Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes no sense. The only thing on a credit report are a listing of accounts and balances, whether they are in good standing, addresses, and inquiries. It doesn't list job titles, salary histories or other employment information. Request your free anual credit report and check it if you don't believe me.
Actually that is not the case.
Subject to state and federal law there is quite a lot of pubic information on credit reports, all of which can aid those doing background checks.
Liens, judgments, past last names used/aliases, previous addresses, criminal and or offense convictions, and so forth are all there again subject to laws.
This is a good step in the right direction. Years ago when I was job hunting, I applied to a position in a hospital and they said they would require a credit check. They asked me if there was any reason I thought I might not "pass," and I said I had great credit. She sounded relieved and said they had several qualified applicants but had to pass on them because of credit issues.
It boggles my mind. Why would a company shoot themselves in the foot like that? This was not a cash handling position, it was an administrative paper-pusher position. Crazy.
I know in many positions requiring security clearance, they want to ensure you are not on the brink of collapse. If you are, your a potential risk to misuse of info.
Yeah, I was going to say I've seen people denied clearances for bad credit..good workers too. Some of them had been working for months on an interim basis before the clearance was denied.
Anyways, I really dislike our credit monitoring system. I don't like the fact that these credit agencies have the ability to track my financial situation and influence personal/life changing decisions yet I have to pay for their services to make sure everything is correct.
Reminder: this is not the forum for political commentary. Please keep to the topic of the potential impact of the proposed legislation to employees and employers.
"We're not going to hire you, because you need to rebuild your credit...never mind the fact that by not hiring you, you won't be able to rebuild your credit..."
People are insane...I swear. When will you finally start pushing back?
What can you expect during this period of surplus workers!! Let's go back to 2005, height of the boom, and employers were on their knees begging for workers!!! Credit check? Even if your score was 100 you'd be hired!
Yeah, I was going to say I've seen people denied clearances for bad credit..good workers too. Some of them had been working for months on an interim basis before the clearance was denied.
Anyways, I really dislike our credit monitoring system. I don't like the fact that these credit agencies have the ability to track my financial situation and influence personal/life changing decisions yet I have to pay for their services to make sure everything is correct.
You should not have to. Everyone it entitled to see their file at each of the three bureau's once a year free under the fair credit reporting act.
Go to annualcreditreport.com
OK, first you have to go back a ways and find out WHY employers started using credit checks as a way to screen applicants. I'll give you three guesses. You can also look up "law of unintended consequences" while you're at it.
If a person steals, then prosecute. Denying employment due to credit is profiling. It's kind of like not hiring a person because someone has been looking for employment too long.
Credit checks are used by landlords to screen tenants and it's widely believed to be a useful measure of how reliable the person will be. I rent out a house but I'm not an expert; this is just what the property management companies have told me. I suppose it casts too wide a net at times; some of the stories posted here are interesting counter examples.
But I don't think taking this tool away from employers is a good idea. For one thing, it won't work; employers will start conducting background investigations for more employees, which necessarily will include a credit check, assuming this law leaves that loophole. Thus, the law will probably backfire.
Also, credit checks can be a useful tool. Not perfect, maybe, but people can be incredibly deceptive on job applications. I wonder how many employers support this bill; probably none. The net impact is going to be reduced hiring, because it takes away what is increasingly seen as an important tool.
Backround checks are different then credit checks.
I'm not sure why many people lump them together.
I'm a nurse,and I'm ok with a backround check.
Credit check? No. I'm not sure how having a high score will affect my job duties,like starting an IV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Credit check? Even if your score was 100 you'd be hired!
