Slashdot Mirror
Dealing with Employers Who Perform Credit Checks?
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?"
.... seriously this should be a privacy issue. People with bad credit NEED jobs to get out of the hole they've dug. Give me a break.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
get a job somewhere else. Is this the kind of company you want to work for?
It's IT. If you won't agree with it, they'll just go thru the list of the hundreds of other people who would love a job and will agree to it.
When exactly was your last first post?
to the EU where they have proper HUMAN RIGHTS laws and employment laws, unions make the laws here.
Take youre brain elsewhere. US lost.
What next ? DNA tests ?
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.
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
Unless you're hiding something, I wouldn't object. I had to submit to a full background check, and it didn't bother me.
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...
I couldn't get out of it, but I negotiated who would see my credit report, why they would see it, for how long, and how it was to be destroyed after veiwing. I got everything in writing and made them sign it.
is there anything it *can't* do?
http://toolkit.cch.com/text/P05_1585.asp
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Since they already hired you, and it doesn't
look like it was conditional on that check,
can they now just fire you for refusing to
provide this info, or maybe you can sue
their ass off?
Considered harmful.
First post :)
Let them do it. I work for a large retailer, and they check criminal records and background credit information on ALL emplyoees. That includes the cleaning lady etc.
That way, there is less likelyhood that people will commit fraud etc. And we have seen enough of that lately, especially in the USA.
They either need to wave the "credit check" or you need to find another job. Its more then a privacy issue, it's also once they have preformed the credit check they now have all of your credit information in their possession. Not something I would want my employer to poses.
(This also sounds like start of a scam to me.. but anyway.)
Many positions require managing money with company credit cards and/or purchase orders. Would you want someone who writes bad checks and doesn't pay their bills to have this responsibility?
love is just extroverted narcissism
If you're that opposed to it...quit. Their loss. By caving in you're just giving employers permission to walk over you.
Let your skills be your selling point...not your credit report.
1. Call a lawyer, preferably one with experience in employment law in your state and ask if this is legal there. (In all likelihood, it probably is).
2. If you want to keep the job, give them what they want. Otherwise, fight it. In this economy, you most definitely can be replaced.
I'm not really a CPA, I just play one on TV
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.
Submit the credit info. If you are denied the position, ask why. If someone else gets the position, I believe you are entitled to find out why they got it and you didn't. If they arent as qualified, or there is the remote possibility of it being a credit issue, sue.
It is required for any contractor on the campus.
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
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
This is becoming increasingly common, from what I understand. Insurance companies are also using credit scores to help determine rates for auto coverage. Miss a credit-card payment, and your car insurance costs more!
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.
It is reasonable to assume that someone who isn't smart enough to manage his own money would mismanage company money. 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.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
everytime someone looks up your credit who isn't you, it negatively impacts your credit rating. Granted, one look isn't going to hurt anything too badly, but maybe say that you're hoping to get a loan soon for X and you are on the border of getting prime rates, and thus unless they're willing to compensate you monetarily you would have to say no.
Or just say, "Fuck you, no."
sounds like an easy way to discriminate with your permission. call the aclu and a lawyer- this should not be allowed!
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
I don't know how the laws on this work from state to state, and I'm just hypothesizing here, but if agreeing to the background check was not given as a condition of employment when you were offered the job can they legally require it now?
What goes around comes around. Remember all of those insane signing bonuses and perks that useless rockstar programmers and IT staff were getting 2-3 years ago during the boom? Well, now we get to see management and HR getting their chance to get some of their own back.
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!
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
Many companies are going down this route, and you will probably have to live with it. There are a number of benefits from the companies perspective, especially where the company may be liable for any misbehavior on the part of the employee, or if the company is dealing with sensitive information (healthcare and financial services, for example).
The only real problem here is that the company should disclose this in advance of making the offer, or as a condition of acceptance, not after you show up. In addition, they should really safeguard the information, not include it as a routine part of an HR file.
The more you argue, the more you are probably creating a "first impression" as a trouble maker.
I guess I can see why they want this information, if you have a lot of debt that you would only be able to pay off through either years of austere living, or selling corporate secrets, I'd like to know about it before I gave you the opportunity to do the latter.
My other sig is extremely clever...
I seriously can not imagine such stuff ever to happen in Belgium, and perhaps not even in Europe...
Has anyone on the ancient continent ever been blackmailed like this ?
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
I had to submit to a credit check for my current job. I work for a defence contractor, and they needed to see if I am possibly bribe-able. We wouldn't want to make espionage easy by using highly susceptible employees...
Run away from this company! If they are willing to infringe on your privacy at this stage of the hiring process, what will the do when you are on their payroll fulltime? Is this really the company you want to work for?
Companies like the are run by PHBs.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
This is appalling. As far I recall (I am an English expat), in the UK it isn't even legal to ask someone's marital status at an interview, let alone financial status. Doesn't a company have to get written permission before they can even follow up on references? I can sort of understand such checks on a prospective employee of a large financial institution, but a technology company? Tell them to go fuck themselves.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
It strikes me that a company that cannot manage its finances responsibly would not make a good employer either...but would you be allowed to peek at their ledger when seeking a job? Even if it were a policy that you had set for yourself and you must apply it to all potential employers for the sake of consistent application?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Where I work instituded this policy after I was hired. It only applies to new hires, so my credit won't be checked. I did protest the policy when it was added, and the company argued with the same reasons. But mostly from the theft aspect. The reason the put the policy in place was they just had to fire the president's brother in law. He was stealing from the company. He had a huge amount of dept from what I understand. But he also had serious drug problems. If they had just inforced on of the other rules already on the book, the drug testing they could have gotten rid of him. But the didn't because they don't want to test the other employees a lot of which take "smoke" breaks during the day.
My worry is, I have very poor credit, but I do make enough to pay my bills (when I feel like it), so I never thought of stealing from the company. I just do my work to get my pay check to buy more toys I when I should pay off the ones I already charged.
First question you should ask the CEO, is can they prove a direct link between bad credit and stealing from the company?
Next up: they should be aware that they cannot have you sign one sheet of paper that authorizes them to run a credit check on existing employees anytime they wish. By law, each and every credit check requires a separate signature.
Also advise them that the purpose of a credit check is to note your credit worthiness when BORROWING money. Most contracts and most employers prohibit you from borrowing money from the company. Tell them you will sign a credit release if they will allow you to borrow money. Legitimate credit checks can be run by banks, car dealerships, cell phone companies (that aren't pre-paid, you are in essence borrowing money until your payment is due.)
I would also contact your District Attorney's office and your State Attorney General.
Also, if they ask you to list your traffic tickets, REFUSE if the job does not involve any driving. This is an illegal question.
Employers try to get away with lots of illegal questions just because no one says no.
Bend over, take it (principle aside, it's almost certainly meaningless anyway), work late one night, walk over to HR, pull all senior management's credit ratings, post them to f'dcompany or similar.
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."
A smart IT manager would skip the credit check and look at your Slashdot posts instead...
Two years ago I would say screw them. Now I'd say take the job. There are thousands who wish they had a job period, regardless of the terms.
Yup. ..but if you've fucked up 4-5 years ago what do you do? I settled all my debts and they're marked as paid.
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.
You should be aware that your credit history is more open to prospective employers than creditors. If you've had bad credit more than 7 years ago, it will roll off your credit report, and will not affect your ability to get new credit. Nothing over 7 years is visible on a standard credit report.
BUT.. there is a special provision in the credit laws, allowing any employer who does a credit check for a job over some fixed amount ($35k IIRC) to see your ENTIRE credit history, back to day 1.
Yep - I've been in the same boat. A previous employer wanted to pull a credit report on me. Interestingly, I have very good credit, but I was planning on purchasing a new car soon and did not want to have unnecessary credit checks done, as some institutions like to use this as a perverse excuse to deny financing on a car.
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).
.... um, i lost you after "0110100001101001".
is bad.
Taking the stance that there is nothing wrong with seeing it unless you are hiding something is an incredibly foolish stance.
If you aren't hiding anything, why not let the local police department perform a regular search of your house?
If you don't feel they should, you must be hiding something.
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.
National Public Radio had a story about this a couple days ago.
It's really very simple. They have rules, and if you want to work for the company, you must play by them. There's really no debate here -- it's your choice.
noticed this twice around here but thought that since it's rural eastern north carolina and normal laws don't appear to be followed that it was what they did
I've always found this to be an interesting argument and requirement for jobs myself. If a company were an EOE (Equal Opportunity Employer), wouldn't discriminating based on credit history be just as bad as discriminating based on race/ethnic group? I think it can easily be argued that this is yet another racist hiring policy based on the assumption that minority groups would be of lower financial status, which as anyone who got a credit card when they went to college would know is not exactly the case. I think it should be brought to the attention of the ACLU or something, its no more a company's policy what my credit history is than how many dogs I have, what size bed I sleep in, or any other matter that I don't feel they have a right to know. A company's argument that someone's credit history is a check of character is absurd. And since its illegal for creditors to call your job, the argument of distracting phone calls is BS. I agree with the poster, it really is none of their business.
One compromise may be to give them a notarized letter stating your FICO score. Check out MyFico.com or other sources to get this cheaply. This will satisfy their question of good vs bad credit WITHOUT giving them the details of your credit history. For those not familiar with FICO scoring, it's a single number representing your credit risk ranging from 200 to 850 or something like that. Seems to be a good way to satisfy their intentions (if they have communicated them truthfully) and your privacy.
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.
... that ALOT of employers require this now? I have known of a few jobs where they have told me up front or on their applications (be it online or paper) that they require a credit check, and if you have a problem with that, seek employment elsewhere.
AFAIK the basis for this is that if you cant manage your own finances then you are more likely to be a not so hot employee, and more likely to steal to get yourself out of the hole than someone with less credit problems.
Note, I dont necessarily agree with that, nor do I know it for fact that that IS the reason, and now that I've been interrupted 10 times from writing this, its probably redundant...
ahh well..
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
They have the right, but, by law (in the USA) if they make a negative decision because of the credit report, they have to inform you of that. This is often overlooked. There was a report on this on NPR recently (Jan 31st, All Things Considered).
At the very least, you should check your credit report to make sure it is accurate.
Unless this is a job that you Really Want (or Really Need, for that matter), tell 'em to stick it. Times are tough for job-finding, but at the end of the day, it's just a job, and not worth sacrificing your principles over.
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.
This wouldn't be so bad if getting a house didn't routinely follow getting a job...
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
i'd sign the document, let them see my disastrous credit history and after they've 'let me go' drag them roughly through the courts for unfair dismissal - your credit would be okay then :)
that you aren't trying to get a government job requiring a security clearance. A credit check will be the least of your worries.
Lastly, vote with your feet. If you don't want to do it, leave.
If you can start a business just like thiers and compete with those jerks, maybe you can hire all their unhappy employees from them.
-------------------------------------
Technically, we are beyond survival.
GOD DAMMIT YOU SLEAZY ASS MUTHERFUCKING FINK! All of the people that you refer to were in HIGH LEVEL POSITIONS, not some schlub webdeveloper. And I give you a 99% chance that the bigwigs have some loophole so that they don't have to give up their GODDAMNED civil rights just to get a crummy SHITEATING job!
It's like mandatory drug testing in the 90's. I'm all for it, let CONGRESS be first in line.
OFF THE MAN, BROTHERS!
Of course, there's no solid way to prevent bribes from happening, but if you've had credit problems, you know how "under the gun" you feel when the agencies heckle you for money. Sometimes you would almost do anything to get rid of them... Hmm.. sounds like SPAM!
Of course, you have all the rights to refuse to a credit search. Unfortunately, the company has all the right to refuse to hire you on those grounds alone.
Either:
A) You want to work for this company and to do so you must do something that you do not wish to do.
B) You want to work for this company but are unwilling (Which is your given choice) to meet the minimum requirements that they put forth and there for you must find another position WITH ANOTHER COMPANY.
Pick A) or B) and live with the decision. Nothing to really debate there.
The message to you (and every other employee) is: from day one you are not trusted. This is an ominous sign that is going to be a rotten place to work. It isn't going to get any better.
If you owned a business and were going to trust employees to make decisions on your behalf, manage their time and their money, potentially manager their customer's time and money, wouldn't you want to do these types of checks? There are many jobs this would not be necessary for. There are many jobs that it is.
Don't take the job! Tell them you can't work for them if they're that paranoid.
I once interviewed for a company that attempted to do a credit check until I asked them why, then they backed off. They still did a ciminal check, which I didn't mind. After six or so interviews, I eventually didn't take the job because they wanted me to sign a salary agreement without letting me take it home and review it prior to signing. Very fishy business!
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
I work for a company that has the exact same policy...maybe we work for the same company? I have heard a lot of grumbling on this, even people not getting hired b/c of their past credit history, however, I have never heard of anyone who has successfully argued their case not to have to submit to the credit check. Basically it comes down to whether or not it's worth getting the job...
Good Luck.
There's a little write up on msn.com which makes some good points though. Most importantly, really push to make sure that the information an employer isn't allowed to consider is removed from the report.
Other than that, I'm not sure there's much you can do, since there doesn't seem to be legislation protecting you.
my first job out of college was at a .com working with bank info ... they wanted a background check and i had to get fingerprinted etc. obviously due to working with tons of financial data, they wanted to make sure they my fingerprints for record checking and make sure i wasn't having serious financial problems. But again .. this was dealing with banking information
In my last job the company tried to do the same thing; full background check, drug testing, credit history, the works. I had already been working for them for about 6 months. It was, then, a 12 person company and has since grown to over 100.
I refused to submit to the drug test, and credit check and told them flat out that I would walk out the door if they insisted. I had nothing to hide, but didn't feel either was relevent to my work as a software engineer. The company dropped both of those checks.
Your work is what the company pays you for. What goes on in your bank account and body is none of there f*cking business as long as you are keeping up your end of the bargain and produce the work you said you would.
For pre-emplyment, I think it's reasonable to check references, work history, and educational history. Past that, it's none of there business.
There are arguemnts that travel on a company credit card would warrent a check, but the card is almost always in the employees name and issued based on the emplyees credit history.
More likely to steal because of bad credit? Hardly....
It's not unusual to see credit checks as part of a security clearance check... as people with great debt are often more likely to sell information or be otherwise comprimised by the offer of money.
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.
BlackNova Traders
A background credit check isnt simply calling the Credit Beureaus to see if you were late on your rent. There is so much on that credit report: IRS issues, Child/Spouse Support, potentially previous employment information, any legal suits... You're setting yourself up for an unreasonable search of your person/privacy. If the hiring-firm would detail EXACTLY what they need to see by reviwing your 'credit history' then it might be more acceptable. I have refused to submit to credit history and drug testing. I lost a couple gig's over it. Its bad enough to work for some self-righetous firm, but, I will not be a slave to one.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
Only spoken over the *phone?*
Hey, maybe I should patent that.
Sheer PTO doofyness.
KFG
Performing a credit check is a fairly standard practice among many employers for both managers and for employees who have to deal with cash, and it is very much legal. In your case, you're applying for a fairly high-level management position (director-level). You'll just have to deal with it. You're lucky they don't do a psychological eval.
Insert offensive troll-style sig here. Please mod or respond appropriately.
Do not work for this company.
Post the company's name so that we can make sure we don't do business with them either.
I don't do blood tests or consent to background checks. Ever. And I honestly have nothing to hide. It is a matter of dignity.
If they didn't even have the decency to ask you what they are looking for, then they don't deserve you. Did they directly ask you if you have bad credit? Did they directly ask you if you ever used drugs? Did they directly ask you if you will re-heat spicy garlic chicken in the microwave? If not, then they have no right to go ask someone else. They should at least have the decency to ask you to your face. Gutless swine.
Finally, if you do work for them, make sure you know the drug history and personal financial history of the company CEO. You don't want to be working for someone who can't even manage his/her own life.
I have gotten down to accepting job offers, only to be told "Ok, now the next step is for you to give us bodily fluids." At that point, I walk.
I work for the Federal Government in IT and I've had to submit to a full background check (including credit history) to obtain the required security clearance to perform my job.
If your job does not require you to have a security clearance, I would be dubious of allowing your employer access to your credit history.
I would contact a lawyer right away and discuss your legal rights.
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.
From someone in a position to know: if they do it for any employee then they have to do it for all. Thats the law: you can be stupid as long as you are "fair". Good luck, but I doubt you'll have much success negotiating out of this requirement.
Unfortunately, credit checks are at least as popular as drug tests for employment these days. The rationale is that an employee with lots of debt and bad credit is more likely to embezzle or sell company secrets, and this viewpoint is supported by companies selling credit-check services. It's distasteful, true, but it's a free market, you can find work somewhere else.
I signed it under duress, essentially "sign it or we'll fire you". It was all part of my company's new "War on Employees" after we got bought out by a big healthcare insurance provider. I sent a very nasty email to my boss, his boss, and our HR Director who was driving the whole thing. The email essentially said I was signing it only because they'd threatened to fire me if I didn't, which may throw some interesting twists into the fray if they decide to pursue it, I'm not sure that threatening someone with termination if they don't sign a contract invalidates the contract. You, however, are probably in a different position, because it's a condition of a new job, not an existing one. IANAL, YMMV.
The ironic thing is that a week before that I'd turned down a job offer at a different company because I liked the environment here. If that requirement had been issued a week before, I'd be working for someone else now. And now I'm looking for a new job because of the other changes that have been made lately. Such is life. Anybody looking for a really experienced DBA? I intend to tell them exactly where they can put that piece of paper after I leave.
My coworkers here were pretty ticked about it, but not enough people complained.
The really ironic thing is that part of the justification for getting us to sign it was to make sure we weren't terrorists. No kidding. Thank you John Ashcroft.
(going MORE offtopic here)
Oh, and thanks to all those stupid Missouri liberals who voted for the dead guy (Mel Carnahan) in the election that would have put Ashcroft back into the Senate instead of in the Attorney General's seat. Great move there bozos. Now we've got a freshman senator and a crappy attorney general.
Running a credit history on someone is not always to identify possible money problems.
.gov, it's a pretty good check to make.
Some people do it to identify security risks.
For instance, if you work in an area that deals with high risk items (corporate secrets, banking platforms, large scale networking, etc) there is a definite need to have reliable, trustworthy people in place.
Some places might go overboard with it, but... The US does it this way with credit checks. (Meaning the US government...)
Person needing said position fills out clearance paperwork. Paperwork contains a lot of personal questions that may be difficult to answer. For instance, Income versus debt, bankruptcies, etc.
Now, what they are NOT looking for is your average day to day late with payment, bounced a check, type of person.
They double look at people that ATTEMPT to live outside their means using credit. (running up HUGE debts)
And, they also look for peoples open-ness. Are they lying?
They do this for the following reasons.
1. A person that attempts to live outside their means is susceptible to bribing.
2. A person who is not totally honest with them about their credit history may succumb to blackmail, should someone buy that debt from a credit agency/collector.
Not really sure what the implications/uses are for it in the real world, but inside the
So, if you're looking for a position of trust within the company, you have to be trustworthy to get it. But, you may want to check on the legality of it regardless, some states may not allow discrimination based on prior debt.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Sorry I can't give you encouragement, but i don't regret what happened. I left with my pride and hopefully made a small dent in their policy.
I guess we have to ask: would you submit to drug testing for this job? If you would, what's the difference? Both are invasions of privacy and are of no business of your employer.
My advice? Make it very clear to them that, while you regret this decision, you value your privacy. You might want to ask them how much $ they burned away in the employment search. It's their loss, not yours.
In the US, you basically have to bend over and take it when it comes to getting a job. That's one of the reasons I don't live in the US.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
Chedit checks are very valuable - basically they show if someone is a overspender who can't pay his bills on time, or is a sensable spender who can send a few checks on time, once a month.
Now, that out of the way, only a STUPID employer would have a blanket poilicy of rejecting pepole with lousy credit. I know a few smart people 'round here, that I could trust with my life, who can barly dress themselves and probably have horrible credit scores.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
If the position in the company allows unrestricted access to sensitive accounting systems such as cheque processing, backups + restores, then I think it would make sense for a potential employer to do background credit checks on anyone they were going to hire.
Definition of unrestricted, as it pertains to I.T.: root access. Hopefully this does not include access to a signature stamp (trivial to obtain a copy, if your company uses them) and blank company cheques which can be fed through any laser printer...
Having said that, it would only be fair of the employer to disclose this process during the first interview. It's pretty shitty and cheap to lay this kind of surprise out on someone who has already been "hired".
I wouldn't work for them unless they were an above-board kind of company right from the first interview. A sneaky attitude on either side just leads to more trouble down the road.
Assuming you actually have nothing to hide, and assuming you can get another job without too much hassle/trouble, do something:
Authorize them to perform these credit checks, and then resign. This should get the message through.
Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
Generally it's only required when working directly with financial information. If you apply at TRW or Equifax you'll certainly be required to pass a credit check.
I live in Texas, which is a right-to-hire/right-to-fire state. Basically they can fire you if they don't like your shoes.
My opinion would be to follow other's advice, get a visibility and availability agreement signed, and let them pull your credit.
If they fire you, claim unemployment, and hire a lawyer.
I did a background/credit check to work for the second largest credit union in the US. My credit is pretty messed up, but they didn't fire me. Even though, they easily could have.
Unless you've done something extremely bad, I wouldn't worry about it.
A lot of people are giving feedback along the lines of "Get a lawyer to sue for your rights." However, did any of you think about the situation he'll have at the company even if he does keep the job? If the first thing you did after you got the job was sue the company over your rights, I bet you'll wish you never had the job in the first place. Corporations don't exactly respond to lawsuits with kindness.
While I understand needing to respect your rights and stand up for yourself, think about the situation if you DO win and keep the job.
I remember when I had to apply for a security
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
Cleara
I'd say that if they want to see your credit report to tell if you are more likely to steel or be troublesome. That you should be able to request their credit report.
It is only fair with the recent downfall of many companies. Not to mention those companies abusing their employees and stockholders all the way down.
That is simply not true. A check is neutral. Where did you get this bad information? Negative scores only come from late payments, large open debts, and extended dillenquencies.
Positives include paying off a large debt (on time), low debt/income ratio, and home ownership.
This is direct from my credit union loan officer.
You don't *have* to work there.
Insisting on a copy of any documentation they recieve in such a background check seems prudent and an acceptable position.
"He's dead, Jim"
You don't mind them checking your employment history, do you? You don't mind them checking to see if you have a criminal record, right? You don't mind them checking to see if they just happen to like you, right? So why is credit history any different?
This is not a privacy issue. It's your right to keep that history secret if you want. But it's their right not to spend money on stuff (you) that they can't check out first.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
I hate to say it, man, but the higher up you are in the food chain, the more important it is for them that they check you out. If I were them, I would already have told you to take a hike.
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.
That about says it all. However much unions may or may not step over good sense boundaries, employees have zero leverage without them. And how many companies wouldn't throw out unionizers immediately, thanks to that "at will" clause? You can check with a lawyer (obligatory IANAL), but as far as I can tell if you refuse they can fire you with cause, since your initial agreement probably had language that you would comply with their policies. From that perspective, it's no different than requiring ties or name tags. Drug testing and lie detectors generate a lot of flak; have any firings for refusals been settled in court?
Furthermore, if you've already signed agreements you could be in violation for merely asking this. Did you already sign the NDA or are you waiting on all of these forms?
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
If you find it too much of an invasion of your privacy, then resign. Make appologies for the time and effort they spent on hiring you, but explain that they should have informed you of this up front as it's an area of concern for some people.
There is no law that forces you to sign and do not let them decieve you by glossing over a description of the document. Such activity is fraud.
Being Debt Free / Well to do
An employee will easily walk if it is demanded that he do something illegal/unethical to the company's benefit (cannot be bought)
The employee would be considered rich, therefore, doesn't need the job
Seeing info on brokerage accounts such as Merril Lynch or Schwab can indicate the type of wealth
Being in Debt / Poor
cannot keep home finances straight translates to not being able to properly manage company business
Can be easily bought
Would be willing to compromise company proprietary info by selling to a competitor
A financial position can be used for you or against you depending what Management needs done and who they can exploit. In my own opinion, it is none of the employer's business. The only circumstance to check out someone's credit is a part of National Security Clearances and those are not done by your employer, they are done by the Military and/or their representative.
If the company is, say, a defense contractor, indeed, a backgroud check would be necessary, and they do go into credit records. It's used a variable in determining what risk you are to national security should you be given access to classified info/data/etc. They fear if you have money troubles, you may use your access to classifed stuff and sell it to foreign countries.
People with poor credit/finances have been major factors in more than a few espionage cases (eg, Robert Hanssen), and the government wants to minimize the risk or get it under control (ie, help an employee with their credit problems).
Simply having bad credit or similar past problems is not necessarily grounds for dismassal or refusal to being hired.
Ask for permission to see the corporate tax returns for the past five years, their credit report, their Dunn & Bradstreet report, their BBB report, testimonials from clients and creditors. You probably also need to have access to credit reports for your immediate supervisor, as well as all executives and shareholders. Just in case there's anyone shady there who might hurt the company - and your job.
After all, you're "trusting" these people with your livelihood.
Oh yeah. Wow. This suuuure is bad. A credit check. Wow. It's not like the thousands of credit card companies don't do this daily, or your mortgage guy, or the kid you just bought a new car from. Talk about invasive. Whew! When does the revolution start?
What is their privacy policy? What are their security practices with that info? Have they been audited by a third party?
It is important to expose these hiring conditions up front - BEFORE you accept and leave your current position.
It is un-ethical in the extreme to offer someone employment without presenting all of the requirements up front. Drug tests, credit checks, etc, should all be laid on the table early in the hiring process.
What if the credit check is bad? Do they fire you after you have already left your previous position? I have a long-standing dispute with Sprint over a cell phone bill. I refuse to pay it and efforts to settle with them have been a waste of time.
Many companies prefer not to share other employment documents until it is too late. What about the 'employee handbook', etc, that you are required to comply with? You should get to review it BEFORE you accept.
AT&T Wireless recently made me an offer.. Their background check was with a third party firm that promised not to sell your info for 'marketing or solicitation purposes'. Hmm.. I can think of a few other reasons that would allow them to sell my info for profit.
I asked everyone I interviewed with what their #1 worry was. Usually the response is of a technical nature. Not at ATT Wireless. Their #1 worry is LAYOFF. These were high level folks who had been with the company for 7 years.
Fuck'em - I turned down the offer.
Here's what *I* would do. (And since I have the mental prowess to successfully log into Slashdot my opinion must be worthwhile!)
In the end, odds are good you'll have to submit or find another job. There's no legality that says this is unfair or unjust, and your only other bargaining chip is that they would have to find another candidate (which, in this economy, is not hard).
Perhaps¦you¦could¦go¦along¦with¦it¦and¦then¦later¦ use¦your¦position¦of¦trust¦inside¦the¦corporation¦ to¦sabotage¦the¦company¦secretly.¦I¦think¦that¦you ¦haven't¦got¦a¦legal¦leg¦to¦stand¦on¦if¦you¦refuse ¦their¦snoopy¦requirements,¦and¦certainly¦collecti ve¦action¦in¦high¦tech¦is¦difficult¦so¦what¦else¦c an¦you¦do¦but¦extract¦revenge¦for¦being¦violated.
n ¦y our¦employees¦causes¦bad¦feelings.¦Bad¦feelings¦er ode¦loyalty,¦and¦cause¦anger.
I¦am¦of¦course¦joking,¦but¦creating¦¦bad¦will¦i
There are many ways to respond to requests like this one.
;-)
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.
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
If you've had to get a security clearance lately I'm pretty sure that you've had a credit check done.
Were'nt that last few major espionage cases in the US basically motivated by money (or ego) and not political ideaology?
This doesn't surprise me.
Good luck.
as the google post above implies, check your local laws.
also, this was not mentioned during the interview process?
aside from the "privacy" issues, which we all now is just a concept now, why do you object?
you said it is a small company, that sounds like it is owned by 1 or 2 people. they probably have something personal to lose. they probably don't want any losers working for them, and see this as an easy way to weed people out.
i find it odd though that this was not part of the interview process. some companies require this, just to be considered for the job.
unless you are in the position to get another similar job immediately, i suggest you take this job. try to get some sort of copy of what they receive, "to ensure accuracy of the credit report." many of these reports have bogus information on them, especially if there is a immediate family member (father, uncle etc) with the same name.
the company is playing CYA, and you should to.
remember, privacy is no more. it is just a concept for of us now.
I know this is common practice these days, but it bothers me because it has such potential for abuse. Employees are barred from asking your age, marital status, sexual orientation, etc. in an interview, but if they have your credit report, they can deduce a lot of this information. (What year were your college loans taken out? Do you have a co-signer on a home or car loan? What gender is the co-signer?)
How will you really know why you were declined?
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
I think it is a sign of the current technology industry as a whole. With the high unemployment rate in the US, especially in this arena, companies can "pick and choose" due to the glut. Which allows them to minimize their esposures and risks.
I guess in your situation, you need to determine if you really want the position and accept the hiring requirements, or (try to) move on to another company. Unfortunately many, many companies now perform the same types of background checks, so leaving may put you right back in the same situation.
-- Rick
NPR All Things Considered recently did a story about this (search their audio archives). The bottom line is that it's within an employer's rights to perform a background check on new employees as a condition of employment, including obtaining a credit report. If, based on the credit report, they decide not to hire you, then they have to provide you with a copy of the report.
Good luck!
it's ridiculous for a company to fire a person or not hire a person due to bad credit. the idea is baffling. without a job, their credit will become worse, since it's harder to pay for things withouta job obviously.
the fact is, my girlfriends dad was fired for this same reason. he was struggling after losing his business, couldn't find a worthy replacement, and when he finally did, wasn't hired, because of his credit. though he was able to go to the training seminars, etc etc... before finding out. what bs.
I write code.
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm
It gets worse. There was just a Chicago Tribune story about the various deliterious effects this is having on all aspects of life. One guy was denied multiple jobs purely based on the results of his credit report.
You need a decent score to get a phone, utilities, and now a job. Ridiculous, but the fact is, it's an employer's market these days.
What's next? "Well, we need you to pee in this cup to screen for genetic susceptibilities. Also, you'll need to sign this pledge promising not to smoke, to lower your cholestorol, and to have safe sex. After all, we're putting a lot of time and energy into training you to be our help desk jockey..."
Here in Brazil we hava a specific (and quite big) group of laws regarding work relations. By those laws, the employer only can do researches directly related to the normal hiring process such as check on your diplomas, etc. From your former employers all they can ask is if you really worked for them the way you told you did. Nothing eles is allowed as talking to an ex-colegue or such. Many companies some times break those rules but they can be sued for it and the penalties are quite hard.
Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
And on second thought, I think the best answer would be:
Sure, I'll let you know any credit info you want. However, I feel that if I am to provide personal details like that, it would only be fair for me to have access to information on all the company's financial affairs also. Could you please inform me the next time the company takes out a loan over $1,000?
Basically, tit for tat.
But certainly don't get yourself fired over it.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Consider the kind of information can they obtain using the paper they want you to sign. Does it allow them permission to see such detail that they can find out what you bought at the grocery last month? And how long are these disclosure agreements good for? If you sign now, can they still check your credit a year from now? Could someone there legally spy on you after you leave their employ just because he/she has the disclosure in hand? I think you are right to be very concerned. I hope you are in a financial position that you can make a stand for all of us.
I have never understood this - it seems to me that you need a job to maintain credit, but you need good credit to get a job? wtf?!?! I'll just crawl into my hole and subsist on Soviet Russia /. posts instead of ruining my life with one late credit card payment. Sheesh.
I also reply below your current threshold.
Its time to be an adult. If your director or above in a company and you do something stupid in your private life it WILL hurt your company if the press gets to it? If it is a public company I'm sure the board would have someone head if they hired you and something on your credit report could have tipped them off to watch your appropriations closer. Heaven forbid that the company would encourage you take some basic finance courses if they deemed it necessary. If it isn't a right to work state they couldn't fire/not hire you because of it but that doesn't mean they shouldn't assist you in getting help in personal finance.
If an employee is 10 times their salary in debt then right there is motivation to embezzle. If an employee is 10 times their salary in debt then it is safe to assume that it IS causing a little more stress in their life.
If there is nothing unusual about your credit report then it will not go beyond the HR person looking at it. There are legal consequences to the company if they don't treat your background screening information as sesitive data and kept private.
Despite what ppl believe credit information isn't secure nor private.
I wouldn't comply. Find a job somewhere else.
Find out if you can sue them.
This is truly bizare.
Your health and financial records are supposed to
be private. By the way, ask the COO and CEO to
sign a similar form since you want to check them out.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act is online and in it it says:
(in Sec. 1681b. Permissible purposes of consumer reports) "A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: (1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury. (2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. (3) To a person which it has reason to believe-- (A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or (B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or (C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or (D) intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or (E) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction involving the consumer."
Check out section "B". That's the bummer part. They have the right to do so, and they actually can do it without your permission--seems to me they're being nice about even asking you in the first place. Your prospective employer certainly has a "business relationship" with you, which is legal grounds for a credit check; and the damage done to you by the credit check is almost certainly zero.
Also ask them to provide any proof or documentation that a person with not-so-good credit may be a risk for theft of company property. And see if they will sign an NDA on your credit report, after all they may "need it," but nobody else needs to, correct? So who's to say they won't do something wacky with it. If they're not willing to go on the record that the info they obtain will never leave the premises, then they're not a company worth working for.
Credit companies - Experian, Trans Union, and "The other one" are holding more and more power these days. I fully understand why you don't want to give them credit information. Check with legal professionals in your area and get their opinions. Since you are getting a directorate, I hope you have a lawyer to back you up if things go sour during your tenure. Document, Document, Document. Back to the credit check: any credit check done that does not issue you credit counts -against- your credit score. If you plan on getting a loan/mortage in the next two years, this might knock you out of the best APR. It takes 2 years for these checks to drop off your record [from my last research]... longer for a bankruptcy of course. If you want a shot at the best credit score you have to have been living at your current address for the last 5 years and only have checks on your credit rating that in turn have issued you credit. Also it is good to have a loan or mortgage that shows on time payments and have no missed minimum payments on any credits cards. Yes a long discussion moving away from the topic, but a bad credit rating is just as bad as a criminal record - maybe even worse!!
I work in the IT dept. at a bank and not only did they do a credit check, they took my finger prints and had an FBI background check done.
A lot of people wouldn't find that too outrageous because I work at a bank. But no matter what kind of company you work for, a lot of money can be lost due to internal corruption. If you watch the news at all, you'll understand why they have to be so careful.
Here's an article on Nolo. Here's the relevant portion:
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.
Whatever you do... don't read this.
Many jobs require some type of background check and for good reason. This fall I worked officating middle school flag footbal for the local Rec Dept of the city. Because I would be working with children (I'm a high school student myself) and an employee of the city, I had to go through a CORY Check (criminal record, etc.).
Admittedly, a CORY is a far cry from a credit check, but you wan't the job don't you? I know this isn't what America supposedly stands for, but if you decline its presumed you have something to hide. So, if you want the IT job (I would) just sign the paper and move on.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
Insurance companies are also using credit scores to help determine rates for auto coverage.
Glad to hear it. Let's be honest and call a spade a spade. People who mismanage their credit are irresponsible! It's a shocker, I know.
Don't forget that the insurance companies have the nasty issues of moral hazard and adverse selection to deal with. Stratedies that help them deal with these problems ultimately mean fairer insurance rates.
This just sucks. I've been unemployed for the last 8 months and as a result some of my creditors are reporting late or partial payments. I was the successful applicant for a recent job opening pending a background check. After it was complete, I found out that I didn't get the job because of my credit. When I tried to explain that I've been out of work for the last 8 months and was doing the best I could. It turned out to be for not. What does my credit have to do with my ability to perform the job?
Oh, just agree to it. But make sure, before you do, you get the COO and the CEO to sign a similar agreement allowing you to perform the same check on them. After all, if the CEO has money problems, s/he could well start embezzling from the company and that could lead to bankruptcy and you could be out of a job.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Im not trying to justify them, just explaining the rationale. The military does the same thing when clearing someone for Top Secret.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
Your credit history is none of their business. When I received one of those for a job, I told them I didn't see any reason for them to run a credit check on a programmer who had no access to any company finances. They agreed. I got the job. If they hadn't of pulled the requirement, I would have refused to position.
I'd refuse a drivers license background check too, unless I was getting a job where my duties included driving.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I recently did a short term stint with a contracting firm (let's call them Rescuexxx, or maybe xxxxxxcom), and they wanted me to sign all kinds of crap. Credit history release form, driver's liscence background check, ect. They even wanted my bank account routing number for some bogus reason about paying for their pager in case I went AWOL. I said "no" to everything.
They put me to work anyway. I quit soon thereafter because their policies reeked; Bill the client, deposit check at contractor's office, then wait (and pray) to get paid. Gave me pirated software to install on client's PCs. Need parts? Buy them yourself and (maybe) we'll reimburse you, ect.
I've encountered this same dilemma, but with drug screening. I was offered a job, but informed that I would have to pass a urinalysis test, before being hired. It would have come up clean, but I still refused.
Even if I could have talked them out of it, I still wouldn't have wanted the job. A company policy like that tells me that I disagree with the comany's sense of "ethics." If they can value an employee's freem so little as to care if they smoke pot, then what other violations of my privacy might I encounter, upon working there?
You obviously disagree with the attitudes of the company. If you take the job, even if they let you bypass the credit check, you will be unhappy for other reasons.
OTOH, the economy sucks, so you obviously have to way your sense of moral integrity against the prospect of ramen & coffee three times a day.
Money I owe, money-iy-ay
Just by challenging their authority to do the background check you have probably eliminated any possibility that they will hire you. It is probably a privacy issue that could be litigated but your attorney will be the only real winner.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If you have good a good credit history I suggest you provide the information then steal from the company, thus subverting their rationale for requiring the credit check.
Yes you will become a martyr, but we will remember you in our prayers. God speed my friend!
Seriously, if you have no other options (other than unemployment or drastic carieer change) then you might be stuck. If you do stay with the job, I would try to impress upon the CEO/COO how such checks are demoralizing and alienating and that this isn't something you typically want to foster in employees, and furthermore, by fostering these emotions you're increasing the likelyhood that employees will be poor producers or steal from the company. Just the thing they wanted to avoid in the first place.
... we will all too happy to get paid 4 cent an hour and the right to say thanks to our firm. There is no way a credit check is saying anything on how good an employe is or if he will steal (obviously not, else why he would be in debt :P). As for the argument about 1000 are willing to take the place so you must bow to every will and desire to the firm, lucky you some people DO NOT BOW, because else you certainly would no get the condition of work you have right now.
My opinion : resist. If they do not want you fine, good ridance, unless you REALLY need the job : the firm doesn't seems that good anyway seeing how it suppose its employee are presupposed evil and bad , whereas they should be considered as a ressource to take care. They probably have a high turn over.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
If you do not agree with the ethics of their mandatory credit check you either need to let them know and move on or compromise/rethink your ethical position.
:)
I had to submit to a background/credit check. It was a small invasion of privacy, but one I was willing to make considering credit card companies are running credit checks on you all the time and you don't even know. In addition it was a finance company, so they want to make sure they are hiring people who know what they are doing with their money. Interesting enough, they are against drug testing.
Once you accept a position at a company you pretty much have to bow down to their rules regardless of you stand on an issue. Like the subject says, a company is not a democracy and is run generally by a few key people. Since you are accepting a Director level position you could always bend your stance a bit to try to get the policy changed in the future. Or you can pick your soapbox up and march on out of there.
AFAIK, this is quite common in financial and related industries. I was required to submit to a credit and backround check for my current job, before I recieved an official job offer. I would think you could tell certain things about a person by their credit history. Mine wasn't spotless, and I was still hired. The generally high level of competance and number of quality employees would seem to indicate that somthing about the hiring process here works correctly. It is a very large company, and has turned out to be one of the better jobs I've had, however YMMY.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
(Note: I work in the US. Other countries may differ).
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?
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
The algoritm they use to determine your credit score is a trade secret, but there are pleanty of people who have talked about it.
For the sake of argument, lets just say I heard this from them. When you do a pull for a full credit report, it drops your score 5 points for a 12 month period. A simple check that credit card companies do to "pre-qualify" you for a credit card doesn't impact your score at all.
What does this mean? If your employer pulls your record, it nicks your score. Thats something places like Lending Tree don't tell you -- and I know a bunch of people who have been bitten by it. Each pull drops your score 5 pts for a year, and the places that send your application to multiple banks cause "n" pulls of your record. If you use Lending Tree and decide that you don't like any of those offers, you may find you *can't* get anything anywhere else, because the 20-25 points your score drops can easily push you out of a desirable range if you don't have not only good credit but a sufficient quantity of good credit.
Again, little birdie told me.
Remember, you can be replaced by an H1-B from
India tommorrow. The program was implemented
by the industry to discipline workers. It has
succeded. No more job hopping. No more
foosball tables. No more flex hours.
We are a "professional, global" industry now.
Just like the Steel Industry.
Pee in a cup? You got to do it. Credit reports? You got to do it. No pay for overtime? You got
to do it.
Remember, you can be replaced tommorrow.
Tell him that you want to see a copy of his credit report, his criminal report and a 50 page bio on his life because you dont just hand your credit report to anyone without proof they are legit.
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....
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
Cheers,
-- RLJ
I heard on the web that this works:
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
> 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.
My apologies to the original poster but, in general, I agree with those points. Of course if credit problems are found the prospective employee should be given the opportunity to explain special circumstances. An extended illness can result in a bankruptcy, for example. But overall I don't think investigating a prospective employee's credit history is any more out of line than investigating their arrest record. It provides information about a person's past performance, which is (more often than not) an excellent predictor of future performance.
If you were hiring somebody to manage your store would you be more concerned with a recent mortgage default or a salary lien for failure to pay child support, or a recent arrest for littering?
To some extent it probably depends on the job. For example I would not expect a grocery store to perform a credit check before hiring a new bagger. But I would expect them to check out the credit history of the new bookkeeper. Wouldn't you worry if the person who handles all of your money is up to their ears in credit card debt? What's the difference between that and somebody who has to manage a departmental budget, or somebody who will be responsible for a large inventory, or somebody who requires an expensive set of tools, or...?
If I am hiring a driver, I want to know about their driving record. If I am hiring a doctor I want to know about previous malpractice suits. And if I am hiring somebody who will be responsible for some of my company's resources, I want to know how well they manage their own.
Good judgement is good judgement. I think there are many ways to measure a person, and their credit history can be a legitimate yardstick.
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.
I pulled a jack move to cop this sig
How bout doing some damage control on your credit so you don't have to worry about it?
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bow down and give me a huuuuuuge signing bonus, I code in VB!
pleeeeeease?!!!
The same thing happened to me when I took a internship. They handed me some form including one that would allow them to do a backgroud check. These forms however were listed as volentary. I of course refused to fill the forms out. The HR lady that had handed me the forms asked why, and I told her it was because it was none of thier business. I would never work for a company that would require such paperwork to be signed. Drug tests are enough of an invasion of privacy.
I think a company should be able to require almost anything before hiring someone. Of course, this is always subject to the laws of supply and demand. When the economy is booming and jobs are plentiful, prospective employess have more "screw you" power. In today's market, the employer has the upper hand.
As for talking them out of it, assuming that they are dead set on requiring this, here's my advice.
1. Make your case for why you are against it. Argue the right of privacy, and argue it as a principle you believe in and live by, not as a preference. Otherwise, why should they give in to your preference over their own.
2. Give them what they really want.
More than likely the goal is to know that they are hiring someone who is not in a desperate financial situation, or who is unethical (if they have other goals, you might not want to work there). Find another way to satisfy their insecurities; they may be willing to accept a more extensive list of references (landlords, previous bosses, etc.) or something along those lines. The important thing here is this: if this is a company policy, you don't want to try to get them to make an exception for you unless you have no other recourse or feel that strongly about it. By explaining why you can't meet the letter of the law, but are willing to meet the spirit of it, you can possibly turn a negative situation into a positive one.
Just my 2 cents, but then, you did ask.
And how did you come to that conclusion? Did they come out and tell you "we didn't hire you because you have bad credit"?
Perhaps you should ask for the credit history of the COO and CEO. After all, you are putting your financial future into their hands, and it should be within your rights to monitor their financial abilities.
On second thought, you should post them here, so we can all offer our expert opinions on them.
The keyword in the question was "Director". As Director you have the responsibility to make decisions that directly affect the health and future of the company. Many companies cannot secure financial backing without proving they have competent Directors running things. Even if you don't want to run you own company read the book from the Rich Dad Advisor's series about owning your own corporation. It will provide insight into the management side of business.
well put and funny.
When I got hired for my job at a financial institution, they did a credit check. It is for their protection against those people who are in bad shape financially, and are a higher risk to steal from the company. It makes it harder for us to hire people, but we don't have many thieves here either.
Are there internet resources where employees can get legal advice? This type of contract law question seems to come up frequently. I suppose you could consult a laywer and fork out $100 or more, but are there other options?
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.
All a union would do is make it so you have zero individual say in the terms of your employment contract. I'm sorry, but I want more control over my life then that. The answer is not to form a union, but to make yourself so desireable as an employee that the hiring company doesn't hold all the cards. If you can't do that then you should be aiming for a job where you can do that instead of whining about it and colectively barganing. I don't understand why everybody thinks they're entitiled to work in whatever field they'd like. Get a job that you're so good at you can negotiate the terms, or suck it up and take what they give you.
Wouldn't this fall under some form of discrimination if they didn't hire you because you didn't opt in to this? You may be able to sue them for discrimination (of some form - IANAL), and at least get some money out of it and more importantly force them to stop doing it. I think this will set a bad precedent. My credit is not the greatest, and it certainly shouldn't be used as a measure of my qualifications for a job.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
It always pays to know your rights. You don't have to let them do the credit check. Of course, they have the right to turn you down for not submitting.
If you handle money, purchases, anything financial in the course of this director level position (the term "director" is subjective at a company with only 40 people, by the way), a credit check is a sound thing to do from their perspective. "Director" at the company where I work means you deal with finances, customer negotiation, resource issues (people and stuff), so I'd hope some sort of personal investigation was done. Think of it from their perspective: if you're looking at two otherwise equally qualified candidates for a position that deals with finances, purchasing, hiring, negotiation, etc., would you hire the one with a clean credit check, or the one who refuses to submit? Watch out for number one, buddy, you'd hire the clean, visible history. You no doubt gave them your address, social security number, phone number, educational and professional history and next of kin, what's one more piece of the puzzle?
Of course, if you're not dealing with finances, what business is it of theirs? If it's a position that may one day deal with finances, I am sure that a determined superior could get to know you well enough to understand your level of responsibility in a friendly, non-confrontational manner. Friends sometimes talk about stuff like this. And if they're this worked up about a piece of paper that you don't feel comfortable sharing, move along.
You have the right to say, "no," but so do they. Weigh the personal cost. If you have something to hide, you have little to lose by saying, "no." If you have nothing to hide, it's the cost of your pride and privacy. How much is this job worth to you?
I was recently hired as a programmer for my state's Tax Commission. Because I deal with sensitive information and the processes that control this information, I was subject to a background and credit check. The logic behind this is simple:
...but did you not know that he/she has been in and out of bankruptcy proceedings, etc, etc, before hiring this person who has now alledgedly stolen _insert monetary value here_?)
First, the agency does not want to hire risks that might directly involve the manipulation of tax information, either by manipulating my own or someone else's.
Second, they would like to avoid the chance that I could be persuaded by others to manipulate any information. If I have a relatively flawless background, then the assumption is that I am less likely to be bribe-able and less likely to end up with an all-points-bulletine on my head.
Third, the agency would not want to end up with egg on its face should anything happen to me.(REPORTER:
Finally (for now), what is your credit report worth to you? Is it worth the possible salary or advancement you will receive during your career? I asked myself that question, and with the many companies downsizing their IT staff, I jumped at this opportunity to work.
By the way, you have nothing to fear if your credit report is good. They can't use that as a reason to fire you. Even if your report is bad, many employers will give you the opportunity to explain yourself or defend it before they kick you out the door.
This is not an issue of privacy invasion. This is a matter of the company covering its butt. In the current business and investor climate, who can blame them?
Anytime you give anyone the right to see your credit report you should make sure to get a copy of it. It can never hurt to go down it and make sure that there are no surprises on it.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Technology is making it harder for us to benefit for the anonymity that we currently enjoy. Eventually it will be like we all live in a small town where _everyone_ knows your business. It is, at the moment, the biggest downside of my otherwise beautiful romance with information and technology. Personally I feel for you buddy, my credit sucks! (But I am a good employee)
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard disk?
The company I work for was found to be checking the credit records of spouses also (scary).
A credit check should be mandatory for every CxO level officer in every public company in the US.
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.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I would say no, or walk away from the job if they pressed the issue. As we allow them to push farther into areas we consider private and continue to say "Well, it's just one more liberty, what the hell" we give them even more firepower for the next round. At what point do we decide as a whole that they have gone too far? DNA tests to see if you are an insurance liability? Psych tests to see how far they can push you before you snap? Will we say no when our employer regulates our premitted foods and hobbies to make sure their asset is safe from accidents or an expensive disease? Now I know I sound like a paranoid freak with a foil cap, but in a Bush world, I've learned that there is nothing too far-fetched to be discounted. Personally, I think they went too far with drug tests, I should be judged on my performance, not what I do on the odd Saturday night. As for you dweebs who say you would take it, give in, and have nothing to hide, thank you very much for perpetuating this system of corporate domination of thier simple little consumo-bot drones. You are exactly the reason we are in this postion in the first place. Now run home and watch American Idol, and make sure to purchase plenty of corporate-branded tripe on the way. In the words of the immortal crew of the Satellite of Love, "We're all gonna die! We're all gonna die!"
Five years ago we would've all said, "Screw 'em! There's billions of jobs out there, and you can get one that doesn't require a credit check and will build you a Lego desk as a perk in your employment contract!
Now we're sitting here thinking, "Oooh, that sucks... but what else is there?"
Damn the venture capitalists for catching clue! Damn them!
As I understand it, any old idiot can perform a credit check on you, without your permission. Your next door neighbor can, with a little effort. Credit card companies looking for new customers do this all the time, unless you go to a lot of work to block them out.
Ask them why they need your permission, not why they want to make this check. If they come up with a real answer, and you can tolerate it, then ok.
Good luck.
I'm extremely surprised that the company didn't let you know up front that a credit check would be part of the pre-employment screening. Their ommission is likely to give you some wiggle room I would expect. A successful credit check was required (as well as the results of my peeing into a cup) before my current company would even consider offering me a job. I didn't balk at all, my credit is in great shape and it is standard operating procedure in my industry (defense) and has been for quite a while. It was accomplished by a third party firm who just say "OK" or "Not OK" to my HR department. My understanding is that the actual report never went into my file.
A few years ago, I took a job with {large company}, and had to submit to a credit check, drug test and criminal record check. I wasn't hugely happy about this, because I did have a mountain of student debt to pay off, and I didn't have anything that would cause me trouble in my record, body, etc, but it still bugged me. Walking out of the drug testing place, though, I got to thinking: This isn't a huge problem for me, but what about the person who has made some mistakes? How the heck to they get any second chances when they're essentially barred from employment for five to seven years (or however long these checks go back)? Seems like a "one strike and you're out" policy.
would you let someone babysit your children without checking them out. You may not run a credit check but the principle is the same. Some people are irresponsible, be it with finances, criminal histories, or child molestation. Your employer has a right to know what he is paying for. I wouldn't hire you just because you hesitate to submit to a background check. I've been working for the govt for seven years and they know EVERYTHING, but I was honest with them and no problems have arisen. just deal with it.
loved the post. but it's the american way, isn't it? we sell out the working class because we have this irrational hope that we too can become millionaires.
So we don't want policies like the estate tax, or subsidized health care, or better worker's rights, or anything else that would redistribute money from the upper tier downward, because we're convinced that it's just a matter of time before we hit it big.
--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits
I work for a university, and the only thing I've signed are my health benefits, my W2's, and my yearly review of my job. No NDA's, no drug tests, no background checks.
I worked for a place before the U, and they droped me into the random drug test bucket.. I let the HR people know how damned offensive it was, but I took the test anyway. I'm kinda glad I don't work there anymore. Even tho I personaly don't do illegal drugs, I don't think a company has the right to tell me what I should or shouldn't do on my free time.
As for NDA's and shit.. I got offered a job working at an ISP, and they wanted me to sign a non-compete clause, and turn over all my ideas/code to the company. I told them to fuck off. As sysadmin I can't just simply develop all my personal tools, and then just give them up. It's my personal toolbox of admin tricks.. I wouldn't ask a car mechanic to give up their home wrenches, just cause he _could_ fix a car outside of work.
Millions of people are looking for jobs. The most of them want to work for someone and don't have the slightest clue they should work for themselves.
That is the difference between the modern world and the world of 200 years ago. Working for yourself, you acheive:
1) Tax exempt status
2) Ability to choose to work at a schedule of your liking
2a)
3) Recognize the importance of business-by-handshake
4) Compelled into fewer contracts
5) ????
6) Honest compensation for your own time (PROFIT!)
But I'm sure you already Gnu that.
The credit history is just one investigative tool that companies can use to try to filter out potential miscreants or incompetents. A bad credit report should probably trigger some questions about the candidate's attitudes about personal responsibility, or ability to manage money (if that is part of his/her job). In many cases, bad credit is not the result of personal irresponsibility or incompetence, but an unexpected medical problem. So it depends.
If an individual's credit report is seen as detrimental by the employer, then the candidate should also be given a copy of the credit report so that he can refute errors, ID theft issues and so on. Labor laws might need to enforce that (a similar provision is in place for credit denial due to one's credit report).
I concur with the suggestions by other posters that some agreements should be in place regarding how the information will be used. Depending on the employer, you may be able to negotiate a more favorable situation. Any contract can be redlined until it is signed.
You could also use this issue as a "test" between you and the employer. By sticking up for your rights, you put them on notice that you are no pushover, which will influence any future negotiations between you and them. Depending on how you conduct the negotiation, the influence could be favorable or detrimental. It's a plus if you are seen as principled and reasonable. It could be a minus if you're seen as an inflexible crank.
At the same time, it's a test of the employer. If they stick to an unreasonable position, do you really want to work for them? I guess it depends on what you want out of the position and how much it depends on mutual good will.
If they're arguing that "your credit history indicates your responsibility as an employee" you should be able to argue that the credit history of your direct supervisor's credit history, and the credit history of every manager up to the CEO will have an impact on the stability of the company you're joining.
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
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
-- RLJ
have you fed a troll today?
Get a job that you're so good at you can negotiate the terms, or suck it up and take what they give you. And then they hand your job to an H1-B, or ship it to India altogether. It's this smug false sense of irreplacability that got us into this mess in the first place.
sounds like military
IANAL, but IIRC from my manager training...there are certain things that employer's CANNOT make as a requirement for employment [that's the EEOC stuff about race, religion, gender, ADA, etc.]. Aside from that, it's pretty much fair game - as long as they don't do any of the 'no-no's' on the list, they can make any stipulations they like.
But on the bright side, everything else is negotiable. Perhaps if, as a technology company, they are sensitive to issues of privacy / control / unreasonable requests [BSA, MSFT, etc.] you could get them to see your view that this is unreasonable. And, if you are really, really good at what you do, they could definitely waive the practice for you [since it's not a legal requirement anyway].
Or you could get them to agree to have your accountant certify your credit is in good standing [and they pay the accountant's fee]...or have them sign a waiver that they are liable for any breaches to your privacy as a result of their credit checks...certify for you in writing the specific people in the company who have seen your report...or that you get a signing bonus if they find your credit history to be good.
It's definitely telling you something about their culture...how they feel about an employee's personal information wrt their company. Maybe it's not for you, if you can afford to not take the job.
Unfortunately, it always seems that in down economies, the draconian policies come out.
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
This frighten me to see such things happen and to see so much people saying "do it, it doesn't matter" or "Welcome to the world"
It is absolutely abnormal and abusive. I know that in France we have a lot of social laws and workers unions that sometime really piss me off, but these draw a clear line between privacy and employers line of sight.
I just see it as a power abuse, that is something they absolutely don't need to know. And no, I don't think there is a relation between your credit scores and your ability to use honestly a corporate credit card.
Just wake up everyone, you were the champions of the freedom in the US and now you look more and more like an autoritarian country!
I'm serious, could you possibly tell today that in no country citizens are more free and better represented in the government?
Go on, flame...
Bring with you a form for your interviewer to sign giving you permission to do a credit check on them, stating as a reason that you want to make sure you'll be working for somebody who's not prone to theivery and who pays his bills. Part of the litmus test you have for potential employers. It probably won't get you hired, but it will make them think.
Granted, I'll be the first to admit a hiring employer needs some degree of verifiable background information about a candidate prior to hiring. Certainly the resume/references/interview/proficiency testing ought to provide 99% of what they (employers) need.
There are as perfectly acceptable explanations for derogatory information on a credit report as there are people with them. And YOU pray you don't have spell of bad luck yourself someday.
But to formulate judgements about a persons job performance and skillset credibility (not cashset credibility)is certainly beyond the scope of need-to-know, unless the jon specifically requires that the candidates OWN FUNDS and/or FINANICIAL AFFILIATIONS are an integral part of the job description.
I don't know what the law says. (Yes I'd like to see members of congress drug tested because then the law would be repealed so fast it would make your head spin), but it's simply unfair and in most if not all cases, not truly necessary.
Thanks
amongus007@yahoo.com
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
If any potential employer asked me for a credit check I
would (literally) tell them to take their job and shove up their a**.
Who wants to work for a company which doesn't trust its employees?
Certainly not me.
I can see your annoyance with your employer's staff having that data. In the DoD world, the clearance process for the higher clearances is very intrusive, but the employer doesn't see the details on individuals - only the DoD clearance people do, and they're not your boss.
I hadn't considered the idea of using a credit check to test a new hire, but it does make a lot of sense. I heard somewhere else that an auto insurance company, Progressive, uses their clients' credit as a good indicator of future risk. They claimed that it was a better predictor of future accident claims than someone's previous driving record.
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.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
It's their company and their money. They should be able to hire or discriminate against anyone they want. If you don't like it, go find another job. If you walk, it's their loss (or is it?). If I want to hire big-breasted hard-bodied women, then I should be able to do that. If I want to hire all Chinese people for my Chinese restaurant I should be able to do that. If I want to hire all white folks for my Swedish restaurant then I should be able to do that also. If I miss out on good black, hispanic, etc. employees then it's my fault! It should not be against the law to be bigoted against X, Y, Z persons.
That insisted that I do company purchases on my credit card. Not small paper clip and pen items mind you, he wanted powerbooks from fry's.
.com i'm happy to say is dead now.
Him: "As an employee/sysadmin it is part of your job to purchase company equipment"
Me: "Well at my last job we set up accounts with local distributors and after a few order we get net 30 terms"
Him: "We have a relationship with a salesman at fry's, he gives us good discounts" (Side note, turned out this salesguy was also a member of the same mormon church my boss was a member of)
Me: "Well CDW has the same stuff for cheaper"
Him: "Fry's will beat that price, now go take your credit card down there and buy my powerbook"
Me: "I'm not using MY credit card to buy a company powerbook, you're crazy"
Him: "If you don't do it i'm bringing it up on your next performance review"
Me: "Yah you do that"
Well the performance review rolled around. Our company was small (maybe 40 employees) and the word got around that my boss had it in for me. The CEO himself had problems with this guy, so he decided to mediate the "performance review"
The three of us sat down in an empty meeting room. He started telling the CEO I was this that and the other thing, he had a manilla folder about an inch thick with every e-mail, note, reciept he had taken on me. He started his attack on me in a slow, steady monotonous voice"
"On 12/4/97 toqer was SUPPOSED to buy my powerbook, I had to miss 3 hours of programming time because he didn't do it" He sat there with a smirk on his face like a little kid that just tattled to teacher.
"WTF MAN! HOW many times do I have to tell you? It's not my place to use MY credit card to purchase company equipment! Thats why you set up corporate accounts and net terms! Or you lease!" I snapped back.
"We aren't talking about you using your credit card, we're talking about your performace, I gave you a task to complete and you didn't complete it, therefore I lost time, which is money" I could tell I had backed him into a corner, now was my chance to get on the attack.
"YOU FSCKING %#@% JERK! I WanT to HELP YOU but you WONT LET ME!, I TOLD YOU I WOULD SET UP TERMS with other vendors, but the only reason you want us to use fry's is because your mormon buddy is our sales rep, real fucking nice putting your church before the company you asshole!" I then gave the CEO a list of alternative vendors and contacts that were willing to give us net30 terms and told the CEO to ask the COO why he flat out refused to let me order from them.
