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)
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:Whatcha hiding? (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't matter one whit. (Score:3, Interesting)
Two years' worth of it, in fact.
The situation on the report is not my fault in the slightest- but the company asking for the report would deny me the employment that I could use to straighten things out (If I were hired by them). That, my dear poster, is what is wrong with all of it. It's not hiding skeletons per se, it's the very fact that it is really none of their business unless I am going to be placed in an executive capacity controlling the money of the company or working in the financial industry. I didn't make the mess they'd see, nor am I a risk because I've got issues with creditors- but they'd still hold it against me all the same as if I were responsible for it and were a risk for mis-management of company resources.
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.
This is specifically allowed by the FCRA (Score:5, Informative)
For reference, the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) can be found at:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm
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.
they used to have these things ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers,
-- RLJ
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:they used to have these things ... (Score:3, Interesting)
It was a stupid idea. What the poster was referring to is that not being able to get a job because of lousy credit is the same type thing. How are you going to be able to get out of debt if no one will hire you and pay you?
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: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.
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: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:4, Informative)
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Informative)
I can tell that you're an american. In truth this seems like a discussion that concerns mostly americans. While I agree with some of your points, most of what you say seem rather alien to me. I live in the EU where most countries either has been or are currently being governed by social democrats. We've got this idea called solidarity. This is the idea that even though we're different we should all try to pull together. As a consequence most european countries have free healthcare. The only people in Denmark (where I come from) I know of that would ever consider paying for health treatments are profesional sportspeople who need to be ready in the shortest possible amount of time and so will pay to go to a private clinic or hospital (of which there are very few).
You seem to think that people who are "perfect" shouldn't be punished for others imperfections. We believe that if at all possible people shouldn't be punished for their imperfections either, since it is precious few who are indeed perfect.
I will finish by mentioning that inquirering about an employees credit history is I believe illegal in Denmark. And I know for sure that to some extent it is even illegal to ask for an employees criminal record (although for many kinds of jobs it is standard and legal).
Re: Nice troll, but usury is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone I know with serious bad credit got it mostly from medical bills. Lets say this man was a good husband, with a loving wife, and two kids. The ideal American family. His wife gets breast cancer a month after he gets laid off. He decided to get a smaller insurance plan rather than pay the outrageous CORBA fees. The cover so much, but he has to pay the rest. He loves his wife, and doesn't want her to die.
I mean, in most circles, such feelings would be considered the epitomy of honorable behavior.
He ends up having to rack up $25,000 on credit cards. After he misses a couple payments, which are considerable on debt that large, he ends up with a 25% interest rate. Soon, its either the mortgage or the credit cards. He chooses the rent.
9 months later, after nearly a year of unemployment, the bank tells him they are going to sue. What does he do?
Bankrupcy.
This man had every intention of paying back his debts, but circumstances beyond his control and not a result of his actions made it impossible to pay back his debts. Certainly he could have chosen to just let his wife die. Maybe even give the kids up for adoption, and go move to a studio apartment in the Bronx.
But is that really an option? Is that the option that we want to force on our people in a civilized society?
I have news for you, if that ever becomes the norm, you will have a revolution on your hands.
The fact is that these types of actuarial tests are valid indicators of potential problems.
You need to learn more about statistics. A person with a bad credit score may certainly have a much higher risk of default. But even people in the LOWEST credit group (0-20 points), even there, with the scum of the earth, the MAJORITY of people pay back their debts.
The pre-computer days where bad.
The problem I see with posts like this, is no one quite understands how dangerous and evil usury really is. You probably don't even know what the word usury means. What you do not realize is that computers and the modern usury system paralleled each other in growth. The massive lending system we have today would not even be POSSIBLE without computers.
People were not more likely to be screwed 100 years ago, they just didn't borrow money.
This was a major platform of so called fascist regimes in Italy and Germany in World War II. Jews, then as now, are heavily involved with money lending. However, it is really WASPs in the US who created this sytem (Think JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve). Basically, usury is a form of ensalvement. Debt NEVER leads to good things. There is MUCH evidence to this, but contrary to the pundits of the 20th century, money lending did little more than give us cookie-cutter suburban shit holes, if you call that a benefit.
