Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by busigator96, Dec 19, 2013.
Depends on the position and the level of the position.
I would bet that once you hire them you can check their credit and if it is bad you can let them go.
This depends on the state - particularly if they see that you inquired prior to your dismissal.
As I mentioned earlier, there have been different versions of the proposed law, but I think they all prohibit the use of credit reports in connection with any "adverse action". So post-hiring actions - firing, refusing to promote, etc. - based on credit info would violate the law.
You need to do a credit check to be a cashier at CVS.
Another dumb law. If you're a dead beat your future employer has a right to know. Garnishments tend to lead to additional workplace issues. As others have pointed out most employers are simply looking for financial mismanagement.
Garnishments can be discerned through court records though, along with a criminal check.
Credit reports are more efficient and less expensive
If you use E-verify when you hire you cant check their eligibility status before you hire them. But after you hire them, you run their green cards or ids through E-Verify and they are not legally able to work you then give them 20 days I think to get it straight or you let them go.
Not necessarily... I know that IRS levies and certain student loan debts can be garnished without any court order. I'm pretty sure the same is true for state income tax levies as well (it's probably dependent on the state).
But then if there's no court record they aren't in the public records on your credit report, either.
Actually, a records search is generally free.
Good point on the IRS levy -- they do not appear on your credit report (I had to look that one up).
On the other hand, if you're not paying your federally-subsidized student loan to the point of a non-judicial garnishment, those delinquencies certainly will show up on your credit report.
They only way they show up is if you reject the garnishment and get sued.
And why is it up to you, or Elizabeth Warren, to decide what any given business owner should or shouldn't do? Just how indispensably smart does the average liberal think they are?
Normatively, I'd agree that an employer "shouldn't" check credit for any old position, but the difference between me and a Congressional democrat, is that I don't think it should be illegal to act in ways that conflict with my opinion.
This is a pretty vague point of no return, though. For example, I might think in inappropriate that a prospective employer have in-house PIs that analyze your laundry for DNA or peer through your private photos to find information.
It is not for you to decide how one determines who is best to hire unless you are offering the job. If one wants to ask for a credit check then the applicant can decide whether they wish to provide it or not...
And an intelligent applicant would be able to explain this to the potential employer the situation and show they are deserving of the position...or find a job with a competitor and eat their lunch for not hiring them based on credit.