Slashdot Mirror
Will Your Credit Report Disqualify You For a Job?
coondoggie writes "Two companies that fired workers and rejected job applicants based on background checks, without informing those people of their rights, have settled with the FTC for $77,000 in civil penalties. Most experts we talked to think this case is just the tip of the iceberg. The companies — Quality Terminal Services and Rail Terminal Services — were charged with violating provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires employers to get permission to look at individual credit reports. If you don't get a job because of information in your report, the employer must show you the report and tell you how to get a copy from the consumer reporting company. There is no charge for the report if you request it within 60 days of getting notice that you did not get a job."
Your credit report might disqualify you from posting on Slashdot.
IMO, unless you work directly with cash or are in a position where fraud would be easy, employers have no right to that information.
Shit happens in peoples lives leaving them in precarious positions and things dont get paid on time. Having employers deny applicants based on their credit could put people in a downward financial spiral.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
In this economy, there are literally dozens of out of work people applying for just about every opening. Assuming you were turned down for a position, how would you ever know that the reason was due to a background check? Maybe you smell bad or your facial hair is unkempt. Maybe your fingers were stained orange from the Cheetos you eat all day long in your mom's basement. It could have been your broken flip-flops or the raggedy jeans you haven't washed since January. It's possible that the interviewer was put off by your labored breathing and the whistling sound from your nose. I'd bet the abundance of nose hairs was also a factor. While perfectly natural, it probably wasn't the best idea to let loose a SBD in the interview. Shampooing with RID or conditioning with Nix might have kept those jumping lice to a minimum. Finally, ranting about the GPL and Open Source might be friendly banter here on Slashdot, the interviewer was probably asking about the festering open sore on your leg.
It reminds me of people who send random requests under the FOIA. Sure, there is a chance that you may hit on something, but without any actual evidence, how could you ever really know whether there is something there?
The whole idea behind credit reports being used for anything other than whether or not you should be extended credit leaves me sickened. I've known too many hard working people who've had tough times for legitimate reasons who have been horribly screwed by this crap. Even the government mandated free credit reports are kind of bizarre, I had to forcibly tell these scum to cancel an account at one of the "bureaus" three times over the phone for an apparently ongoing reporting service that I didn't have a way to op out of and I still didn't get all the charges back.
As a former employee of a notable product safety testing company, I understand this complaint completely. However, I believe the potential for honest, hard working people to be unjustly denied a position outweighs the benefits.
Unless someone is in a managerial position or deals with money directly(credit card processors for instance), employers have no right to my credit information. Given how notoriously difficult it is to clean up a credit report, its unfair.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
This is a slippery slope you're walking. Assuming that you want to demand that employers have concrete reasons to deny you a job, you must give them access to your medical history as well as the history of your family? Sure, they can't deny you because they can only show a correlation between bad credit and bad job performance, but then should they be able to dig deeper into the reason for your bad credit?
If you are going to prevent them from accessing personal information, where does this stop? Can they request job performance information from your previous employers? Should they even be able to ask you questions in the interview, and if so, can they reject you on the basis that you refuse to answer a question?
If you think that an employer can't do due diligence on a hire, what can they do?
An employee who is frequently ill or absent due to injuries sustained in his private activities is a liability. However, I would be uncomfortable allowing a company to access his medical records searching for causation. I'm much more willing to allow the company to make judgments based on correlations which tend to be fuzzier and allow for some flexibility in interpretation.
No, it doesn't make sense to check the employee's credit. Rather, you should be asking: why the hell are confidential reports being stored in an unsupervised, unsecured location?
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Most of what companies do makes sense to no one but them. A company is not a single entity, even, but a whole group of idiots with different priorities and different ideas of how to do things, who probably don't talk with each other all that often, and even less often actually agree.
A previous employer shipped their entire business, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of electronics equipment, all over the world in reusable plastic boxes with the companies name on them, sealed with velcro. Every time, at least a half a dozen people who were not their employees handled the boxes and had access to everything in them. They still did credit checks on potential employees.
In the IT industry especially, companies are fine with treating local employees like criminals, but then are more than willing to outsource essential work to god-knows-who in skeezy third-world countries.
Not trusting random people on the street is one thing. But not trusting employees is the sign of a ridiculous, horrible company.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Who is most likely to steal from you: The worker who owes 20k dollars in credit card debt and is barely keeping his head above water, or the worker who has a million dollar home and a penchant for finding profit everywhere?
I've found that a lot of people who are in poor financial condition are so because they're weirdly principled about it. They don't feel like they could go for higher salaries, because that would be wrong. They don't feel right about charging for the things that they do. They have specific hangups about money in weird ways, one of which frequently is "money is bad, and getting money is bad. I should just put my nose to the grindstone and everything will be OK."
Whereas a lot of the people I know who do have a lot of money, do so because they're unscrupulous bastards. They know how to cut corners, squeeze full advantage out of situations, and pull the wallet right out of your pants while smiling and making you feel like one of the family. I like the ones that I know, but I also know better than to sign anything around them.
