Some States May Ban Credit Checks for Employment

[Pizza]

I had no idea that a lack of ability to check a perspective employee's credit was the reason for a decline in available jobs!

It isn't. This news/conversation has really been the value of a certain group of fears compared to another group of fears. I was happy to hear the news, but others (oddly, considering we're all more than likely BK or on the verge of BK) are not quite so happy...

[Faust]

Is this really what you're so afraid of? Taking away their toys does not make positions magically disappear; high unemployment and its effect on spending does.

I had no idea that a lack of ability to check a perspective employee's credit was the reason for a decline in available jobs!

[Pizza]

There are so many ways to weed out undesirable workers: criminal checks, background checks, MySpace/Twitter/Facebook pages that credit is a nonissue. I can see if I was in a position dealing with $$$, and even then a pristine score is no guarantee (maybe they have a pristine score because they were skimming at their last job to pay bills.) I don't work anywhere near finance. I don't mind background and drug tests. They fit the scope of my job. Credit? Not so much. As an aside...I don't think employers get an entire picture of what you owe and what you spend. I still don't think it should be the end all and be all.

There are also so many devices in place that the prime "worries" of employers - such as theft or hacking - are (or schould be) a dead issue before an employee walks in the door. Security cameras, computer monitoring software ... nobody's getting away with anything, and if they try - BOOM! Criminal record. Credit really means nothing, nothing at all - just a weeder.

I had even forgotten about the MySpace & Facebook 'checks' that employers perform. Looks like in order to get a job you need to just fall off the face of the earth.

[Pizza]

If we keep taking screening tools away from employers they'll keep refraining from hiring.

Is this really what you're so afraid of? Taking away their toys does not make positions magically disappear; high unemployment and its effect on spending does.

[Faust]

No, because it would have cost them more to prosecute than to let it go and move on. They were rid of them, businesses watch their bottom lines, they do not worry about society.

Why would it cost the business anything? All they have to do is call the police and the DA takes over. The business doesn't do anything beyond providing information on the case if needed.

[momisery]

No, because it would have cost them more to prosecute than to let it go and move on. They were rid of them, businesses watch their bottom lines, they do not worry about society.

[Faust]

But wait.. Business is there to make money not to help their competitors or to spend money that they can avoid spending.. So, either they should adhere to the laws of a good society, or they are profit makers only,, or does it depend? Not being nasty.. just thinking out loud...

So the company you work for didn't press charges because they wanted some other company to hire thieves?

[momisery]

No, the owners of the business are people with the same privacy rights as I have.. the business is not flesh and blood it is a building hence the reason it has a difference status.. it does not have children, go to church, or visit message boards etc.

[flyinbroke]

What if you are in a position dealing with assets? Or how about a position dealing with goodwill? How about reputation? Access to information a competitor would pay huge sums to have?

If we keep taking screening tools away from employers they'll keep refraining from hiring.

OK, I'll bite. Look at those arrested for espionage in the later years. Interestingly enough, if you look at the pattern it was not those in serious debt who became spies. They got in debt because they relied on spy money and lived way beyond their means...meaning the money had to come from someplace. They lived larger than their checks allowed. And no one asked questions. IMO, someone who filed BK is a lower risk than someone who drives and lives way beyond their paygrade. Spies and people who buy trade secrets like people they can blackmail. BK is already out there.

As for assets and reputation, Madoff had a sterling rep and access to all the credit in the world. In its heyday, Enron had a sterling rep (and sterling credit and investment ratings.) Turns out they were all smoke and mirrors. I once read that Warren Buffett has a credit score in the 600s; is he riskier?

[momisery]

But wait.. Business is there to make money not to help their competitors or to spend money that they can avoid spending.. So, either they should adhere to the laws of a good society, or they are profit makers only,, or does it depend? Not being nasty.. just thinking out loud...

[momisery]

In a perfect world your correct. But laws do not protect just innocent people always, and sometimes business is not ethical at all, but more worried about their bottom lines.. Per many conversations I have heard, the job of business would be to make money, not to always be the watch dog for society.. so why should they care what happens to their competitors they are in the business against them not to help them..

[momisery]

Employer kick you out the door and replace you with cheaper younger labor too and they don't give you a two week notice to do it. We have to give one or it goes on our record. I of course have no problem giving that but it would be fair to be given a couple weeks before they cut staff to find a job too. A guy use to work for our bank and was two months away from retirement and they fired him..... happens all the time.. employees have few rights in a right to work state and employers abuse that in some cases. My whole point is that I have a right to privacy even if I have nothing to hide... in this case I guess I would that would be my BK.. but if I did not file a BK my other choice was to steal the money those are the people they should worry about would be the ones who chose to steal. So viewing my credit even when it is good is none of their business because I am not applying for a loan only a job with them. My score was 800, I have never bounce a check or not paid a bill until this BK and I am 60... so now, I am the bad risk here?? Really??? Based on a credit score?

[Faust]

Had your employer filed charges another company may well have been spared from their thieving ways. I say your employer had a responsibility to society to see to it these criminals were prosecuted.

Totally agree. To not prosecute is irresponsible.

[OhioFiler]

Not always. I use to be an auditor for a large chain and we found a ring of employees stealing stuff and selling it for cocaine. Proving it is the hard part of course.. but what they did was quit willingly with no charges and went to work for another jewelry chain.. There are not always charges bought up, it is normally cheaper to simply let these people quit and get them out of your hair and file and insurance claim, typical in business to do this and it saves them money too.

Had your employer filed charges another company may well have been spared from their thieving ways. I say your employer had a responsibility to society to see to it these criminals were prosecuted.

[OhioFiler]

The rights of our nation are for its PEOPLE not its BUSINESSES.. they are not people.. they are JOBS>>> You may not want someone over to your house because they have a tatoo that is your business but to deny them their rights to earn a living based on what you think is appropriate behavior makes no sense. Employers want to be Gods and Judges in one swope.

Yes they are!