People complain about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Well, its money lending that is causing this. Hasn't anyone wondered how the rich got to be so fucking rich today? There are no Henry Fords or Andrew Carnegies today, who think up some operational bullshit to sell a cheaper cookie. They make their money from money lending. Every man woman and child is enslaved to enrich the new aristocracy that is forming. 20% of every tax dollar you pay goes right into their pockets due to government debt. Every purchase you make on your credit card. Your house. The ring on your wife's finger. The school your kid goes too, purchased with bonds. We all know about student loans. We trick our young people into wasting money on an education that is litte more than a gimmick, to make more money from loans.
Usury is nothing more than a parasite. If there is any one thing we can do to end the massive stratification of society, it is to ban money lending. It has no place in a civilized society, especially one with our technological wonders.
For those who think "How will I get a house?" You do what my grandparents had to do. My grandfather lived in a one bedroom apartment until he was 40. My father was raised in that apartment until he was 8 years old. This same apartment is still in Greenwich village, no doubt some rich fuck is paying $2500 a month to live there.
Houses are so expensive today because money lending allows the price to rise. Inflation is very much a result of usury.
When the housing bubble bursts, and it WILL burst... you are going to be stuck with a 30 year loan on a house which you cannot afford to pay, and which you cannot sell to anyone. It would be a lot easier if all you had to do was break a one year lease, and find a cheaper apartment.
This is why leasing is ALWAYS preferable to borrowing. This is also why many religions, including christianity at one time, disallow usury.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Interesting)
All they need do is state that the credit check is a condition of employment.
You're free to walk away.
That said, it's a pretty shitty practice, and if I had the option, I'd choose not to work there. (Of course, in this economy, you takes what you can get, and you likes it.)
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:employment at will (Score:5, Interesting)
As an example, if you want to screw someone over, simply run several dozen credit requests against an individual (pretty trivial exercise). That alone screws them up.
Next, you just don't know - unless you request it - what's on your record. I've been turned over to collection agencies twice - and both times the companies in question owed me money. Letters with the name of large legal firms were neccessary to get the situation resolved. And that's becuase I was aware of the issues.
One of the more frightening 'hits' people take is through their good buddies, landlords. They move, believe they have closed their utility/phone/whatever, and the landlord doesn't forward the request for the last bill. The billing companies have no forwarding address ...
For comparison, the MIB (Medical Information Bureau) is only available to a select few companies. And they have a nifty policy ... you can use the information so obtained to start an investigation of your own, but cannot rely on the information they provide alone. Like, if someone applies for life insurance, and the insurer's query returns the minor detail they've had three heart attacks in the last year. If the insurer then requests the reports from the hospitals, well and good. If they deny you based on the MIB info alone, and get caught, the fines and possible loss of access are staggering.
Unfortuantely, a similar idea for credit ratings was shot down. The companies who use these credit scores benefit in two ways by not verifying a 'bad' score - no investigation cost, and, for most of them, charging a higher interest rate.
So the industry is set up to fuck your rating, and reluctant to do anything about it. I'm with the original poster, tell the company to get stuffed. It's the old "It came from the computer, so it must be correct!" whine of people who don't want to take responsibility for a system they know is broken.
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.
it's different in non-US places (Score:4, Interesting)
While in the US it's probably next to impossible to get out of the situation like this when the words "our policy" have been pronounced (I mean, other than trying to do it through a lawyer which is probably not a good idea if one wants to continue his career at the place), I believe that it's still possible to find a place that does value the specialists just for their professional background.
Personally, I find the idea of credit check as a condition for building employer/employee relationship very insulting. Even setting aside the issues of people with zero credit history because they're new or because they prefer living with a positive balance on their account, I can imagine descent people have nasty spots in their credit history. I know very good professionals who are amazing (friendly & dependable) people, who had severe credit problems because they had gotten into very nasty family health issues in the U.S. In this country (IMHO, of course), noone (aside from very rich people) can be protected from this or racket-like legal action shaking money out of normal people by just forcing them to defend their case when they hurt noone. (This is one of the reasons why I wouldn't like my kids to grow up here and why I have never attempted to achieve permanent residency here.) I'm not saying the U.S. is bad in general, I'm just saying that for me the cons outweigh the pros.
I would have refused that job unless the guys were sane enough to take my argument and take back their stupid "policy" issues at least in my case. If they don't respect my privacy concerns in this matter, they can go hire someone else. My current employer didn't ask me these questions, and this is actually the 1st time (this article) that I've learnt this happens. I mean, I could have imagined something like this in the banking industry, or accounting (maybe...), but not IT.
