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.
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.
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?
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...
**unless you're hiding something**
Let's apply this type of thinking to other areas. If they had said "We want to see your privates - after all, this can affect your medical claims, sick time off, etc..." you'd tell them to shove off, woudn't you?
It seems to me that a check for a criminal record would be more relevant, and more justifiable.
or, tell them, no problem, but you first want them to sign for permission for you to check their personal credit - after all, you want to know just who you're giving this information to, and you don't want it to be abused.
When they object, threaten to sue them for discrimination.
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.
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".
National Public Radio had a story about this a couple days ago.
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.
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.
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
People like you scare the hell out of me.
You let other people dictate to you the terms upon which you're allowed to do things. Even work. I agree that a criminal background check is probably worthwhile and a legitimate business concern - but a credit check? No. The only people to whom that should matter are those who can LEND me money.
I don't see this being any different than an employer asking to see what kind of food you have in your fridge, in order to determine if you're a healthy eater. If you're a conciously unhealthy dieter, it's probably reflective on your work habits, your personal life, etc.
No thanks. Take your job and shove it up your ass. I'd rather work blue-collar than submit to that type of fascist regime.
I love my country but jesus christ...people need to stop putting the almighty dollar above personal privacy and freedoms. It's like the executives who make these ridiculous decisions are so insulated from reality that they don't even realize that they're chipping away at the foundations of American life. I wonder how freedom-less life will be in 50 years.
I'm scared.
sedawkgrep
Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs16-bck.htm
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.
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
I got this "bad information" here among other places. Here's a link to a shorter explanation from the Fair&Isaac website, the people who make the credit score and provide them to Transunion, Equifax, etc.
Sorry, but 10% of your credit score is how many credit checks you've had in the last year. It's not at ALL neutral, unless you're the one checking. If someone told you that, they were misinformed. Here's an excerpt from the site I linked to...
# 35% of the score is based on your payment history. This makes sense since one of the primary reasons a lender wants to see the score is to find out if (and how timely) you pay your bills. The score is affected by how many bills have been paid late, how many were sent out for collection, any bankruptcies, etc. When these things happened also comes into play. The more recent, the worse it will be for your overall score.
# 30% of the score is based on outstanding debt. How much do you owe on car or home loans? How many credit cards do you have that are at their credit limits? The more cards you have at their limits, the lower your score will be. The rule of thumb is to keep your card balances at 30% or less of their limits.
# 15% of the score is based on the length of time you've had credit. The longer you've had established credit, the better it is for your overall credit score. Why? Because more information about your past payment history gives a more accurate prediction of your future actions.
#10% of the score is based on the number of inquiries on your report. If you've applied for a lot of credit cards or loans, you will have a lot of inquiries on your credit report. These are bad for your score because they indicate that you may be in some kind of financial trouble or may be taking on a lot of debt (even if you haven't used the cards or gotten the loans). The more recent these inquiries are, the worse for your credit score. FICO scores only count inquiries from the past year.
# 10% of the score is based on the types of credit you currently have. The number of loans and available credit from credit cards you have makes a difference. There is no magic number or combination of types of accounts that you shouldn't have. These actually come more into play if there isn't as much other information on your credit report on which to base the score.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
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.
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
Are you kidding? The only reason I've got good credit / finances is because I steal from the company.
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.
There are two types of credit checks. The first type doesn't affect your credit. Credit Card companies use these for pre-approval offers. They will make an inquiry and it will appear on your credit report.
A credit check for the purpose of borrowing does affect your credit. Lawrence Lindsey, the President's former chief economic advisor got into a huge public brouhaha with Toys 'R Us over its credit rating practices. He was a Governer of the Federal Reserve Board at the time he was denied a Toys 'R Us credit card because he was shopping for a home loan at the time - he had too many checks on his credit report.
Now, I don't know which kind an employer does. I suspect the first (non-harmful) one because it doesn't involve an actual credit app.
Our credit reporting system is crap. Creditors have too much power. They can make you pay things you don't owe simply because it's cheaper than fighting them. My wife and I are this close (holding finger and thumb close together) to countersuing a doctor that has mistreated us, doesn't return calls, and won't even prosecute the lawsuit he filed against us. The $8,000 bill he says we owe was taken off of our report, but he can put it back on whenever he wants. Ack.
End Rant.
Want some more? Check out my blog
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.
