Do you all think it should be against the law to check a potential employees credit report in order for them to get a job.

Comments

Comments

Comments

• @Friendly Stranger - Where do you draw the line?
  
  Can an employer demand to know who your friends are?
  
  Can an employer demand to know who you voted for?
  
  Can an employer demand to know what kind of books you read?
  
  Can an employer use the fact that the United States prison population is overwhelmingly Black/Hispanic to assert that Black/Hispanic candidates are 'riskier' than others and not hire people on that basis?
  
  The answer to that last one is "NO!", because it's illegal. But in principle it is no different than discriminating against people with bad credit records.

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 20th, 2011

• I disagree with you there. Although you have a point about your last statement. I think you have to undertstand, the Employer has the right to hire who they want. I am not suggestion that they should exclude people based on criteria, but I am suggesting that they as employers have a right to know who is trustworthy or not and checking a credit score is a means to do this. Also, you mentioned knowing who your "friends" are. Facebook has become the target of many employers in these days. Employers are making choices not to hire because of what they see on someone's facebook page. Is that wrong if an employer won't hire you based on what they want for their standards? I don't think so. You brought up the issue of race and you have a good point. I don't think anyone is suggesting discrimination is a good thing, in fact is is bad and it is thank-fully illegal. But I am stating that employers can make choices as it regards credit scores. It is all about gaining trust or a level of trust by seeking ways to find it.

  • Report
  

  by Friendly Stranger on July 20th, 2011

• @Friendly Stranger - In other words, you're against discrimination except when you're in favor of it, and you're perfectly comfortable letting the individual prejudices of hiring managers be the guiding factor in when discrimination is OK.
  
  Glad we got that straight....;-D....

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 20th, 2011

• You are putting words in my mouth. Did you not read what I said?
  
  "You brought up the issue of race and you have a good point. I don't think anyone is suggesting discrimination is a good thing, in fact is is bad and it is thank-fully illegal."
  
  I only said that employers can decide based on CREDIT SCORES and FACEBOOK or what they deem unworthy for their STANDARDS! I didn't say anything else. I am not for discrimination and I don't think anyone here is. This is probably the most recent example of a user putting words in my mouth. Old School, you certainly proved my point about that. I said I disagree with you, but I don't disagree with everything. Apparently we can't have a civil debate, at least I can't with you.

  • Report
  

  by Friendly Stranger on July 20th, 2011

• @Friendly Stranger - You don't believe my summary of your position was fair?
  
  Let's review:
  
  You stated you are not in favor of letting employers use their perception of the 'trustworthiness' of Blacks, Jews, Women, immigrants for Ireland, homosexuals, etc. to make hiring decisions.
  (Which is good, because this is explicitly illegal)
  
  You stated you are in favor of letting employers use their perception of the 'trustworthiness' of people with low credit scores, or who joined the Picture of Cats That Look Like Hitler group on Facebook to make hiring decisions.
  
  Next, you expressed you are in favor of letting employers determine "their standards" for what constitutes 'untrustworthy, and what credit score/history or what Facebook behavior indicates 'trustworthiness'. Not some at-least-nominally-objective scientific standard. Not some standard determined by the legal/political process. Employers get to pick THEIR STANDARDS, by whatever process (no matter how arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory) they decide.
  
  Nor do you address the inherent contradiction that there are aspects of 'protected class' discrimination that are as great or greater predictors of potential employee problems than credit score or Facebook behavior (e.g. African American men get arrested/convicted at higher rates than other groups). It doesn't matter that (at least statistically) African American males are 'less trustworthy' than other groups. Employers are still not allowed to consider that in hiring decisions (even if they actually do...:-P....)
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06Luo.html
  
  Is any of the above inaccurate? Show me where.
  
  You may not like my previous summary because I put it in emotionally-loaded language (e.g. "discrimination", "prejudices", etc.) that is different from what you chose (e.g. "making choices", "their standards", etc.).
  
  I admit that was deliberate. I was hoping to shock you into seeing the inherent inconsistency of your position.
  
  Perhaps you can explain why you believe 'protected-class' discrimination is not OK (where we perfectly agree) while credit score/Facebook discrimination is OK (where I think you're full of beans)? Or what guiding principle makes the two forms fundamentally different?
  
  

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 20th, 2011

• Let me prove my point about this issue of the credit score. Say for instance you apply for a government position that is Top Secret. From my understanding, if you end up failing to keep a decent credit score you can actually lose your top secret clearance and possibly lose your job. Why is that? That is because the Federal government is responsible for up-holding their own standards as it relates to their employees. That to me is fair. Employers have a right to hire based on background and this includes credit scores. Let me use another example:
  
  How about someone who is an ex-convict? If there was an applicant who served jail time, they were qualified based on their resume before hand, and the employer decides not to hire that person because they are an ex-convict. Does that mean the employer is wrong for not hiring? No. The employer has a right to hire who they want to (not basing this on race,gender, religion, etc) My point this entire discussion is that employers each have a right to hire who they want based on qualifications or lack thereof. This includes an applicants credit score.
  