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:5, Informative)
Re:You've got to be kidding me.... (Score:5, Informative)
- income
- debt ratio
- every late payment on either revolving credit (r1 thru r9) or installment credit (i1 thru i9) drops you points. 1==a month late 9==written off
- every inquiry where credit was not granted drops you 20 points
Every inquiry by businesses goes into your file - which is why, if you want to check your credit rating, you shouldn't have a friend "take a peek at the office". You can call equifax to get your report. Your query doesn't affect your score. Notification to this procedure effect appears on the screen before you submit a query (at least where I work).Now, every instance where an inquiry was made, that resulted in an extension of credit, adds points.
So, too many inquiries by businesses will affect your total score. Most people don't know this, and the credit reporting agencies don't want to be bothered fixing their software to differentiate between employment-related queries and credit-related queries.
What's worse, they will also obtain the list of other employers who've also done this, so they know where you've interviewed!
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.
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: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.
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.
w00t (Score:3, Informative)
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.
First on the list of credit checks... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Credit check... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Credit check... (Score:5, Interesting)
It turns out they just did a criminal background check, which I can totally understand. I guess the difference here is that my employer told me about the check up-front before I made the move. It is fairly underhanded of them to get you in the door, then pull this on you. It also makes you look bad to the company because you don't want to offer this stuff up when everyone else has.
I guess the trick here is to not let them do it and still keep your job without everyone having meetings about you behind closed doors. Yes, consulting a lawyer is a good thing, just don't let them know you have one. I'm sure they would look at that as treacherous. You could appeal to them and let them know your "policy" is to keep your home affairs private and work affairs at work. Also pointing out that they didn't tell you of this requirement before offering you a job puts you in a really bad position. This would especially be true if you left another employer for the job, thinking you had passed all the requirements for the position.
Personally, if I had a way out, I'd walk. The thought process that an employee with bad credit is a suspect employee is somewhat anal. Execs at many companies probably have really bad credit....the only thing is that they do everything as a corporation so their personal credit isn't touched. Even filthy rich execs (like the ones at Enron) finance houses. Considering all the shady stuff these guys are into, how do you think they get past the strict credit requirements for mortgages? (For those of you that point out that they probably pay cash for the houses....no, they don't in most cases. It makes more sense to finance it because they can make more money with the cash in hand than they can having it tied up into a house. Paying cash for a house is something that benefits a retiree more than a rich exec.)
DNA Tests... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there was a short story in Analog (I think) about 7 years ago about a woman that was facing that problem. Except it was not for her, but the baby she was carrying. She hadn't read the fine print on her employment contract and it stated that she had to have all children tested for defects when they were conceived. The company's owner had a daughter that some genetic disease that mentally damaged her and physically harmed her, hence hte clause.
At the time, I thought...'Wow, that'll never happen...'.
Now insert evil chuckle: heh heh heh....
Negotiating Visibility and Terms (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Negotiating Visibility and Terms (Score:4, Informative)
(Nevada has on many of their forms and in their laws mention of this, including a provision that all such restrictions be abolished if the Federal law mandating them is repealed.)
Also, child support violations are often felonies (thank Clinton) which also cause loss of civil rights, licensability, etc.
These factors can make it illegal for a person to work in a certain position and/or illegal for a company to hire/refuse to fire such an individual.
So it might not be a matter of corporate fascism as much as Federal mandate.
Google (Score:5, Informative)
http://toolkit.cch.com/text/P05_1585.asp
Re:Google (Score:5, Informative)
http://toolkit.cch.com/text/P05_1575.asp
Plus the text:
Federal Laws for Credit Checks
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1971 regulates the use of consumer credit reports as a part of background checks on applicants. Hiring is a permissible purpose to do a credit check under the law, but you must keep the results confidential and must not put the results of the check in the person's personnel file.
If the credit report shows that the person declared bankruptcy, then you also have to comply with provisions of the federal Bankruptcy Act. Under the Bankruptcy Act, you may not discriminate against an applicant solely because a credit check reveals that an applicant has sought protection under the Bankruptcy Act, been insolvent before seeking protection under the Act, and not paid a debt that is dischargeable under the Act. In other words, bankruptcy is not a valid reason to deny employment.
Disclosures you must make. You must:
* Clearly and accurately tell the applicant that an investigative consumer credit report may be made that could include information on the individual's character, reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living.
* Make the disclosure in writing, on a separate piece of paper (not as part of your job application). Your credit reporting agency can provide you with forms to be used for this purpose.
* Mail or otherwise deliver the notice to the individual not later than three days after the date on which the report was requested.
