Slashdot Mirror
Newest Job Qualification — A Good Credit History
Alien54 writes quotes an article from The Day that says "In the past, only banks and financial service companies routinely ran credit checks on potential employees. But employers in other sectors increasingly are including [credit checks] in the screening process to assess applicants' honesty and integrity, traits not readily gleaned from a résumé. US employers' use of credit checks increased 55 percent over the last five years, according to Spherion, a recruitment and staffing firm with offices around the country.... "The credit check has become a general measure of responsibility and organization," said industrial psychologist Carl Greenberg, senior vice president of Spherion. "If you cannot organize your finances, how are you going to responsibly organize yourself for a company? Organization is a measure of responsibility."
So because Mr. Smith had to max out his credit cards for Little Suzys cancer medication, he doesn't get the new job?
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
So, what if a candidate's credit history is a result of not finding a job. I've seen stories of (especially) IT people with long careers summarily right-sized out of their jobs. I've read articles (Enron?) of employees who lost their life savings and retirement funding because of (ironically) mismanagement at the top.
So now a candidate must show good credit? WTF? And if a candidate is in this financial situation because he (she) can't get a job, an employer who dismisses such candidate because they have bad credit perpetuates their situation. Shame on them!
From the article:
I call bullshit. This is an unadulterated power play and invasion of a candidate's privacy. And I suggest all out there looking for work decline the credit check as a part of the interview process.
I also think some public vetting of companies who use credit checks as part of the interview process would be interesting.
of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.
Do you think the employer wants to hear the part about the divorce and paying alimoney and child support? They probably don't care about that part...
Definately not a utopian society we live in.
I had my identity stolen years ago and my credit was ruined.
Does this mean that as a victim, employers are allowed to victimize me by denying me employment? Yep.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Laws exist to protect big business, politicians and the financial top 1%.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
I know plenty of people who have money and bad credit. Credit reports have been used for more than a decade to analyze risk in situations like employment. This is nothing new. You don't have to be rich to avoid having bad credit; you merely have to honor your financial obligations. Granted, there are some cases where you can be in good shape and something like sickness appears and the next thing you know, you're in financial trouble.. and this is more of a testimony to the neglect the government has towards the problem with healthcare. If this is the only ding you have on your credit report, employers can note the distinction between a medical related debt and something like consistently missing your mortgage payment.
Drucker once wrote that you should seek to staff an organisation based on the strengths you could find, not the lack of weakness, because that way led to (at best) being average.
Who cares if your R&D department cant remember to pay their bills? If they are good enough it'll be cheaper to hire someone to handle all that tedious interfacing with the real world while they prove that P=NP and engrave the steps onto the back of an atom using a method they developed in the bath.
In fact the business world *already* does this. The reason I have a purchasing department and a finance department and a contracts department is because I, as an engineer, am more valuable when I can forget about problems which are more efficiently dealt with by someone else.
Now I tend to pay my bills mostly on time, because it's the lazy option. I can even see how this might be a valid test for someone who was going to work in commercial or administration. But for most staff? Work out what the job needs to be sucessful and then ignore the other flaws - after all, managing flawed but brilliant people is why you have middle management and a HR department, employing their strengths to make you money.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
It's another example of ways to keep the poor... well poor.
And I'm not typically the type to rag on that bandwagon. But lower income families typically do not always have the luxury of being able to manage credit. Especially not in a way that would result in a good great rating.
This also doesn't take into account things that were beyond the control of the potential employee. Unless you are going to allow potential employees to speak up for the problems on the credit report, then I see this as discrimatory.
Strike that. I find it discrimatory period.
I'm a damn good employee at work, but my credit rating is horrible. I've fallen on my face too many times and have struggled to get back up. I hold myself above water now, but not enough to even begin repairing my credit. If something happened and I lost my job tomorrow, not being able to find new employment isn't going to help that situation.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
The entire credit check history idea is wrong, not just when used for filtering job appplicants. It builds on the notion that those who pay their debts are more reliable, completely ignoring several key facts.
For instance, it "paints over" the problems of people who structurally use debts to pay back earlier debts. In other words: you can easily dig a hole as deep as you want, provided that you are sufficiently clever at hiding it by moving it around.