I think it's fair to say that in this case, a Credit Score is not a good indicator of which type of employee will take advantage of "edge opportunities" in your organization. And in that light, it merely discriminates against the kind of suckers, err, "hardworking employees" that you probably do want in your company.
The ______ Agenda
The problem with credit rating is not that it exists, or that it lacks sufficient predictive value for creditworthiness. It's that over the last few decades, credit rating has increasingly become a proxy for overall responsibility and our legal system has upheld its widespread misuse. Credit score is now a prerequisite for nearly everything that has to do with money. Your insurance premiums are a function of your credit score. Your ability to secure a job is dependent on your credit score. Whether a landlord will rent to you depends on your credit score. Just about anyone these days asks you for permission to peek at your score--even your mobile phone provider.
Credit rating was never meant to be used in this way. And yet, everyone does it because it works, and nobody is willing to stand up to it. The future of credit rating is that it will begin to use increasingly sophisticated methods to quantify how much risk you present to a lender, and on the flip side of the coin, it will be used to determine whether you can do ANYTHING. What jobs you are allowed to hold, which people you will be allowed to socialize with, what goods and services you are allowed to buy, which schools you will be allowed to attend, how many children you will be allowed to have, and where and when you will be able to travel.
Creditworthiness is the new class system. What else did anybody expect in a capitalist, consumer-driven society? This is merely the logical conclusion of a set of conditions on a system. Your entire worth as an individual will be quantified and reduced to a single number, and you will be completely under the control of powerful financial entities that sees society as a source of passive income.
The dirty little secret is that credit rating is a system imposed by the rich elite onto the working class. The rich do not have credit, because they have no need for it. Everything they could want, they simply buy. And they buy it with money that the working class earns as a result of real work, but gets funneled to them through--guess what--credit.
You misunderstand the point I have made.
The problem is not simply that the working class must borrow from the rich. It is not that in a capitalist society, the working class, by definition, requires others to lend them money to make purchases on goods and services that they cannot buy outright. The problem is that there is no counteracting force--that is to say, the rich have all the power to rewrite the rules of the game as they see fit, and thus there is no real accountability for their misdeeds.
I find it curious that you believe that my statement was anti-capitalist. To the contrary, if you apply my statement to the current economic crisis which was in no small part due to the willful underwriting of bad risks, you will clearly see that the problem is that the financial institutions have become so large and influential that the government bailed them out to prevent a complete collapse of the economy. Had the system been truly capitalist, these lenders would have had to write down their losses, rather than being rewarded by taxpayers for making bets they knew were unwise.
Capitalism when times are good and socialism when times are bad is neither capitalism nor socialism. It's simply robbery.
The credit rating problem is only one facet of the larger issue, which is that our economic system is based upon a belief that it is possible to create a sufficiently accurate quantitative model of risk such that one can "almost always" trust it. When viewed in this larger context, it becomes obvious that the trend towards more data collection, more intrusion into consumer behaviors, is the logical consequence of this flawed belief. It is this idea that the more you know about something, the more predictive you can be--but the fundamental truth remains that there is no way to eliminate risk entirely.
The working class are simultaneously victims and perpetrators of this system based upon flawed assumptions, as are the rich. But I am more inclined to blame the rich because they are the ones who have historically been in control, both financially and politically.
The lending of money, in of itself, is not a bad thing. But when mixed with an easily cowed, manipulated, and self-entitled public that is told from infancy that "you can do anything if you just try hard enough" and "you are special and deserve everything," it becomes a problem. But in whose interest is it to make a credit-based, consumer economy the foundation of the American financial system in the first place? Who do you blame--the ones who are too stupid to behave responsibly, or the ones who encourage them to be stupid in the first place, because it makes them easy to control and profit off them?
I worked in Downtown Seattle for 14 years, ending a few months ago. Never got a parking ticket. Take the bus, or a bike, Señor Mantecapo.
I'm a victim of Identity theft. Some thieves got my name, address, date of birth and SSN, filled out an online form and got a credit card in my name. (Despite the mother's maiden name being wrong. Thank you very much Capital One!) The only reason I found out about it was that the thieves tripped up. They paid to have the card rush-mailed to them and *then* they changed the address from my address to theirs (or at least a drop box of theirs). The card was mailed out before the address change went through and landed in my hands.
I never did catch the thieves (slow working police who weren't prepared for an ID theft case and an uncooperative Capital One), but I learned how to prevent ID Theft: Freeze your credit. Then the thieves can't open any new lines of credit in your name. The only downside is that you can't open up any new lines yourself without first "thawing" the credit file temporarily. (Did that when I bought my new car.)
As a side benefit, people can't look at your credit file either. So jobs can't run background checks without your prior approval and banks can't pre-approve you for credit card after credit card that you don't want or need.
Here's some more information on credit freezing: http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.