Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by busigator96, Dec 19, 2013.
Retail too. And medical. Police and Fire Fighting.
Do you get a better salary for a better credit score?
No, but you get a job if you do.
Problem is that employers use this as a weed out now, when I was unemployed it was an authorization along with the application. So someone who had a medical problem or collection account, a bad divorce where the spouse took the other down with them etc can't be explained because you never get last the computer app.
But the real scenario behind this is the self fulfilling project it creates. Person barely getting by loses job, can't pay all bills on time, now can't get a job because of it.
My last 4 jobs I think I have had a credit report run, background check, drug test etc. some even had more than that. But I am also fortunate that I make a larger than average salary and haven't had any life changing events I couldn't handle, not everyone is so fortunate.
At the same time, there are a whole lot of positions in this country where it's important to know that the person you are hiring is responsible with money and isn't in a position to need your company's money to fix personal problems.
I think the fair compromise is that if you are denied a position based on your credit report you should have the legal right to explain what happened.
Do not agree "legal" but a good employer IMO would want to here an explanation as a way to gain as much information as possible.
You don't have to explain. That's why you can comment on every line in the report so when they pull a credit report, they can read your note. I did that 15 years ago when I cosigned a loan for my brother and he defaulted. I got stuck with the having to take out a $20K loan to pay off that loan and took a hit for 7 years on my credit report. It helped that I added a note to that derogatory item in all 3 reports.
They aren't reading the whole report in many cases, just making sure the number comes in above their threshold.
Imagine you are a company that gets 1000 application for 50 positions, they don't have time to read every report. Now if they don't pull it until later in the process when numbers have been cut maybe they will look, but even then you have to hope it's someone who knows how to read the report and not just look at one or two things.
Should employers be able to look at a perspective applicant's Facebook, Tweets, on posts on Gator Country?
Of course - there's no expectation of privacy there.
I don't think it gets to that point. HR person gets it back and doesn't like the number, you don't get a call back. This was my earlier point. I think, in ways, it's just been an HR crutch, a way to winnow down the number of applicants that will even get interviews.
I'll chime in...I think for some positions it's absolutely critical and should be required - i.e., finance, jobs requiring maximum security clearance. However, for most jobs, it's just a tool to weed candidates out without looking at other qualifications and just looking for a way to not have to deal with making a choice.
Take my issues right now - we have several "Collection" items for copays/balances that were paid but somehow still show up. That's a hit. At one point we had collection calls for someone with my husband's name, but it wasn't him. Medical bills and errors don't make someone a deadbeat or an incapable/irresponsible employee. Or like someone said, what about if you've been through a divorce and the other person cleaned you out? And especially nowadays, what if you've been a victim of fraud? It takes time to get fraudulent transactions cleared up.
Think about this:
You are an looking for a job and have a bad credit score. You get your credit report, highlight the problems and write a short paragraph or two on what you are doing to correct it. You turn that in with your application. I would wager that your application moves to the top of the list.
Maybe. But I think you're giving the average HR department a little too much credit. Like many things in our society, much of it runs off a template/script. Script says Score < Acceptable Number, application tossed. You also seem to think these already overworked people (many of whom are slaves to the script) will go off script and not only read your comments but make an exception for you. I'd say that in 7 of 10 cases where this noted report is supplied, the application gets tossed.
Yup, people are assuming there is a human element to all of the hiring process. There are usually a few hurdles and steps of screening before there is real "human" scrutiny of applicants.
I think many unpleasant things about "human resources" as an esoteric industry unto itself, and automated screening and templates and such are a big part of why. Many years back, I got a job at Target only because of a fluke; since I chose "management" as an option, I didn't have to take the Retail Service Assessor and just had an on-the-spot interview -- for whatever reason, I don't "speak" Retail Service Assessor, apparently picking whatever you think the socially acceptable ethical answer in any scenario is not conducive to Retail Service in the Assessment of whatever Ph.D. in navel-gazing came up with it to justify his or her salary.
The credit-check thing is troubling, certainly in this economic mire we've been in for so many years, because probably lots of credit scores have taken a hit, but it still comes down to the basic notion of whether you think it's appropriate for government to make disagreeing with your opinion illegal.
If that is how a company feels is the best way to find applicants then so be it...
Thinking outside the box gets you noticed? Say it ain't so...
This thread is a perfect TH microcosm of the various poster types:
The intelligent people who understand the variables and what everything means (FICO scores as a gatekeeper for even considering applications).
The mindless dolts--screw 'em if they have bad credit!
The hopelessly outdated--why, I'm sure those files with a personal explanation will go right to the top of the (paper) stack! (As if there is a paper stack in this day and age).
The corporate "Let 'Em Eat Cake" types--any great company needs people with great credit. Let the rest sweep the streets!
Don't forget the totalitarian dilettantes who think that because they don't think a business ought to do it, they should make it illegal for anyone to disagree with them.
Licensing decisions are made by government agencies. Licensing decisions are not employment decisions.
The subject of this thread is employment decisions made by employers, and whether employers should be able to use credit information in reaching such decisions.
The "otherwise required by law" exception in the bill would apply in the employment context only if there are situations where an employer is "required by law" to consider a credit report in making a decision on the hiring, firing, promotion, etc. of specific individuals. That's why my question was whether you know of any situations where employers are *required* by law to use credit reports in employment decisions.
Unless there are such situations, the "otherwise required by law" exception really has no impact at all on the employment arena.