* Include with the disclosure a statement informing the applicant of his or her rights to request disclosure of the nature and scope of the investigation required.
* Have the applicant sign the disclosure document and return it to you. Be sure to keep this in your files.
* If requested by the individual, make a complete and accurate disclosure of the nature and scope of the information sought not later than five days after the date on which the individual made the request, or five days after the investigative report was requested, whichever is later.
Business Tools
A sample Fair Credit Disclosure Act notice appears in the Business Tools area.
If you do deny employment because of something on the credit report (and remember, it must be something other than bankruptcy), you must:
* inform the job applicant that employment was denied because of the credit report investigation, even if the credit report wasn't the only reason
* furnish the individual with a copy of the credit report, along with a summary of the individual's credit rights.
The Federal Trade Commission is very specific regarding the format of the consumer credit rights notice that must be provided to an employee or applicant if adverse action is contemplated. Fortunately, federal law requires credit reporting agencies to provide a copy of this notice with each credit report. You can use this notice to fulfill your own notification responsibilities.
Simple Solution (Score:3, Funny)
Gimme your job!
Maybe - Maybe not (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're not at that level, I'd probably fight it, unless I really wanted that job.
Re:Maybe - Maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Here.. (Score:5, Interesting)
They whacked this on us last year as "new and different".
They included, but were not limited to:
Drug testing (one time, so far, not random)
Drivers License History/driving record check. (they did that one)
Credit Check (they claim that it is due to the chance of getting a corporate credit card)
Criminal background check.
"other checks as necessary".
That one, "other" I specifically crossed out when I signed my "permission' to do those.
My Company (the contracting firm) basically said "Do it, or leave".. so no, I had no real choice. The fact that I live in an "employment at will" state doesnt help either.. means i can be fired any time for any thing.
(Course, my company also believes that I can be terminated for things on my personal computer at home if I connect to their VPN network and have as much as threatened to do so. Therefore I refuse to connect from my home PC, even if it is required by my job.. I tell em I will do it at 8:00 am the next morning when I get on-site.)
Its an ugly thing.. but I strongly suspect that you wont be able to do much about it..
I want to see mandatory drug testing for congress, with printed pass/fail results, personally.
Maeryk
Re:Here.. (Score:3, Interesting)
AVOID THESE LIKE THE PLAGUE!
I once worked for a company (and not a small, "having financial trouble" outfit -- well, not while I worked there -- either) that issued corporate AMEX cards to everyone. They made you accept joint responsibility for the cards on the grounds that you had to be responsible for sundry charges that were not work related, and encouraged use of the cards for personal use (I think they got a commission kickback). Sounded fair, right?
Wrong! The problem was that they would bill travel-related expenses to your travel for them on your card, making you jointly responsible for expenses they initiate.
Try getting approval for a bunch of air fare and hotel stays pre-booked before an extended trip for "the man" on your expense report on your return when your signing authority (i.e. manager) is on a 5 week vacation, and Amex demands payment.
Fortunately, fronting the substantian sum for a month was not a financial problem for me (and preserving my credit rating is important), but both Amex and I were not amused -- why sympathizing with my position, they were correct that I was jointly responsible with my employer for the bill, due "on receipt".
The fact that I live in an "employment at will" state doesnt help either.. means i can be fired any time for any thing.
Well, not quite. There are a few forms of illegal discrimination at the U.S. federal level (I assume you mean U.S. state). You can't be legally fired for the colour of your skin, but you can be legally fired for the colour of your eyes.
In my case, in Illinois, I was caught between the "H1Bs can't work more than 40 hours a week" immigration restriction, and "we can fire you if you don't" "at will" employment climate. The impasse led to my leaving (when I expressed this dissatisfaction most vocally) and taking a job elsewhere, having to abandon a Labor Certification already received, and Green Card in progress. The ultimate chain of events led to my having to return to my native Canada, with my American son. Our U.S. middle class lifestyle has been reduced to a Canadian middle class lifestyle -- fairly close to U.S. borderline poverty.
So, while things like agreeing to something you don't think will be a problem for you, even though you object to the invasion of privacy in principle, might seem a minor suspention of principles at the moment, that choice may come back to haunt you.
Re:Here.. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh! I want mandatory IQ tests for congress, with printed pass/fail results.
Security Clearance yes, Private industry no (Score:3, Insightful)
the reverse is unthinkable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the reverse is unthinkable (Score:5, Informative)
One piece of advice he gave me was to never say no.