It also ignores those who do not want/need to have debts at all, as they simply have no "history". Never mind that Mr. X has had enough money of his own to survive for years and has carefully built this position by working hard from day one and by never spending money on stuff he didn't need or couldn't afford. I'd argue that people in this situation are much better at keeping track of their money and spendings than those who have payed back debts everywhere.
Linux user since early January 1992.
If it doesn't serve you, change it.
Or, you can sit back, fat and happy and allow the guys at the top, the ones with the sociopathic personalities and pathological need to win, to decide how you're going to live.
Deleted
Federal laws require that companies notify job applicants before conducting credit checks, butmany firms reason that viable applicants with good credit have nothing to hide.
When a company does a credit check, it is listed in your report, so this is just another reason to look at your credit report as often as possible. If I were to find that a company I had interviewed with had checked my credit without my knowledge and I didn't get the job, I would certainly be in contact with a lawyer or the attorney general.
If you can't get a job, you can't make the payments.
This effectively relegates the poor to a permanent poor status.
I already told my HR department 3 months ago to never even think about this bullshit tactic or they'll be fired out of here like a friggin cannon ball.
We don't need credit checks for jack squat. We need criminal state & FBI background checks and that's it.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I can't make any judgements about the average-joe-with-bad-credit, but for myself (I have a "medium - low" score, it's not absolute trash, thankfully), I can say that while it certainly is my fault, I seriously question that it would have anything to do with how responsible or hard-working I am. The reason is that I incurred 90% of the damage to my credit while I was 18 and stupid. Yes, at that time, it might be true that I was irresponsible and would have been a bad employee (although it wasn't, really). I just had no idea how to deal with anything in the real world because it had never been a concern before. Some people might claim that if I'm a "new person" now, with my life and finances in order, I should be able to recover quickly. Since I'm in school and not making much money however, those debts are not going away soon. Nor do you find credit card companies to be quick to forgive. I think it will be at least 10 years before my credit is really on the mend, and I don't begrudge the lesson that high interest rates, etc will teach. But I think denying me a job on this account is quite out of order. In short, it presumes too much.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
What if some staffing consultant company one day decided that people who eat bran for breakfast are better employees (they're in cahoots with the bran industry, after all, serving each other's interests. They want to make sure you really suffer if you haven't been a fan of bran), therefore they're going to do a bran profile of all employees.
If you don't have enough bran in your history, sorry - no job for you. I guess you'll have to beg to try to start getting some bran.
Oh but don't think you'll sneak around this: They're going to do hair sampling and talk to former roommates to determine if you ate bran years ago. Simply towing the line now isn't satisfactory.
Maybe they'll do a "former lover" test to determine if you called within 6 days, and how your performance was in bed. Surely some loose, anecdotal correlation can be drawn there as well.
Sounds sort of arbitrary and ridiculous, doesn't it?
Because it is. It would be one thing if an unbiased research paper drew a strong/strong correlation between credit worthiness and performance on the job, but simply taking the word of a guy who's agenda is being served. No thanks.
Here in Canada there have been some efforts to ban any industry (for instance car insurance companies determining your rates based on your credit worthiness. Sure, they can say "Oh, but people with bad credit are more likely to be worse drivers!", but failing actual credible results, thankfully most people say "bullshit") from using metrics that haven't been positively and strongly correlated with the result they're trying to test.
"Nope. If Mr. Smith mazes out all his credit cards because he didn't buy proper insurance for little Suzy,"
The majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and 74% of those HAD insurance. So FOAD with the blaming of people for not having insurance. Between co-pays, non-covered items, incidental expenses, no coverage for pre-existing conditions (which can be used to deny everything except a fresh gunshot wound if they really want to stretch it) ... they haven't got a hope in hell.
Think of it. 74 % are being told to FOAD. So stop with the "its their fault because they didn't buy insurance" bullshit, and get behind a public insurance plan that covers everyone.
The vast majority of people in the world can't afford proper food or housing, let alone insurance. We've got enough systems in place to keep the poor stuck where they are, we don't need another one.
"but are looking for other information...the identity of a person...full legal name...A lot of people change their names if they have something to hide, and it lists former employers who might not be named on the résumé."
Prospective employer # 1 : "Gee, look at this. That last woman we interviewed, Mary Roe, the one we want to go with? Says here her name used to be Mike Row. Forget "it". Next!"
Prospective employer # 2 : "Gee, look at this. It says here that Joe Blow maxed out his credit cards last year for chemo for his wife. We don't want him raising our health insurance premiums. Next!"