  The only reason you have a problem (and others) with employers conducting credit score checks is because you feel it is an invasion of your privacy. You can feel this way if you want to, but isn't supplying your resume and conducting other background checks such as criminal history an invasion of privacy? One could argue that. But here is my point. Credit score checking is only another means as I said to review someone's trustworthiness. It has nothing to do with discrimination because the employer can choose to hire based on that or not. If they do not, they are still justified because it is a part of the curriculum. Even when you enter the military, you cannot serve or be accepted (after taking the ASVAB) if you have a low credit score. Why? That is because the military does the exact same thing that employers are now doing. They are checking to see if who they accept is a personal risk or not. That is business. It might not seem fair, but it is business! So other institutions do the exact same thing, but more people like yourself, are upset because you think it infringes upon your human rights, and you feel that in some way it is "socialist" if an employer reaches too far where you feel they should not go.

  • Report
  

  by Friendly Stranger on July 21st, 2011

• @Friendly Stranger - Your previous comment introduced no new information or concepts to this discussion.
  
  You simply reiterated your support for your position which I summarized in my last two comments.
  
  You are OK with employer discrimination in hiring when you or they seem to think it relevant and against it when you or they think its irrelevant.
  
  There is no fundamental difference between an employer saying "I won't hire a someone with a low credit score because they are a risk" and an employer saying "I won't hire a young African American man because they are a risk".
  
  One form of discrimination has the social stigma of racism (even though there is rational data to support it).
  
  The other form has the veneer of technical competence and objectivity (even though it's capricious and arbitrary).
  
  I suspect the problem you're having here accepting the inherent hypocricy of your position (which is a common problem in these discussions) is that accepting Reality means you have to accept that things like hiring/firing decisions really are much more of a crap-shoot than anything predictable.
  
  Many people like to hang on to their illusions that these things are meritocratic, because the implications of accepting it's not so are just too overwhelming.

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 21st, 2011

• Well, at this point what else can I say? In my last post, you are right I didn't offer a new argument to the response that I gave before. That is because I do have a stance and I am willing to take that stance, even if others disagree with it. I think if anything you are proving a point and that is, when people disagree with each other, they tend to do so in such a way that neither side actually listens to the other. I acknowledge your point in that you feel that the use of credit score ratings in the job hiring process is a form of discrimination. I still do not see the paralell in the argument on race, but I see that you feel it is discriminatory. On that note, I get the point. You disagree with my view, and I disagree with yours. Do I accept my position? Yes I do. Not in the sense that I would discriminate against anyone, but in that I am aware of hiring practices that need to be fulfilled due to a standardized obligation that is company based. We can argue about this for days and maybe weeks, because there are many points to look at regarding this. But at this point, it is no use to argue anymore. I enjoyed this argument (with the exception of the beginning of this) because I like to debate points. But I feel the need to end this, at least for now. There aren't any new points I can offer because you won't agree either way. With that, thanks for your responses, because it opened my eyes to different types of view points on this topic.

  • Report
  

  by Friendly Stranger on July 21st, 2011

• @Friendly Stranger - Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad I was able to introduce you to a new perspective.
  
  What I would encourage you to do with that new perspective is keep asking the next question.
  
  Inherent in your position that employers should be allowed to use credit scores to screen job applicants are a bunch of hidden questions, like:
  
  What does a credit score actually indicate about a person?
  
  If credit scores do indicate something, is it relevant to job performance?
  
  FICO scores are calculated using a proprietary method (FICO = Fair Issac Corporation). How do we know that FICO scores are fair and accurate?
  
  Why is discrimination of FICO score acceptable but discrimination on race, creed, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. not acceptable?
  
  My frustration with your position is that it doesn't appear you've asked yourself these questions. But I hope you'll think about them going forward.

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 21st, 2011

Comments

• @Possum
  
  How about the friends you hang out with?
  
  How about the kind of books you read?
  
  How about the kind of alcoholic beverages you like to drink?
  
  An employer can plausibly make up an excuse to look at almost anything about you and claim that is relevant to your potential fitness as an employee.
  
  When did you you become a Fascist?....;-D...

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 20th, 2011

• I didn't say I liked it. I said (implied) that I couldn't make a very good argument against it.
  
  Preferences in friends, liquor and books is just a qustion of taste and personal preference. How you handle you finanal affairs is a fact of history, just like school grades or a criminal conviction.
  