Well, the COO was sort of dumbfounded at that point. He hadn't expected me to mix fact/common sense into my defense. I think he thought he was going to sit there and lecture me, and I was going to curl up into a little ball while he belittled me in front of the CEO, wasn't gonna happen.
After the review I went outside for a smoke, the CEO came up, sat down, lit one up and said "I think you both grew a little in there today" I responded, "Maybe I did, but he's going to be the same.."
He never did change that fuck, eventually we had to fire him because he was just so disruptive and abusive to the rest of the employee's.
One
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.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I worked for a company recently, for about 4 years or so. About 3 years into my employment with them, they had come out with a revised employee handbook (pretty much a set of rules and regulations, etc.) Part of this change they made stated that anything that I had created, that could get a copyright on, *could* be taken from me by my company, if the company deemed that whatever I had created was useful to them. At first I told them I wouldn't sign this, it seemed a bit open ended for being a legal document. When it got to the point where either I signed it, or left, I wrote on the document saying that I do not agree to this but I have to sign it to stay employed. About 3 weeks later, we all got this little note in our paychecks saying that the part of the new policy that I just described above was against the law in the state the company was in, they had to change the wording to say that if I created something that competed against what my company was doing they could say it was theirs. Just goes to show you that corporations might not really check to see if things are legal before trying to do so...
This has been in practice a long time for some industries so its nothing new.
They even do investigative checks ( a bit more then a simple background check ) if you are going to oversee something of relevance.
Now with the new 'anti terrorism' attitude, this will only increase to the point that even to flip burgers you will have to agree to a background investigation.. So get used to it... your only alternative is don't work ( there )..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You're confusing what the employer can do with what it should do. What it can do depends on the law, what it should on common sense and leverage.
There are limits, you do have some privacy rights as an employee. They can't surreptitiously tape your phone calls or videotape you in the bathroom, even if it reveals you're violating company policy.
People used to be a lot more upset about drug testing and I think it's a shame they gave in. Mandatory credit checks are similar. It's not that they're never relevant to employment, rather that is they become routine that we've lost one more bit of privacy for no good reason, and it will be too late to complain. "Because we do it to everyone" or "because it might turn up something interesting even though we have no clear policy on how we interpret these things and we made an offer you accepted without warning you we're a bunch of turkeys on a fishing expedition."
I'm thinking that your stance is partly abstract principle, not just concern for your individual privacy. If so, I think that's laudable.
You get an idea what I'd argue, though more diplomatically. I think it's a big deal that you accepted their offer -- it legalese, you relied on their offer -- only to face a condition of employment that (for the moment anyway) is atypical and invasive. They changing the conditions of your employment after the agreement was struck.
Odds are this is just a poorly thought-out policy that seemed good at the time. If you still want to work for them you need to work with them to help them see whay a credit check is not just invasive, but potentially risky for you if the report should fall into the wrong hands. The other poster who got his employer to set out in writing how the report should be handled was very clever.
I would expect them to destroy the credit report as soon as they had reviewed it to their satisfaction. I usually ask for a credit report on tenants but see no reason to keep it after scanning for red flags like bankruptcy.
I should throw in that your area might has specific laws concerning privacy and credit checks. An attorney could clear that up quickly.
First-- if an employer is serious about finding a good match for their company, your slashdot posts can give an indication of your communication skills, your interests, and what other technical people think about your information.
Second-- there's a lot more information about you available on the net that you may not want employers to evaluate. These days, your credit report may be the least of your privacy concerns. It can be interesting to Google your coworkers to see what turns up.
And if you're my employer reading this, thanks for the job! You're the best! :-)
Cheers,
Joel
A. Jobs are really hard to come by these days, so I would just bite the bullet and let them do it.
B. If you sign paperwork saying you will do it, and you don't you have no foot to stand on.
C. If it is a company-wide policy that does not discriminate, and there is no law against it, then you can cry "right to privacy!" from the unemployment line, or better yet, I'll take the job.
D. Companies are evil, life sucks, get used to it.
I hate sigs.
If you are that concerned with the company's practice of doing credit checks, why are you willing to even take a job with the company? No one is forcing you other than you need for food. The company has a valid point - although not always true, people with poor credit are more likely to be a poor employee. This is a privacy issue sure, but if you want the job, frankly you just need to deal with it. Remember, when you are getting a job you are attempting to sell your skills to them. They don't have to buy your product, and you don't have to sell your product to them. For whatever reason they think poor credit might be the equivalent of a poor product, so if you wanna sell your product, just let them do the credit check.
Derek Greene
Maybe not even higher up.. In my area, a programmer working at Fort Monmouth set up a porn website using govt money and the govt T1, and was eventually busted. You dont' have to be an exec to embezzel.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your loan officer is obviously in the wrong field then! Certain inquiries can and DO damage your credit score.
c redit.shtm l
Sorry, no linking today, I'm feeling lazy....
http://www.donchasemortgages.com/links_
http://www.techtv.com/news/internet/story/0,24195, 3375434,00.html
love is just extroverted narcissism
I think the story the COO told you was a bit bogus, usually companies that are requesting the background check care little about your credit history.
The real purpose for the credit check is that the credit companies, Experian, TransUnion & Equifax, keep all your previous addresses that you've used over the past 7 years to apply for credit. (Side note: you can dispute this information just like you can dispute anything else on your credit report)
What the background investigation company does is take those addresses and run a local records check in those cities where you've lived previously (or rather applied for credit in). They can also search in surrounding cities and possibly even the counties - but the cost of the check goes up with the more in-depth they search.
The obvious result is a more comprehensive criminal background check. They can see that you've got an outstanding warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket in the state you used to live in, for example. Or you moved from a certain state because you had a criminal record. Or you are a parolee that was convicted of murdering your mother, and moved to a new state to evade your probation as was discovered by a company I used to work for. They got rid of him pretty quick.
Good Luck!
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Looks that way - Well, All I can say is Deal with it. This law got passed in 1996, it essentially ended my programming career (at least in mormal employment terms), and it is just forcing me to go more underground or "under the table" to obtain work.
In My case, it was health and criminal background issues.
Also Insurance costs have a lot to do with it.
Ok, I see from a moral stand point how a person would refuse a credit check by an employer, but if I were an employer, I would credit check the hell out of my employees. Credit checks really are helpful in giving you a indication of how reliable a person is. Now granted, they're not 100% accurate, and people can get messed up credit from something like large medical bills they cannot possibly pay, but generally a person with jacked up credit is usually a more risky employee. The ovbious connection most people make is bad credit = untrustworthy and more likely to steal, which is sadily true enough to make it a widely accepted assumption. Also, if you have access to trade/government secrets, you are assumed to be more likely to try to sell said secrets to competitors/foreign governments. Take Brian Patrick Regan who is a retired Air Force Master Sgt., and who's currently accused of trying to sell military secrets to Iraq, Libya and China for $13 million. Guess what? His credit was jacked to the tune of about $100,000 in credit debit. If you join the military, they credit check you, and rightfully so. Also, whenever I worked at Ford Credit, they ran credit checks on you because you had access to about a million people's social security numbers and almost all their other personal information, so their was a potential for identity theft. Everyone there had good credit, and there was no identity theft. Concidence? Maybe, but it still didn't happen.
And besides, it's just a credit check. I mean, Jesus, it's the same thing as if you apply for a credit card. Just let them do the stupid credit check, if you really feel so bad about it, you might be in a position to get it removed from future employees hiring processes, there by helping others in your same prediciment. And if nothing else, at least you'd have a job, and a pretty good one from the sound of things. Something I'm sure many of us would just about kill for by now.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
Most companies pay in arrears, based on some pay period. Since you are effectively offering them credit to the value of your paycheck each pay period, I would accept the terms ON THE BASIS, that they provide you with a D&B or similar credit report on the company. Should that report turn out to be insufficient, you could always insist that they pay you in advance instead.
Surprisingly enough most people seem to think it is ok for a company to ask for a credit check.
Just because the unemployment rate is up doesn't necessarily mean that employees should just bend over and let the company they work for/ want to work for have their way with them.
While we are at it why don't we return to the old English custom of letting the Lords (The company CEO) being the first to sleep with a wife of a newly married couple.
Respond with that fact that every time a credit check is done against you, your credit score it lowered. Imagine if this started insisting that they do a monthly or weekly credit check to identify which employees might defraud them.
I could see interesting privacy issues to come up as well. What if some manager reads in CIO that the best sales people are agressive and agressive people usually have lots of speeding tickets. Will some companies have an unoffical quote of 2 speeding tickets in order to get the job?
This sounds an awful lot like the drug testing argument.
Here's the deal. (first, I should state that IANAL). Your prospective employer is well within their rights to require a credit check...the same way that they're well within their rights to require a drug test, or even going so far as insisting that their employees be non-smokers if they want to.
They're a private company and you're a private individual -- you both have your policies, and if they conflict, I'm afraid that your only recourse is to agree to disagree and simply part ways. I suppopse that if you have some serious fuck-you money you can hire an attourney and sue for class/financial discrimination or something...but I feel that this is just on a similar level as pre-employment credit checks and drug testing.
FWIW, I think that this type of checking crosses the same line that drug testing does (I could write a book on the evils of mandatory workplace drug testing). Its simply none of their business, and further, the results yielded sill show no discernable effect on your performance. If nobody would take a position at companies with disagreeable hiring policies, the world might be a better place. However, you need to keep in mind that there will always be someone who is happy to submit to the checks and take on the position that you wouldn't. This is especially true in a depressed economy such as the current one. Take a look at how quickly companies are able to take on scabs during a strike.
The bottom line: If you're jobless and desperately need employment -- now might be a good time to compromise your principles. If you've got a good job, are in a good job market, or have sufficient funds to hold out -- explain that it's none of their business and your conditions are non-negotiable...and if need be, just walk away. Just remember not to burn your bridges behind you.
I wish you the best of luck.
-Turkey
If it is for a position at a bank or financial institution or even an online financial solutions provider - yes, they all do this.
But a typical job, I would absolutely refuse. And I'd also start looking up laws against employers finding out this information.
The thing that grabs me the most about your predicament is the fact that they didn't tell you about this until after you accepted the position, quit your previous job, and walked into the office on the first day of work.
I don't see any other choice but to submit to this check.
If they run the check and it comes out O.K., you're set.
If they fire you, get a good lawyer and sue.
Knowing about the credit check might have influenced your decision to take the position, as this appears to be a condition of employment.
Instead they ommitted this fact and may fire you if you don't pass. That sounds like misrepresentation to me.
Call a lawyer.
Just because they own the joint doesn't mean they get to violate your privacy however they want. The fact that such invasions are commonplace only makes it more clear that we need to start standing up to protect our personal information.
For employment purposes, the only relevant part of your past is your employment history. All sorts of private info can be gleaned from credit reports. Medical information for you and your family. Marital history. Hobbies. Vacation spots. Sexual preferences.
I guess what I'm saying is that YOU own your life, no matter who employs you. I'd tell them that if they like me, my interview(s), my references, and my resume, hire me. If their HR department is so poor at determining good employees from that wealth of information, how good are they at their jobs?
required me to take the MMPI. When I saw it
I walked out. That was too intrusive and personal.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - I
believe.
Motorola in Austin, TX (what used to be Metrowerks) tried to get me to sign a similar document in combination with a job offer in 2000.
I didn't sign it (and didn't take the job for several reasons).
why the credit chekc after you hired?
Sounds like the company wants a documented written get out of jail card when they fire any employee by saying later that they had to becuase of a credit check..
I would be leary of this if they did not do a credit check as part of the interviewing process..
Do not in any terms sign this agreement!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Every state/city is different, but whenever you join any club, organization, get a permit, get a license, there is a back ground check. A Credit Check is always (or just about always) done. I remember when I got my CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permit, the county did a simple credit check. The only reason I knew that happened was it was on my credit report sheet that my morgage broker had that I looked at (and I wasnt suppose to - but she was not in the room and she did not tell me not too). So it happeneds all the time, you just dont know about it.
If this is really an issue for you, talk to your lawyer (or a lawyer) about it. If the company is giving you either a company CC or company checks, then there is no way out of it.
Scott
Scott
janitor
sdn website family
email: scott at sboss dot net
Right, because it's so much better when the union steals of your dues to buy vacations, and jewelry? Fuck that.
sulli
RTFJ.
Yes, another step towards class society based on distrust and total control, not by government, but by society itself, through private companies... it's going to be as bad as in the 19th century, soon.
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.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
The finances of the CEO and COO are FAR more important to you than your finances should be to them. I would agree to let anyone do a credit check on them as long as you personally have permission to do a credit check on the CEO, the COO and anyone that has permission to see your finances. P.S. Excessive Credit Checks can give you bad credit. So their attempt to look at your credit could itself damage your credit. P.P.S. While honesty is good, refusing to aid the peeping toms of this world is better. They have no right, and you got no business asking him "what he is hiding" Mind your own business.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Um, actually, I don't even think it's that unusual. If you're interviewing at a company in a high-risk sector, you're perfectly entitled to ask for a look at the company's balance sheets for some reassurance that they'll actually be around in a few years to keep you employed. That's one of those "question" things that people are always saying you should ask during interviews, and an important one at that. Most employers would probably be impressed that you thought about it at all, actually. It shows a concern for the health of the overall company, not just your personal bank account; they like to see that sort of thing
On a related note: These days, with the telecom industry in such disarray, I routinely ask for financial verification from contractors or local exchange providers when we're evaluating services. Usually, they just respond with some favorable clippings from the trade press, but it's better than nothing, and I'm sure if I wanted to, I could see their balance sheets, though I might have to agree to an NDA of some sort.
Some food for thought.
Look up this valuable info, and present the results to your prospective employer. Then if
they deny you, File with EEOC and Labor board.
You WILL have a case, plain and simple
While I was outraged when first reading the story, my mind was changed by a comment that a /. user made.
/., go ahead and let them dig through your closets for those unpaid utility bills!
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.
I think you've put yourself in a no win situation. Even if you take them to court and win your privacy rights, they're going to think you have something to hide (or they'll just be pissed off) and find a reason to fire you. It's good to see someone standing up for their rights, but I think it's gonna cost you in the end. Best of luck.
Simple solution to the problem:
Ask them to show you the business's income statement and balance sheet in return for you showing them your credit report.
Their reaction might be a good indicator of what kind of company you joined.
(Tongue and Cheekiness aside...)
Most legitimate companies require this for director level and up. It is fully required for public companies. This is a matter of your role as a public symbol of the company. Nobody cares if Joe Blow IT guy has bad credit, but somebody with fiduciary responsibility or who is seen in the public eye has to have a higher standard. If you're not willing to quit, you shouldn't even rebuff the request for the credit check. It's that kind of whining that instantly tells me to reconsider the hire. I would probably just nip this in the bud if I were the COO and nullify the hiring. Nothing personal, but you're free to leave and the company is free to find someone else.
I don't really see how your credit rating is any business of an employer in the majority of the cases. A lot of folks have been stating how economic conditions are bad and jobs are at a premium. This in itself is an issue, companies essentially use these time periods to get away with murder. The question begs, even if other companies are doing this is it still right? There are a lot of reasons people can get into bad credit problems, I know quite a few people who through no fault of thier own ended up with bad credit ratings, usually because they dared to fight erroneous charges, mistakes in billing, etc. Not to say there are not those out there that have no clue as to how to balance thier spending. But having been laid off last year, making the payments on bills for such simple things as FOOD were hard enough at times. In short, credit ratings tell squat about a person in most cases and penalize those who are responsible adults that had a spat of bad luck. Just because an employer(s) can get away with something or have doesn't mean that we should allow them to get away with it.
From a legal point of view the current situation is that no employer can force any employee to consent to any type of credit or background check.
If an employer threatens to terminate your temporary or permanent employment if you excercise your right not to consent to such a check he is acting against the law and you should immediately contact your attorney as well as the appropriate authorities and organizations: Chamber of Commerce, Better Business Bureau, etc. That is particularly the case if you have already started working for an employer but it also applies to people who are employed for a "probation period" as well as prospective employees and even job applicants.
Irrespectively of that there are a number of good reasons never to consent to any type of credit or background check even if you have excellent records. It would give an employer an excuse to terminate your employment for any reason at any given time.
Another question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to work for a company that is using shady and illegal practices towards their employees? If a new position begins with such requests it is certainly not a good sign.
=> Never consent to any type of credit or background check and make clear that you are aware that such requests are against the law and that you are ready to take legal action.
The fact of the matter is, if you are going to be in charge or having ANYTHING to do with money, your credit report DOES matter.
If you are involved with money and have problems with it, and it happens at work, the company could be liable (neglegent). This is a case of an employer covering their rear ends.
So, what you should do in this situation is to be responsible (with money in the first place) and honest (about problems you've had in the past). It'll take you a lot farther than creating a stink.
Dag! There you go. Badmouthing the President of Unitey States! You're a terrorist, ain't ya? Everyone knows terrorists got lots of money! That's how they attrack attention to theyselves, payin they bills on time and blowin' stuff up.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Request to see their own credit history. Demand access to the companie's books. ALL OF 'EM. Tell them you require this of all new potential employers, because you wish to ensure that what happened to the employees of Worldcom, Enron, et. al. doesn't happen to you.
They can see your financial situation when you can see theirs. Sounds fair to me.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Are you kidding? The only reason I've got good credit / finances is because I steal from the company.
Make sure that your employment agreement -- the contract between you and your potential employer clearly states that they will fully disclose all documents they expect you to sign as a condition of employment at least two weeks prior to your start date. And that the signing of any undoclosed documents cannot become a condition of employment for at least two years.
I thought that any conditions upon which employment was contingent had to be disclosed prior to hiring. Every time I've taken a job, the various invasions of privacy to which I'd be subject were known before I got there.
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.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
I can understand the privacy issues on this, but there are some cases where it is a necessity.
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?)
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.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
For all the other students out there who may work at a school's bookstore or computer store, Barnes and Noble owns many of these stores and requires that all students applying hand over their credit report. As a student you're just starting out so your credit will probably be just about perfect, but what right does Barnes and Noble have to collect students records like that? If we refuse now, we might save our rights as employees later on. There's no reason for corporations to try to enforce "complacency" in the work force with regards to their employees personal records.
Ah, the jealous song twittered by the wretched when they see someone brought down towards their level.
I never understood this, or the notion that the chief joy of ascending to Heaven is the knowledge that others are in Hell. Then again, I just want to do what I do and be left alone.Obviously, you have too much money in savings.
1. Those who have option to say no and walk away.
2. Those who don't have that option.
Why it is that many companies prefer no 2 kind of work force?
Dyslexics have more fnu.
You mean you really didn't have all the documents you were expected to sign in front of you before accepting the position?
Sounds like a lack of doing all your homework to me.
The company must prove that a credit report is necessary. Most companies can't do that. But, it requires you to take them to court over it.
I'd get out now. A 40 person company has a COO AND a CEO AND a Director? Jesus, are there any employees? Sounds like bad business.
Either their running credit checks on potential employees is illegal where you are, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then it doesn't matter whether anyone else has negotiated their way out of such a requirement. It only matters whether or not you can do so with this employer.
If they insist on a credit check, either sumbit or don't work there.
I interviewed for a position (a few years ago) at Airborne Express and was told that Airborne used to require all potential delivery drivers to take drug (pee) tests as a part of the hiring process. Only potential delivery drivers were subject to this.
Well, one potential driver candidate sued and won a case against Airborne Express. He argued that it was unfair that only drivers were submitted for Drug Tests. The Judge agreed and ever since every potential hire at Airborne now has to take a pee test.
Dolemite
Save the World! Use a Quote!
I've always wondered about the credit checks. I mean they really can't ask you about religion, or your age, or your ethnicity (other than what they can see). But I've always felt a credit check was a way to get around that? Can't they see all the things I've bought and deduce a lifestyle and ergo deduce a profile of me?
Case in point (all transactions on my credit card):
a) monthly auto pay to Church of Latter Day Saints, deduction: probably a very moral person who wouldn't let us get away with our funny accounting.
b) two large charges to 'The Gold Cups Gentlemens Club', deduction: probably a sex fiend and we are definitely staving off a sexual harrassment claim.
c) several purchases from Last-Stand Guns 'n Ammo a dealer of surplus Army weapons, deduction: guy is a white supremecist looking for a corporation to target.
d) monthly auto-pay to 'feed the children', deduction: guy is a sucker and is easily influenced by marketing.
Reminds me of the article with the Tivo making assumptions based on what you watch.
Final point: dude, in this economy with tech folks out of work, there are plenty of folks willing to subject to all sorts of humiliation for your job, so don't stand there and bitch about something so trivial. At least you get to eat tonight.
Laters,
Airrage
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
I simply told that them since the identity I was using when applying was stolen, I didn't think I should be held responsible for any bad credit on someone else's credit report.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
"I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record." - Violent Femmes.
More flamebait than troll, really, but otherwise about right.
(Yeah, I know, it's gauche to comment on your own posts' moderations, but people spend so much time bitching about unfair moderation that I think we should occasionally take time to point out good moderations.)
News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.
I would tell them, politely, that you are unhappy about the policy. That said, how far to go beyond that is dependent on the risk you are willing to take, and how badly you need the job.
In December of 2000, my company tried to make me sign a non-compete. I had already been working there for over 1.5 years. Most people that had started since then had already had to sign one, but since I was one of the first ten in the company I was never asked.
I refused. At the time, the economy was starting to go downhill, and this was only a week or two after my companies first layoff. But the job market was still much better than it is today. And at the time I had a boss that would stand up for us. Heck, he enjoyed making political battles with HR or any other department. So, it was no problem.
We were bought out shortly after that, and the new company tried to make us sign NDA's. Most of us refused.
A few months ago, the company started cracking down, and now all of us have signed them. Why? The economy sucks. Layoffs have become an everyday occurrence, and I think the exec's have a party to celebrate the burn rate reduction when anyone quits. So, we're all conformists now.
When the economy gets better, we'll have the upper hand again.
Hmmm, a Director position you say? I say stand your ground and fight the good fight!
By the way, could you please give me the phone number of the human resources office?
Doing a credit check is completely reasonable given certain jobs.
Lets say you have a job where industrial espionage, or just plain spying is a risk.
If you have bad credit it is one indication that you may not
be trust worthy. It gives someone one avenue to try to
get information from you. They offer you some money for this "minor" information.
If you need the money, it is more likely that is all it will take.
For most jobs this is probably not the case, but for some jobs it is
very important to make sure that your emplyees are unlikely to be
turned by just money.
With my current jobs, requirement for a credit check wasn't even
something that made me think twice. The background check has been
must more thorough that just a credit check. (interviewing people who
have known me, checking past addresses, finger print check, interview on anything turned up, etc.)
And in this case it was perfectly reasonable, and I would have been
worried if they hadn't done it.
Okay, here's the deal. You're up the creek with out a paddle for the most part. Most states allow the employer to screw with the employee all they want. That's bad. MANY states make it so you can ONLY screw with people you've offered a job in writing too. So in MN, my home state, no pee spree, no credit check with out a written offer.
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.
Yeah... It'd be great if the original poster, say, just accidentally posted his ex's SSN and DOB here... ;) I've got a lunch break coming up and I'm kinda bored...
Credit checks for job applicants are par for the course these days, becoming more of an issue as you go up the pay scale. However, it sounds like you already have the job, so why worry? They want this information to cover their asses if something ever does go wrong -- with you, with the company, whatever. This is standard HR practice these days. Investors/owners would consider not doing it to be mismanagement, so they do it.
I recently heard on NPR about more and more companies doing the sme thing. More information can be found here. I seem to remember that it was against the law for a company to deny emplyment soley on the bais of ones credit history.
When the only tool you have is an ax, every problem looks fun.
What noone has mentioned is that he says he is a director of the company. Now, in reality, people get all kinds of titles and it may not mean what it implies, but a director has legal standing to act as part of management. This includes incurring financial liabilities for the company. Of course you should check out the credit of someone in that capacity.
My take on credit checks is that although the argument that your credit history could indicate a greater chance of you stealing yada yada/...,
It doesnt take into account things like, oh, i had unplanned troubles in my life that needed payed for and my credit suffered as a result. What i do in my time has no impact on the company. If they (COO and CEO) want to institute this kind of bullshit, lets look at the choices they have made in their finances. Such as stocks purchases, cause afterall, if they cant manage a good personal portfolio, how can they be good for my company at seeing the trends of the industry??
It all comes down to bullshit plain and simple.
...and we actually withdrew a job offer recently because the guy failed the credit check. As it's a financial services business, there is some justification for this. In an IT business, maybe less so.
Look, I can see why this might be a problem for those of you who have been forced to look for work in a downturning economy. But remember, it was you who made the choice to buy that house, to get a new car every few years, to have the nicest things. Nobody is forcing you to go through ANY of this backgroud check crap, but you think you 'have to' because you are so accustomed to your consumer lifestyle and want to continue it.
You would be suprised at the small amount of money it takes to live well if you make the right choices.
Am I holier than thou, of course not! Am I complaining about background checks for a meaningless job, of course not! You make the call
I agree that credit checks and overall background checks are invasive. From the employeers point of view it makes their job easier to filter out "bad" candidates. I personally have ad top secret background checks and a polygraph. I don't believe either of then MADE me a better candidate.
I am a strong believe in privacy, but this is a hard subject. I would run your credit privatly, and have an acredited state notiry return a rating, without including specifics of your history.
One of the best suggestions I've seen here. If they demand your report on the grounds that they want a measure of the trustworthiness of a potential hire, turn it around and politely request the credit reports of every single person who would be above you in your prospective position, from the immediate supervisor on up to the CEO -- on the grounds that you'd also like to evaluate the trustworthiness of the people for whom you would be working.
Why should an employer need to know my personal financial situations. There should be no reason for an employer to have to know what kind of credit problems I have had in the past. The only reason you should give anyone any sort of allowance for a credit check is in the case of if you will end up owing them anything. That is stupid.
I would ask for documentation on how they are going to use the information and take them to a laywer for advice.
Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
Since you said they let you know about the credit check, etc, after they offered you employment and you accepted, you can probably tell them to shove it.
Since you accepted their offer of employment w/out a credit check, you are under no obligation to have the credit check done. Furthermore, by requesting the credit check, and pressuring you into it, they are creating a hostile work environment. If I were you, I'd go talk to a lawyer and see what kind of an action you can bring against them. After all, why work for a dumb company, when you can get a settlement from a dumb company?
Need a Catering Connection
And from the article 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, ...
So the level on the food chain has nothing to do with it.
Under NO circumstances should you accept joint liability for a corporate card. NEVER DO IT. Do not put personal expenses on a corporate card either. It's just a bad idea to let your personal credit report be at any risk based on, for example, late payment by your accounting department (would have happened to me had I mixed my expenses).
sulli
RTFJ.
To me any special condition of employment like this (including any type of check, test, etc) needs to be communicated before an offer has been accepted in writing. It is to both parties benefit - employer doesn't start paying someone they are might find they need to terminate quickly; applicant doesn't terminate other options until the position is real. The latest it seems ethical to inform on something like this is accompanying a written offer letter with the offer contingent on it. Again, that only makes sense for both parties. During a final interview is an even better time to do this - even less effort wasted if something is going to be a no go.
Most company's I've ever interviewed at are up front about this sort of thing - from drug testing to an unusual confidentiality agreement (this was sent with the offer letter; when I said I couldn't sign it, they negotiated it - it turned out one or two other people had raised issues with it previously. All this happened before the offer was accepted, while I could pursure other options - including not having given notice at my prior job).
(One company that concealed an unusual vacation restriction even though I specifically asked about vacation policy during interview led to my immediate resignation when I found out about the doublecross. They were not happy - they had done a big search for me. Hope they learned not to deceive during interviews - they wouldn't tolerate from an applicant if they could help it.)
I did a small amount (2 minutes worth) of research on your behalf, and came up with this. Basically, in summary, employers can refuse to hire you for any stated reason that does not pertain to age, sex, race, or religion (disliking a person is a legally valid reason to not hire that person) -- and there is no legal protection against an employer using your credit history against you. You are entitled to a free copy of the report they obtain as well as the name, telephone number, and address of the credit agency that provided the report, but the only right you have outside of that is to try to correct any errors in your report.
I went to buy something from the local Ritz Camera. I wanted to use a debit card -- money comes straight out of my account. Chain policy is apparently to call some place (in Florida, I think) to find out my credit record, even for debit cards. Being just out of college, I had no record at all. That's not good enough for Ritz: you need a good record, not no record. Even though it's a debit card, not a credit card, so there was no doubt I had the money. Common sense took a lashing, and they refused to sell to me. Of course, I returned the favor and refuse to (try to) buy anything from them now.
Problem: Some people don't make enough to live off of.
Solution: Write a law that makes sure everyone makes at least $50K a year.
Problem: Not everyone has medical insurance.
Solution: Write a law that makes sure all insurance companies cover everyone for free.
Problem: Not everyone can afford to own a car.
Solution: Write a law to make sure the government buys everyone a car!
I'm guessing you see where I'm going with this. Whenever you mess with the law to try to make things "fair" you end up trampling on the rights of others. If I were a small business man, I should be able to require a credit check of the people I'm going to hire. I see no reason why that right should be taken away.
If someone has such a problem getting a job, do you think they should be standing on principle against a minor invasion of privacy and not get the job? The company can't do it without their permission, isn't that "fair" enough?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
They do have the right to do a credit check as a condition of employment.
They are required to tell you if something on the credit report caused you to NOT be hired; and then you have a right to a (free) copy of the credit report.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
And then they hand your job to an H1-B, or ship it to India altogether. It's this smug false sense of irreplacability that got us into this mess in the first place.
If the person in India has the skills to do the job just as well, is the person in India less deserving of that job than you? Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? If you're not truly irreplaceable, and somebody who costs less than you comes along, then you should be replaced.
While I would refuse on principle (unless my position was in control of money and spending), another option is to request the same of them. You would want to see their books and spending habits (do they blow thousands of dollars on management moral sessions). It's a two way street. If they want to get that involved in how your life is run, then you have every right to expect to be able to inspect their books.
If the salary for the job in question is over $150k, there are even greater ramifications of this. They can do a financial background check in addition to what appears on your credit report, and anything they find can be reported to the credit agencies, and appear on your report *forever.* That's right, not 7 years, or 10 years as with bankruptcy, but forever.
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.
I work for a municipal government in Southern Ohio. We are not required to consent to any sort of credit check at all - unless we work for the finance department. If we are involved in the Finance or Tax divisions of the City Administration - even if as a secretary - we have to demonstrate good credit. City Law sets forth standards, intended to protect the "Health, Safety, and General Welfare" of the city by promoting "Fiscal Responsibility in City Administrative Staff." I'd say it's illegal, except that we write the laws.