Prospective employer # 3 : "Gee, look at this. The credit report lists Janet James as having a dependent child, but no husband. We don't need sinners like that here. Next!"
Prospective employer # 4 : "Gee, look at this. This credit report lists that Wilma Flinstone is claiming Betty Rubble as her spouse. Do we really want a lez in the office? Next!"
Prospective employer # 5 : "Gee, look at this. This credit report lists that Fred Flinstone is claiming Barney Rubble as his "domestic partner". Credit card bills show they were married at Stoney Creeek Lodge last year. I don't want some guy looking at my ass. Next!"
Prospective employer # 6 : "Gee, look at this. The credit report says that the reason for Nancy Crow's falling behind for a few months was she quit her job and sued her previous employer for sexual harrassment. She's probably a butch anyway. Next!"
There's more to business than just the bottom line. Treat people like crap, and you'll end up with crap people, and that WILL be reflected in your numbers eventually. And btw - while all of these forms of discrimination are illegal in any place with sane laws, #1 - the unwanted "outing" of a transsexual, either by the governments' program of informing employers about mis-matches between the gender associated with a SSN and the gender of the worker, or a credit check that is too invasive, places transsexuals at serious risk for becoming victims of physical violence, over and above any concerns of job discrimination.
You've never had a medical problem beyond the flu have you?
Little suzy gets bitten by a mosquito. She suddenly can't go pee after a few days. You go to the doctor and discover she has encephallitis and will die. They go nuts trying to save her, in the process they discover she now has hemophellia. They start popping in drugs that cost $21,000 per dose into her to try and stop the bleeding. Next thing you know you owe them $2.0M dollars.
They put a lein on your home because you're not paying fast enough.
Some of the doctor offices, but not all of them forgive the debt. Apparently the state run one feels you should pay back more than your home is worth.
Don't think that happens? Think Again
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Choicepoint, the parent company of company which was in charge of purging the voter rolls in FL of convicted felons, offers a range of employee background checks: criminal background checks, motor vehicle records, credit reports, employment verification, educaion verification, license and certification verification, reference background checks, and drug testing.
All of which sounds, on the face of it, reasonable. But employees should be able to see the information being provided to the employer and have the right to challenge it. For example, identity theft can permanently ruin your credit reports. Even if the credit bureaus fix your credit report, there are reports that the companies' data mining efforts repeatedly undo these fixes. Which means that once information is falsely associated with you, it can come back to haunt you at any time, no matter what you do.
Personally, I think a fix for this is that if companies want to provide information to third parties without your consent and without your ability to review it, then those companies should be held financially liable for any damages to you. That would light a fire under them to correct any problems. Right now they have no incentive to remove incorrect but damaging information about you. In fact the opposite. From their perspective a high false positive rate on identifying negative information about somebody is not a problem. So, their customers didn't hire that guy who would have been great. How will they ever know? But false negatives have a huge impact: if they hire somebody who checked clean, but he turns out to be a shoplifter, they'll never use your service again.
I think a better business model would be for the companies to be hired by the worker, not the employer. In that case you'd waive any rights to sue for damages in your service agreement, but in return you would be in control -- within limits -- of your information. When you apply for employement, you give the reference of a respected background check company. It'd be like applying to graduate school: your college sends a transcript which is "official". It may contain details that you'd rather hide, but there's no chance there's anything in it that will surprise you.
Finally, I should point out that companies are now in the business of providing highly detailed information about individual consumers' behavior and spending habits. It's only a matter of time before companies using this data hit on the idea of using the same services to figure out what a prospective employee is like. Imagine: your prospective employer finds out you like to buy guns, including automatic weapons, and and weirds him out.
The problem with these services is the same. They gain their popularity by the incredible depth of detail they provide about you; however there is no real incentive to remove false data.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Have you ever tried to get private/individual health insurance?
Seriously.
It can't be done.
In many states there's ONE carrier willing to issue individual health insurance, and it typically eliminates anyone with a "pre-existing health condition." You might think you're in the clear on that, but very, very few people can reach their mid-30s without having SOMETHING that they can use to deny coverage. I think in some areas NOBODY is willing to issue individual health insurance policies at any price.
When my COBRA ran out a few years ago the only insurance coverage I could get was the state-mandated "insurance of last resort". I was willing to make the sacrifices for the coverage, but most people couldn't since the premium was nearly half my mortgage payment. Fortunately my car was paid off and in reasonably good condition.