If they ask for a drug test, do not just say no. If you do, then you are being uncoopperative, and they can leverage that against you.
The trick is to say sure you will, in return for X, where X is something that sounds reasonable, but that they cannot meet. Alternatively make X something that protects higher interests.
Whether you agree with unions etc, I cannot deny my dad was very good at it - so I take his advice seriously.
Agree, an example... (Score:4, Informative)
Every time they ask me to sign the document, I send the same questions back to them, they say "we'll ask the lawyers", and I don't hear from them for a year.
Take the job (Score:3, Interesting)
On a more genuinine note. The counter to the "everyone has had to do it for the last year" is "Why only the last year? If you retroactively went back and did everyone, I'd consent, but this is clearly a discriminatory policy put in place by people who knew they couldn't be affected by it."
Yes - Negotiating this one is simple. (Score:5, Informative)
My statement was very straightforward: "I will not sign this on the grounds that you do not have the right nor privelege to require this information for the sake of employment. If you care to push this issue further, I will schedule a court date at the County courthouse and we will deal with it there."
The employer backed off, and I worked there for nearly two years. You would have REALLY shit if you saw the sort of privacy-invading NDA employment contract they tried to require of the programmers who were hired after me... Thankfully the first programmer through the door fought that NDA until it was toned down to a sane level (at maybe 10% its original potency).
Re:Yes - Negotiating this one is simple. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Yes, I didn't like the fact that they did credit checks. Yes, I did apply for the job, and I *did* change their hiring process. Apparently I was "special enough"...
2. Although I was not the original Ask Slashdot submitter, my position coincidentally involved managing another employee. Coincidence is good, but I like people who actually read posts much, much better.
3. I can't direct my own finances? I guess you didn't see in the parent post that I had and continue to have very good (in fact, flawless) credit.
4. How can I admit to having financial problems when I don't have any? Let's see, My only debt is my car (and I own other paid off vehicles)... it is worth about $5000 more than I owe, and I'm ahead on payments. Hrm... Unless 'the finance book' has been rewritten lately, that would be called equity, which is a very good thing, credit-wise. Go Acura!
5. My claim was that my good finances were my issue, as it is private, confidential information, and my prospective employer was not a credit agency or licensed for any sort of financial business. Requiring non-employment-related, legally-confidential information is unlawful, even in most at-will employment states. Gotta love that little thing called "right to privacy"!
6. When I apply for credit with an institution licensed to provide credit, it is understood and assumed that a credit check is required! Common sense! EUREKA!
Next time, try reading the parent post before you reply.
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.
NPR Story (Score:5, Informative)
A Practical Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Barring that, I agree with another poster who suggests meeting in a room for a limited period of time with a printout of your credit report that you bring and take away from the meeting.
Let 'em (Score:5, Informative)
At the very least, you should check your credit report to make sure it is accurate.
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.
BAD...Credit scores reflect frequent credit checks (Score:5, Interesting)
This wouldn't be so bad if getting a house didn't routinely follow getting a job...
Re:BAD...Credit scores reflect frequent credit che (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, inquiries (or checks) on your credit fall into two distinct categories: hard and soft.
Hard inquiries are inquiries that are initiated per your attempt to aquire credit, usually applying for new credit, sometimes by requesting credit limit increases. These stay on your reports for two years and do indeed knock a few points off of your FICO score per inquiry. The FICO formula only pays attention to hard inquiries in the past six months...anything older is not factored into your FICO score, but a creditor may still use it for approval decisions. Multiple inquiries in a one month period while shopping for auto or mortgagee loans are treated by FICO as a single inquiry.
Soft inquiries are inquiries that can be created by viewing your own credit report, a current creditor doing an account review, employer checks and those nice unsolicited preapproval letters you get from credit card companies. These inquiries also stay on your report for two years, but they are ONLY viewed by you and have NO effect whatsoever on your credit score.
Re:Credit checks do NOT lower your credit score (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Credit checks do NOT lower your credit score (Score:5, Informative)
I got this "bad information" here [howstuffworks.com] among other places. Here's a link to a shorter explanation from the Fair&Isaac website [myfico.com], the people who make the credit score and provide them to Transunion, Equifax, etc.
Sorry, but 10% of your credit score is how many credit checks you've had in the last year. It's not at ALL neutral, unless you're the one checking. If someone told you that, they were misinformed. Here's an excerpt from the site I linked to...