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
Then sign it or get another job.
There is a little known fact that you can PASSWORD protect your credit records thus preventing random credit checks (eventhough you signed a document authorizing the check) without a password, the credit agencies will not release the information.
All you need to do is to call the credit record agency and report that you might be a victim of identity fraud and out like to place a password on your accounts.
Worked for my brother, works for me.
I'm getting so sick of this moronic attitude:
No, society does not require that of you at all. If you can't wait to save for an education, or save for a house, or save for a car, then do without them. It's an individual's problem if they are too compulsive to ever save for the things they want. Society DOES promote this sense of immediate self-gratification, but no where is this a requirement.
As for utilities, they will take a deposit if you have no or bad credit. This assures them that if you don't pay for a month (since you pay for the electricity AFTER you use it), they won't end up with the short end of the stick. I had to put deposits down on all sorts of things when I first started out on my own and had no problem with it. Eventually (usually after a year) they give it back once you've proved you are a reliable customer.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Those tips work on drugs tests, this is a credit test.
A drug check? A references/background check? A criminal check? What is the price you will pay for employment? When I worked at UPS, they insisted on a criminal check to weed out package stealers. So a criminal could never work there. Neither can a reformed citizen. Also, with the economy the way it is, would you turn down a job for a moral stand? I know I couldn't. Remember that employment is voluntary on both fronts; you choose to work for them and they choose to keep you around.
If I go to Amsterdam or Algeria, do the local drugs *which are legal there*, and return home to a drug test, have I broken a law? Whose?
In effect, your employer does lend you money. Many employers issue a credit card to employees. That is a blank check to screw the company.
Time for a couple of analogies:
If I sign a blank check and anyone abuses it, then most people would agree that I'm an idiot.
If I don't want my dad to use my credit card, then I don't give him access to it. He's family, but why allow it when it's not necessary (think network security).
As an employee, you are an agent of the company, and you can call up another company and order some things.
Lax restrictions to company assets is the company's fault. As an alternative, many companies will use a reimbursement procedure, which means that you'd better be certain that the company will pay you back for your expense.
If someone was going to have that authority with your credit card or checking account, wouldn't you want to know about their credit history?
Fine, restrict the credit check to those individuals that will be expected to purchase directly for the company. For the question at hand, everyone has their credit checked.
[cliche]If everyone were to jump off a bridge... [/cliche]
This is not my sig.
To make a short story short, I told the interviewer to get bent, and I would be taking a position with someone else.... A credit check counts against you and your credit score. Not to mention it is none of their business....
Got Code?
I ran into this situation with my current job. I work for a telemarketing company, and I had to sign a disclosure allowing a background and credit check. One of our clients is "the largest issuer of Visa cards" in the United States. We deal with the credit card and checking account information of their cardmembers on a daily basis. In this case, I think they are certainly within their rights to make sure they are not (a) hiring someone with bad credit and/or a history of fraud that may be inclined to use this information for their own gain and (b) hiring someone who has an outstanding debt with this company. I'm sure this Visa issuer doesnt want to be paying Joe Smith to make calls if he has a bad debt of $20k with them.
It not only applies to the Visa issuer either. We also do fundraising for various christian, political and charitable organizations, again using either credit card and checking information.
You dont want someone ganking the credit card numbers of these cardmembers / donors and using or selling them. It would ruin both the companies and the clients reputations, and it will most likely cost them the client.
If the company has that much of an investment riding on you, they should have the right to a background and credit check.
How could you prove this? They can always say it was because of something else, or that they just liked the other candidate better.
-m
... and define "Middle Class" for me. I am currently living in Canada and I can't quite see that much of a difference.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
people who cannot manage their own finances may not be good employees
Or...a good employee is the one that is expected to work 12 hour days and have no time left over to manage his own finances
It's fairly standard for all employees. I know of several (Very) large US corporations which do credit checks on all employees... IT workers, secretaries, managers, everyone.
It's a condition of employment.
Once again, someone tries to use "Ask Slashot" as a substitute for advice from an actual professional in the field of employment law...
First off, throw the "you don't want to work for a company that would treat its employees like that" comments out. The company doesn't want your credit report so they can spy on you and ruin your personal life. They want it because they believe it will be a legitimate tool for gauging your fitness for the position. You disagree. In the scheme of things, this is minor. Neither side is Evil.
I would guess that the company would like you to work for them, because (smart) companies don't hand out offers for Director-level positions willy-nilly. You've made it this far; it's likely that they'd be willing to concede at least partly if you press them to. Their chief argument for requiring you to abide by this policy is "everyone else has to". Doesn't sound to me like they're as firm on this point as they seem to be.
The company certainly has a lawyer, and that lawyer certainly was involved in the drafting of the policy requesting credit checks, and most likely consulted as soon as you indicated a reluctance to agree to that clause. If you don't have a lawyer of your own to help argue your side of the dispute, then you're at a disadvantage.
That movie you rented from the adult video store and "lost" might just come back to haunt you. Plus the $400 bucks worth of 900 number calls that your gay roommate made and you refused to pay. It's all there plain to see on your credit report. After all it all points at your "character" and "trustworthiness". Bah!
I'm sure that someone looking at my credit report would assume that I'm an abusive father/husband for all the emergency room collection bills out there.
I don't think that there's any proof/correlation between credit risk and any other issues. I know people who are majorly screwed up drunk bastards with racist tendencies that have exemplary credit. Show us the proof. Even the insurance companies have gotten in the habit of checking your credit. What a crock.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Credit reports do not only show to whom you owe money. They list everyone else who has asked for your credit history (landlords, other prying employers, car dealers, banks, etc.), as well as anyone from whom you have borrowed money. It will also list present or former spouses/partners/co-borrowers, your past or present addresses, as well as any court judgements made against you, and the balance, and payment history of any mortgage, loan, line of credit, or credit card.
Is it even legal to ask for such a disclosure as a condition of employment?
They should have done this before they hired you.
If they fire you, then go after them.
I've been out of work since September but I'm taking a test tonight for a 'PC Specialist' position for the City I live in, specifically the law enforcement section of the city and county where I am. I noticed on the Job Summary form I received that they would perform a background check on me, that should be fine, I don't have a problem with it. The other thing is, ta-da, a credit check. I'm wondering why they need to do that? I'm not questioning it because I think it's invading my privacy but of my credit rating. In my early 20's(10 years ago) I went a little credit card happy to the tune of 12-15,000 dollars and am now just getting to the point where they are payed off. Maybe I should look at it for invading my privacy but the longer I'm out of work the less picky I'm going to be plus this is a job with a City, not a Company, and within the law enforcement part of this City to boot.
I'd be inclined to ask "What evidence do you have that a correlation exists between credit-worthiness and employability?" If there is a study showing such a correlation, ask to see a copy before you decide whether to sign on or not. If not, then ask "Why does your policy spend so much corporate money on an unproven theory?"
:-/
I doubt such a study exists. (If they find one, post a link, eh?)
Ultimately, you've got to ask yourself if this job is worth the invasion of privacy. (I don't think there's any grounds to argue that it's *not* an unwarranted invasion of privacy, barring the aforementioned study.) If the employer is willing to spend the resources for this dubious purpose, what else might they be willing to do? Is it sompleace you really want to work, in light of this? Do the benefits still outweigh the drawbacks?
And, of course, do you have other options for paying the rent?
Tough position to be in, good luck.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
However, they have to give you a copy of the credit report and, if they don't hire you based on that credit history, a written letter explaining their reasoning.
Now, if their reasoning is crappy, you can alwasys take them to court and possibly a judge would agree that they are being discrimitory.
However, if your getting a job working in a bank and your credit history shows that you've defaulted on a mortgage and you've 6 maxxed out credit cards, they'll argue that based on past experience with employees, that those with credit problems were more likely to steal.
If you didn't know, your intitled to one free credit check a year. Since credit mistakes are such a pain in the ass to fix, I'd strongly recommend that you, at least once a year, have one done, sit down and go through every line of credit to ensure that nothing erroneous ended up on it...
A buddy of mine went for a mortgage and his the financial institution started enquiring about his 5 student loans that defaulted on in 1984... In 1984 he was 9 years old... It took him tons of letters and cajoling to finally get that taken off.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
"I ain't going to p*** in no jar unless the CEO drinks it all up"
Get over it. A credit check is not an unreasonable thing to inquire about. Just make sure when you sign your employment agreement that you aren't in some way obligating your money to pay off company debt. Small companies can be pretty wierd, particularly if you're a company officer.
Best reason for a credit check. If your financially strap (under hardship) you make an easy target to manipulate by outside competition. Worse, If your involved in the companies finances in anyway, they will (and should) worry about you some how skimming money from the company.
If your wife/husband/child/etc drove themselves into debt, regardless of the circumstances, would you put them in a position that could lead to further problems or temp them to resolve the current problem in a way that might harm your company ?
Seriously, but I'm in a slightly different case, since certain background checks were neccessary for other aspects of my job. I already knew that certain agencies were going to do a MUCH more detailed and in-depthed search into my backgroud, I couldn't not have that search done on me to get my job be it from "The Company" or "The Man".
1) Excercise and diet until you look good.
2) Quit your job.
3) Travel south until your hit tropical blue water.
4) Take off your shoes and socks, sit on the beach and relax and wait for some pretty girl to start buying your drinks because you "look good" now. There's not a single person in this world that can rule your life. You're in complete control, so enjoy it while you can.
-- Things you own, end up owning you. -- Tyler Durden, Fight Club
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Espicaially since you are a higher up...
I know why the Gov't does this for some jobs...
Quite simply it allows them to judge how Easily you can be bought...
Someone in a lot of debt, (with access to the right information), may be wooed to sell secrets.
Simple as that
Regardless of all the "privacy issues" people talk about, what are you worried about if your credit is good?
If you have bad credit then I wouldn't hire you to manage aspects of my company either because you obviously aren't responsible enough to handle your own money, why would I believe you are repsonsible enough to manage my people or money?
In any case, if the job is good, and they pay good, I would submit to a credit check in a heartbeat.
I used to be a MS fan but then I was brainwashed. Now I see the Light. Mac OS X pwns u.
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.
I'm having a problem right now with a tenant who is a complete alcoholic. She refuses to get help (I know a few people who could help her), has assaulted me, makes noise all night, and threatens us on a daily basis, at every opportunity (once we called the cops to report domestic violence because we thought her boyfriend was beating her, it turns out they were both just drunk and talking trash, and she's been mad at me ever since). The police don't care about us. They told us if we're afraid we should move out, and don't want to hear it.
She seemed like a nice person at first...
We live in New York City. It will take approximately 6+ months to evict her. I imagine she's not going to pay rent anymore.
From now on, I am background checking EVERYONE and requiring 5 personal recommendations. Credit history, driving records, convictions, if their name appears in a database I want to see what it says. I hate going through it myself, but after this god damned nightmare I can understand why people insist on it.
If you're a fuckup, that's your damned fault. The rest of us are trying to be decent.
Now if only the credit reporting agencies had correct data once in awhile.
Try companies wanting your hand writing analyzed! Now theres science at work!
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Let me get this straight. You've applied for a director-level position. Presumably, you'll be managing direct reports, working on budgets, determining spending levels, qualifying capital expenditures against income for your department, along with all the other responsibilities of a mid-level manager. Yet you have a problem with the company doing a full background check?
If I were hiring a director, I'd want to know that hire could handle the difficult task of balancing a checkbook. I'd also want to know if someone was having money problems -- last thing I need is someone cooking the books to their own advantage.
Either sign the damn paper, or find another job. If you don't like the conditions for employment, time to find another employer.
The Trees and the Axe
A MAN came into a forest and asked the Trees to provide him a handle for his axe. The Trees consented to his request and gave him a young ash tree. No sooner had the man fitted a new handle to his axe from it, than he began to use it and quickly felled with his strokes the noblest giants of the forest. An old oak, lamenting when too late the destruction of his companions, said to a neighboring cedar, "The first step has lost us all. If we had not given up the rights of the ash, we might yet have retained our own privileges and have stood for ages."
I thought only inquires involved in one'seeking credit are listed, and that insurance, employment, and credit checks done in regard to an unsolicited offer of credit aren't publically reportable.
They'll show up on your copy of the credit report though.
Is this all (still) correct?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Wow -- I didn't realise how out of touch with mainstream concerns I have gotten after decades of Federal employment with a top secret clearance. I assume most companies require credit checks for prospective managers who will be responsible for handling a substantial budget or for negotiating large dollar contracts. Employers don't want to entrust someone with horrendous, unexplained credit problems with the keys to the financial kingdom. On the other hand, even when hiring at this level, most companies that you would want to work for are open to explanations for financial difficulties (e.g., divorce. unemployment, etc). Just don't tell them you are a chronic gambler.
Just like with any NDA, post-employment non-competition agreement, or other employment terms, if you don't like the way they treat you BEFORE they hire you, you should tell them that, and look elsewhere.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
first of all, here is where you can get a free credit report (by law). You don't have to pay someone to give it to you online:
:) And if you don't want to give your credit report out, would you have the guts to take on the federal government? If the federal govt. starts doing this regularly, you'd better take a second look...
Experian
Call Experian at 888 397 3742 to order your free credit report
Equifax
Call Equifax at 800 997 2493 to order your free credit report
TransUnion
Call TransUnion at 800 888 4213 to order your free credit report
Second point, I recently received my reports from them, and interestingly found one institution that had checked my credit: the US dept. of State (from when I had applied for a job there).
Is this a reasonable use of credit checking? For a national security position? What does your credit report have to do with that?
I'm sure Ken Laye et al had terrible credit before he started at Enron.
Too bad I don't have mod points, you'd be at -1...
Do you have ESP?
I had some credit problems with Student Loans after college. I was just starting off in the Hi-Tech industry and couldn't afford the monthly payments on my student loans at first. Once I was able to make monthly payments, my loans had gone into default.
Defaulted loans are probably the most negative (next to car reposessions) mark on your credit report. Once I had made monthly payments on my loans for about a year, I then consolidated all my loans and now make one monthly payment.
Even though my original Student loans show up as paid in full (some $20K at last check) the 'default' mark on my credit report remains and will for approx 7-10 years (the time length is listed on the credit report). This has kept me from getting low (below 15%) interest rates on homes, cars, etc.
How bad can this be for you?
I was dumb enough to believe that if I made timely payments, or put a cell phone on my report, my credit score will increase. Boy, how I was wrong.
When I bought my first car (A 1991 Chevy truck. This was the only car I was able to get due to my credit and after doing the credit repair suggestion noted below.) in 97 or 98 (I forget when), I was barely able to get a loan from a Special Finance department. My interest rate was about 15-18% and my monthly payments for the car were around $340 and insurance was about another $100). I completed all of my payments on time and paid the truck off in full.
I then went to go purchase a used Explorer about 1.5 years ago and was still unable to get a good interest rate. I'm now paying $500/month in car payments and another $120/month in insurance (approx. 15-19%). I was barely able to get this car too because of the 'default' stigma and have made all my payments (to my knowledge) on time.
Fortunately, most of these defaulted loans go off my record this year and I may be finally able to buy a condo or a car with a single digit interst rate.
A couple of things I've learned in the process I'd like to share:
- If you have black marks on your record, you will be judged very negatively, no matter what the story of how you got the black marks on your record are. Some very good moral people with good character get screwed out of many things due to this.
- Less than a half of a percent of people who look at your credit report and listen to how your credit got the way it is will actually listen and use the information as a basis for possible financing.
-Think about this. People who have never used their credit have great credit. People without a shred of morals that have never used their credit have great credit.
-Anyone can get credit. I heard a story once of a dog that got a credit card in the mail because the dog had good credit.
- I got a great tips from the car dealer who got me into my first car about credit reports and how to clean them up a bit:
1) Get a copy of all three credit reports. There are three main companies who publish credit reports, find them. All of them have an on-line method of getting your credit report.
2) Contest EVERYTHING. The car dealer told me that when you contest an item on your credit report, companies who reported the bad credit have 30 days to get back to the credit company to verify the validity of said bad credit. If no one responds, the credit company takes it off your credit report forever.
3)If after this, is still an item on your credit report you don't think is fair, you have the right to submit comments (that will appear on your report) that will appear on your permanent credit report.
IMO, using credit reports for a basis of hiring is a sign that the company may have very old-school standards and values.
A credit check is a good idea if you are applying for any sort of financial position... After all, who wants someone to be their head accounting or CFO if they have a history of making financial mistakes? :)
I don't know if this point has been brought up, but did they tell you about the credit check before hiring you?
I would be pissed too if I went through the hiring process and thought everything was cool then they say they need your credit report.
That would seem underhanded that they would tell you about it after you're hired.
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
Terms of employment MUST BE proved PRIOR to you accepting the job. Not after.
They offered him a job under false pretenses.
Boy I can't wait till Poindexter gets TIA fully implemented that way you won't have to put up with this, they will just run a check upon receiving your resume and won't even bother with you if you aren't pristine in background and credit area.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
I was a victim of identity theft a several years ago and had my credit rating basically destroyed as a result (you would be astonished at how hard it is to get that stuff off your record, even when everyone agrees that you were ripped off). I found myself interviewing for a VP position at a rather large company and, after several meetings, the company extended me a pretty sweet offer. Among the conditions, they wanted to obtain a credit history. I knew that if I refused, they would simply move on to another candidate, figuring that I had something to hide. In the end, I went into the HR VP, explained my situation and asked for an opportunity to respond to anything they might find that would rule me out. I was astonished when the company agreed.
A few weeks later, I met with three reps of the company and brought all of the documentation I had. We spent two hours going over their concerns and at the end of the meeting, the HR VP said that she would get back to me. I figured I was history.
As I got into my car, my cell phone rang. It was the HR VP, calling to tell me that their original offer was still good. I must have sounded surprised, because she went on to explain that the other VPs in the meeting were very impressed with the way I handled this. She said most people just make a huge fuss and walk away.
I left that company after 6 good years to start my own firm. That same company is my biggest client!
Consider writing to your delegation. Let's see if the
This is a standard practice for many companies, for exactly the reasons you stated. However, these checks are typically done PRIOR to hiring. If you've already been hired, I don't know how they can force you to sign. If you don't sign, they have the option of terminating you, but then you should get a severance package or perhaps even sue them for wrongful termination. If you can stomach the court battle, I'm betting a judge would find in your favor. In the end, you will have to decide if it's worth the fight.
They're probably not doing the credit check to see what your credit is like, they want to find out if you're going to be a pain in the ass and a whiner. In any case, it looks like you've made a bad employment choice. I hope you didn't burn any bridges at your last job. :-)
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Except in the case of positions for which money-handling and -managing are primary job responsibilities (CFO, e.g.)
Your activities with company credit card or managing company purchasing will not be reflected on your credit check.It's None Of Their Business! This is one more step along the path to the Panopticon. Everyone needs a job, this is not a purely voluntary act in the same way that buying something on credit is.
1. a 3200 square foot home (conversion to m^3 is left as an exercize for the Canadian), with 5 bedrooms, three main living areas (family, living, and game rooms), and a three car garage;
2. two cars;
3. DSL;
4. HD Satellite TV;
5. paid lawn care;
6. hot lunches for my kid at public school;
7. busing to school if I desired it at modest cost;
8. paid pest control;
9. paid monitored alarm system;
10. the disposable income to add structured wiring to my home like this.
Back in Canada, again on a competetive salary doing the same thing, I can barely afford a home 1/2-2/3 the size, my kid can't get a hot lunch in school, barely afford one car (insurance and fuel), and I can barely afford dialup and cable, and certainly not "perks" like paid lawn care, pest control, monitored alarm, etc.
-- this in comparing Dallas to the 'burbs around Toronto.
I won't even get into the far superior health care we had in the U.S. (i.e. biweekly ultrasound monitoring of my son's inflamed intestines while the problem was being treated; better prenatal care for my wife so she would not miscarry yet again).
The big factors affecting it are:
1. ability to split income with a non-working spouse, i.e. "filing jointly" -- traditional families get blasted tax-wise in Canada;
2. deductability of mortgage interest.
"Back home" I see more $$$ going into taxes supposedly to provide ubiquitious "social services", but I obtained far better services in those areas at a lower fraction of my income in the U.S. -- this on what were generally considered middle class wages (one professional supporting a family of four).
Jefferson said "Those that exchange essential liberty for security deserve neither".
Well, if someone wants to make that trade, I don't think it's my place to stop them. But, in Canada, we have a somewhat different situation that can be sumerized thus:
Those that exchange the essential liberties of others for the illusion of their own security deserve the festering rot of Dante's ninth level of Hell, for they hath betrayed their fellows' lives.
Before commenting, please live in both countries for a number of years, and then spout off. Each has its faults, and some doozies, to be sure, but, if I had the chance, I'd trade my Canadian citizenship for American any day -- for all it's arrogance and faults it gets some very basic things right. The spirit of liberty hasn't yet been snuffed out.
If Canada had thought crime, my impressions on my return (seeing that things were far worse than I remembered when I left), would certainly count as high treason.
You could've hired me.
Credit checks and body cavity searches all around!
Tell them that you are very private with all your personal and financial information and that you will not disclose the requested information for any reason whatsoever. (And don't, even if it means losing the job. You could piss off some other employee(s) and they can use the aforementioned data against you. Identity theft is also a growing crime.) If I were you, I wouldn't even fill out the W2 form, they would not even get my SSN, and I would ask them to leave the tax accounting to me. As a company, they are under no obligation to the IRS to do any reporting on you. It is your responsibility, and the 99% of employers who do this accounting do it as a "convenience" to their employees. You wish to refuse this and all other "conveniences" because you are RESPONSIBLE with your PRIVATE information.
A buddy of mine went for a mortgage and his the financial institution started enquiring about his 5 student loans that defaulted on in 1984
Nothing negative stays on your credit report after 7 years. Unless this happened in 1991, you are just spouting urban legend.
IANAL(yet), but unjust though it may seem, companies can use credit as a basis for accepting or denying employment. The primary reason for allowing corporations to run credit checks was so that people with bad credit didn't get themselves into a position such as CFO, COO, or CEO of a corporation. Imagine what a CFO who was not financially responsible could do to a company. Another reason is that some corporations are actually being sued for what's known as "negligent hiring", which is a situation that occurs when the company hires someone and he/she harms someone else or the corporation as a whole either intentionally, or through gross negligence. Credit checks are intended to keep the latter from occurring.
The problem is, that such a policy has to be applied consistently with all employees (contractors are exempt from this), or the company runs the possibility of discrimination lawsuits for showing favoritism to certain people. It's really kind of strange, but it assures that, for lack of better wording, "everyone's privacy is invaded equally". It may not seem fair, and I do not agree with it, but those are the rules unfortunately.
And from the article 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, ...
So the level on the food chain has nothing to do with it.
Possibly. But generally when a policy like this is instituted, it's better to make it across the board so that you can't be accused of unfairness.
The people who are making purchasing decisions for the company (that is, the directors) are the ones whose credit you really want to check, and it helps, if you decide to hire someone who might have a chip on their shoulder about being subjected to credit checks, to be able to say "look, we do this to everyone, even the CEO and the janitor."
Personally, the thing that always torques me off when I take a job is the NDA. I know that in a lot of cases it's necessary, but it still sucks.
Okay, two things. 1) This was covered in National Public Radio's recent series [NPR] on debt in America.
and per that series 2) An employer is required to disclose to you if your credit was a factor in denying you a job, in addition to providing you the name and address of the reporting agency.
My take on it is that employers who are aware of any money problems you have will probably try to lowball the salary offer.
- "I'm sorry, Mr. Employer, credit check inquires affect my credit score. I do not want to be refused credit or only qualify for lower tier simply because I have 10 or so employer inquire about my credit history."
- "Additionally, I keep my credit information private and make a very proactive attempt to keep it secure. How can you, Mr. Employer, guarantee that my information is secure and confidential if there are one or more of your employees passing my credit history around your corporation. Would you sign a statement stating that your company is at fault if credit and identity theft is determined to be caused by any negligence from your company? I really do not want to put your company in that position, so please respect my wishes on this matter."
- "Mr. Employer, I could understand how credit checks can be used to evaluate individuals. However, if you want to know who I am, or about my work habits, please feel free to contact any of my previous employers and references on my resume. I am positive that you can get more than enough information on me through them."
If they persist, I basically end the interview process there. If a company cannot respect your security and privacy, then they probably would not respect you in other matters also.Coderz 4 Life
When the company I currently work for wanted both a Credit Check and a Criminal check I agreed.. on three terms:
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.
Huh?
The employer is probably on shaky ground because a request to perform the credit checks was NOT done as a pre-employment condition. . . or so it sounds.
If the employer had asked during the interview for permission, they probalby had you dead to rights. You probably negotiated conditions and pay before you accepted the job. They are now trying to impose new conditions, which gives you the option to renegotiate pay.
If you like the job, find a good lawyer or agree to it. If not, tell them hasta...
You also mentioned non-disclosure agreements. A good intellectual property lawyer will tell you that NDAs are not worth the paper they are written on, unless the employer gives you something in return for signing... and a job is not one of those things that a court would consider valualable. Generally in redturn for signing NDAs or more particularly a non-compete agreement, they agree to pay you for a while after you leave.
Rehabilitated journalist and web builder No electrons were harmed during the creation of this mess
It should be illegal, but I wouldn't expect any laws to be
enacted now except those that strip us of even more rights.
After all, who wants a little slave that can't be a perfect drone.
I hired you, I own you.
Considering this economy and unemployment situation,
even the most talented might end up out of work for an
extended period of time and bounce into red ink a few times.
Now they finally get a chance to recover and the employer
turns them down because, heaven forbid, they need the money.
Oh well you deadbeat, it's homelessness for you and your family.
The US, and it's government, sucks.
I'm not sure why you are lecturing the guy. These reports are too invasive. If they just want to know if you declared bankruptcy, have huge outstanding debt, or other things, they can ask on the application form. It would be illegal to lie.
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?
if you comply, the could use any information contained against you.
if you refuse, they assume you have something to hide and they fire you.
I was asked to sign an authorization for background check. my employers lied and said it was for governmental compliance. I signed anyway because I have nothing to hide.
I'll assume that if you're a director, they just want to make sure you're a trustworthy person before handing over the keys to the vault.
still, I couldn't help but feel violated by that company.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I went through a credit check prior to getting a job at a company that printed lottery tickets. In that instance, it makes sense. They explained why and it didn't bother me.
BUT if you're not going to be in a position to handle large sums of cash or a company American Express card, then yeah, what's the point?
Everybody has screwed up somewhere down the line, it doesn't make them thieves...
A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men... --Willy Wonka
As it has been pointed out in this discussion, we don't have much power to refuse such demands by ourselves.
Now if we refused as a group, don't you think we'd have a better chance?
. This sig unintentionally left blank. I meant to put something here, but I'm busy.
What does this have to do with Enron? I'm sure the Enron execs had wonderful credit. Some of them may still have wonderful credit.
Good credit doesn't mean good employee (though there may be some correlation).
Only if you've had about 10 credit checks in under a week or so. One or two credit checks every now and then has absolutely zilch effect on your credit score.
And actually, it has NO effect on your credit score. When companies start seeing that many credit checks, they may use that as a basis for denying you credit (on the belief that you may be trying for a run on credit!) and therefore deny you additional credit. THAT (a credit denial) is what would affect your credit score.
You are not legally required to submit to the credit check. They are not legally required to offer you the job. However, if you have an offer letter and they are just now bringing this up then you are probably on strong grounds to refuse. Nonetheless your first performance review will probably reflect your non-cooperation. And they may terminate you without cause at the first opportunity. You might be able to sue them for a settlement though.
OK, so I'm paraphrasing the details quite a bit, and taking the worse case (for me) on other details not explicitly spelled out. But that is what the little form says.
So, if you can get them to limit who can see the information, how long they need that permission, and if you can even get them to have some external reputable entity filter the information to only the part they need to see, then consider yourself way ahead of the game.
From the report, they mentioned that it is illegal for your employer to fire you based on your credit report
However, as with any discrimination lawsuit, it is sometimes difficult to prove that this was the reason your employer let you go (or refused to hire you in the first place). They can easily site another reason.
My current company wants me to sign an IP agreement - fine I say, I'll be happy to sign an agreement not to disclose any proprietary information as long as you take out the portion that says any "works" created by myself, at any time during employment, belong to the company - I only want works created on company time and/or using company equipment to be owned by my employer. Very reasonable, I think...
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.
heh...
I would ask the recruiter for their credit history, along with the rest of the employees. When they say no, say I thought so, then walk out with your head held high. (proceed straight to the bar, realizing you had perfect credit and just threw away a descent paying job, which at this time isn't the easiest thing to come across.)
This is their policy, if it is any indication of the work enviorment, don't even bother. (this is my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.)
-Ian
Consider the position in the company you're taking, and what powers you'd probably have..
What if your Becon score was 0? (impossible, I believe). You have a whole stack of credit cards that were run up to $50,000, and then charged off. You declared bankrupcy twice in the last 5 years. You defaulted on the loan for your home, and there are still more creditors that are after you. Your existing bills account for 10x what you'll make this year.
If I was the CEO, there's no way I'd want you having direct control over any finances, or anything else in the company. You're a high risk for getting money any which way you can.. The odds are very good that you'll be skimming money, and possibly wipe out the company. Now not only have you ruined yourself, you've ruined the employment for 40 people, and probably their credit in the near future too..
That's a worst case scenerio. If you have a becon score of say 700, with a couple cards that are near their limits, and nothing significant in your bad history, there wouldn't be much of a reason not to trust you..
By saying "no", do you have something to hide? Go to equifax.com, spend a few dollars to get your own history and score, and then go back to the boss and say "It's none of your business what's *IN* my credit history. I'll disclose to you that my score is 700 which indicates I'm a safe credit risk." Show them the print-out of that page.
I've worked for companies that do credit and background checks. Be straight forward with them.. I gave them a brief overview of the good and bad things in there, and when they get the report back, they see I was open with them, and you'll have a much better working relationship with them..
You're not taking a Customer Support position, you're taking a Director position. It's very reasonable for them to want to check everything out first..
But now the question is, how important is the job to you? How badly to they want you? If they want you, and you have other opprotunities, you can threaten to take another offer, and they may wave the credit check. If you're a high credit risk and rob them, they seriously screwed up by not doing it.. If you're not a high risk, you have nothing to worry about..
Or, just go find a different employer who doesn't fully investigate the staff, and hope no one else destroys the company...