You (or howstuffworks.com) really need to qualify this one. Take a look at your credit report sometime. Holy Crap! Look at all of those credit checks! OMG, WTF is going on? Thus is the penalty of having good credit (not a "penalty" that applies to your credit score, but a "penalty" of annoyance). I bet you get pantloads of credit card offers in the mail. I bet many of them say "pre-approved" or similar. And you know what? Every time you get one of those, there's an accompanying credit check. None of those checks hurt you (and really, shopping around a loan doesn't hurt you as much as you'd think, either -- of course, if you do it right, it won't matter; get yourself a pre-approval from an underwriter, and then no other broker will need to run a credit check until you commit to the loan). I don't know for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that the type of check an employer would do would fall into this same category of lookups. Yes, you get penalized for getting many credit cards, for example, but the problem is not simply one of the credit companies checking your credit. You get hurt because you're decreasing your potential credit ($1000 credit in a credit card is $1000 less credit you can get for that auto loan or mortgage, roughly), you're penalized for age (creditors like seeing long histories of credit, so get 2-3 cards and stick with them; swapping out cards every year or so is bad, because you can't establish age), you're penalized for an increase in your debt/income ratio (why get a credit card if you're not going to use it?), and finally you're possibly penalized a tiny amount (1-2 points, rarely more) for having that extra check on your credit.
Consider it this way -- what looks better on your credit report? A steady (if new job) and an extra credit check by your employer, or no job but a clean record of credit checks in the past year? I'd choose the former, and anybody with a brain would as well.
(I'm not addressing the legal, ethical, or moral issues surrounding an employer requiring a credit check. I'm simply making the point that one extra credit check to get a job is not going to hurt you in any way, unless you're going through many jobs in a year -- and then you're going to be hurt more by insufficient length at each job than you are by the credit checks required to get those jobs.)
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.
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.
It turns out they just did a criminal background check, which I can totally understand. I guess the difference here is that my employer told me about the check up-front before I made the move. It is fairly underhanded of them to get you in the door, then pull this on you. It also makes you look bad to the company because you don't want to offer this stuff up when everyone else has.
I guess the trick here is to not let them do it and still keep your job without everyone having meetings about you behind closed doors. Yes, consulting a lawyer is a good thing, just don't let them know you have one. I'm sure they would look at that as treacherous. You could appeal to them and let them know your "policy" is to keep your home affairs private and work affairs at work. Also pointing out that they didn't tell you of this requirement before offering you a job puts you in a really bad position. This would especially be true if you left another employer for the job, thinking you had passed all the requirements for the position.
Personally, if I had a way out, I'd walk. The thought process that an employee with bad credit is a suspect employee is somewhat anal. Execs at many companies probably have really bad credit....the only thing is that they do everything as a corporation so their personal credit isn't touched. Even filthy rich execs (like the ones at Enron) finance houses. Considering all the shady stuff these guys are into, how do you think they get past the strict credit requirements for mortgages? (For those of you that point out that they probably pay cash for the houses....no, they don't in most cases. It makes more sense to finance it because they can make more money with the cash in hand than they can having it tied up into a house. Paying cash for a house is something that benefits a retiree more than a rich exec.)
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.
As an example, if you want to screw someone over, simply run several dozen credit requests against an individual (pretty trivial exercise). That alone screws them up.
Next, you just don't know - unless you request it - what's on your record. I've been turned over to collection agencies twice - and both times the companies in question owed me money. Letters with the name of large legal firms were neccessary to get the situation resolved. And that's becuase I was aware of the issues.
One of the more frightening 'hits' people take is through their good buddies, landlords. They move, believe they have closed their utility/phone/whatever, and the landlord doesn't forward the request for the last bill. The billing companies have no forwarding address ...
For comparison, the MIB (Medical Information Bureau) is only available to a select few companies. And they have a nifty policy ... you can use the information so obtained to start an investigation of your own, but cannot rely on the information they provide alone. Like, if someone applies for life insurance, and the insurer's query returns the minor detail they've had three heart attacks in the last year. If the insurer then requests the reports from the hospitals, well and good. If they deny you based on the MIB info alone, and get caught, the fines and possible loss of access are staggering.
Unfortuantely, a similar idea for credit ratings was shot down. The companies who use these credit scores benefit in two ways by not verifying a 'bad' score - no investigation cost, and, for most of them, charging a higher interest rate.
So the industry is set up to fuck your rating, and reluctant to do anything about it. I'm with the original poster, tell the company to get stuffed. It's the old "It came from the computer, so it must be correct!" whine of people who don't want to take responsibility for a system they know is broken.
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