legally... (Score:2, Insightful)
"We are a drug free company - Stoners need not apply" Ok - abstain for a couple weeks before the UA test.
As an employer if I had two equally qualified and experienced prospects with great personalities - one of which had a great credit history - one owing thousands of dollars to creditors with outstanding legal judgements and such - I would most certainly pick the one without problems.
Being able to make payments on time is a general indication of an individuals level of responsibility. Not exceeding your limits, etc.
People fall upon hard times from time to time. An employer who does not accept or understand a loss of job, divorce, etc. for temporary credit issues is not one I would choose to work for. Persons with longstanding persistant credit issues I would be wary of.
Now for the legal note:
If the employer has already offered you a job and you accepted - showing up for work and THEN informed of this credit check requirement you will likely be ok declining in most states UNLESS the job offer was contingent upon submitting to the credit check.
This is common with criminal and drug checks. In many states the employer MUST offer the position BEFORE any drug or crim check and when they do so they are bound to the job offer as long as the check comes back clean.
They must offer you a job based on the information they have prior to the check and let you know that a check will take place. Only then they can retract the offer if they find out you're a felon or whatever.
If they offered you a job and it was not stated that the offer was contingent on the credit check - tell them to f*** off. Read any documents you had signed prior to the offer being made and see if it was mentioned. Check with your state laws as they do vary.
RLC
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bull-fucking-shit, you mindless jerkoff. How fucking arrogant can you be? Do you really believe someone who gets laid off because of the economy, then racks up huge bills from a serious illness while uninsured, is not trustworthy in financial matters? I can only hope that some day you learn by example how fucked up your thinking is. Now push your head back up your ass and go back to sleep.