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I suggest that you hold your ground and leave the company if necessary, which it probably will be. Companies will have to experience a lot of pain to be separated from this tactic, and losing someone in your position would be one such experience. Having said all this, it's not my job to lose, and therefore I do not feel the situation as personally as you do. I am also not in your financial situation. If you are out of money or close to being out, you may have no good alternative.
From what you said, it sounds as if the company popped this requirement on you at the last minute, after you accepted their offer. This happened to me, too, and I believe it is par for the course for companies that do this. This approach suggests that the companies know people will hate this, hence they want to make it as painful as possible for you. If you knuckle, you are in effect telling them that it's OK to use this tactic on yourself and others; it works.
At the company I worked at where this happened, I resisted the invasive credit check and other privacy issues, just as you did. Eventually, the company all but assured me that it was merely a routine check that they did with everyone and that unless I had five bankruptcies in my past, it would have no effect on my employment. I then chose to allow the check. In retrospect, I wouldn't do that again, unless there was no financial alternative. I have since developed a successful consulting business and I have come to realize that in most of the first world, there is no need to have a formal job unless you want one. Skilled people can make plenty of money consulting and never have to deal with the ten-thousand indignities that are part-and-parcel of most full-time employement positions. I suspect in the future I will always either work as an independent consultant, as the proprietor of my own business, or at a very special company that actually respects the privacy and dignity of its employees -- and I think such companies are one in a thousand.
In the short term, if finances permit, I say hold your ground; leave if necessary; and be prepared to accept a job somewhere else where you will truly enjoy the work and where they will have a greater respect for their employees; but you will probably receive a somewhat lower salary. IMO, this is well worth it. I have learned from experience that money is a poor compensation for having miserable work days.
An employer fully expects that senior managers, executives and other highly-skilled professionals will properly conduct due diligence before joining an organization and that they will negotiate all the details of their employment. This is the same thing that you will be doing on behalf of the company when dealing with customers and vendors. By failing to do it, you've shown a very serious shortcoming in negotiating and management skills. My advice is to simply sign the document, take your lumps and try to learn an important lesson from this experience.
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
I can understand employers perfectly who want to know absolutely everything about their staff (like, remember you surfing the squid-logs before it got sanctioned ?), but if no limits are imposed (laws ?), they're not going to stop at any point.
Next thing is to scrutinize your genes and require a thorough, yearly medical checkup to be able to fire you one month before you get really sick.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
your credit is a reflection of your ability to pay bills, and be responsible for things you buy on credit.
:) )
your job only requires that you can do what you were hired for. if you have missed a car payment or even lost a car to reposession, does that mean that you are incapable of doing your job? no. in fact it means absolutedly nothing to your ability to do your job. you could fail to pay EVERY BILL that you have for 6 months, and still not have it effect your job in any way(unless you go to jail
employers requireing this information is a clear violation of privacy. here is a comparable example.
a man applies for a job, the employer ask for a medical history so that they can determin if the man is going to miss many days for medical conditions. on this mans medical history, he has had broken leg due to a car accident and food poisoning in the last year. the company might assume that the man is sickly and a high risk for sick days and decide not to hire him. a car accident and food poisoning are obviosly just accidents and not necessarily the fault of the man, but he might not get a job because of this.
in the example, the man's privacy is violated and in violating that privacy, he was not given a job for stupid reasons and innacurate presumptions(that he was a risk for calling in sick days or missing work)
so past bad credit is similar in that what has been done in the past to personal credit is not a compelling reason to deny a person a job. they have nothing to do with each other.
in addition to that, a credit inquiry lowers your credit score by 2-5 points, which could make you not qualify for a car or home loan, or platinum card where just a vew points can mean a lot on interest rate or borrowable amount or even approval or dissaproval.
You can do this now. Whip out your credit card and head over to D&B and get a financial report on your potential employer. We do this to vendors and partners all of the time just to make sure things are on the level -- and sometimes they're not.
I work in the financial industry (as a programmer) and wouldn't DREAM of hiring an employee without a credit check (and criminal background check). If someone's seriously overextended, bankrupcy prone, tends to run out on loans, and avoids judgements I don't want him near my company's money much less that of my company's clients. Too tempting. Programmers with better histories are easy to find.
I submitted to one without blinking an eye, and my privacy-conscious friend did as well. Sometimes it just makes sense.
Get off my lawn.
Several people have asserted that a credit check is valuable in assessing the employee. Is there any concrete proof that having a bad credit rating makes one a bad employee??
You might be the worlds best at writing software or running projects but just sloppy about paying bills on time.
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm
Why is it that people don't feel they should make a link when they post a URL?
My argument? Get lost.
As usual, employers are only interested in finding reasons to disqualify people.
LadyStar - Your Magical and Mysterious Adventure Awaits
Every time someone checks your credit, you actually lose points on your credit score. If your points drop below a certain level, your automatically rejected by both creditors, and such employers.
MadOgre.com
mmm troll... tastes like chicken.
I second that. I once got a newly hired manager who was, a few months later, convicted of stealing trade secrets from his previous employer. He was a real jerk and created a lot of disruption in the few months he was with us. But because he had not been convicted at the time we hired him, we had no idea this might happen - the employment application only asks if you have been convicted of a crime, not whether you are being prosecuted for one.
That employer started doing background checks on new hires after that experience...
Um, you have what sounds like a good job. If it seems like a good company why not sign? I would gladly sign anything for a high paying job right now. :)
..this is but a fantasy..
you live in america. you're some lame employee. you have no rights at work - how would capitalism work if employees had rights?
i'm not totally serious of course, but the fact is that employees in america have less rights then their counterparts in other developed countries. some people might even argue that's a good thing. as for me, i fail to see how firing an office worker for smoking at a pub on a weekend does anything to drive capital.
happily i have the choice not to work in america.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
If that is really the reason, then yes, they would have to by law.
You have a case in turning down the credit check.
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.
Dogs look up to men; cats look down on men; But Pigs! Pigs can look men square in the eye. -Churchill
This is much more of a pandoras box than it appears on the surface. Many firms will require pre-employment screening of their employees of one sort or another (drug testing is a good example of this). The law allows this type of testing. When it comes to credit checks the story quickly gets more complicated. For starters, while not advocated, many companies will use the simple fact that they conduct pre-employment testing to "screen out" undesirable applicants. In other words, if you use drugs you are not likely to take (or apply to) a job where they do drug screening, or if you refuse the credit check your credit's got problems. If you doubt the validity of this approach, look how many people have said "walk out now" or tell them to "take this job and &#@! It" as their ultimate solution. So it is a good indicator. Now the question comes up if it is LEGAL to use a credit check and the answer is almost always NO! This employer already knows something is amiss if you have made such a big deal about it. What they don't realize is the legal problems that they have put upon themselves. You see credit checks can only be "required" for folks who are in finacially sensitive positions (the actual term is not "finacially sensitive" but something else where you will have monetary/credit responsiblities - for a full description go to www.shrm.org and have fun looking it all up). A company cannot just do a credit check on everybody and use it as a screening tool. In fact it is illegal to use information on the report as a screening tool for non sensitive or non "financially" related roles. So your potential employer already has a large legal problem if they are screening everyone with a credit check. Even if an employer uses a credit check and then finds something bad, the law states that they need to let the candidate know that they were refused a position because of the information on the report. As stated earlier most employers simply will just skip this step and say they found a better candidate or whatever. A lawsuit though will bring this to the surface with supponead records and the like. Because, from the sounds of it they already chose to hire you and are asking for a report after hire your situation is even more complex. In this situation you would want to talk to a good lawyer who specializes in "employment law" and see what they have to say about it being legal. I can share my oppinion though and that is if you were to do the report and they chose to terminate or not hire you based on the report they have A LOT of legal explaining to do - and if your position is one that does not deal directly with finaces then they have most likely legally discriminated against you and you have a court case that would cost them! I am not an advocate of suing a company who is kind enough to offer you a job, but perhaps you could approach them with some of these points (and back them up with resources from the SHRM site and legal oppinions) which would change their views on using credit reports for hiring decisions.
I was once asked to provide credit information for a local delivery company I was trying to get a job with. I said no thanks because they had no reason to know that. Afterwards I went to the Department of Labor and explained to them that the company was using illegal immigrants for a large portion of it's work force so they wouldn't have to pay minimum wage and comply with tax laws, which was true. The boss would also threaten the employees that if they didn't agree to work for so little money he'd call INS on them. About a week later the boss of the company was arrested and last I heard was being charged with slavery laws. I could be wrong about the slavery thing but I do know he was arrested. Revenge is sweet. Nobody should have to suffer credit checks, there is no rock solid business reason to need it.
One, you could obviosly tell them no. That it is a violation of your privacy. But, they obviously don't care. Next,
Two, you can tell them that you will provide them with your full credit history as soon as every person reviewing your application submits their credit history to you. Then, all is fair and equitable in the invasion of privacy.
Honestly, isn't asking for your credit history a step away from asking for your health and genetic history?
Insurance companies, who have an interest in keeping genetic degenerates out, are not allowed to discriminate in this regard. Your employer should not be able to discriminate based on your personal credit history because you might steal something if you owe money. This is incredible arrogance.
I smell lawsuit.
I agree that they should not. My experience is that they often are sloppy payers, and interestingly the D&B reports don't tell everything....
Also, all of the arguments FOR this seem to be saying " Although you don't appear to have a criminal record, we assume you are a criminal because you were a late payer. " Moreover, they are charging you with criminal acts and in effect firing you for those acts - before you begin work. Denial of employment could be simply due to being LATE enough times. The ratings can worsen simply because you were late several times. Refusal to pay could be based on dispute, not theft. The presence or absence of a criminal record, and references should be adequate. Noone needs to know about your divorce, etc. It becomes idle gossip for the officers. In some states, by the way, you might sue if they fire you, because they had the opportunity to investigate you before you were hired, and didn't take that opportunity.
Most companies have cameras and other spys anyway. It would be pretty obvious who did what and you would be cutting your throat - we all know this.
This issue is not black and white. There is not simple, fair answer.
Bottom-line, any company which uses credit checks as criteria for employment needs take the procedure one step further, and do the right thing, in being open to an explanation of circumstance before making a hasty, discriminatory decision. No matter how practical such a policy may (or may not be), it's morally reprehensible to deny employment to an otherwise qualified individual, simply because of bad credit.
For myself , I would feel comfortable allowing a potential (or current) employer access to my credit history AS long as it would be NOT grounds for denial of employment. Simply because I've learned some lessons the hard way, I've made mistakes along the way, doesn't mean that I'm not dedicated, hard-working, and honest.
Of course, as is usually the case, there is a valid flip side. It is an unfortunate reality that there is still to much dishonesty in modern capitalist society. As long as this is the case, as long as we live in a world of Enron's and MCI's, it makes sense for businesses to perform pre-employment background checks, including credit history if need be, and even to perform regular psychological evaluations.
I'm sure we'd all agree there continues to be a great need for corporate honesty/morality (far above the bottom-dollar). Hell, in it's most useful goal, this is the purpose of government agencies such as the SEC. Yet, it would seem that such regulatory/governing bodies should be a little more heavy-handed, and while businesses have the right to protect themselves, the rights of the employee need not be discarded.
In a perfect world, trust and respect would always be assumed until proven unwarranted. In the world we live in, trust and respect need be earned. As I see it, a good step towards that more perfect world, will always be assuming the best.
Actually I did, I also lived in Europe (that's where I grew up).
I don't hold a Canadian Passport, I still have a German one and as such I am not here to defend the maple leaf, but a couple of things I would like to comment on:
Back in Canada, again on a competetive salary doing the same thing, I can barely afford a home 1/2-2/3 the size, my kid can't get a hot lunch in school, barely afford one car (insurance and fuel), and I can barely afford dialup and cable, and certainly not "perks" like paid lawn care, pest control, monitored alarm, etc.Okay, maybe I am a snob (and yes I am single, and no I don't have kids) but Car Insurance in the States killed me quite nicely as well. For a midsized car they wanted me to pay $500/month, right now I pay $250.
Dialup and Cable. Don't know the prices for Dialup right now, but cable (with Rogers) is what? 49.95? That is roughly on par with what you would pay in the States, no?
School Lunch: Okay, again I am probalby snobby but why not cook at home? Granted I am not a fan of eating out but quite frankly after reading "Fastfood Nation" and understanding a bit more about the US Meatindustry I don't think I would want my kids to eat at school.
Size of Home: Okay I can see where that might be a factor with a family, though I have to say that living in the 'burbs around Toronto is still cheaper than the places I was living in the US (near D.C.). Dallas and Houston I think are rather funny places in the way they get developed and by my understanding your "nice neighbourhood" there can turn into a slum within a year. The NYT Magazine had an interresting article about this a while back.
Taxes and Gas: What can I say, I grew up in Europe, looking at my tax burden here I still have to laugh all the way to the bank every payday because of the small (compared to Germany) amount of taxes I pay here. Same goes for the gas, to be able to fill up my Mazda for 40 Bucks (with the high gas prices right now) is cheap to what I paid back in Europe (I was lucky if I got away under 100 bucks).
Finally:
Those that exchange the essential liberties of others for the illusion of their own security deserve the festering rot of Dante's ninth level of Hell, for they hath betrayed their fellows' lives.I'll take it you are not a fan of the "social state" that Canada is?
Well, here is a small example from a friend of mine: Her mother developed cancer, on her salary she would have never been able to afford the treatment but thanks to the Canadian Health Care System she could. The mother is alive and kicking. By her own account if she would have been in the states she would have been bancrupt by it.
As for your sons Ultrasound: You can get additional healthinsurance that would cover that, you don't really think that you got it for free in the US, did you? Your company paid for it and that's where it's it, somebody is always paying, nothings for free.
At the end you pay for the things you use, one way or the other, there are no free lunches, and why not pay it via my taxes if after that I can lean back and don't have to worry about it that much anymore?
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Is credit history a good thing for an employer to ask for? As an employer, I say certainly (though I have NEVER gotten a potential employees credit history without their written consent -- but I have also never had a problem getting that consent). Dilligence and competence as a worker often comes through in references, personal responsibility less so. (Nevermind the fact that poor credit and other personal problems can ultimately affect an employee's performance in the workplace). I want to know, esepecially if I'm hiring a right-hand-man sort of position, what kind of life the person leads. I want to know if they're going to do anything that might be potentially damaging to the reputation of my firm. Credit history is a great way to check up on personal responsibility.
Not long ago, I was looking to hire a new team manager, which is a fairly high level within my firm. The guy looked great in terms of his references and past experience, and was about 28. He had moved because his wife had been promoted, and now he was trying to find a new job. He let me access his credit history, which, quite frankly, painted a starkly reckless picture. For a position paying around $100,000 a year (and, I can say now, his wife wasn't earning much more), the guy was $60,000 into credit card debt with hefty mortgage on top of it.
I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt, and hired him. It turned out to be a mistake. He liked to live large, which became apparent from his second week on the job, but he didn't let it interfere with his work. Two months later, he was leaving work early two or three days a week. He starting becoming irritable at work, and then apologize by taking his entire team out for dinner at a nice restaurant in New York City (let's say a $1,000 price tag). The man was obviously out of control.
I found out later that he'd been spiraling into debt since he left college. The early days were to Atlantic City. There should have been a red flag in the beginning. But there wasn't. Personal fiscal responsibility is a highly desirable quality in an employee, both in terms of how it effects job performance and how it reflects on personal character -- a quality which I find important but which seems to have waned from favor in the past few years.
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Also, child support violations are often felonies (thank Clinton) which also cause loss of civil rights, licensability, etc
Ok. I will.
Thanks Clinton. I disagreed with most of the stuff you did, but helping to ensure that kids get supported by their fathers seems like a pretty good idea to me.
What if one has no choice. In my case, I need a job, I can't seem to get a job I like so I need to apply anywhere and everywhere. Each one of the applications I fill out has something about checking my credit. I really need a job, so I have no leverage to say 'I won't work here if that is required', the answer they will likely give is 'all right, have a nice life'. I wish that companies weren't so pervasive, but they have all the cards, so what are you gonna do?
We covered this a little in my management class last semester....
Basically, they need to prove something called construct validity. That is, they need to prove that a correlation exists between credit history and job performance. Without that, a court can order them not to use the test.
Note that a credit check can be a valid measure in some cases, but I don't think IT director is one of them. Basically, the company's problem is in using a blanket policy of credit checks - they should only be used where valid, which is only in a few instances. I'd say it's valid for an investing consultant, where you're handling the money of others, or a national security agent (where poor finances might make you vulnerable to bribery by foreign agents.) It might be valid here, but they have to be able to prove it.
Why does not every one quit whining about this. Your employer is purchasing an asset by employing you. They should have the right to know what they're getting into. If you have had issues then share the issues with your employer so they know what to expect. I am an employee have been an employer.
It's the same argument as drug tests. If someone is that stupid to use pot and coke within a month of a drug test and then fails then I wouldn't want to hire them. (especially when one can buy the chemicals to flush out one's system)
First point: they've already accepted you for the job. Is this just an argument of principle?
If so, you have outdated notions of absolute privacy. At some point, you have to believe that your peers will respect the privacy of your personal information; if you cannot place that trust in them, I would start first by questioning why you are at this company. Or do you have something to hide?
Credit reports are a good source of information about your financial responsibility; this is directly relevant to any position that is required to manage a budget of any kind, middle-management included.
In the realm of landlording, if your credit report is used in such a way that you are denied the position you are applying for, the landlord is obligated to provide either a copy of the credit report or the name of the agency that supplied said report.
It's called employment at will, if you want to work there, you follow their rules... even if that means they are logging all of your IMs, emails, and web views... Doing a credit check is nothing new, if you don't want the position due ot this feel free to turn it down, they will have another director within a week or two. In fact, if you do turn this down, feel free to send me information on the job ;-)
Get your employer to write out specifically what red flags in your credit report they would consider to be grounds to deny your employment. Go to a third party for the credit check and have them report back based only on what the employer stated as concerns. The employer gets what they want without seeing anything they don't need to see and you get to see if you are possibly being denied unfairly.
irrelevant. while i agree that drug testing is silly in itself, i can see why an employer would want that information. yes, you could reasonably say that testing positive for drugs would be a reason for denying employment (drugs = illegal). as far as i can remember, having bad credit may make it impossible to buy a house, but it is not 'illegal.'
and, besides, as many other /.'ers have mentioned, there are situational reasons for a person's bad credit -- no one should have to explain their messy divorce to a prospective employer. absolutely NONE of anyone's business, unless you decide to tell them on your own terms.
"None may buy nor sell, save he has the mark of the beast.."
/me dons the sandwhich boards, heads toward Main Street.
Or whatever that ergot munching, syphalis ridden maniac said in the bible.
THE END IS NEAR I TELL YA!!
it always seems to me that these orders are issued by upper management in a desperate attempt to cover up a potentially failing business. typically when bad decisions are made by upper management the consequences are first taken out on new hires. when money is leaking out of the company, usually because of incompetant middle management, the hammer comes down on the new hires. working with a several huge companies, and now a tiny company, i see now that refusing these ridiculous policies can have an immediate effect on the company. reach around your back, and when you find you confirm you have a spine, implement it in your business model and refuse to allow these schmucks run a credit check on you. don't let IT turn into hotel management, food service, the "entertainment industry". never let someone with an mba be your pimp.
Most of you guys are totally missing the point.
Directors, generally speaking, have some sort of approval power over spending, and probably deal with the company budget. It is entirely reasonable to ask someone with that power to submit to a credit check, to reduce the likelihood of his stealing funds.
jason
It's a lot simpler if you don't buy a car. Two wheels and 21 gears gets you around most anywhere in-town.
When I was in management at a large North American company, we were told that the reason for conducting a credit check on an individual prior to employment is because it is against the policy of many companies nowadays to furnish references on past employees for fear of lawsuits. Most companies will only confirm that a former employee worked at that company hire/termination dates, etc. - just facts. They are not allowed to provide any subjective information with regard to the character or work habits of former employees. Using the credit check is just another tool used by the employer to "weed out" undesirable applicants from the pack. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, in fact, my personal belief is that the only people who should have access to your credit history are those people who are extending you credit. What's next? Asking for a list of sexual partners? Drinking habits? Do you gamble? Whatch NASCAR? Where will it end?
Excessive drinking is fine...in moderation.
I recently completed my CISSP certification training and the subject of background checks for system administrators was discussed at some length. The recommended process is not only to do pre-employment credit / background / criminal record checks, but to also do them on a recurring basis (suggested annually).
The theory is that you don't want someone who has virtually unlimited access to the company's and employee's information who has personal problems out side work. At the very least, you want to know about those problems as soon as possible.
Remember the news story a couple of months ago about the identity theft ring that was rooted at a help desk? These were relatively low-level employees, but they had access to very sensitive information, and they took advantage of their position. I don't know that a background or credit check would have turned up anything, but companies are attempting to protect themselves by taking "reasonable steps", in the eyes of the law, to vet their employees.
All that said, I'm not thrilled about ongoing background checks. At a minimum, I would want to know that those doing the checking have themselves been checked.
Credit checks are bogus! Why not do background Scrabble checks? There is data that shows that those who are bad at Scrabble are more likely to kill a co-worker. So you have a college degree but still cannot spell. okay, well bummer.
Scrabble is very accurate. How can you cheat. If you suck at Scrabble it is acurately reflected in your Scrabble playing abilities.
What is more those who are bad at Scrabble are often poor drivers, are more likely to have poor credit, commit more crimes, less likely to wash their hands, and twice as likely to blow up federal buildings.
Credit checks are fascist. The real test is Scrabble.
Something like a background or credit check should be brought out BEFORE the job is offered and it should be made clear that the job is contingent on either having the check or having good credit or whatever.
Oh, by the way, didn't we mention you would have to spend May through September in Antarctica?
Oh, by the way, didn't we mention that you would be installing this in the sexual predators wing of the local prison, youru predecessor left after...
I usually ask about this in interviews - first is about the NDA since there are opensource/GPL issues. I also ask to see the employee manual, or if there are any "unique" or unusual requirements. If they say no, then if they ask something like this after I join I say they should have brought it up when I asked.
The other thing would be to file a counter-NDA saying only X has the right to view clearly specified data from the credit report and that they owe you $10,000 if anyone else sees it, or something like it and just say it is YOUR standard procedure.
because some people are used to sites that do that automatically so they forget and just post right away rather than preview first.
OK, so credit scores are now used for:
1. Getting loans, etc (fair)
2. Renting an apartment (understandable)
3. Getting a job (uh, wait a sec...)
4. Helping the government figure out if you're a terrorist or not (what?!).
While the FCRA dictates that credit reporting agencies must remove incorrect items, there's nothing that requires that creditors must report "good" items on your credit reports (though woe betide you if you piss them off!). Washington Post columnist Kenneth Hearney (sp?) wrote a column a while back that certain non-prime mortgage lenders were using that loophole to keep their better customers from refinancing their higher-interest mortgage.
The way it works is simple: You have so-so credit. We loan you money for your house. You pay us on time. We don't want to lose you as a cash cow, so we report nothing on your CR (good or bad). Your credit doesn't improve, so you can't refinance. It's just a matter of time before subprime credit cards (the Aspire Visas and whatnot of the world) do the same. Since it's new graduates, those under 25, those with a divorce in their past, and the poor who'll get hit hardest, we're looking at a divide that's way sinister than the digital one.
Let me ask you this: For those of you who rent, have you ever seen an apartment complex report anything positive on your CR? Will this (or any) employer report anything positive on your CR (like if you fulfilled your obligation to work there if you got a signing bonus)? Will the government put a positive checkmark on your CR every time you don't turn out to be a terrorist? Of course not.
These people aren't playing fair and don't deserve to invade your privacy. Every time your credit is scored (with a few exceptions), it gets worse, too. I would not submit to this kind of invasion unless I got assurances from the company that they'd submit a positive item to the CR people if all goes well. Otherwise, they're putting a mark on your (presumably) good name and not putting anything back.
--bj
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
From epic.org/privacy/fcra/
Special Rights in the Employment Context--Background Checks
Since September 11, 2001, many employers have either begun or expanded background check programs on current employees or new hires. Because they have become so prevalent, simple background checks can now be done for under $20, and more complex investigations may be hundreds of dollars.
Employers can request standard consumer credit reports or investigative consumer reports (ICRs) on their employees. Employers request the reports for hiring, promotion, reassignment, or retention decisions. In doing so, the employer must certify to the CRA that it will comply with the FCRA. The employer must also gain the individual's written consent before obtaining the report.
A patchwork of federal and state laws do limit the ability of employers to use background checks. Some states do not allow the consideration of arrest data (without a conviction) in employment decisions. Other states allow the consideration of conviction information only in certain circumstances. And, federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations prevent employers from taking adverse action against an individual for merely having a criminal conviction--the conviction must be relevant to the job, or there must be some other sound business reason for taking action against the individual.
The FCRA also prohibits the provision of reports that contain medical information for employment purposes without notice and explicit affirmative consent for release of the health data.
It is important to note that the FCRA does not apply to investigations performed by companies or individuals who are not CRAs. Accordingly, an employer can escape the notice and consent requirements and the extra protections for medical information by simply hiring a private investigator or attorney not affiliated with a CRA to perform the investigation.
Regarding the poster's original dilema, the question boils down to this: Are you an "At-Will" employee? The at-will doctrine says that you can be fired for good reason, bad reason, no reason at all, or even an immoral reason, so long as the reason does not discriminate against a protected class (race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sexual preference, yadda, yadda, yadda).
So the fact that the poster has already been hired (he didn't say if he was enticed to quit another job, which might have some bearing), if he is an at-will employee, the company can, and probably will decide that they don't want his services if he doesn't agree to the background check. Here's a link (there are others) that explains at-will employment in more detail.
I meant live in Canada and the U.S.A. and then decide. Though, your European experience may be telling: from what I've heard they actually practice socialism effectively, without the Canadian waste. Until I spend time there, I remain skeptical, though open-minded.
Okay, maybe I am a snob (and yes I am single, and no I don't have kids) but Car Insurance in the States killed me quite nicely as well. For a midsized car they wanted me to pay $500/month, right now I pay $250.
Car insurance in the U.S.A. cost me US$100 a month for two cars and it is costimg me CA$250 for one. Oh, and one should not factor in an exchange rate for domestically available products or services -- you're paid in the currency you have expenses it, so I'd compare that as $ for $. Ontario insurerers, it seams, have a hard time understanding the difference between "arrest" (as in, got a ticket), and "conviction" (as in, no, I fought it and won); as well as insurers paying even when one is not at fault.
Dialup and Cable. Don't know the prices for Dialup right now, but cable (with Rogers) is what? 49.95? That is roughly on par with what you would pay in the States, no?
Cable no good. I want my static IP, and can't get DSL where I am. But, to compare: Rogers HD+Internet+everying pack is CA$135 (tax included), and I paid US$125 for DSL (static IP) and HD DirectTV. The CA$135 is a budget buster, where the US$125 (call it even) wasn't because of the higher income tax here.
School Lunch: Okay, again I am probalby snobby but why not cook at home? Granted I am not a fan of eating out but quite frankly after reading "Fastfood Nation" and understanding a bit more about the US Meatindustry I don't think I would want my kids to eat at school.
Cooking at home and using a thermos takes too much time. Healthy, balanced meals cost US$25 a month. Can't beat, wat, $1.20 a day?
Size of Home: Okay I can see where that might be a factor with a family, though I have to say that living in the 'burbs around Toronto is still cheaper than the places I was living in the US (near D.C.). Dallas and Houston I think are rather funny places in the way they get developed and by my understanding your "nice neighbourhood" there can turn into a slum within a year.
That hasn't been my experience. HOA covenents can deal with that (though they can be excessive in some places).
Taxes and Gas: What can I say, I grew up in Europe, looking at my tax burden here I still have to laugh all the way to the bank every payday because of the small (compared to Germany) amount of taxes I pay here. Same goes for the gas, to be able to fill up my Mazda for 40 Bucks (with the high gas prices right now) is cheap to what I paid back in Europe (I was lucky if I got away under 100 bucks).
Granted, but it is cheaper still, relatively speaking, in the U.S.A.: US$13 to fill up my 1990 tbird vs CA$40 to fill up my 1998 Grand Am. Just because something is worse somewhere else does not mean the present situation is as good as it gets.
I'll take it you are not a fan of the "social state" that Canada is?
Oh no. I see more money paying for worse service, for the average middle-class person vs. the U.S.A. You pay for premium health care in the U.S., of course, but your lower income taxes offset that.
Well, here is a small example from a friend of mine: Her mother developed cancer, on her salary she would have never been able to afford the treatment but thanks to the Canadian Health Care System she could.
And she got Canadian-quality health care. She was lucky. My father was diagnosed with an AAA (abdominal aortic anurysm) with a 30% chance recovery rate given the surgical repair techniques available in the U.S. The Canadian doctors didn't even bother telling him. (It was found during hernia repair surgery that he had to pay for). Apparently, there were no Canadian doctors qualified to perform the surgery, so why tell him? This, of course, was a death sentence. (He died in 1999 of this, which is when I did some information seeking). Had he not been taxed as he was, he may have been able to have save enough money to risk the necessary surgery in the U.S.A. The way Canadian doctors are remunerated encourages the best to leave since there is no distinction made between more skilled and less skilled doctors -- payment is the same, i.e. based on procedure (and there are annual quotas to keep provincial budgets in line).
The mother is alive and kicking. By her own account if she would have been in the states she would have been bancrupt by it.
In the U.S.A. she would likely been able to afford health insurance (by virtue of her lower tax rate). Even bankruptcy is better than death.
As for your sons Ultrasound: You can get additional healthinsurance that would cover that, you don't really think that you got it for free in the US, did you? Your company paid for it and that's where it's it, somebody is always paying, nothings for free.
Part of my remuneration consisted of subsidized health insurance -- that is standard with most U.S. professional occupations. But I'd hardly call that "free". As for private insurance for this in Canada, it is one of the things I cannot afford for the high income taxes.
At the end you pay for the things you use, one way or the other, there are no free lunches, and why not pay it via my taxes if after that I can lean back and don't have to worry about it that much anymore?
One very important reason: payment by way of taxes involves three bad things: (a) government choice as to the service you get, (b) a monopoly provider, and (c) administrative overhead. There is serious competition in health care in the U.S. But, as much as I am morally opposed to taxation on principle, it isn't that which bothers me so much.
It's the inefficiency and poor quality of service that I get for my tax dollar. As I said in the introduction to this response, some European nations seem to be efficient at providing social services, though I can not comment from experience. But Canada certainly isn't.