  Let's face it, how you handle your financial affairs could be a valid indicator of future issues. And it's one that's already in use widely by miliary, police, financial institutions and governmental entities.
  
  And please be a little circumspect about using the term "Fascist" around me. I was born in occuptied Germany where my father was in charge of "Adult Re-education" for the Allied High Command. So I don't take the term lightly. ; )

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 20th, 2011

• Don't get too frustrated with Old School, he commented on my answer too and he doesn't respect the opinions of others. I disagree with different users, but I respect their opinions..

  • Report
  

  by Friendly Stranger on July 20th, 2011

• @Possum - I don't use the term Fascist lightly.
  
  I use it when people clearly favor giving Business/Corporations broad latitude over a society and the people within it.
  
  Merging Corporate interests with Government interests and letting that combination make social policy decisions is Fascism, and the United States has steadily descended into it over the past several decades.
  
  This seems like one more step down that path.
  
  The fact that the military, police and government entities abuse our civil rights in this fashion is no reason to give corporate entities the same power to do so.
  
  Financial institutions have some claim that credit records are valid for their business, because a credit record is a history of interactions with a financial institution. The fact that ones history in dealing with such interactions is predictive of possible future interactions is certainly plausible.
  
  NO SUCH CASE can be made for credit records being predictive of a good plumber, or customer service manager, or dental technician, or etc.
  
  And even it if could, we run into the same problem we have with so-called 'protected classes' (race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)
  
  An employer can plausibly claim that ANY of these factors is statistically predictive of potential employee problems (Blacks are more like to be arrested, a gay employee is more likely to upset homophobic customers, etc.)
  
  Yet we EXPLICITLY BAN employers from using those criteria when picking employees.
  
  Why should we make an exception for credit reports? I've yet to see a valid distinction made.

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 20th, 2011

• @old-I respectfully disagree.
  
  For starters, are you saying that you think a CIA agent, bomb maker, rocket scientist who's deeply in debt whould be trusted with national secrets? I disagree-there's an easy way for him to solve the problem.
  
  As I previously said race, sex, etc. are random events not under the individuals control. Financial responsibility is not.
  
  Someone with financial problems can pose a security risk at several levels-embezzlement, pilferage, blackmail just to name a few.
  
  I'm kind of in the business and know of what I speak, although-as I initally said-I don't like the fact.
  
  Unfortunately most personnel decisions are made by HR departments (for whom I have limited use). They tend to use this screen as an easy way of culling the herd.
  
  You and I are probably on the same page.
  
  Regardless, case closed. Next canditate!

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 20th, 2011

• @Possum - OK, on a case-by-case basis, I'm willing to make exceptions for things like CIA agents (much as I'm OK with drug testing of bus drivers).
  
  But for your average HR specialist for your average ozone-depleting job, no f****g way!.\

  • Report
  

  by Old School on July 20th, 2011

Comments

• How about your school grades?
  
  How about references?
  
  Are those also "none of their business?"

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 20th, 2011

Comments

• How about your school grades?
  
  How about references?
  
  Do they say anything "of what type of person you are?"

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 20th, 2011

• No not really, you can be the smartest kid in school but you could be a smart arse in real life, References are much the same as many references I have seen over all the years I have been working are often misleading as they only tell part of the story.

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on July 20th, 2011

• @bux-I'm asking if you feel that those are inappropriate to ask. Or do you feel that any "due diligance" is inappropriate.
  
  If so would you object to a 96 hour marathon work-habit, productivity, skills test?
  
  I'm just asking how a prospective employer is supposed to make a decision other than on the BS you can lay on him and/or proven results.

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 20th, 2011

• I am saying that credit checks have absolutely nothing to do with getting a job in 99% of cases. In all my years of working not one boss has ever asked to see my school ref's, as for work Ref's at best some scan them and almost none have ever bothered to ring up or ask for info from former bosses.

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on July 20th, 2011

• If you think "credit checks have absolutely nothing to do with getting a job in 99% of cases" then why are you jerking-off talking about it?

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 20th, 2011

• Simply because the bosses want to know everything about you and try to own you 24/7.. enough is enough with any more of this B.S. about what one has to go through to get a job.

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on July 20th, 2011

• @Bux-First I understand that you are frustrated with today's employment environment. I'm not too happy with it myself.
  
  But facts are facts-someone with financial problems can pose a security risk at several levels-embezzlement, pilferage, bribery, blackmail just to name a few.
  
  I'm kind of in the security business and know of what I speak, although-as I initally said-I don't like the fact.
  
  Unfortunately a lot of HR drones use the credit report as a sieve just like they use college degrees, etc.

  • Report
  

  by Possum on July 21st, 2011