Interesting topic, talking about employers pulling credit reports and criminal reports of potential employees. I've noticed that more and more companies look at this stuff. I started working at a bank first in 1995 as a teller, got a job out of college at a bank in 1999. Back then none of them looked at credit reports. Now all banks look at them. link
THE CIRCLE Now those unfair prosecution back at age 15~25 You know where on kid goes to jail and gets a record while the other kid gets off with a misdemeanor and a sealed minor's record This is the payoff! Rocket River
I guess it depends on the job, but I'm generally for companies conducting criminal background checks.
I don't think any private citizens should have access to anyone's criminal records, ever. As far as credit goes - keep in mind that these records are kept by a cabal of wealthy corporations in order to serve their best interests - it always strikes me as funny when people talk about how much 'credit' they have - because you never have anything except what these wealthy corporations allow you to believe is yours.
another point i was going to make is back in the mid to late nineties, the job market was strong everywhere. kids getting multi thousand signing bonuses. now that's unheard of and employers can use more and more factors to eliminate candidates. I have no problem with criminal checks, but at the same time you have to consider all the variables.
I don't understand. Anyway, I don't have a problem with criminal checks on ANYONE. The credit checks, however, are a different story. I don't think people should be judged on their credit scores. All it shows is that you are good at borrowing a lot of money and paying it back. What does that have to do with whether you can do your job or not?
I've seen this reported a lot recently and there the survey in PG's article says 13% of companies do this all the time - it seems to me though like that's a very very high number and may not be entirely accurate. Plus, how does an HR department apply this? I mean I've hired candidates before, i can tell you I never told HR/hiring "Make sure his credit is no worse than 700!" - just makes no sense. Not to mention, that if you DO do credit checks and take employment-related actiosn, you have to jump through a bunch of legal hoops like formal written notification etc under the Fair Credit Reporting Act - or else you can get sued by the employee. Why would firms voluntarily subject themselves to this? This kind of has the hallmarks of a bogus media-invented trend like "vodka eyeballing" etc.
I don't know, but they certainly check them. I mean I've been looking for a job for a year and a half, and over fifty percent of apps have credit report disclosures
I think they would have you sign the disclaimer just in case in the future they wanted to/had cause to, but doesn't mean they'll do it.
This is one thing that really drives me crazy about wingnuts. They rail against the (Dem) government for being Commie-Nazi-Socialist-Orwellian Dictators, but none of them seem concerned that private corporations have more personal data on them than the government. Furthermore, the Feds are bound by things like the Privacy Act and FOIA while private corporations are bound by... what, exactly? I guess the regulations that the Feds place on them... you know, the regs that come from the laws that are passed by the elected officials they own. There's a lot of things I don't understand about modern America. Why we haven't burned down the credit bureaus, tarred and feathered their executives, and run their bought Congressman out on a rail is one of those things.
The credit checking thing is just a bad measure imo. It it were reliable, all these approved no-doc loans over the last decade wouldn't have been in so much trouble. And I don't think I agree with the lawsuit. "Hudson, 44, is fighting back with a lawsuit alleging the company's hiring practice discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites." She wasn't fired for being Latina; she was fired for being convicted of welfare fraud. She has a legit point that if she paid here dues, then she should be given a second chance at society. That's not a discrimination issue though.
Criminal records are part of the public record. I don't see why looking at that would be any worse than looking at people's Facebook or Myspace pages or talking to their references or all the other things people do when hiring. If I'm hiring a banker, and your applicant has robbed a bank before, that's something I'd want to know and would absolutely consider important in the hiring decision.
I am not sure I agree on that. Convicted felons (such as pedophiles) don't have a right to privacy about their past crimes. I think it has to be context though in regards to employment. You don't want someone in a sensitive position where their job function might be compromised in some way (due to debt or past criminal activities). For example, a bank should be able to screen against people convicted of stealing money. But probably not hit and runs or manslaughter. A day care should screen for pedophiles A moving company should be able to screen for traffic violations. there is a balance here though, and I think it's a complex issue with no simple solution, but there is a need for a middle road.
If you are a criminal and the company finds out and chooses not to hire you based on that fact, that is not racially discriminatory. That is looking at each person as an individual, the content of their character if you prefer. If you don't want your employment to be adversely impacted by a criminal background check, DON'T BREAK THE LAW.
that's similar to saying, if you don't want to be tortured and beaten by the cops, don't break the law. just because you break the law, does not mean anything is fair game. so the question here is whether breaking the law should be public information that can be taken into account in employment decisions. now i think everyone would agree that embezzlement of at least a significant magnitude should hinder your ability to have a job in which you have custody over large amount of funds, but should other crimes? for example, since a huge number of convictions are drug offenses, should someone's weed habit have any impact on him being hired at an architectural firm? and while im not a fan of drug testing at all, that's a different issue than past record of using drugs.
Years ago I read how in Singapore you have to carry an idenity card that has a chip that has your entire job history. Folks who disagreed with an employer a little too often or had a few short term jobs too many are blackblled for life. Having more and more restrictions on jobs is a good way to maintain the census in the prison industrial complex and or have cheap yard men and servants. One of the latest is employers doing random testing for nicotine addiction. I was horrified to find at dinner that a couple of our friends who consider thmeselves liberals thought this was ok since it would cut down on health care costs at work. PS I hate cigarette smoking.
Want to nip all of this in the bud? Here's what we should do. Allow employers full access to your health record and that of your spouse and children before they hire you. After all if one of you is chronically sick or in need of an expensive operation this will most certaintly cost the employer more in increased health insurance premiums. Makes more sense then a credit check which is only justified because those with poor credit have been linked to theft or embezzlement. Then we would hear those Cons piping up about their right to privacy.