The argument that we have a "kinder and gentler" society that helps the poor and disenfranchised does not wash with me any more -- not when it is at significant expense to the middle class, which should make up the vast majority of society.
Of course, socialism, at least as practiced in Canada, serves to destroy this middle class, leaving the wealthy free to leave, and ranks of the poor swelled by the economic downfall of the middle class.
The bottom line is that, in a vain attempt to "help the poor", we've swelled their ranks, and no longer have a base from which to help the truly needy. I can't even afford to donate to charity any more. In the U.S.A. I routinely give away perfectly running cars (among other donations of goods and money) because I could afford to.
You could've hired me.
Amen! Not only that, tell them they must sign a binding contract agreeing to indemnify you for any and all damage that takes places from their possession of this information. If another employees steals this information, they can engage in some very damaging identity theft. The company should agree to accept responsibility for this in advance.
I am getting SICK of having my CREDIT REPORT used for a character profile.
Have bad credit? Can't rent an apartment. Rental history and job becomes totally irrelevant at that point, unfortunately. Yes, I tried the "I'll give you 3x the deposit" bit, but when you're in a tight rental market, all you hear is "No, I'm sorry." and they move on to the next applicant. Barganing with a landlord doesn't happen in the Silicon Valley anymore. If you do get a place, it's probably in a complex that isn't nearly as nice as you wanted - or could afford.
How about insurance? Why does an *auto insurance company* need to check my credit report? There is no reason. So, I couldn't pay some bills that I racked up with I was 19yrs old, that's supposed to mean that I'm a crappy driver now, 7 years later? No, I don't think so. My credit report has absolutely nothing to do with my driving history and the two should never be put together.
I think that if a utility company can report non-payment to your credit agency, it should also be required to post the positive payments as well. It's bullshit that it's difficult to get positive references reported but it's a drop of a hat to get negative references reported.
Oh, and negative references (that i paid off already) remaining on the report for 7 years? Absurd. They should be removed in no longer than 3 years. I paid the bills, but they were reported anyway. They should not be able to screw me for 7 years over a late phone bill.
I totally disagree with an employer "judging character" by using your credit report. Aren't these the same jobs that say it's against company policy to discuss pay rates with other employees? You can't say how much you make, but the Boss can know that you had a car repossessed 5 years before?
Sorry, pal. I don't think so.
When I accept a job, I'm entering into a mutually beneficial arrangement. I'm not some grunt off the street with a piece of paper they got out of a cornflakes box - I'm a valuable asset to any organisation.
As such, I expect to be treated with respect. Regardless of how many other possible employees are out there, I'm the one they chose, and that should say it all.
If an employer asks for my marital status, I politely reply that it's none of their business. My health? Unless I have a debilitating illness, they can't ask. Why? Because it's descrimination to make a decision based on that information.
My sexual preference, taste in beer, favorite colour, penis length, belching record, and bellybutton content all fall into the same category - none of their business.
If an employer asks for proof of my qualifications, they get certificates. Why? Because it measures my ability to do my job.
My personal finances are definitely not part of my job though. Would an employer be permitted to use my (home) Internet browsing history to measure my ability to do my job? Of course not - because anything I do outside of business hours is none of their fucking business.
An employer who crossed the obvious boundary, and intruded so deeply into my personal life would receive one of three responses:
1. Go fuck yourself.
2. Refuse to allow the check, and let them deal with the discrimination suit
3. Insist on full salary report, credit checks, and financial statements from management and the company itself before allowing myself checked.
I should also point out that I have an excellent credit record - no bad debts, no large loans, no refusals, nothing like that at all. But I resent this sort of unfair intrusion. I won't allow a DNA check, a sperm count, or reveal my preferred Spice Girl just for the sake of employment.
Finally, picture this - after many years of allowing such checks, you get refused for employment. Why? Because you once posted a comment on Slashdot criticising the practice of running credit checks on potential employees. Sounds unlikely? Not really - these posts are easily found, and all it takes is for people to allow such discrimination in small increments. Today they can check our health and credit. Tomorrow our political alignment. Next year, our personal opinions. Eventually, you stop having any privacy.
I mean, okay, to start with, I never HAD credit, let alone good credit, I was never wealthy enough to get money I didn't need (which in essense is what credit cards are about), and had over my youth, several bills go unpaid due to the ups and downs of employment over the last 14 years.
But the credit checks are getting out of hand. For example, in Washington state (not sure if it's the same everywhere else), you cannot get even basic employment with supermarkets, or even tobacco shops (a big industry here), without passing a credit check. These jobs are just one notch above working fast food and 24 hour quickiemarts, which means even those on minimum wage cannot get a job that pays a paltry $2-$3 more per hour, if they had any bills go into collection after a layoff. If they had a check bounce once, and didn't pay it off instantly, that's also a black mark, naturally.
However, if all you had for a 5 year period was minimum wage employment, and were looking for a new job while living off a credit card in that time (if you're really lucky), then you're screwed as well, even by missing one bill.
And of course, if you decided to spend some time self employed, and didn't keep 100% accurate tax records, and do all the paperwork (such as those ITs who worked for food or sold their services under the table), you're also fucked.
Of course, since there's a 7 year amnesty, you have to wait that long for anything to be cleared from your credit record.
In a nutshell, it's pretty stupid all around. Not having a job results in not having money, which results in bad credit when you have to choose between a phone bill and eating for another week, or keeping rent paid, which results in not getting the job you need to make money to pay the bills and the rent combined.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Make it a two way street. Who wants to work for a higherups that include dead beats? See if they are under a mountain of debt, or have crimanal judgments against them.
If they say no, why should you say yes?
A felon is convicted beyond all reasonable doubt. a Person with bad credit is determined by someones opinion.
Do they require you to be bonded? Once upon a time in college I had a job over Xmas break making minimum wage humping stuff in a warehouse, and was investigated so I could be bonded to protect the employer if I was a thief. There are a lot of technical rules for bonding (like no TRO's, no problems about child support, etc.), and if you are in a position to cook the inventory, screw up sales or steal confidential corporate info it is not at all unusual for the employer to bond you, which means a detailed background check above and beyond criminal background check. If this is just a "we check everyone" it is bullshit.
Makes perfect sense to me.
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
Having done some hiring of technology folks, I've always thought it would have been a good idea to check out how neat/clean candidates are.
... it seems like it might be a good check to do.
Not that I'm a neat freak by any means, but when someone's cube is so filled with crap that you can't even see the "furniture", or the person apparently never bathes
This could easily be done by walking the candidate to his or her car, and peering in. Is the back or front seat filled with Mountain Dew cans? Is this person living out of his car? Is the car so smashed up that you can bet this person has no hand-eye coordination, or is seriously unlucky (either being not good for a technologist).
I'm not sure I know how to check for not bathing. Actually, I'm not even sure I want to know how to check for not bathing.
Someone has asked if anyone in Europe has expierenced something like this.
Employee rights in germany are (still) *very* advanced. It's even legally permited for women to lie about pregnacy when interviewed, to prevent discrimination. Mothers enjoy "Mutterschutz", where roughly the latter half of pregnacy and something like a year (??) after birth they need not come to work but also may not be layed off.
Anything like this crap in germany would give a company a half a years worth of negative press the least. Allthough there is a special authourity that's allowed to pass on information about wether your in delayed dept or not. But *only* that information and it's only credit institutes that are allowed that inquirery.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Evere corporation i have worked for has asked for this, most don't do it for low-wage jobs but they still ask for it. Grow up will you.
The only time you should accept a credit check or background investigation is when you are applying for a job where national secuirty or huge sums of money are at risk. In any other situation, an employer who demands a credit check is probably a bad company to work for.
I work for a DOD Contractor. Everytime I apply for a clearance for a special program access I get a credit check done on me . However this fact was disclosed well in advance of my applying for my first clearance. I didnt need to have good credit to get hired , and I would have balked if I was hired and then told that they were gonna do a credit check on me. This is a matter of privacy IMO, esspecially if the reason is " 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" this is a form of discrimination. If the reason is ...as for a Government program to verify your addresses and previous employments, and yes financial status to see if you pose a "buyability" risk then fine I knew when I started working in a DOD environment that he microscope would be clicked to a higher magnification. BUT to base your decision to hire someone based on there credit report is discrimination.
--Im an oven mitt, not an engineer! (SLArbys Radio Commercial)
At any publically traded US corporation, you can go to the SEC EDGAR database of all Federal filings with respect to the financial condition of a company.
The suits for the most part tell the truth in these reports, because lying can get corporate officers a quick trip to Club Fed.
As an exercise, go to the EDGAR database and look up the report (either 8K annual or 10Q quarterly, I'm not sure which) in which MS discusses its potential trouble from Open Source.
If you're thinking of working for a company, it's your responsibility to get this kind of info before signing on. If they're in the kind of financial trouble that will interfere with the promises they made you before hitting you up for a credit report, be assured they won't tell you themselves.
Tech Public Policy stuff
abundantly clear to me after reading this thread, there are a lot of college kids with no real life experience frequenting these boards, and a lot of people with abudnant cash because they live in mom's basement. Employers should not be allowed to check your credit, nor deny you a job based on a preference to keep that information private. Employers already have too much control of our lives, we should draw the line somewhere.
For a midsized car they wanted me to pay $500/month, right now I pay $250.
Umm, HOLY SHIT, $500/month?! You driving a Lambourghini in Compton or something? My insurance is $800/year for full coverage in Los Angeles. Granted that is for an economy car but I know no one who pays even close to that much for insurance.
Q.
ie, its none of their damned business.
what you do or don't do on your personal time is your business, not theirs.
they say they try to use this to ID potential problems with employees. I'd turn it around and say that you, as a matter of principle, won't submit to such testing as it indicates a potential problem with employers.
otoh, jobs are hard to come by these days. so its a judgement call of: stand by your convictions and be jobless or give in and at least get a job out of it.
suppose they turn you down due to your refusal to submit to this 'process'. I smell a lawsuit here. I bet they would prefer NOT to be dragged thru court and have their name associated with Personal Privacy issues, maybe?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You guys get stiffed enough in the US as it is, with drug checks, health checks and god knows what else checks.
In Australia it's as simple as a background check from friend / previous employer who will vouch for you as well as possibly a police background check depending on the position you are taking and the institution (example I am working at a bank at the moment, I can fully understand a police check)
For a country with so many rights for the people (the US) it amazes me sometimes just how pushy people are over there in regards to getting jobs. Soon it will be "sorry your distant cousin bob whom you've never met jaywalked in 83, you won't be needed here after all" sad sad stuff.
My situation isn't as bad, but it's similar. I'd hate to think a new job depended on a credit check. I'd be screwed even though I had NO idea of what was being done. I wonder how far reasons like this would get you when applying for that job....
Good question though if you could sue the ex since you couldn't get the job due to her....
I wouldn't apply for a job somewhere that does a credit check for no reason. For a good reason, sure (my company did a credit check on me, but there was a very good reason for it; it isn't a requirement of all employees). If they didn't tell you until after you were hired, you should talk to a lawyer. If pre-hire they didn't give you any warning (not in the employee manual, not in the contract, not in the hire letter), you could argue that they prevented you from accepting a position elsewhere (perhaps, I A N A L).
Oh! I'm sorry. I was applying logic to the problem. I forgot that that logic is no longer relevant in this country.
Were you told about the credit check in the interview or when they made the offer to you? I would first sit down with the top people in the company and explain to them that you value your privacy and do not belive that a credit report will show them anything about the way you work. People get into all kinds of situations. People get sick, people have family die, people have accidents. I would think about speaking with a lawyer as well. I hate stupid lawsuits but a privacy lawsuit is not a stupid lawsuit. Just don't spill hot coffee on yourself and blame MCds.
Actually I have lived in: Germany, USA, Netherlands, Switzerland and now Canada, and all the $ amounts I quoted where "local".
The cheap gas in the US is a two edged sword, it is not the real price it should cost, if you factor everything in, not even the price of 1.50 Euro / litre in Europe is. As much as I hate to say it: We should pay for what it really costs, but then we would probably look at $5/litre and I don't think that is sellable to the public.
I see some of your points but I also think that the balance that is struck in Canada (although not perfect) is still more preferable than what is happening in the US (or can happen there to you).
The same arguments you are bringing up right now about the Canadian System I constantly hear from people in Europe, the funny thing is: Nobdoy ever really WANTS to pay for something they do not consider they need. Insurance is one of those funny things, how many people would get a car insurance if they wouldn't be legally required to get one? But if you need it and it's there you won't complain.
I had intimate relations with both the US and the Canadian Health Care System and both worked and did what they were supposed to do, the only difference was that I was $500 out in the US for getting an X-Ray, some painkillers and a crutch while I didn't pay a dime here in Canada.
Yes, the thing that happened to your Dad is a sad thing but I seriously doubt that the doctors didn't tell him what they had discovered when they were aware that there was a cure in the US.
The middle class in the US is by all accounts disappearing as well, it is a sign of times that the idea always is that people should be responsible for themselves, the government in Ontario tried that too ("Let's privatise Healthcare, like the US does, see how much money we can save.") and they got their ticket, the majority of the people doesn't seem to like that kind of idea. I wonder why if the system is so utterly flawed? Fear?
In Germany right now with the rising unemployment and an expensive social state you hear a lot of people argue similar: "Get rid of this, yeah it is great that we cover everybodys asses but the ones who really want to go ahead, who really want to invent something and who really could create workplaces can't because the tax burden is so high, we're all mediocre." Sounds familiar? It's the same argument and I am starting to wonder if the priorities in peoples lifes is just a bit skewed. Is it really only about money these days?
As for Company premium healthcare, ALL the companies I worked for in Canada were offering this as well, they paid for everything that wasn't covered by OHIP and in one job they even paid 100% dental (something you don't even get in Germany).
Reality is that in Canada you pay one lump sum with your taxes and with that you also subsidize other people, but in the US (by my experience) they nickle and dime you to death.
I think Quality of life is more than just how much money you have in the bank at the end of the day or how big your house is, but maybe I am still too idealistic? Maybe my views change if I have my own family and kids?
Judging by your CV you're in your late 30's maybe when I am there I see things similar, for now though I tend to disagree.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
you've entered into a contract. The way it seems is that what you got it not what you were told it was going to be.
Careerwise your best option is to get out now before it affects your career history in a big way.
Regarding credit checks...
In the UK, which is the law I happen to work under, a credit check is simply a list of numbers of which each increments when I make a late payment.
e.g.
001000101010100
Would indicate that 3 payments ago I did not make an immediate payment to a demand, nor did I five payments ago.
Unless you really have a bad credit history you're not really going to be affected here. The company is simply asking to ensure that you don't have a credit rating like this:
0943243254265:
That is their only cause for concern. Re-assure them if you trust them. If your rating is not that bad and the company is good enough to work for then bite the bullet and go for it.
Don't listen to the karma freaks/zealots who might answer otherwise.
If you enjoy your job then you'll do it.
I hold a clear distinction between business and personal life and I ask that any employer do also. Personal life is none of their business unless I invite them, and my business does not interfere with my personal life again, unless invited.
Any company that I apply for is invited to check anything about me that is a matter of public record:
* Criminal history
* Miltray service
Things beyond that leave a bad taste in my mouth and a bad impression of the company. I'll submit to a drug test if necessary but I don't like it for the reason mentioned above.
Most companies retain a "90 day testing time" so that they can can you easily if they see any bad habits or bad work. That is completely reasonable and anything they need to learn they can learn in that period.
If credit report checks become common and accepted what will the company do next?
* Lie detector tests?
* DNA tests?
* Request to screen your wife so they know that
your personal life will not interfere with
their business?
* Submit a list of all your purchaes to them to
see if you are in a risky situation?
* Report to them all the medications that you are
on so they can decide if you have any mental
issues?
For God's sake, companies are now requiring applicants take a personality test when applying for minimum wage jobs! Hell, I had to answer the classic empathy test question when applying to work at Blockbuster when I was unemployed. That is friggen' sleazy -- it is worse stereotyping by hiring based on race and is not acceptable for any place that I would like to work at.
The big thing is that if the employer would require a credit check and judge you based on your personal life how far would they go beyond that? Can you trust them? Can you dedicate years of your life in employment under their watchful eye?
If they won't budge on the credit report issue at all I would tell them to shove it -- especially at a smaller company -- in that case you know that it wasn't a new business grad that had a bright idea and implemented a stupid policy at a big comapny -- you know that the COO or CEO is a real control freak and can't rely on his underling's judgement about his employees.
...and yes, they found the $4k write off that AmEx did several years ago (hey, I'll be glad to pay off the old corporate credit card when SAIC sees fit to pay the $7k in back wages they owe me).
And you know what? It didn't make a bit of difference when I applied for, and got my new job. Employers know they can't not hire you because of your credit history. Just be sure to let them know that, if they do a credit check and they don't hire you, you're going to require that they provide you with the resume of the person the did hire. That usually puts things into prospective for the employer.
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"! Your credit report is private and no person or company can look at it without your permission, this is your "right to privacy". Any company has the right to ask you to sign away those rights, so that they can see your credit report. You have the right to deny, and they in turn have the right to deny you employment (or a loan/credit card)!
Precisely what I was thinking!
In Australia for a Holden SS Commodore (V8, I beleive it's being shipped to the US as a Pontiac GTO) for someone over 25 I beleive it's around 1500-2000$ AUD a YEAR
Ie 900-1400$ US and this car is 300kw of power, could easily do 250-280kmh and is less than 18 months old.
Your average insurance in Australia ranges from 800-5000$ per annum (5000$ being a modified Nissan Skyline or something and an under 25y/o driver)
500$ a month (US$) would literally plow me in the ass.
You must be resident in the US to be considered.
CompanyX is an equal opportunities employer
Ha ha ha.
- Whether drug testing will be required, and whether it is one-time, random, ongoing, etc.
- Whether a credit check will be performend.
- Whether any medical data will be required.
- Whether a drivers license/driving record check will be performed.
- Whether a non-compete clause will be required
- Whether binding arbitration will be required and rights to a jury trial forfeited in the event of disputes with the company.
- Disclosure of any other information that will be required, and any other arrangements that will be contractually mandated.
This document would take the form of a contract, to be signed by both parties at the same time that an NDA is signed, and which can only be changed by written permission from both parties. Some employers may take issue with this, but I suspect that those companies would end up being problematic anyhow; this is a very reasonable request for relevant information that the company should have no trouble producing. This is not as drastic an approach as saying "I refuse to submit to any of the following"... it simply puts in your hands enough information to make an informed decision about what joining the company will cost you, at a phase of the process when your leverage is still intact. And getting it signed when NDAs are signed allows you to pass it off in precisely the same pro forma atmosphere as the NDAs.- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I seem to recall a study done some years back that claimed that people who managed other peoples money, had a more difficult time managing their own. On that basis, someone with bad credit might just be a more valuable employee.
The whole idea of credit checks for non-loan issues troubles me. A few years back, I bought a house and, as luck would have it, was able to arrange the closing at the same time my auto insurance was set to expire. In the course of insurance shopping, I was denied car insurance by a rather large east coast insurance company that bears the name of the state capitol of Connecticut. Their rationale was that bad credit implies that the potential insured person may not pay.
More recently, a coworker was shopping for car insurance online at Progressive. As part of their rate generating process, they pull a credit report. Since he did not have an large credit history, they quoted him a high rate. At no point, did Progressive (or the company that denied me) pull a driving record. They based their insurability on a credit check.
Why do so many companies do credit checks on new employees/customers/etcetera?
Because it is quick, cheap, and allows them to make a hand-waving excuse that will prevent a person from suing based on a rejection.
The simple upshot is that a credit history has no bearing on the quality of an employee. A criminal background check, however, might be more revealing. Personally, I would walk away from the employer, good credit or not. If an employer is willing to examine personal information on that level and make a decision based on it is no place that is worth working for.
Or being insured by.
Kiss ass while you bitch so you can get rich but the boss gets richer off you. --Dead Kennedys
The car I looked at was a Mazda Protege....
their reasoning: "Because you obtained your driving license in a foreign country we cannot accertain your proficcency(sp?) level and as such have to put you high risk."
Yeah thanks, we all know that drivers ed in Germany is absolutly useless, we don't drive there ourselves, we get driven around. (Note the sarcasm).
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I work for a company that does credit checks. This was a bit worrisome for me when I interviewed, since at the time, I was having some problems. I got the job though, and it didn't seem to affect anything. One night a few months later, I asked a lawyer I ran into about it.
His interpretation was that it's completey legal since, as with drug testing, I have every right to choose not to work for such a company. Fair enough. What he pointed out, however, is that in most cases, employers don't care if you've missed car payments or had a bankruptcy or whatever. What they're looking for is stuff that won't show on a normal criminal background check.
Criminal checks usually only show stuff that you've been arrested and/or convicted of-usually felonies. Credit checks can catch things that could be just as problematic, though. For example, a deadbeat dad who has outstanding warrants for back child support will still pass a criminal check (he hasn't been convicted yet), but DFACS will lock down the jerk's credit rating, and this'll show up on the credit check. Same goes for certain types of check fraud and tax evasion. This is the sort of thing that employers are usually concerned about.
Now if you're applying for something like Branch Manager of a bank or security clearance, I can see why they'd be more comprehensive, but if it's not that kind of job you're applying for, I'd ask them what criteria they're checking first.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
"Have you ever tried to Google for something and NOT found it?"
:(
unfortunately
In South Australia, I was shown an Employment Application for factory work at
:-\
[the large Adelaide-based car maker] Holden (a former General Motors subsidiary).
It informs applicants that "Sensitive Information" will be collected
(with their permission... later requested on the same form):
"Sensitive Information is a special category of personal information.
It is information or opinion about your:
* racial or ethnic origin;
* political opinions;
* membership of a political association or
religious beliefs, affiliations or philosophical beliefs;
* membership of a professional or trade association or
membership of a trade union;
* sexual preferences or practices;
* criminal record;
* health or disability (at any time);
* expressed wishes about the
future provision of health service."
Later, on the same form, we read:
"Your personal and sensitive information may be disclosed to... [sic]
* potential and actual employers and clients of OZ JOBS (Administration) Pty Ltd
* referees nominated by you;
* Commonwealth, State & Territory government agencies;
* our contractors and suppliers - e.g. our I.T. contractors
and database designers"
September 11th changed things...
My guess is that racists & the religious right
have already begun to -celebrate- some of the 9-11 changes,
right here in South Australia.
Instead of telling each other "We've lost rights",
we need to tell each other how we've retained our rights
In some states, it is illegal to do this.
,in Oregon, consists of a title change, increase of pay, and a increase in resposabilty.
In some states you can not be held to a change in polisy unless you get a promotion. A promotion
It is likley that your state employment agency has these guidlines on line. such as boli for oregon.
Talk to a lawyer. Find out what your rights are.
If I ever found out I lost a job opportunity because of a credit report, I would sue.
Credit is not a indcator of a good employee. My credit rating suck, why? I was out of work for 3 months. almost everyday my boss thanks me for working here because I am pulling there product back from the brink of disaster.
I know men whose ex-wife screwed them over, should they not be able to work?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In todays world - it may be reason to request a lawyer to look over your rights - especially rights that follow under discrimination laws.
If the employer feels necessary to pull your credit report for employment, then they will have no problem sharing their personal and the companies report to you. You can request it for the same reasons...
To identify potential problems with the company and its employer, in that people who cannot manage their company finances may not be able to manage their personal finances. You are entitled to equal knowledge of who you work for... You want to know that the company and its empoyer do not have a troublesome credit history whom may be more likely to steal from the company (ENRON).
For assistance - check with the FBI or Secret Service.
An employer doesn't want to know if you were late on your visa bill.
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?
I see some of your points but I also think that the balance that is struck in Canada (although not perfect) is still more preferable than what is happening in the US (or can happen there to you).
The U.S.'s biggest problems are (a) money buying power, and (b) litigation gone mad. I still prefer those problems to Canadian tax waste: I recently encountered a social worker who admitted that "80% of her clients" are quite capable of getting off welfare and getting work, but proudly milking the system, and earning more than she does!. Now, her experience may be atypical, but, geez, there's something plain wrong with that picture!
Insurance is one of those funny things, how many people would get a car insurance if they wouldn't be legally required to get one?
The first lawsuit would straighten out that thinking right quick.
I had intimate relations with both the US and the Canadian Health Care System and both worked and did what they were supposed to do, the only difference was that I was $500 out in the US for getting an X-Ray, some painkillers and a crutch while I didn't pay a dime here in Canada.
Perhaps, but that $500 is likely nothing compared to the income taxes you saved. It just looks like a lot at the time -- I've paid a few hundred dollars for kid's doctor's visits and tests on occasion that my insurance didn't cover, but was still better off at the end of the day.
Yes, the thing that happened to your Dad is a sad thing but I seriously doubt that the doctors didn't tell him what they had discovered when they were aware that there was a cure in the US.
I checked. They deliberately didn't tell him. That made me livid.
The middle class in the US is by all accounts disappearing as well, it is a sign of times that the idea always is that people should be responsible for themselves, the government in Ontario tried that too ("Let's privatise Healthcare, like the US does, see how much money we can save.") and they got their ticket, the majority of the people doesn't seem to like that kind of idea. I wonder why if the system is so utterly flawed? Fear?
Fear is a big motivator. And, I disagree that the U.S. middle class is disappearing. Certainly not the way the Canadian middle class has. The U.S.'s big problems are spiralling health-care costs due to what I call over-litigation.
[paraphrasing] Is it really only about money these days?
No, of course not, but it is a good objective measure of standard of living. And, using middle-class standards strikes me as fair comparison, not being overly dollar-focused.
As for Company premium healthcare, ALL the companies I worked for in Canada were offering this as well, they paid for everything that wasn't covered by OHIP and in one job they even paid 100% dental (something you don't even get in Germany).
Canadian "premium" healthcare doesn't even begin to compare to standard U.S. healthcare benefits. I got sick in Chicago, spent a week in the hospital from some unknown illness (106F fevers), three days in monitored care, had every test under the sun (several MRIs, ultrasounds, etc.) -- the bill came to US$25,000 and it didn't cost me a dime out of pocket.
Reality is that in Canada you pay one lump sum with your taxes and with that you also subsidize other people, but in the US (by
In my experience the "nickels and dimes" added up to far less than the lump sum, and the service was better. The Canadian tax-based system is plain inefficient. But, yes, one pays to a lot more suppliers in the states for various things. Paytrust be a good thing for managing things like that.
I think Quality of life is more than just how much money you have in the bank at the end of the day or how big your house is, but maybe I am still too idealistic? Maybe my views change if I have my own family and kids?
Money matters. It isn't so much as to how much is in the bank, but what one's day-to-day lifestyle is. Do you want your kids to go to a good school? Do you want to have a private community pool in a safe neighborhood for the summer? Do you want to have time to do things on the weekends and not have to mow the lawn? The HDTV and DSL might be luxeries but they were considered normal lifestyle choices by the middle class Americans we had as friends and neighbours. A pleasant and comfortable life costs money, and the "normal" standard in the U.S. is much more pleasant and comfortable than the "normal" standard in Canada.
Judging by your CV you're in your late 30's maybe when I am there I see things similar, for now though I tend to disagree.
Well, civil people can disagree. I have no problem with a friendly debate. But, I think you will find that efficient implementation of "essential" social services is almost impossible to attain in any society for very long: the administrative overhead, and monopoly nature of government service, not to mention the "freeloading" that happens, and the expense to police it (if at all) results in a horrible inefficiency. This is not an argument against taxation per se, but a discrediting of it as the means to provide some guaranteed level of properity. I have found, for example, that local taxation initiatives with results clearly visible to the taxed community work far better and far more efficiently that "one size fits all" central planning. It even accomodates some wealth redistribution without killing the "goose that lays the golden egg", vis. the "Robin Hood" school property tax redistripution in and around places like Dallas. But, by remaining fairly local, there is strong citizen pressure for efficiency and accountability -- in other words, it has to be provably better than "everyone for themselves".
You could've hired me.
This is relatively normal for the finance industry. I had to submit to a credit check for my current job. The rationale is they didn't want you touching other people's money if you can't handle your own. Basically they only cared if I had declared bankruptcy.
.
Interesting.
Can I ask *when* you got the job in the US, and *when* you got your current job in Canada?
Right now if I quit my Toronto job and tried to get another one, I'd have to take a 50-60 percent pay cut - simply because of the economy. I can't blame that on *any* "difference in standard of living" between places.
.
since this is already a semi flame thread:
** The spirit of liberty hasn't yet been snuffed out.**
sorry, but quite ironically it has been snuffed out, it went back to europe. you may think that not having to pay as much mandatory payments(taxes) is a liberty but it isn't, you just have the option to pay them, an option that you choose if you can afford(how can you afford to not have health care?), so it's a 'must' option, but still being optional, the living costs can be raised and wages lowered to the the point where you can live, but not be able to afford to pay the medical insurance, of course this isn't a problem untill you get sick, which also means that you won't go as aggressively demanding a pay raise, or cheaper(good gov funded perhaps) medical care.
the ability to do a contract to lose all your rights(medical care being viewed as a right, a right to live) is no ability a person should have, wasn't this one of the reasons why people set out to the new world in masses? to get away from filthy landowners(on who's land you had to farm to survive) and their unfair(but lawful) contracts.
i don't have anything(not much more than against any other country) against usa, but gee, a person should not be able to sell his rights(patent, privacy or others).
i also happen to regret seeing homeless people when i'm abroad, or beggers. we don't have them. 100% of people who can(aren't mentally handicapped) are able to read. no trailer trash. anyone can get university level education if they wish, top level, tuition is ~80$ per year(includes medical insurance), if you study enough yearly state will pay your rent and food(to a certain point), in elementary/high-schools theres free hot lunch for everyone. every healthy male does military service. we have so called 'every mans rights' for hiking in the country, harvesting berries and generally enjoying our country.
sure there's lowlifes too, this ain't no utopia. alcoholics, drug addicts..
countries like usa are nice places for a visit, or a short work sprint. would i like to raise my kids there if i was average waged person(if there is such a thing)? no(lots of reasons, one being certain level of equility between people, you don't need a bodyguard here no matter how rich/famous you are, sounds naive but is still true, low-worker kids play with multibillion corporation ceo's kids). no need for a schoolbus, the school is walks away, bicycle most. the plus sides of living in a welfare nation.
sure, the cars cost a lot, gas costs a lot, alcohol costs a lot(0.7l whiskey=30euros+, starting from cheaper brands, beer is dollar per 0.33liter bottle). all of these are heavily taxed.
the corporates of usa have become the filthy landowners of the old continent. however, in europe people eventually got fed up of it. eventually that WILL happen in usa too, and that is when the s*** goes down, be that years or decades, perhaps a century, ever wondered if a rap superstar had some political agenda, ability and vision to pull through some serious 'stick it to the man'.
not so long ago the companies would 'take care of you', nobody viewed that as bad commie behauvior. that responsibility got taken by the state here when companies stopped caring.
no i would not like to live in russia either. that place is messed up for the next 20 years still, at least(the society is still kind of stuck between imperial russia with land-slaves and ultra-capitalistic situation they are in now, it really didn't move to anything as a whole during the socialistic expirement of theirs).
but you know what is funny? if you got money, guts, and adventurous business mind, THAT is the land of free(that is, for those that got money, guts and 'enterprising' mind, for others it's the land of scrape something to eat every now and then and die of aids or tuberculosis). i wouldn't take my family there either though, though you can get quality medical care for cheap if you got money, get education for your kids if you got money, security, you can also get to a certain point if you have money, that certain point is unless the mob wants you or your relatives dead.
oh yeah and get a ban on exporting daytime tv-shows from usa(judge blabala, springer & etc), they really don't help if you are trying to build a positive image of people in usa in general.
and frankly, neither does reading a school rulebook from american school. really, is it necessary to tell kids that they can't bring knives, handguns, shotguns (SEPERATELY mentioned from handguns) or other firearms to school...
a union leader can steal money; therefore,
unions are not in your benefit.