Our health care system is seriously screwed up -- did you know something like 47 million Americans are without insurance? It is absolutely inexcuseable for an industrial nation to not have, at a minimum, universal catastrophic health insurance to cover basic care for cancer, heart attacks, etc. People could still have private insurance for private hospital rooms, more exhaustive treatments, etc. It would be far cheaper for everyone involved than forcing doctors and hospitals to absorb massive losses on the uninsured and being forced to pass those costs onto everyone else (disproportionally hitting other uninsured patients since they can't negotiate capped prices), to say nothing of eliminating millions of bankruptcies caused solely by medical expenses.
(Don't get me started on people without insurance being forced to use ERs as 'urgent care', creating long waits for the rest of us and driving up costs since an ER visit is far more expensive than an RN and doc in a storefront office.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I should get penalised for avoiding credit totally?
What if I just want to keep my finances simple.
I have two accounts (one high interest savings one), 1 debit card. Why would I ever need credit? If I can't afford something now, I wait.
I can see only two loans that I will ever need. Student loan (which in the UK is risk free, you only pay it back once you are earning above a threshold), and a mortgage.
Personally I can't stand having to remember that I need to leave a certain amount aside for something. I organised it such that my rent and paycheck perfectly co-incide. Everything in my account is then spending money (including food)..
Perhaps you can enlighten me on why avoiding credit makes me a worse employee?
.sigs are for losers
Scenario 1: Let's say you're working somewhere and don't have health coverage. You don't make a lot of money, and you can't afford to buy health insurance. You get laid off or fired and can't pay it any longer if you had it. And you get sick, or you have an accident. Or let's say you have health insurance, but there are gaps. Or you have a pre-existing condition and it's not covered by your health insurance. Let's say you are fixing something and drop a tool, and it cuts you. Or you get hit in the crosswalk by a guy who has no insurance and is judgement proof. Or you're attacked by a mentally ill homeless person. Or some emergency happens. So you go to the emergency room - federal law mandates they must treat you even if you can't pay, or they can't be reimbursed by Medicare - and fortunately the injury is minor and you won't suffer permanent damage or disability. Now, you're okay, but you can't pay the bill, which will probably run a minimum of $600 from the hospital, plus perhaps another $200 for the E.R. doctor's bill. Maybe a few incidental items bring the total bill to about a thousand bucks. Maybe you qualify for the hospital to pay some or all your bill from their fund for the uninsured - some have donation plans where people give money for this purpose - but you have to know about it and ask about it. If you don't, they're not going to tell you it's available.
Guess what, when you can't pay, they're going to report you! Now, not only do you have bad credit, a place that looks at your credit before hiring you isn't going to hire you because you have unpaid bills! Now you're unemployed, and can't get work because you're not employable because of your bad credit history! Watch from there as things get worse as you can't pay your bills and have even worse problems. And forget about asking to have a comment inserted into your record, it won't make any difference, creditors and the people who get these reports will no doubt score these things electronically so that the computer will scan them, a person won't, thus, nobody is going to see it and they won't hear your side.
Scenario 2: Consider this: you're late on one $20 payment on your Sears credit card, and it could cause some company to refuse you a loan to purchase a house, because your credit isn't "pristine." This actually happened in the case of one man who had been seeing Europe for a few months, came back and went to buy a truck after he totalled his car, and needed to finance it because the insurance settlement was for the depreciated value and he couldn't pay cash for the remainder. Seems he left money with someone to pay his bills while he was overseas, such as the utilities and such while he was out of the country, and instead of paying his bills they spent the money. Even if he can get the money back it's irrelevant; he's still got some issues on his credit report. Even if he pays the creditors back, with interest, he's still going to have a bad mark on his credit for several months until the reports clear.
Scenario 3: A nice old lady, next door to me, put me on her credit card as an authorized user with a card with my name on it back a few years ago so I could rent a car when she wanted to go on vacation and needed someone to drive her around (she doesn't have a license, and I didn't have a regular credit card (most car rental companies won't take a check card or other debit card even if you have enough money). I forgot about it otherwise. She died. She owed the credit card company money, about $20,000. They put a black mark on my credit report even though I'm only an authorized user; I'm not responsible for the bill. While I sor
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.