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?"
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 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!
Not only this, but what of those of us, who were laid off of high paying positions, and then took low paying jobs to survive?
I divorced a money spending person, and was given all the bills in the divorce (bad, long story I can only repeat over 10 beers or so). I was in debt bad, and handled it well until I lost my job (laid off). I did anything for work for 8 months until I landed another IT job. It paid less than 1/2 of my former pay, but is stable. My credit- horrible.
How does that reflect my character? I guess I was the asshole for divorcing, huh? (Men are seen as The Reason a marriage ended).
I agree, this should not be allowed to happen. It doesn't show your character, it shows your credit rating/history.
I think of Health Insurance. I worked for one (during my do anything for a buck days) and saw people given higher rates for having ingrown toe nails, among other things. I realized that no one could have perfect health and/or perfect credit. Why do we penalize people for being...people? Everyone gets sick, everyone has dormant diseases in them, everyone is gonna mess up on their money making decisions. Now we decide based on being human that we cannot work at certain jobs anymore?
I almost wish for the pre-computer days now. More trust then. And yes, I understand WHY, but damn it- people could miss out on a great employee because of these stupid 'checks'.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
Why should a single person who has never missed a payment, never been late, never screwed anyone over by not paying back borrowed money and has a 12-month nest egg that he has painstakingly assembled be treated the same as the majority of people who live pay check to pay check, overspend their income, and do not act with restraint and discipline?
Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
When you are applying for a loan, fine. When you are applying for a job, no you shouldn't be treated any different. More importantly, a bad credit rating does not imply that you are untrustworthy in financial matters, for starters, you don't know what the circumstances were, and secondly that's how you handled your money, not others.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
Credit ratings are in fact accurate. If you have bad credit it is because you are not creditworthy or trustworthy in financial matters.
Credit reports are not perfectly accurate; stories abound of how bad credit reports cause people no end of hassles.
Credit reports should be treated as "a data point" on the road to assessing credit worthiness. They should be taken as only a very rough guide to indicating who will make a good employee. [I have a relative that is a phenomenally great wafer processor, but his personal finances are always about 0.13 microns away from the abyss. Poor finances; excellent employee - go figure.]
Indeed, the most creditworthy people, such as you yourself are well on your way to becoming, and such as very wealthy people without the need to avail themselves of credit frequently - have short, sketchy or nonexistent credit ratings!
You could become a victim of your own admirable fiscal responsibility in the future as your credit report shrinks to almost nothing. That could be a disaster should you ever need to borrow; but your nest egg should take care of 99% of the emergencies.
Be warned, though, that if you ever do have a change of heart about risk-pool averaging say, due to the onset of sudden kidney or liver disease requiring a $250K operation, that you won't find much sympathy among those who have heard your above-mentioned philosophy. They'll comfort you by just repeating your arguments back to your face:)
"Provided by the management for your protection."
As an employer, I am definitely going to be assuming that this person is going to be even less careful with money that isn't is then he is with money that is. I would likely let him give an explanation, but I'm only going to take so much of a risk.
Really? And which company do you run where employee's are free to spend company money as THEY see fit? Now if it were a position of accountancy, then sure. Or CEO, CIO, COO, CTO, CFO, etc. You'd be in direct management of the company's funds, but if you are the other 96% of the company, anything that has to be purchased goes THROUGH purchasing/management, and in this case, it that's ~4% where the actual decisions are going to be made to where the money will be spent.
Personally, I put in requests for funds, but if my budget isn't going to allow it, then the money isn't going to get spent. I'm decent with personal funds, but frankly whereas you may have done well with your personal finances, others may not have been as fortunate. There are conditions WAY beyond a person's control that will force them into a financial position where they wouldn't be able to help but become endebted to someone. Examples? Get laid off, have stroke. Severance/unemployment may have been enough to cover things like mortgage, car note, and electric, but very likely would not cover the over-excessive costs of COBRA to cover medical. Now you're insurance-less and looking at a $50-100k bill. Lucky you, you're credit is slowly getting ripped apart now.
Another example? How about you're a one vehicle family and that vehicle gives up the ghost and has to be replaced? Well, if you're income is tight to begin with (and you'd be amazed how far 23k won't go), are you to suffer because your field of work doesn't provide a 60k/yr salary?
Overall, I get really irritated with credit reports in general. It usually shows that someone had financial hard-knocks at some point.
If you've got perfect credit (and there's a LOT that is required to have such, not solely on-time bill payments), then kudos for you. But if you're going to get elitest about it (one of the parent comments to the one I'm replying), then piss-the-hell off. You don't know what it's like to be forced paycheck to paycheck, and as karma goes, you'll get your lesson in it a lot sooner than later, most likely.
-What have you contributed lately?
IMHO, they want to know too much. It's none of the company's business. It all seems really shady to me. The only justification this company has is that everyone else went along with it. So what? Consistency? Yeah, right.
The company isn't giving Rick a loan. Rather, he's agreed to work for a paycheck. His credit history is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is his performance on the job.