My good Sir, it is not hard to remind you
that kings steal money, that government officials
still money, and the church itself has stolen
money. Should we that conclude that we don't
government, religion, or everything else?
Next they'll be reviewing your shopping patterns, how much beer you bought, how many condoms and other items from which to draw a profile.
Okay, maybe I am a snob (and yes I am single, and no I don't have kids) but Car Insurance in the States killed me quite nicely as well. For a midsized car they wanted me to pay $500/month, right now I pay $250.
You need a new insurance carrier. Granted, I have a private insurance carrier and pay much less than most people, but my insurance is $850 every 6 months. I have a 2-door sports car, with two tickets on my record. I also live in one of the higher states to insure in (Oregon).
Insurance varies based on the carrier...
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Pull your head out of your ass. Credit histories are common for many companies, especially financial institutions and governemt agencies and people wishing to work for companies that want to get contracts with these.
You are bing asked to be a director... someone responsible for managing money and a budget and the ability to make spending decisions. The company's credit can be adversely affected by your poor decisions. It makes perfect sense to me.
You can't get a security clearance without good credit, you can't work for a stock broker unless you go through full financial disclosure (including providing copies of former tax returns and bank records).
You should be happy you were offered a job because you are obviously a) not that smart and (b) a whiney little prick.
Only in certain circumstances, banking, Government etc. is that information required.
Otherwise it's illegal see EEOC as is asking your age, if you are married, children etc.
check out and ferer it to the EEOC. They will advise you and 'talk' to them.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/budget/2000/healthc are.htm
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget01/bp/bpch6e.htm
Where we find out that apparently the yearly budget for health care was 30 billion. And, as the population of canada is 30 million, that means that $700-1000 of your salary went to that 'free' health care. Most likely more than that, if you account for having an above-average tax bill.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. And a lunch that isn't picked over by vultures (beaurocrats) will be more filling than one that hasn't.
Check your credit, pay your protection money. Hire your lawyers. It's BigBrother meets Job Programs for the Disgustingly Intrusive. The United Mafia of America has you all well trained to go scurring around worrying about your credit history and sucking up to credit card sheisters.
99% of Slashdot readers are idiots.
Before commenting, please live in both countries for a number of years, and then spout off.
Been there, 3 years in the U.S. (1 in Cali, 2 in NYC). Back in Toronto.
What I like about Canada? People, culture, media.
What economically sucks about Canada? IT job pay, exchange rate.
Most day-to-day stuff I find is cheaper in Canada *except* cars & geek toys (like computers and electronic equipment) which is KILLED by the u.s. exchange rate. I have to spend over $5k for a new Apple Powerbook compared to $3.3k in the u.s. And I make 15% less than I did in the U.S. (and ONLY 15% because I have a good boss that argued for me).
Cheers
-Stu
It sounds like you have the job already Since you were on your first day when you got the papers. Ask them a simple question, What happens if my credit comes back and looks great, what happens, What happens if it comes back looking like crap?
You have a few choices, sign it and get on with your life, dont sign it and lose the job and get on with your life. Fight it, lose your job and get on with your life.
Just accept the fact that the world is lined up to screw you, just get a can of lube and move on.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
regarding cars... i find it fascinating how cars are expensive here especially when WE BUILD MOST OF THEM... especially Hondas, Acuras, Toyotas...
-Stu
The arguments have been made, and rightfully so, that your credit does not nessisarily reflect you as a person or how you will perform in their job environent. Bad times happen and people are forced to make choices to survive those times, credit be damned.
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...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Okay, so first I want to state that this is probably not always the case, but here goes: personally, I have a poor to moderate credit rating. It used to be really poor. I mean REALLY poor. I got in over my head and went through some really hard times. Now I don't use credit cards even though I'm elegible for them. And you know what? IMHO I'm a crucial asset to my employer because I work harder than most of my co-workers. I know what it means to struggle and that mades me work my ass off. Now suppose another employee has been fed from a silver spoon his whole life and has a perfect credit rating. Does that mean he is a perfect employee? Hell no. I'm not suggesting hiring people with bad credit because they will work harder, I'm just trying to make a point.
"Ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space..."
Basically ask "what relevence does that have for the position I am applying for ?"
m ployee/newcontent/workingwoman/wmnchp1_c.html
O ct 2000article.htm
n s/
Try the EEOC.
Lot's of sites.
http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/employment_e
http://www.awpwriter.org/careers/jlarticles/jl-
http://www.job-interview.net/Guide/SPstep4.htm
http://www.stat.washington.edu/www/jobs/questio
Look at the situation from this point of view. I had to have a basic background check working for a gov't contractor. After that was done with I was able to start working (would have been able to work while the basic check was being performed but b/c of 9/11 they make you wait). Now in order to do everything I do now while I'm waiting a full background is performed. Until that time I do everything as normal. That part doesn't quite make sense I know but it's true.
Anyway, they do all this to protect your fellow employees and the company, and in my case ,the gov't, since I'm working in gov't buildings. You have to have a basic credit check done because they need to know whether or not you have had any excessive amount of debts paid off very quickly. Now a guy that started work just 2 weeks before me sold his house because he relocated for this job. He got a big fat check for selling his house. Now when something like that pops up in the check it will be investigated but of course they will find out it's perfectly fine. But if someone has multiple 5 digit loans paid off in sucession but aren't that well off to afford it it's going to raise a flag. First thing that would come to mind is the person deals with drugs, maybe he gambles, or maybe she is an escort. You do not want people who break the law working for you necessarily, especially when your company handles sensitive information.
You can't take the chance in trusting them with your IP or with your finances. I got a chance to have an interview with the person investigating me to set anything straight that I thought might give them the wrong impression just reading information from the form I filled out. If you have any problems I'm sure your company will give you a chance to explain anything. If not, then you have a right to complain. But they also have a right to only hire you if they trust you with their property. If you haven't done anything wrong then there shouldn't be any reason to complain because they are only protecting themselves and they have that right.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
I know someone that did all their child support
proceedings in another state, but still started
getting bugged by Georgia. Georgia claimed he owned
25k in back child support. The best part is they
didn't do any fact checking or information
verification. They took his crazy bitch ex-wife's
word for it. Turns out she read on a message board
how you can get revenge against an ex by making a
false claim of owed back child support. His crime
was meeting someone new and actually being happy.
That set her off. They even messed up his credit
report with the groundless claim of owed support.
It took him months of phonecalls, letters, and
faxes to get it straightened out. In the meantime
he was turned down for a bunch of loans because of
his credit report. In the end, he hooked up with
my lawyer and things got fixed. It's truly scary
how child support law works. I'm definitely not
one to defend deadbeat dads, but the system is so
horrendously screwed in how it works, that a lot
of those deadbeat dads might just be victims of
overzealous and downright unfair laws. The person
paying the child support is constantly put into
a position where they have to dispute the claims
of the other party. The person with custody can
make very wild claims on costs, childcare, etc.
and doesn't have to produce any proof at all.
I had another friend that had to hire a private
investigator to prove that his ex was:
a: married again
b: employed
c: not using daycare
d: not paying rent
The court takes whatever the person with custody
says as truth. Also, they make you fill out
an income and expense sheet, but they don't take
any of your information into consideration. They
have a set formula they are going to use that
doesn't factor in your bills, rent, etc. at all.
They also don't care if you have any kids to
support on top of the one you owe support for.
The only way around that is sneaky. You have to
get your spouse/significant other/etc. to file
for support on your own kids. Then it factors into
the total amount they can take of your income for
support. In some states they can take as much as
55 percent. This way the amount that's getting
taken gets decreased when they take the percentage
for your other kids and put it right back into
your bank account.
In the end, I'm not saying that deadbeat
dads and moms aren't pieces of crap. They are. I'm
just saying that things aren't always the way they
seem. This is yet another situation where justice
is something you have to pay a lot of money to
get.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
THAT IS IT. Nothing more. As a notary public, I must get at least 2-3 people a day wanting me to authenticate some documentThey walk away upset when I tell them that a notary does not authenticate anything more than the fact that they signed that piece of paper.
Straying back on topic, I believe that the true motive behind employers who demand your credit report have no specific reason for requesting it other than a vague "you never know" or "we don't want some degenerate gambler". My simple reply: WELCOME TO BUSINESS. Risk MUST be accepted by the employer and that burden should remain with the employer. Businesses, corporation in particular, have a nasty habit of stomping on privacy whenever they see a risk. Minimizing the danger and impact of risk while still being able to fully reap the benefits from it is unfair.
"...we dont care about the economics; we just want to be able to hack great stuff."
Companies are entitled to ask for that, :^)
as far as I know there are no laws that
would prohibit them from doing so. But
nobody it holding a gun to your head.
Reject the request and go find another
job! For the record, I wouldn't comply
either, for the same reason as you, but
I still think they can ask. And my credit
history is fantastic!
I don't agree with an employer pulling my credit, but my last two jobs had this as part of the permissions I gave them on my application. I gave permission, neither company pulled my credit, they just asked permission.
Still don't agree with it but the choice between defending my principles and paying my bills is a quick choice. If you're unemployed you'll likely find your credit rating getting worse anyway.
That being said, I'm just glad I'm the owner of my own company now so I don't have any of these aggravations and no boss, other than my 2 year old son who stays home with me most days.
--- www.f-theocean.com
I understand the feelings you have regarding the privacy issue. But that is the reason that you must sign the form that allows them access to your records. You have a choice, and they have a choice. If you decide to sign, then you have decided that the job is more important than your stand against their policy. If they check your credit and it is below their standards, then they may take into account the dates of the offending entries, the severity, etc., nad hire you based upon the balance of the scales. They are a private entity. They have the right to deny employment for nearly any reason. I support this completely, even if it means that I get the bad end of the deal. The big picture is this: Pick your battles in life. You decide. I wish you the best in your career.
I recently encountered a social worker who admitted that "80% of her clients" are quite capable of getting off welfare and getting work, but proudly milking the system, and earning more than she does!. Now, her experience may be atypical, but, geez, there's something plain wrong with that picture!
;)
s p there are quite a lot of people below the poverty line, mind you that means they are not below the middle class but they are outright dirt poor.
People are always going to try to take the system for a ride, if they can. Hence insurance fraud isn't really anything new.
A way to deal with this would be to make sure that such offenders are prosecuted and kicked out of the program, but should because of those bad apples the people who really need it be kicked to the curb? The "fall from grace" in a society without any safety nets can be a very fast and very hard one, and personally this can happen without your fault.
I checked. They deliberately didn't tell him. That made me livid.
This is gross neglicence(sp?) on the part of the doctors and as such they shouldn't be allowed to treat patients anymore. That they did that though I wouldn't necessarily blame on the systems. There have studies been done in the US that made it clear that there are doctors out there who only act on their own financial interrest as well.
Canadian "premium" healthcare doesn't even begin to compare to standard U.S. healthcare benefits. I got sick in Chicago, spent a week in the hospital from some unknown illness (106F fevers), three days in monitored care, had every test under the sun (several MRIs, ultrasounds, etc.) -- the bill came to US$25,000 and it didn't cost me a dime out of pocket.
The insurance business is a pretty heartless one. For the 25,000 they paid out for you someone else probably got his rate hiked up, or got outright turned down because he was considered too high a risk.
Yes, money can buy you a lot but the idea of a "free" healthcare for all is not that everybody gets the best but that everybody GETS healthcare. Are you sure that all the tests they performed were required? Are you sure that the hospital didn't just see you as a golden calf they could get money from?
Money matters. It isn't so much as to how much is in the bank, but what one's day-to-day lifestyle is. Do you want your kids to go to a good school?
I am the product of the public education system in Germany, I don't think I turned out too bad, I don't think public school means bad.... Of course public schools means not prestigous, but that is on a totally different page.
Do you want to have a private community pool in a safe neighborhood for the summer?
I am a Triathlete, I swim quite a lot throughout the year for my training. I do have access to several public pools as well as the Y and the University of Toronto. "Safe" in what way? I don't think there are any problems with the safety of pools in Toronto nor their neighbourhoods. The idea of "safe" is something that is so blown out of proportion that people feel unsafe all the time (I could go into another rant right now but then we would really veer off topic, if you want to discuss that drop me an e-mail).
Do you want to have time to do things on the weekends and not have to mow the lawn?
If I have a garden then the idea is that I take care of it, if I don't want a garden then I either buy a house (if I want a house) without one, or at least a small one, and if in doubt: There's always AstroTurf(TM)
The HDTV and DSL might be luxeries but they were considered normal lifestyle choices by the middle class Americans we had as friends and neighbours.
Ask yourself this though: In the true sense, are they really still middle class? Middle class (by it's name) would mean that you take what everybody has, add it up, and then divide it by the number of people, the average would be the middle and as such middle class.
But it is interresting, according to this website: http://www.horizonmag.com/poverty/takes-tallies.a
That means no DSL, no body to mow their lawn (in fact they might actually do it for you), no extended health coverage (25,000 because of a fever? Definetly not) etc.
I have found, for example, that local taxation initiatives with results clearly visible to the taxed community work far better and far more efficiently that "one size fits all" central planning. It even accomodates some wealth redistribution without killing the "goose that lays the golden egg", vis. the "Robin Hood" school property tax redistripution in and around places like Dallas. But, by remaining fairly local, there is strong citizen pressure for efficiency and accountability -- in other words, it has to be provably better than "everyone for themselves".
This sounds like a good idea, the problem I see with this though is that this only works were there is enough money already around. What happens to areas that are poor?
Think of it this way: Where would you draw the line, what is still local and what isn't? I have the feeling that if this would be implemented the Rich parts of the country would very quickly clamp down and proclaim that only within their boundaries taxes should be paid, this would leave a large part of the poorer country out. An already existing gap would be growing even wider, the poorer communities would need to raise taxes to provide essential services while the richer parts could lower the taxes.
Of course by my understanding Toronto who has / had a very healthy taxbase got bled to death by the province who needed the money in other places.
My idea, my understanding of society is that we should try to help those who can't help themselves, and as such we have a responsiblity to make certain of that. To use the Marines: "No man is left behind." And that should be true for a society in total as well. Of course that's idealism, we're all way too selfish.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I shopped around, they didn't like me as I was new to the country.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Employers can demand all kinds of crap because there are way too many applicants for the jobs available.
We have vast overpopulation, and that's a result of the outcome of the past World War. Had the axis won, lots of people would have died in the years following the axis victory, and millions more would not have been born.
Additionally, advances in food and medicine have created a population explosion.
Too many workers, not enough jobs.
Here's the result as it applies to job seekers:
Your average bastard boss can come up with all sorts of intrusive requirements for your application to be approved, and if you resist, you application hits the trashcan quicker than a speeding bullet.
They don't give a rat's ass.
Thousands more fools will take your place. The individual who has lead a decent life, not run up bad debts, taken drugs, etc. cannot now protect his dignity.
There is an opposite side to this, however. A workplace that does not require any credit or drug checks.
You are hired if you are fool enough to work there. Uuually there is a complete absence of benefits. Then, when some of your bad credit, drug habits, etc. show up, they use that against you for ever and a day. These places usually don't reward good employees with raises or benefits, however, only the negative matters, not the positive. Workplace abuses abound.
I have found that businesses that are reasonably assured of decent sales, etc. regardless of the level of employee satisfaction and fair treatment are prone to abuses of this sort.
Why should they do anything to make life better for the employees? Normally, if the workforce is disgruntled, then the company suffers, in the end. That's not always apparent, at least not in the short-term. In most cases, you will need to live decades longer than you might, to see the day when these bastards get what's coming to them.
nobody should know them... in fact, credits scores suck themselves...
... i'm not a minority, so ican't sue for the discrimination, but whoever does, i get 10% okay?
i belive the credit system will be illegal in a few years, it's only time until people see that minorities have lower credit scores (on average)
anyway, tell your employer that he can speak to the people he needs to , but he doesn't need a full history, that is private, if he wants letters of shouldn't get a history of it.
Runnin' On Empty
Not really true though, have a look at what comes standard.
;)
I bought a Mazda Protege 5 last year and paid including taxes 26K, a friend of mine fromt he states came up with the same car, less extras and he had paid US$ 25K.
At least in my case I won
M.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
What I like about Canada? People, culture, media.
:)
Thank you, that was another reason why I wouldn't want to live in the US again.
You're right about the other things though, but I still rather sit outside in the summer on Bloor Street and have a beer
M.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Sorry, that "everyone else took it up the ass, so you have to, too." is absolute bullshit.
I once had an employer hand me a contract that would have had me agreeing to the "remedy of specific performance".
I didn't know what that meant, so I asked my sister (the lawyer). In a nutshell, if I had signed it I would've lost the Civil War. When I pointed this out to the idiots who wanted me to sign this, (they didn't understand the boilerplate, either), their response was "well, I see how that's to the company's advantage."
I replied: " I didn't say it wasn't to your advantage, I said I'm not going to sign it."
It's very important to push back when someone makes an unreasonable request.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think it should be unlawful for employers to do credit checks on employees. As mentioned earlier by some people, what if the reason for your debt problem (such as mine), is because of a layoff from a high paying job? How can one expect to pay off their bills if you don't have the income to meet those needs? Filing bankruptcy is the easy way out, but isn't a good option if you're being hired on basis of character. Employers look at this, too. I think it's totally rediculous.
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.
VKh
Just sign the personal credit check. That information is available to people who want to buy it anyways. If your of good character, this should not matter.
When I'm told there is a drug test is "Hmmm, do you
guys have a problem with that here?" And they say
"what?". And then I say "I mean, you must have some
sort of huge problem with drug users working here
if you are doing testing. I don't want to work
with a bunch of druggies". And they say some line
about it being quite normal. Then I mention that
it's a first for me, and seems kinda silly.
Sometimes they've dropped the requirement, but most
of the time they go through with it. I don't care
either way. But from experience, the companies
that test had the most potheads, coked out
managers, and everybody knows that marketing is
completely on crack.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
I get checked because I perform security services in the financial industry. I think that in that case it is not only appropriate, but necessary.
Linux is UNIX.
What choice is there?
The U.S. has been colonized, Australia has been colonized. Prisons are full. Maybe we could take half the people businesses haven't hired and send them over to occupy some other countries.
Hmmmm......
Maybe things are a little different in the US, but _directors_ of a business are essentially there to run the company on behalf of others, often, that means the shareholders. Their personal finances, whilst having no direct relation to your potential for performing, certainly hold sway with others' confidence in you as a director. It is most certainly relevant. Your role would be a _business_ role. Your personal affairs would most certainly be a reasonable indicator of your ability to perform in said role.
My advice - if you've been bankrupt before (or are, at the moment), seek your local McDonalds' restaurant. The burgers there taste much better, when splashed with the sweat of personal defeat and shame.
666!
Only if you don't live anywhere that actually has highways. :P
They mistrust you from the get go, and they did not even trust you would take the job if the had told you about their little "requirement" before hand. This is absolutely a control thing. They are showing you who is the boss by making you feel uncomfortable. I know it is hard to find a job these days, but that is what you will be trying to do soon anyway if you take this one.
The reason we have credit reports is that without them, credit is hard to get and consequently very expensive, as the risk is so high to the lender. So in the era of debtor's prisons, no one's going to lend any significant amount to the average man on the stret, except consumer lending in small amounts from individual merchants. If you were getting a whack of cash, you were respectable and well known in the community (or had good reference letters if you were new to town) and bourgeois or higher up the class ladder. So - you're bourgeois and (therefore) probably a professional or small business owner. Why do you need to borrow? Oh sure, maybe to get that new model horsedrawn carriage, goes zero to trot faster than anything else on the market. More likely, because you want to expand your business. But then, bad times hit and the tulip market collapses and you end up in debtor's prison.
Basically, they had created a system where expanding your business could put you in prison. Wow, there's a real incentive to capitalism and economic growth.
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
Borrowing money and not paying it back is wrong. I wouldn't rent a house to someone without running a credit check, I don't see why it's so different as a component of hiring someone. If you are going to hand over the keys to the shop to someone, wouldn't it be good to know if they've previsouly been responsible for their debts? I know the slashdot crowd typically thinks in terms of the Giant Evil Corporation taking advantage of the Poor Innocent Individual, but what if you were a small shop keeper? Wouldn't it make sense to know the credit history of an employee that you were about to hand your livelihood over to? In any case, whether or not this becomes standard practice will be decided on the open market (hopefully). This is America, the land of the free supposedly. Let's hope the government will stay out of it, and leave employment contract negotiations where they belong: decided between two consenting adults. So far though, they (the Government) haven't been so wise.
When I worked for a VBC, I had to take a set of required courses before being allowed to interview - mostly to protect the company from liability. In one of them, the trainer pointed out that the best protection the company had against claims of discrimination in hiring was to treat everyone exactly alike. So if every new hire since the policy was adopted has had a credit check, the company's lawyers will advise them to check yours as well.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
Why is it that people don't feel they should make a link when they post a URL?
Not everyone knows HTML, it's no big deal.
If you're not comfortable, walk away. Honestly. You'll be happier with half the money, and all your dignity than vice-versa.
:)
I refused an NDA in re: non-clinical info, and three years later, I'm still around.
-oZ
Yay me!
In order to better appreciate things, consider that having good or bad credit is strictly incidental to your financial well being. Rembember that even Donald Trump filed bankruptcy, as a billionaire, and is still a billionaire. Think about it. Having also dealt with large balance accounts for a rather well known financial company (I was one of two people in the company authorized to do so) I can tell you that there are a great deal of well known celebrities, sports players, actors, politicians and what-not that have millions to spare and still have spotty credit. I can assure you that some of these people were quite well known for their performance level in their professional career. Simply put, you just can't fairly use credit to determine whether or not someone is stable or a good employee. Heck, even Alan Greenspan was once turned down for an American Express card while he was chairman of the Federal Reserve bank.
On this note though, I'd like to leave people with a thought about the credit check. It goes both ways. That's right, you can pull a companies credit report, and you don't need their permission. Simply go to Dunn & Bradstreet and request a credit report on your prospective employer. Remember that goverment agencies also have credit reports, and those can be checked. I would also encourage you to search the Securities and Exchange commision on your prospective employer for warning signs (not available on privately held companies). Remember how many employers have gone bankrupt like Enron and screwed over their employees in the process. When you are working for someone you are essentially giving that employer credit a week or two at a time until your paycheck arrives. This advice goes all the moreso for Independent contractors as they are considered business entities and are not covered by wage loss laws. I can also tell you from past experience that it can go over well to let a company know in their interview that you have looked at things like their SEC filings. It means that you do your research and tips them that you are also interviewing them - a sign of confidence in your abilities.
It started out when I was dating this Girl who worked for the government. Well, we got engaged, got married, and divorced just 6 (yes, six) months later. Going into this, I had great credit. After the divorce, she got to keep the car (I swear I'll make the payments), and I was left out unscathed. Well; one thing lead to another...and my credit report was ruined. I got stuck in Chexsystems, and my life has gone downhill from there, including doing some probation time because she wrote a bad check on a joint checking account (something that should have been closed--that was my fault), and I got sucked into it.
Thanks to my friends in the banking industry, I was able to get a checking account again, however, I've been turned down for jobs because of my negative credit rating.
The end result: My life is totally screwed over because some woman decided she wanted head games. Does this mean I'm a bad employee? No. I work hard for what I do, I work hard to make sure my employer is happy, and I work hard because I enjoy working hard. Because I made a mistake, that doesn't mean that I'm a bad employee, and I've turned my life around.
Honestly -- It doesn't matter what skills you have, how good of an employee you are...get a felony, have a shitty credit report, and your professional career will suck ass. Trust me--I know.
I disable sigs...do you?
Credit scores are NOT accurate! The 3 agencies that derive a score all vary due to some different factors and also scoring of these factors. Most, if not all, reports contain errors that are NOT the consumer's fault; usually it's those shady financial practices by companies, esp. the insurance ones. For example, by law here in FL. H.Ins. co's can wait up to 1 YEAR before actually submitting a bill yet within a week they will bill you for everything they can think of!! So, your trip to the doctor for 1 x ray gives you several different bills, several different files, and several different accounts that can be "missed" by the money collectors. You pay, they collect the interest in say short term bonds (like all those REBATE scams at major manufacturers), and if you're really lucky, you might get a check at the end of the year for overpaying; don't count on it. I know serveral different people in these fields and it's amazing what nonsense these reports may be. Did you know that checking your credit rating actually makes your score WORSE? Most people don't. I personally ask to see in writing (as with everything) as to how this may be considered 'company policy' and also ask what do they use my SSN for when filling out ppw. Most say to easily identify you, I say it's not necessary and have yet to be refused. Companies use these tactics as a quantifiable tool to see how much they can milk the customer for. Most US people are living paycheck to paycheck, and that's exactly how Govt. and others love it so you pay taxes. Consider the sheer abscense of solid financial education; it doesn't exist. As a high school teacher, i'm disgusted about how students are to to live as a wage slave/credit slave. As with all things, do what's best for you and save up that SCREW YOU $$ fund.
"The benchmark case in employment selection procedures is Griggs v Duke Power Company (1971). Willie Griggs had applied for the position of coal handler with the Duke Power Company. His request for the position was denied because he was not a high school graduate, a requirement for the position. Griggs claimed the job standard was discriminatory because it did not relate to job success and because the standard had an adverse impact on a protected class."
The courts rules discrimination did not have to be intentional to exist and that job qualifiers MUST be job related.
Page 65 of Managing Human Resources by Bohlander - Snell - Sherman published by Southwestern - 12 edition
If you can prove a credit history is not valid for determining your abilities as an employee, this can be considered discrimination.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
These are the only reason to allow, other than that mind your own business and ya won't be a mindin mine! The reason for these two instances is that if you owe money you may be available for a bribe... :P
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Unless you plan on dealing solely in cash and living in a cabin in Montana then plan on credit checks being a way of life. EVERYONE checks it these days, you want electricity/phone/cell/car/insurance/house/video rental/etc etc etc. The "you have no business checking my credit" stuff went out about 20-30 years ago, so your refusal will only sour you in the eyes of your employers these days.
For your information the main reason a credit check is done is to see if you have anything to hide and see if you are really who you say you are as well as assess whether you are a potential threat do to bad debts. Not only that but good credit to a degree speaks to being responsible. They are generally they are done as part of a comprehensive background check. Frankly since they are so ubiquitous your employer will think you have something to hide and probably not hire you.
Unless you're hiding something, I wouldn't object. I had to submit to a full background check, and it didn't bother me.
Good for you! I don't remember waking up in Nazi Germany, but, whatever floats your boat.
What right does a company have to pry into my personal life?
Is there anything you won't accept? Anal cavity search on a daily basis before being allowed in or out of the building? --"It's fair, we do it to all the employees with marginal credit scores!"
Maybe a full body MRI scan as a condition of pre-employment? --"Ooh, this guy's got cancer, we don't want any of that hitting the insurance!"
DNA testing to make sure you're "pure" enough to be hired? --"I don't like the look of these regressive genes, plus his eyes are shifty."
Why not a full background check on your immediate family? --"Hey, his second son was arrested on narcotics charges and his daughter got knocked up before marriage, that's just unacceptable!"
Hey, it's okay! If you don't want the job, don't sign the paper! Hope you like selling oranges on the street corner.
Stop, think for a moment... I know that this subject is controversial. If we allow the same criteria to be imposed upon the peon technician (yes, most of are... despite our knowledge.), and if what is good for the goose is equally good for the gander... THEN PLACE THE SAME POLICIES ON OUR CONGRESS! How many congressional members who have decorated veterans with CMH's have knowingly passed bad checks, been the proud recepients of DUI's, or commited acts which would have found anyone of us in a jail cell? Yet we vote on these people to act in our best interests? These people who are supposed to define our contry's moral and legal standards probably couldn't get a normal job as an administrative assistant in the real world... yet they exist. The toughest facet in the IT industry today is clearance based upon criteria that many of us were neither privy to nor in control of. We get hired by a company that goes bankrupt in thirty days... ie, freeinternet.com, ricochet, MCI... and suffer the consequences that those with parachutes did not. As unstable as the economy is today, and with the knowledge of the financial burden those parent companies that folded placed upon us... you cannot judge a person by his or her credit. To do so is the same as blaming us for the financial incompetance of those above us. Yes, I made rifiles... but I did NOT aim and pull the trigger.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act is your Friend. It is enforced by the FTC. Your employer has to get your consent to obtain the information. So refuse the consent. If they fire you, you might be able sue them for breach of contract, assuming they didn't tell you of the requirement prior to employment, or the requirement is unreasonable. You'll need a lawyer. Here are some useful sites: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/money/fair-cred it/fair-crd.htm
Isn't this why we don't have flying cars and you have that rectal thermometer in your mouth?
National unions are becoming useless with freer trade, the need for international unions is becoming more apparent. By company or industry, or what ever is more effective. It's useless for ford to fight a 100 million member boycott.
I know it's tough to do now a days, but I do know a friend who has absolutely no credit history (he's never used credit)....of course, he still lives with his parents...
Anyways, there's too much room for misinterpretation of a credit report - esp since the rules around keeping them accurate and up to date are not perfect...plenty of mistakes are made and getting them fixed is not always easy (I seem to remember a national new report recently on one woman who couldn't get a mortgage cause her credit report said she was dead. Took 2 years and media attention to get fixed).