# 35% of the score is based on your payment history. This makes sense since one of the primary reasons a lender wants to see the score is to find out if (and how timely) you pay your bills. The score is affected by how many bills have been paid late, how many were sent out for collection, any bankruptcies, etc. When these things happened also comes into play. The more recent, the worse it will be for your overall score.
# 30% of the score is based on outstanding debt. How much do you owe on car or home loans? How many credit cards do you have that are at their credit limits? The more cards you have at their limits, the lower your score will be. The rule of thumb is to keep your card balances at 30% or less of their limits.
# 15% of the score is based on the length of time you've had credit. The longer you've had established credit, the better it is for your overall credit score. Why? Because more information about your past payment history gives a more accurate prediction of your future actions.
#10% of the score is based on the number of inquiries on your report. If you've applied for a lot of credit cards or loans, you will have a lot of inquiries on your credit report. These are bad for your score because they indicate that you may be in some kind of financial trouble or may be taking on a lot of debt (even if you haven't used the cards or gotten the loans). The more recent these inquiries are, the worse for your credit score. FICO scores only count inquiries from the past year.
# 10% of the score is based on the types of credit you currently have. The number of loans and available credit from credit cards you have makes a difference. There is no magic number or combination of types of accounts that you shouldn't have. These actually come more into play if there isn't as much other information on your credit report on which to base the score.
Re:Credit checks do NOT lower your credit score (Score:5, Interesting)
A credit check for the purpose of borrowing does affect your credit. Lawrence Lindsey, the President's former chief economic advisor got into a huge public brouhaha [go.com] with Toys 'R Us over its credit rating practices. He was a Governer of the Federal Reserve Board at the time he was denied a Toys 'R Us credit card because he was shopping for a home loan at the time - he had too many checks on his credit report.
Now, I don't know which kind an employer does. I suspect the first (non-harmful) one because it doesn't involve an actual credit app.
Our credit reporting system is crap. Creditors have too much power. They can make you pay things you don't owe simply because it's cheaper than fighting them. My wife and I are this close (holding finger and thumb close together) to countersuing a doctor that has mistreated us, doesn't return calls, and won't even prosecute the lawsuit he filed against us. The $8,000 bill he says we owe was taken off of our report, but he can put it back on whenever he wants. Ack.
End Rant.
Want some more? Check out my blog [oc.edu]
Re:Credit checks do NOT lower your credit score (Score:4, Interesting)
You (or howstuffworks.com) really need to qualify this one. Take a look at your credit report sometime. Holy Crap! Look at all of those credit checks! OMG, WTF is going on? Thus is the penalty of having good credit (not a "penalty" that applies to your credit score, but a "penalty" of annoyance). I bet you get pantloads of credit card offers in the mail. I bet many of them say "pre-approved" or similar. And you know what? Every time you get one of those, there's an accompanying credit check. None of those checks hurt you (and really, shopping around a loan doesn't hurt you as much as you'd think, either -- of course, if you do it right, it won't matter; get yourself a pre-approval from an underwriter, and then no other broker will need to run a credit check until you commit to the loan). I don't know for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that the type of check an employer would do would fall into this same category of lookups. Yes, you get penalized for getting many credit cards, for example, but the problem is not simply one of the credit companies checking your credit. You get hurt because you're decreasing your potential credit ($1000 credit in a credit card is $1000 less credit you can get for that auto loan or mortgage, roughly), you're penalized for age (creditors like seeing long histories of credit, so get 2-3 cards and stick with them; swapping out cards every year or so is bad, because you can't establish age), you're penalized for an increase in your debt/income ratio (why get a credit card if you're not going to use it?), and finally you're possibly penalized a tiny amount (1-2 points, rarely more) for having that extra check on your credit.
Consider it this way -- what looks better on your credit report? A steady (if new job) and an extra credit check by your employer, or no job but a clean record of credit checks in the past year? I'd choose the former, and anybody with a brain would as well.
(I'm not addressing the legal, ethical, or moral issues surrounding an employer requiring a credit check. I'm simply making the point that one extra credit check to get a job is not going to hurt you in any way, unless you're going through many jobs in a year -- and then you're going to be hurt more by insufficient length at each job than you are by the credit checks required to get those jobs.)
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.
In the minority (Score:5, Interesting)
I know I will be in the minority here, but if you don't like the credit check, why are you still fighting for the job? Is it the kind of place you still want to work? Admittedly, a credit check is a pretty random thing, but there's nothing that says it cannot be a condition of employment. Should they have it? I think not. Can they demand it? Absolutely.
