Credit checks for applicants (letters, owner, temporary, opportunities)
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.
If you hate it, do something about it other than whine on the internet.
Are you taking action?
Contacting your State representative? If not, you're in collusion with the people who support it.
I didn't realize posting on the internet your thoughts on matters meant one was a whiner. Using that logic it makes YOU a whiner too. YOU are whining about someone else whining People have a right to discuss, at length, whatever they want.
Support credit checks all you want, it still does not mean others can be against it.
I'm amazed that people really believe this crap and accept it as "law".
It's not. It's a super huge invasion of privacy. This is why I will continue to say that currently working people should IMMEDIATELY start getting a side business together ASAP.
If a criminal background check doesn't show of any crimes being committed, then the person should be fine to hire. Millions of americans have bad credit now due to this economy. I'm not talking 10 million, but closer to 80 million or so. Everyone has been indirectly affected by this economy in one way or another. Many just need a JOB to get everything back on track again.
Turning down someone for a job due to bad credit is a form of legal discrimination and EVERYONE knows it.
I didn't realize posting on the internet your thoughts on matters meant one was a whiner. Using that logic it makes YOU a whiner too. YOU are whining about someone else whining People have a right to discuss, at length, whatever they want.
Support credit checks all you want, it still does not mean others can be against it.
I don't have a dog in this fight.
For my job, I do financial reporting every year. If my employer wants to, it can look at everything I do financially. Oops, it has.
I'm 3-4 years from retirement.
This doesn't affect me.
You and those who feel as you do need to take action or quit whining.
If you spend all of your energy whining, and not taking action, it's only going to get worse (by your definition) and you're in collusion with these "rights" being removed from you.
People are posting more than thoughts, they're angry about it.
Use that anger to change the rules.
Otherwise you're part of the problem and you're fighting ever getting a solution.
If I really wanted a certain job, and a background check was required (criminal and credit) I would have no problem submitting to either of those. It would only be an invasion of privacy if it was done without my consent. My current employer required credit and criminal background checks and a drug test. I have to balance the books for 240+ rental properties, so I certain understood why they wanted to verify my history with finances.
If I really wanted a certain job, and a background check was required (criminal and credit) I would have no problem submitting to either of those. It would only be an invasion of privacy if it was done without my consent. My current employer required credit and criminal background checks and a drug test. I have to balance the books for 240+ rental properties, so I certain understood why they wanted to verify my history with finances.
.....and this makes complete sense why your employer would request a credit check! However, for jobs that do not entail handling cash or merchandise (high end or otherwise) or having access to a company's bank accounts, I still cannot see the purpose in pulling someone's credit to see if their "less than stellar" credit rating might prevent them from typing a letter to perfection.
One time in my life I had horrible credit that ran in the upper 400 range due to massive medical debt combined with credit card debt that I was forced to declare bankruptcy on.
In a previous position I held a position that required me to screen applicants and make hiring recommendations.
The positions that I was recommending hiring for had nothing to do with money or sensitive account information.
Top management sent down a mandate that we had to run credit reports on all applicants as part of a "" character "" screening.
The majority had scores in the 550 to 600 range with some lower and some in the high 700's.
I hired on personality and the ability to sell versus someone's ability to successfully manipulate their credit report.
At the end of that hiring I recommended two people that happened to have scores in the low to mid 500 range.
They both worked out extremely well and for the most part were absolute model employees that produced the numbers needed and then some.
Hiring based on credit rating is asinine if that position has nothing to do with the handling of money and/or financial data.
Some of the worst employees have very high credit scores because they were lucky not to have any negative situations alter their lives.
Some of the best employees have been through the ringer and have come out the other side stronger, hungrier and more resilient to personal downturns.
I notice a lot of you keep saying something about "not dealing with money" etc. I would assume you think that an employer should assume someone with low credit would steel money. so why would that not indicate they would also steel office supplies, tools, talk on the cell phone or text while on the clock, take longer breaks then allowed, clock someone else in or out. The character trait that would lead to someone taking money also leads to them steeling in other ways.
While I may not want to check someones credit if I were hiring them to do some jobs, so far all of mine have access to funds and merchandise.
One time in my life I had horrible credit that ran in the upper 400 range due to massive medical debt combined with credit card debt that I was forced to declare bankruptcy on.
In a previous position I held a position that required me to screen applicants and make hiring recommendations.
The positions that I was recommending hiring for had nothing to do with money or sensitive account information.
Top management sent down a mandate that we had to run credit reports on all applicants as part of a "" character "" screening.
The majority had scores in the 550 to 600 range with some lower and some in the high 700's.
I hired on personality and the ability to sell versus someone's ability to successfully manipulate their credit report.
At the end of that hiring I recommended two people that happened to have scores in the low to mid 500 range.
They both worked out extremely well and for the most part were absolute model employees that produced the numbers needed and then some.
Hiring based on credit rating is asinine if that position has nothing to do with the handling of money and/or financial data.
Some of the worst employees have very high credit scores because they were lucky not to have any negative situations alter their lives.
Some of the best employees have been through the ringer and have come out the other side stronger, hungrier and more resilient to personal downturns.
I want to FIVE ***** STAR this post as the best post in this thread!!!
Maybe they don't want to be bothered with garnishing employees' wages to pay their debts.
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.
People have a right to discuss, at length, whatever they want. 