Unless you're going to be in a fiduciary position (and even then, proceed cautiously with an opportunity to discuss any discrepancies), I'd refuse.
I personally don't have a problem with a credit check, but then again in my industry I think it is quite fair to have them. I am Australian btw.
I work in the gaming/gambling industry, you know poker machines. Anyway conditions for my employment require a national police check and a credit check. I have no problem with this.
The industry deal with large amount of money, and requires that employess be trustworthy. Anyway back to the point at hand, if you are going to be a position where a company puts you in a position where you deal with money, any amount of money, they want to be able to trust you, hell I had a credit check for a mobile phone.
Besides how else are they going to be able to tell if they can trust you, references pfff, yeah right. or do you fell it is a violation of your Liberty or something...
Or do you have something to hide?...
Are you desparate enough for the job to want to work for the kind of nosey-parkers who would require something like that? If not, walk; else, assume the position and pretend you enjoy it.
OK, I'd like to see you ride 80 miles a day, and that's just to and from school. Tack on another 20-30 or so depending on work location.
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention the Florida heat, humidity, and daily thunderstorms... and if those don't get you, the mosquitoes will.
Not everything is 'in-town'. Still think bicycles are the answer to all of our transportation needs?
o/~ All God's children shall be free in Pirates of the Caribbean, when we reach that Magic Kingdom in the sky... o/~
The article says he got this on the first day of his job after he was hired.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
I tell you what "we" should do. If your employed, go apply for a bunch of different jobs. See how many you can get that say they want to run a credit check up front. Then tell every single one of them to goto hell. Maybe we can start some sort of tidal wave, be on CNN or something. :-)
"Okay, maybe I am a snob (and yes I am single, and no I don't have kids) but Car Insurance in the States killed me quite nicely as well. For a midsized car they wanted me to pay $500/month, right now I pay $250."
Wow! What is it, a Silver Ghost? I have a speeding ticket, and I only pay $87 for a '97 Jetta and a '93 3000gt.
Are you sure it wasn't $500 for a 6 month policy?
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
By telling all of slashdot users about internal policies of the company doesn't that break your NDA? ;)
I do not have a problem with a company performing any kind of check they wish on a prospective employee - especially for a director level position as the poster said they had accepted. It should, however, be known in advance at an early time in the interview process that these checks will occur.
"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
For six years I worked for an insurance company who based their entire pricing structure on the fact that credit scores are great indicators of future behavior. In a large (200K+) population of customers, the ones with higher credit scores made fewer claims. Period. They went so far as to separate people into 12 different levels of risk based on credit alone! Clear patterns only emerge in LARGE groups of people, not in individual isolated cases. Consumers and legislators hate it, but insurance companies LOVE credit scores because they are dead accurate in classifying large populations.
The key here is that credit scores only become a useful indicator as the population grows. If this employer is small then they are wasting their time. But, if they hire hundreds of people a year then it makes perfect sense to screen with credit. In this particular case the credit check had the unexpected benefit of clearly identifying the poster as self-important "director-level" whiner. Who would want to hire someone who pulls a stunt like this right out of the gate?
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy.
YES! I have an argument/difference of disposition which worked for both parties IF the employer is sincere in seeking potential problem employees;
A) They(the employer) must promise not to judge the employee entirely on a credit check - it is like affirmative action being seen as a race -only admission clause - My meaning: " Since you are qualified, and they want YOUR qualifications, experiences and whatever else you bought to the table, it cannot not be nullified because you had a medical emergency, posted bail for a child who skipped out of the country, a divorce, or worked for Enron, Global Crossing and it wrecked you financially" etc., etc.,etc.
B) The employee, in written form outlines the condition of his/her credit status IN WRITING and volunteers 1) regular updates to financial condition as well as your recovery plan-WHATEVER it is, in confidence, to an appointed HR custodian NOT MANAGEMENT! 2) Any deviations from the planned course of action is discussed at once; If you take on a second job to make things better at this job, then that fact is taken into account by the custodian and at the end of your first ninety day review, additional positive points are awarded you for this effort along with your known prior state and your obvious good attendance and high quality of work during the initial ninety days under a known financial burden - second job is not mandatory, but, COMMUNICATE!"
C) If you leave or are terminated for reasons not of a punitive/capital/felonious offense - the bad buck stops here. What do I mean? You part amicably! They must state only positive factors in your job performance and since you were subject to voluntary scrutiny, out in the open, they owe you more than the standard " affirmations of employment" but a letter of ' commendation ' as well as a reasonable reference. Why? Because, CEOs can still' cook the books ' and boardrooms are still moral graveyards but nobody, asks a ' company ' to sign a credit check ' and bear accountability for the stock market bearishness! Or the lack of financial activity/profittability during a recession - over which it has no controll either! This CAN work and try to add some of your own points. Most people realize your good intentions in such an offering and they actually reach out to you for it!!
Soul Father.
First thing : A company employing you cannot screen your financial situation !
Second thing : A bank you have an account with cannot screen your financial situation outside of your account (another bank, etc.)
Exception : If you want a loan from your employer or bank, or your are about doing an investement on behalf of your company, your bank or your company is allowed to ask a state run institution to check your financial background, plus money laundring issues.
The ONLY reply they get :
YES, he is clean,
NO he is not clean,
STOP, illegal affairs in progress. In this case, you know what you were doing...
And you are allowed at any time to check for investigations with this institution. It is not perfect, but privacy is pretty good.
With regard to the poster's situation, if the cronology is accurate, the company appears to be in wrong not because it requires a credit history, but because this requirement was not disclosed prior to the poster accepting the offer. When an offer is extended you should be able to assume you've met all the criteria necessary for employment. For them to drop this bomb AFTER you've accepted might be the basis for some legal options (IANAL), since you might have incurred losses in the sense of declining other offers, etc.
I don't understand why a company would require this unless the position was financially sensitive or you had the authority to incur company debt. As a general way to judge one's judgement, responsibility, and reliability, credit reports are fair indicators. Yes, there's been some extraordinary stories about illnesses, messy divorces, etc. but as general rule you can use a credit history to predict future behavior.
Switch to Canada.
Help us build a better map!
Of late, it seems to be something that I ask about in the interview when HR appears. I am willing to accept a criminal background check, as it seems appropriate if I'm working in a job where I have the opportunity to abscond with tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment. Two jobs I had required the criminal check because of either Federal law or a seperate legal obligation of the company who owned us. For example, if you work for a Federally insursed bank, your employer has to fingerprint you and send the card off to the Federal Reserve. Certain states require employees in specific positions in state institutions to have the same done. If you go work for the Federal, State, County or City government, you almost certainly will have a criminal background check performed.
I don't object to that, largely because, again if I have shown that I abuse trust to the extent that I end up convicted, it seems reasonable for my employer to not want to give me the keys to the equipment storeroom.
I've had two potential employers who wanted to do tests that I was unwilling to do. One was a drug-test, and the other a credit check. Why did I think this was unreasonable?
Well, they had my resume, and they made it clear that they would check it and my references for accuracy. If they're going to go to that much trouble to verify my background, what does the credit or the drug test tell them? It doesn't tell them anything useful. If I have a bad credit rating, but I've held all these positions, accomplished all of these tasks and my former employers think I'm great, does that mean they should hire only people with bad credit ratings? If my drug-test comes back clean, how do they know I will keep up good performance? Perhaps it was only my meth habit that let me get all those machines installed in a timely manner.
The point is that the additional information tells them nothing. And worse, it might open up liability for the company. In most states, even at will ones, disciplinary actions and such that are based on things that cannot be directly connected to requirements of the job itself are considered torts.
Last but not least, if the criminal background and credit check were not disclosed in their offer letter, I think you might have some leverage. In California, at least, I have yet to see an offer letter that doesn't list all the things the offer is contingent upon.
FYI: I'm not a lawyer, and am not offering legal advice. Consult a labor attorney or the local office of your relevent state agency for more information.
Human Rights has a clause about a "right to privacy". I'd like to see someone take THAT line to their CEO and see who wins.
Here's how:
1. My father not only set up 3 companies on his own but helped a number of other out of money trouble by restructuring their accounting departments. He didn't have any will-power when it came to his own money though. (That's why he married my mother. She did)
2. Told 'them' I had no problem with taking it to court & making it as public as humanly possible because:
3. Descrimination based on personal, non-job related shortcommings is against the labor code.
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
The boom was 4 to 5 years ago.
I'd not work in a company which wants to invade my privacy. This is as misplaced as mandatory drug tests! The only things my employer has to care of is who I am, that I'm qualified for my job and that I do it well. Everything else has not to be of interest for them.
Kosi
Some companies (a large blue one for sure) have or used to have a policy of locking employees in by encouraging to overextend themselves and then putting their jobs under stress. The company may not be interested in you as a clean-credit living person at all.
Is this any worse than a background check that you don't know anything about ?
... get stuffed. Either they'll back down or you'll have to find another job. Either way, who wants to work somewhere like that?
"You have no privacy - get over it".
I assume you live in the USA where there are no Data protection laws. In this case be pleased that they asked, anyone can credit check your WITHOUT consent.
In Europe they HAVE TO ask.
There are 3 big credit agencies in the US tracking every financial move you make, they are completely non-regulated and can do what they like with the data. WHo cares about echelon when you have big faceless corporates to deal with.
I've never owned a credit card.
I've never taken out a bank loan.
I bought my Mercedes 320SL with cash.
I bought my house with cash.
My credit rating absolutely sucks... I have no record of ever having paid back any credit... and as such about the worst credit rating you can get...
I understand that the Sultan of Brunai was initally turned down by Amex when he applied for a card because his credit rating was bad... Being fantastically rich he'd never needed credit either..
In my case, I just don't believe in spending money I don't have. Save first... Spend later.
FICO should release the source code to calculate the FICO score.
I was one of those people that always thought, "that could never happen to me." Just like all of you reading this. You see the stories on Dateline or 60 Minutes. I went to the bank one day to ask for a credit increase on my credit card and they said I would have to bring in extra identification. I didn't really understand why so of course I asked. They told me someone else opened an account using the same social security number. They used the name Hose Morato. I thought it was really nice of the guy to use my SSN. I had to report it to all the credit agencies and the Federal Trade Commission. I check my credit fairly regularly and I don't think this person screwed me in any way. Knowing my luck, I have some illegal immigrant getting my retirement checks while I'm still paying into social security.
I went to my other bank where I have a checking and saving account. The person just happened to say, "has anyone read your account notes to you?" Apparently this fraud also walked into my bank and tried to open an account there too. Unlike the other bank, they didn't allow him to open an account. Either way I didn't find this all out until almost a year after the fraud took place. Neither bank found it suspicious enough to report anything to the authorities. I had to do that myself.
So you better look out for your self, because no one else is going to. Credit ratings aren't all their cracked up to be. Even though my rating is very good, it could have been ruined forever and whose fault would it have been?
You can't lose health insurance after you lose your job for, I believe it is 18 months. COBRA. But, you have to pay the premiums. Pay em, and remain covered until you hopefully find another job. If one doesn't save up sufficient assets to tide them over for if they accidently lose their job, then they're screwed, whether or not they get hit by a bus. Saving $1200 for a year for health insurance in case you get hit by a bus isn't much. Hell, postpone getting that laptop for a year and you're golden.
:)
Maybe I'm being a bit unfair. I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck. I have discipline to avoid continoully getting gadgets and toys. (My desktop just celebrated its third birthday, laptop gets its 3rd birthday in 2 months) I have chosen a standard of living that would let me get by on as little as $15k/year of income (in both houston and pittsburgh). That leaves a lot of pocket change to cover the percentage insurance won't cover and to cover the premium's for a long time.
Also to reply to the other guy. You get what you pay for.
Nope,
I don't have the letter(s) anymore, it was back in '98 but that was the price they asked for in the DC area (I guess because of the Beltway).
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
With the average IT job lasting around 2 years, work for life in the same workplace gone for ever, who cares if this particular company feels that its anal policies have been challenged?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's all your fault!/sarcasm.
they have the "right" to ask for any info they want, and you have the right to go elsewhere. or that's how it should be, imho.
Well, a lot of us never click links directly on /. anyway.
I've seen that goat sex receiver guy enough times for this lifetime, thanks.
-Peter
A way to deal with this would be to make sure that such offenders are prosecuted and kicked out of the program, but should because of those bad apples the people who really need it be kicked to the curb?
That's the sensible German in you talking :-). That doesn't happen for several reasons: there are so many abusing the system that they represent a significant voting block, and get very militant, vocal, and demonstrative, when anything is threatened to be taken away.
This is gross neglicence(sp?) on the part of the doctors and as such they shouldn't be allowed to treat patients anymore. That they did that though I wouldn't necessarily blame on the systems. There have studies been done in the US that made it clear that there are doctors out there who only act on their own financial interrest as well.
From what I learned it was policy to not inform patients who had no hope of treatment in Canada, or who could not afford treatment elsewhere.
Because of the high taxes he paid over his lifetime, my father did not have the means to save up to pay for the necessary surgery in the U.S.A., and the government wasn't about to. I understand that the number of patients in similar circumstances has grown to the point where this policy has changed, but the price to the taxpayer is quite high, and the necessary procedures are not available in Canada because of the decaying level of medical technology w.r.t. the U.S.A.
The bottom line is that here was a person who had the means (monies he earned over his working career) to try to save himself from a serious life-threating condition, and was denied this so that others could have basic health care. That is the state playing God, and utterly repugnant to me.
Many faiths (I am agnostic myself, though my wife is Baha'i), encourage a 10% tithe and 10% personal saving rates, and that I could tolerate, to help my fellows. But an unbounded government "whatever it takes" attitude leads to disaster.
As for my illness, 106F fevers are nothing to sneeze at, my emergency entry workup showed I was close to death (I had neglected the condition for about ten days before deciding it was serious -- until I entered the hospital my fevers never ranged above 103F), and for the first three days was maxed out on ibuprofin and acetominephin to control the fever, as well as packed in ice a good part of the time (any more ibu or acet and my liver would start to fail), and received broad-spectrum antibiotics via I.V. Infectious disease experts were consulted, and boldily fluid and tissue samples sent to the CDC -- they didn't know WHAT the infection was (and still don't, though menengitis, denge, hanta, and ebola were quickly ruled out). I can attest that I surely felt like I was sick enough to die. I did not get the impression that the tests they did were excessive. Fortunately, Demerol controlled the pain and morphine was not necessary, though the Demerol left me with a partially paralized right leg for about 6 months (one possible side effect -- it goes away in time).
In the true sense, are they really still middle class?
I would say so -- we were at the median of the Bell curve for family income. Some had two incomes instead of our one.
You could've hired me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am repeating myself here ;) But at the end I say it again: There is no perfect system, it always depends on what side of the fence you are and there will always be someone who gets failed by the system. This though, doesn't make the entire system faulty. It DOES make it improvable though.
:-).
That's the sensible German in you talking
Darn, can't hide my pedigree, now can I?
From what I learned it was policy to not inform patients who had no hope of treatment in Canada, or who could not afford treatment elsewhere.
Now THAT is a part of the system that should be changed ASAP. And if only to give people an option.
The bottom line is that here was a person who had the means (monies he earned over his working career) to try to save himself from a serious life-threating condition, and was denied this so that others could have basic health care. That is the state playing God, and utterly repugnant to me.
Note though that not all of his taxes go to healthcare, they cover other things as well (e.g. Education).
Many faiths (I am agnostic myself, though my wife is Baha'i), encourage a 10% tithe and 10% personal saving rates, and that I could tolerate, to help my fellows. But an unbounded government "whatever it takes" attitude leads to disaster.
And you think purely relying on companies wouldn't? I think you operate from a maybe wrong assumption, that is that our line of business (IT) even though the market is down right now, still pays a LOT better than the average job. We are part of a rather privileged group.
I would say so -- we were at the median of the Bell curve for family income. Some had two incomes instead of our one.
It's not only what you bring home but also what kind of assetts you have. A mortage would have to be counted AGAINST your assets, you don't own the house, so do car loans etc. etc.
So even if someone lives in a nice neighbourhood and "has" all the things they might not really "have" it at all. Just because it shines doesn't mean it is gold.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
And what makes you so insightful? Of course they need to check you out, but something like a credit history has NO comparisson to something like a criminal background check.
First of all, this isn't necessarily for people "high on the food chain". Sometimes it is for people at the bottom, but may be in contact with money or other desireables. I will agree that the CFO or someone at the tippy-top should be investigated THOROUGHLY, but how probable is it that the poster is in line fore a CEO/CFO position? "I'm gonna run a company, better go ask slashdot!" whatever.
Secondly, they have already invested time and energy into hiring the poster, and it would be a pain in the ass for them to start over.
I personally believe that said poster needs to stand up to this and not let them pressure him/her about it. A simple "No thanks, I don't believe it's justified. I'd be happy to discuss any concerns you have, without my personal credit history involved."
That is what they are CLAIMING they really want. Insight to the person. Isn't that was interviews and background checks into employment history accomplish?
I'm horribly unemployed at the moment. I have rising debt, and not too many prospects for the immediate future. I don't need another reason for some idiot HR person to judge me unfairly.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Fair enough. I guess it varies. :)
-Stu
The problem is NOT the employers. The problem is that WE allow employers to cross too many questionable boundries. Whether it's because of personal desperation or because we are flattered or enamored by the salary/company/prospects, the fact remains that WE make bad descisions which set precedents.
The bottom line is that it is a two way privledge. It's a privledge to be working for a company and at the same time it is a privledge that the company has that person working for it. A two way street. Employers need to ALWAYS remember that and maybe have an enforcing agency remind them constantly!
I know lots of people who are seemingly irresponsible with their own lives, but are extremely talented at their fields. I don't believe that a bad credit rating will necessarily make you a bad employee, or that a good credit rating will make you a good employee.
Credit checks can also give your potential employers information that they can't legally ask for.
Say you are a gay man living with a partner, and
that you co-own a house or car together. A credit check could discern far more than your loans.
You apply for a job, and the interview goes well enough that they consider you further for the job.
During the application/interview process you are never asked about your sexual orientation, nor do you mention it.
Unbeknownst to you, however, is that the HR manager who makes the final decision in hiring you is homophobic, and in your application, you gave permission to run a credit check.
During the credit check, it shows that your car and/or home loan has your male partner as a co-signer. The HR manager discerns from this that you might be gay, and makes the decision to go with someone else because he does not wish to hire a homosexual.
If you accuse the company of not hiring you because you are gay, the company points out that they do not ask questions about sexual orientation in their application/interview process.
Lots of other information can be found from credit reports depending on your information. Lots of this information a company has no right in knowing. Though it might not seem to be a big deal for a company to find out you have a loan on a Honda, you never know what kind of quirks the guy making the final hiring decision has. He might hate anyone who drives a Japanese car. You just never know.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
There was a story on NPR a couple of days ago (Jan 31st) that discussed the use os credit checks by empoyees. It might offer some insight.
if india has all the skills why the fuck should the US economy be so strong ? let the dipshits who live in the US starve while the more deserving indians get all the money. they have the skills after all.
I had similar issues coming in to my current job. I am also aware, however, that many employers today do credit reports as part of their background checks. I had some credit dings, but the way I approached their request not only worked out fine but earned me some accolades right out of the chute for honesty and diplomacy. More on that later, but first...
The only problem I see is that they waited until after you started your job to ask for it. What would happen if you did not meet their standards, would you be tossed? Better check with a lawyer on this, because if you had known about this requirement in advance you could have kept your old job.
Still, all that aside, a more pragmatic approach might be to be honest about any potential issues in your credit report, and negotiate up front what might be grounds for not hiring you (or in this case dismissing you). Come to agreement on what will and will not cause problems, and disclose to them up front what problems you have, and confirm that these will not be issues to them. By this point, everyone's on the same page and the actual running of the report is just a simple mechanical one... assuming both of you have been honest, nobody is going to be hurt.
The bigger issue, that of privacy, is one you have to decide for yourself. It's a tough economy, many open jobs have lots of resumes waiting, and besides that many companies started running these checks before the downturn, and they're not likely to make exceptions now. If you feel strongly, and you can't negotiate specific issues to confirm on your credit report and possible consequences, then maybe you have to make a stand that could cost you the job.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
I've seen a few suggestions to get your credit report online from equifax. I did that yesterday, and was surprised and pissed when they emailed me the password to my account in the clear! This is the same password I use to login and view my credit report online. So much for their stated privacy policy. Anyway, I encourage anyone who's used their site to call and complain about their terrible account security.
P roducts/PageFrameServlet?payloadName=pgPrivacy.jsp )
(excepted from https://www.econsumer.equifax.com/webapp/Consumer
SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
Equifax recognizes the importance of secure online transactions, and we safeguard
the privacy of information you provide us through online forms. For your product
orders submitted to us online, we use programs that encrypt the information you
provide on the order form before transmission to Equifax. The information is
decrypted only upon receipt by Equifax. Except as set forth in the" "To Whom We
Disclose The Information We Collect" section above, we restrict access to PII
that is collected about you to only those who have a need to know that
information in connection with the purposes for which it is collected and used.
Additionally, we maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to
guard your PII. Information you provide us when you register for and order the
Personal Solutions Products or services online is transmitted to us through a
secured socket layer (SSL) transmission.
Further, we have security protocols and measures in place to protect the PII we
maintain about you from unauthorized access or alteration. These measures include
internal and external firewalls, physical security and technological security
measures, and encryption of certain information.
You also have a role in protecting the security of information about you. For
example, you should guard your password to the Member Center and not permit
unauthorized use of your account for Products.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have had this done several times, and every time it was either stated or implied before being hired.
-I had one when I got a security clearance (duh -- they talked to my 3rd grade teacher).
-I had one done at my last employer before my offer was extended as part of my reference check. They asked, I said yes, they liked what they saw, they offered me the job.
-Everytime I've been bonded (this job makes three) they've done one. They were either jobs where I handled lots of money, or I was told up front (they bond everyone where I am currently). If you're going to be bonded, they're going to check your credit.
If your employer wants to do yours AFTER the fact, and they're not trying to bond you, then they're idiots. If they push this, even if you have excellent credit, I would be sure you didn't burn your bridges at the last job and retain an employment lawyer. You also might want to contact the EEOC and see if they are allowed to do this. This should have done before you got the job, and that's what you need to tell the CEO.
"All I ever wanted was to see Larry Wall give Bill Gates a Perl necklace."
http://www.eisenschmidt.org/jweisen
Damn. Sorry about that.
Man, I've been driving since ~1984, and I've never had to pay even $250/mo even for multiple cars.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
BAR
Those are silly examples. Of course too much regulation is a bad thing, but I'd rather have too much than none at all.
As far as credit checks being a "minior" invasion of privacy, speak for yourself. I don't mind submitting to a criminal background check, but my credit history is none of their damn business.
"Then get a different job" you'd probably say. What if that job is the only one I can get? What if I can't take a job at Burger King because I have to make child support payments? What if I can't look for work elsewhere because I wouldn't be able to see my kids?
That is exactly why we have regulations, because you don't always have a choice.
It is reasonable to assume that someone who isn't smart enough to manage his own money would mismanage company money. 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.
You have obviously never been seriously ill and unable to work for 10 months. Health Insurance only covers medical bills, not anything else.
I had PERFECT CREDIT, and was VERY VERY frugal with my money, and my income was rising every year. I even had money in savings! Banks and credit cards were courting me for their business!
Then, they laid me off. Which was fine. I could handle that. My independent consulting was doing fine and since I was so frugal with my money (even had some money saved up), I knew that even with a part-time job and my independent consulting things would be fine.
Two months later, I started getting ill. I started fainting for no reason, then the coughing started and got worse and worse until at one point I had to be rushed to a doctor because I was coughing up blood. Needless to say, things continued to get worse and to make a long story short, I was unable to work (not just because the doctor said so, but because I physically couldn't do it!). All said and done, I was unable to work for most of the year, had to pay the COBRA health insurance coverage every month or else I would be stuck with the bill for the CAT scans and going to the doctors and hospital.
I burned up my savings. I had to borrow money or rely on gifts from family to just pay the rent and medical insurance. The County Health Department stepped in and provided my medicine for free since I was unable to afford it since I couldn't work. They even sent someone to my apartment everyday to check on me and make sure I was okay and bring me my medicine.
With that being the scenario, the creditors had to wait. They will be paid back, but I'm not going to be sick and homeless to do so.
Since I couldn't work that year, I only made a total of $5,000 the entire year!!!!! Explain to me how to pay all your bills when you went from having a good-paying full-time job, plus consulting on the side down to $5,000 in a year and being unable to work!
I'M SORRY I ALMOST DIED. I WON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN!
Geez!
Now, years later, banks won't even talk to me and everybody who looks at my credit report assumes I am not responsible. Give me a break! I almost died!
Luckily I am a business person now, so I will just establish credit under my business's name, but if I couldn't do that, I'm just screwed as far as my credit rating goes.
Oliver.
especially when it comes to Director type positions, that financial transparency should be important.
It's certainly not commonplace now, but I would love to see a world where the financial records of executives are public knowledge.
This has two nice effects
1) common debt problems are seen as just that, and seen to be not as important
2) people can't just appear squaky clean.
If you can't pay your bills on time, or have too many credit cards, or have too many credit cards that are maxed out, or have too many accounts with collection agencies or whatever, then you are suspect. You MIGHT embezell funds. You MIGHT drive more erratically. You MIGHT burn your own house down to collect insurance...
The problem with this is that while whatever statistical information they are using may CORRELATE between two factors, it doesn't necessarily demonstrate a CAUSAL relationship. So whatever your employer may be telling you, he or she isn't getting a clear picture of you based on your credit information.
Just for laughs, you ought to ask THEM for THEIR credit information. After all, if your boss has bad credit, he may be more likely than not to pass you over for a promotion, deny you a raise, or just be a total son of a bitch. Turnabout is fair play, is it not?
Seriously, though, I want to bring up another issue within this discussion (and as soon as I figure out how to start a new thread on this board, I will). That issue is the increasing frequency of identity theft. One reasonable CORRELATION you might make is that with more and more entities having legal access to one's credit history, there is also a greater instance of identity theft. Or am I the only one who has noticed this? I am increasingly paranoid about my personal information being bandied about in this age of Ashcroft, and I for one, would like to see a rollback in legal access to credit information to those who actually can extend credit! What a concept, no? That means sorry insurance companies, sorry landlords, sorry cell phone providers, sorry rental car companies, and sorry employers! You are limited only to the information that directly matters to you.
Who's with me on this?
Even if we allow that credit information does paint an accurate picture of an individual's character, the fact that there are often so many INNACCURACIES in a credit report renders them unreliable! Ultimately - especially in the case of insurance companies - it is my opinion that this is a method to justify rate increases, and thus increase company profits. That's all! It is for this reason that credit scoring by insurance companies should be made illegal nationwide. It is also why I would like to look into the possibility of a class action lawsuit against insurance companies - not a lawyer, so I don't know how to do this - for fraud. I would love to reclaim the thousands I am sure I was overbilled on my insurance premiums on the basis of credit. Anyone got any thoughts about this?
darn
Ask to see their financial information. Just as they don't want to hire someone who can't manage their own finances, you don't want to work for a company that can't manage it's finances.
As a consequence most european countries have free healthcare.
God dammit!!! I am sooo tired of hearing that line.
I get it from my British wife, her parents, etc..etc..
Healthcare in Europe is NOT, repeat loudly, NOT free. The funds simply come in through a different channel.
In Europe, where do the doctors and hospitals get their money? From the govenment. Where does the government get its money? Last I looked, they get their money from taxes. Taxes which are paid by....wait for it...the taxpayers.
A sum of money is extracted from your paycheck every week, to go towards the general healthcare pot.
Almost EXACTLY the same thing happens in the US. Except that, instead of giving that sum of money to the government, we (and our employers) give it to an insurance company. Then THEY pay the doctors.
Us, as poor little worker bees, give our money to someone else to toss into a collective pot, out of which doctors, nurses, and hospitals get paid.
If Europe has found some way to actually pay a doctor without any money coming out of someones pocket...please share the secret.
Repeat after me:
Healthcare in Europe is NOT free.
Well, yes. But that would illustrate that the system fails, and if the failure is not headed off, people will actually die. Rather serious failure there.
An acceptable change would involve tracking how much was paid and how much consumed for government services, and, as long as you had a credit, the state would always pay for your "essential" needs -- i.e. if you paid $1,000,000 over 20 years in taxes, consumed $250,000 in services and needed $500,000 to pay for a life-saving operation, the state should pay up. This can be funded several ways: 1) the state purchases premium health insurance for those who have a large tax credit; 2) if the credit does not earn interest (which it should), it really is an interest-free loan to the state, and should be enough to carry wealth redistribution to help the destitute.
Bottom line, is that the Canadian system is far too generous to free loaders, and inefficient in terms of administrative overhead.
In the U.S.A., since health care is very much a personal responsibility, people have the opportunity to save and purchase insurance to cover medical disaster. Those that do are not at the mercy of the state.
Note though that not all of his taxes go to healthcare, they cover other things as well (e.g. Education).
No, but a quick comparison of what he paid in taxes in Canada, and what he would have paid in the U.S.A. over his life, would show that he'd have more than enough to cover the surgery that might have saved his life. Of course, he had lived to a decent age and might wanted to leave a larger inheritance, given the poor odds even with surgery, but life and death choices should be left to sound-minded individuals and not the state.
It's not only what you bring home but also what kind of assetts you have. A mortage would have to be counted AGAINST your assets, you don't own the house, so do car loans etc. etc.
So even if someone lives in a nice neighbourhood and "has" all the things they might not really "have" it at all. Just because it shines doesn't mean it is gold.
No, most homes were modestly mortgaged (not more than 75%), so asset-wise we were not rich. That was my point: middle class folks with modest assets could, nevertheless, live a comfortable life, and build equity in nice homes. The "barrier to entry" to that in Canada is far higher for the tax structure.
You could've hired me.
If skills in one single industry were the only thing that defined the strength on an economy I would completely agree with you.
Also keep in mind that the size of an economy has to be devided by the population to determin agragate wealth. 1.1 billion people is a lot of people. India's economy would have to be more than three times the size of the US economy for each indian citizen to be as "wealthy" as each US citizen.
Also, wealth or leck of wealth isn't necissarily the cause of or solution to hunger. Geography and politics have a lot to do with it. Poor countries aren't the only places where people starve, and some poor people have plenty to eat.
Of course if you take a narrow enough veiw, you can "prove" anything is anybodies fault.