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.
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.
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...
Things *can* happen besides just lack of good sense. I.e., you make a purchase on your credit card... and then lose your job. Or a member of your family could suddenly fall ill and leave you without enough money to pay your bills *and* their medical expenses. Or your spouse could run your cards up just prior to a divorce. And so on, and so forth.
On another note, don't take the job. This time though, don't take it because you'll be forever marked by your superiors as "that troublesome guy who wouldn't go along with our policy".
Negotiating salary is one thing, and is expected in higher level positions, but arguing over their policy is another matter entirely, and likely won't go over well with the higher-ups at the company.
At the very least, if they cave-in, you'll have forever tarnished the all-important first impression.
That being said, I see absolutely no reason for an employer to stick their nose into my personal finances. They're trying to make a relation between your finances and your performance where there is no basis for one.
If your personal finances were indicative of your job performance or ability, you might as well go ahead and list them on your resume.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
> Is this the kind of company you want to work for?
Yes, and more importantly, the more people who refuse to submit to this the less companies will do it. It is hard and expensive to go through stacks of resumes, find a good candidate, interview, make an offer, get it accepted, etc.
I walked out on 2 different offers for this very reason. Just the looks on their faces made it worth it. They were back to square one. And my credit was average, OK. If we all would've used our integrity a little more when it would've really counted, and said NO we wouldn't have to pull down our pants and pee in a jar to get a job today. Now its probably too late.
Do yourself and everyone else a big favor, refuse to do it. Period. And make sure the company knows why.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Actually the law is involved as there are fairly strict guidlines as to how a credit check can be used. Some states also have specific guidelines covering credit checks.
First I would consult with a lawyer. Then if I couldn't get them to drop that portion of the job requirement I would tell them to take the job and shove it. These types of requirments are just as good of an indicator into the character of the company as a criminal background investigation is into the character of a prospective employee. If the requirment makes you uncomfortable, don't expect to enjoy working there.
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 don't understand how this is different from a drug screening test. Most employers require it.
As already echoed by other posts to this comment, most employers do not require drug screening.
One thing that is really interesting is that, according to what I have heard, pre-employment drug testing in Canada is unheard of. Even companies in the US which do it at all their branches don't do it in Canada.
Apparently one thing we can learn from the Canucks is that they have a higher regard for privacy issues (as evidenced by the Privacy Commissioner's recent and very eloquent report to Parliament) and Canadians as a whole are much more willing to show their middle fingers high to any employer whose policies they don't like.
Having said that, as time has gone on, I've become convinced that the employers who do drug testing are doing it because they have bought the line, hook and sinker, of drug testing companies, who claim all sorts of horrible things that happen if you don't do drug testing, and that you must invest in these fairly expensive and tremendously profitable tests. I believe that drug testing policies always come from the department of Human Resources, which is usually collectively as dumb as a branch of the DMV, and not much more sympathetic either.
Someday someone with some balls is gonna invest some money in a real study on drug testing, and show how truly worthless they are, but for right now the drug testing companies are running the show.
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.