The decision is simple: how badly do you want this job? Let that answer guide your decision. And if you take they job, and despise the policy, work to change it from within...
The cynic in me says "Poster has bad credit." Apparently you've already accepted the position, though, so the check doesn't stop you from getting the job. Be pleased you have one.
Security Cleanence Credit Checks (Score:4, Informative)
clearence back in 1978, I had to provide a lot
of information including bank and credit
information.
They explained to me that one of the things they
look at is the potential vulurability of the
person to being given financial help in return
for some favors (secrets) and then blackmailed
with exposure.
I also think they look carefully at all of
the information; credit history included; to
try to make certain that the person is not a
plant; that he or she did live a legitimate life
here in the United States.
Mark
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.
Deal with it. (Score:4, Interesting)
1) whine: not really a good solution, but a Slashdot favorite
2) ask why: much better, and the avenue which you took
3) refuse to comply: and live with the consequences. Of course, if they really want YOU, there is always the possibility of negociating your way out of doing it.
4) "forget" to fill it: they may never notice! (You know: "oh, sorry boss. I just didn't have time to do that. I'll just stop working on [insert important stuff with tight schedule here] and do it right away" or simply "Sorry, I forgot. I'll fill it this afternoon")
5) Check the privacy laws which apply. In my part of sunny Canada, even making such a request is ILLEGAL, which makes it a breeze to refuse.
IANAL, but I can advise you to get a boss which respects you enough to leave your credit alone.
Abuse... (Score:5, Interesting)
How will you really know why you were declined?
Employment Background Checks: A Jobseeker's Guide (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Employment Background Checks: A Jobseeker's Gui (Score:4, Informative)
Why is it that people don't feel they should make a link when they post a URL?
Nolo Link on the subject (Score:5, Informative)
Credit reports. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act or FCRA (15 U.S.C. 1681), employers must get an employee's written consent before seeking that employee's credit report. Many employers routinely include a request for such consent in their employment applications. If you decide not to hire or promote someone based on information in the credit report, you must give the person a copy of the report and tell them of their right to challenge the report under the FCRA. Some states have more stringent rules limiting the use of credit reports.
Guaranteed way to pass a credit check (Score:5, Funny)
1. Go for as long as you can without using your credit card before the interview.
2. Drink lots of water(1 gal) on the day of the credit check.
3. Never give them the first credit report of the morning.
4. Take B vitamins. An overly-clear credit report may set off some red flags at the lab.
** Golden Seal and Visine are said to improve your chances of passing.
I'm not sure how they expect these to work. I would think the guy that runs the reporting terminal is gonna notice you putting the drops in his eyes, but you might be able to spike his coffee cup with the golden seal
In cases like this a credit check is necessary. (Score:3, Interesting)
An executive at that high up in the corporate chain of command has a very heavy responsibility to the company as a whole. The company in turn has an obligation to make sure any new hires for such a position has not already placed himself or has a habit of placing himself in a compromising position that could easily be exploited by an unscrupulous third party.
To put it simply, if a guy has extremly bad credit and is responsible for corporate accounts he may be tempted to steal from the company to cover his debt OR framed into doing so by one of his creditors. These type of executives are also the most likley to be "functional" drug users (and I'm not talking about weed) of hardcore stuff like crack, cocain, heroine....etc. At first their regular salary is enough to cover their habits but as their habits grow they need more and more money.....etc.
Why is it so important? These are the people who run companies that employ at times tens, hundreds or thousands of people. These are hardworking folks who deserve to have people in charge who are capable of managing their personal lives to the extent that it leaves their professional lives unaffected. Otherwise you end up with more Adelphia Cable companies, Enron's, Global Crossings, WorldCom's...etc.
What you should ask in return.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
A similar argument would hold for drug testing, I would think.
I wish I'd have thought of this when I was recently required to do this. Unfortunately, I wasn't in a position to say no. Sadder still, I actually like the company with very few reservations.
-Zipwow
Is it necessary to your job? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.itslegal.com/infonet/employ/hired.asp
Do you handle large sums of money for the company? Are you in a position of trust for binding the company to contracts?
Then I'd say you must submit.
-A
It's an interesting idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
If that is true, then I can certainly understand how a credit rating may be a decent indicator of a potential employee's reliability. I doubt it would be the only factor in deciding to hire someone, but if you had two otherwise equal candidates, where one has an excellent credit rating, but the other consistently misses bill payments, racks up huge credit card bills, etc., wouldn't that be a relevant point of discrimination? What if you were hiring someone to be a project manager? Wouldn't personal finance habits be a good indicator of how well they can manage a $200,000 account? Not always, but... put yourself in the employer's shoes.
As for privacy, remember, this is your employer - they will already have your SSN on file, they know your salary, how many medical claims you make against your medical plan, probably even what prescription medications you're taking. They know how much tax you pay, they can see what type of car you drive; they have your address, home phone number, spouse's name, dependents' names, how much you're contributing to your retirement savings, and a whole lot more if they put any effort into looking. Why is it that you're afraid of a credit check?
I always thought I was paranoid, but I wouldn't hesitate to give my employer permission to do a credit check, probably because I expect it would be spotless, and it might give me an edge over another candidate.
Sabotaged Credit History (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy issues aside, the danger is too great that interviewers reviewing my credit history would make the wrong assumption that I incurred all that debt and that I would lose the job offer without being given any chance to explain the report. I would simply tell the employer that my credit history has suffered severe damage from my spouse and that I have no choice but to vigorously protect that information. If they protest further I will simply state that I am not open to negotiations on that topic.
are you kidding? (Score:5, Funny)
Are you kidding? The only reason I've got good credit / finances is because I steal from the company.
Prior disclosure required? (Score:4, Interesting)
It might be worth checking with a lawyer -- not to see whether the requirement is illegal, it's not, but to see whether the requirement can be enforced when it was not disclosed prior to hiring.
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.
You have VERY FEW right, but this might help (Score:4, Informative)
1) Find out if you state allows the screening of applicants.
2) If declined the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires (Federal Law) requires that:
a) You are provided with a written letter indicating why you are being declined. They MUST be specific. They can't just say your FICO score was too low.
b) They are required to tell you where they got the information from
c) They are required to allow you to dispute anything on the report.
Complaints can be filed with the Federal Trade Commision. Macy settled out of court with the FTC over Credit reports a few years ago. They weren't telling people why they didn't get the job.
In one case a CRA had added several extra zero's to a disputed debt. Making the person seem unfit for a management position.
IANAL.
Is the salary over $150K? (Score:5, Interesting)
The moral of the story is that in this age of high profile corportate corruption, etc., companies, ehareholders, and government agencies are doing whatever they can to protect themselves. In the wake of the Rafael Perez and Rodney King scandals, the LAPD even insists on a completely clean credit record for its recruits. A bankruptcy or other credit faux pas means no job.
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:Let them do it (Score:3, Funny)
on that Enron thing!
Re:my opinion.... (Score:5, Interesting)
**unless you're hiding something**
Let's apply this type of thinking to other areas. If they had said "We want to see your privates - after all, this can affect your medical claims, sick time off, etc..." you'd tell them to shove off, woudn't you?
It seems to me that a check for a criminal record would be more relevant, and more justifiable.
or, tell them, no problem, but you first want them to sign for permission for you to check their personal credit - after all, you want to know just who you're giving this information to, and you don't want it to be abused.
When they object, threaten to sue them for discrimination.
Re:my opinion.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You let other people dictate to you the terms upon which you're allowed to do things. Even work. I agree that a criminal background check is probably worthwhile and a legitimate business concern - but a credit check? No. The only people to whom that should matter are those who can LEND me money.
I don't see this being any different than an employer asking to see what kind of food you have in your fridge, in order to determine if you're a healthy eater. If you're a conciously unhealthy dieter, it's probably reflective on your work habits, your personal life, etc.
No thanks. Take your job and shove it up your ass. I'd rather work blue-collar than submit to that type of fascist regime.
I love my country but jesus christ...people need to stop putting the almighty dollar above personal privacy and freedoms. It's like the executives who make these ridiculous decisions are so insulated from reality that they don't even realize that they're chipping away at the foundations of American life. I wonder how freedom-less life will be in 50 years.
I'm scared.
sedawkgrep
Re:my opinion.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Don't Be a Deadbeat (Score:4, Interesting)
Another coworker was severly injured when he was 20 and had insurance, but the hospitial's accounting department ended up billing him. He handled it like a 20 year old and ignored it. Now he "owes" something like 20 grand, even though recent followups from the insurance company indicate that they paid. He's disputing it, but he looks like a dead beat right now.
The credit reporting system has problems and I'd hate to have my job hanging on the outcome of a credit report.
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:not to crazy (Score:5, 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: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.