Obama proposes letting the jobless sue for discrimination

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Your credit is not anyone's business but your own and those who you are obtaining credit from.

It should never be a part of the employment process and not a consideration at all. It's assuming too much based off one's personal life instead of their professional life. Someone can have a stellar job record, but have ####### credit. How one treats his or her job doesn't reflect how he or she acts at their place of employment.

Employers who discriminate based on credit are assuming that a person it going to steal from them. This type of risk assessment is extremely misguided.

I agree and that is why I do not do it. I try to make the best hiring decisions I can for my employer and I think wiping someone out because of credit is stupid. I try not to get stuck on stupid.

It IS a way to further make the process impersonal, which seems to be the goal of some organizations.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Your credit is not anyone's business but your own and those who you are obtaining credit from.

It should never be a part of the employment process and not a consideration at all. It's assuming too much based off one's personal life instead of their professional life. Someone can have a stellar job record, but have ####### credit. How one treats his or her job doesn't reflect how he or she acts at their place of employment.

Employers who discriminate based on credit are assuming that a person it going to steal from them. This type of risk assessment is extremely misguided.

Thats not true Paul. There are many jobs out there in which, you would be privy to sensitive information that if transfered to a competitor could crush them. Many people who work in law enforcement have to undergo regular credit checks simply because of the amount of information that they have access to. I realize some companies are doing it because they dont' want to deal with an employee with garnishments, to make things eaiser for themselves. But for many positions, there are relavent concerns.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Your credit is not anyone's business but your own and those who you are obtaining credit from.

It should never be a part of the employment process and not a consideration at all. It's assuming too much based off one's personal life instead of their professional life. Someone can have a stellar job record, but have ####### credit. How one treats his or her job doesn't reflect how he or she acts at their place of employment.

Employers who discriminate based on credit are assuming that a person it going to steal from them. This type of risk assessment is extremely misguided.

got shitty credit huh? like it or not...it does reflect on character & that IS a perspective employers business.

like i said 'of course 'things' happen to everyone...& they can explain those 'things' in the interview.'

[^_^ 5,021]

got shitty credit huh? like it or not...it does reflect on character & that IS a perspective employers business.

like i said 'of course 'things' happen to everyone...& they can explain those 'things' in the interview.'

In every job I've been offered, the credit check is only run after the interview process is over and an offer has been made and you've accepted.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Thats not true Paul. There are many jobs out there in which, you would be privy to sensitive information that if transfered to a competitor could crush them. Many people who work in law enforcement have to undergo regular credit checks simply because of the amount of information that they have access to. I realize some companies are doing it because they dont' want to deal with an employee with garnishments, to make things eaiser for themselves. But for many positions, there are relavent concerns.

Just because you have information, doesn't mean you're going to sell it or use it. Again, this is assuming too much based off one's personal affairs. Next thing you know they'll be setting up cameras in the home so they can see if every cop beats his wife ( a lot do) and therefore should not be hired or kept on the force.

[SMOKE 1,426]

In every job I've been offered, the credit check is only run after the interview process is over and an offer has been made and you've accepted.

really? we run them between the second & final interview...by then its down to 2-3 people anyway.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

got shitty credit huh? like it or not...it does reflect on character & that IS a perspective employers business.

like i said 'of course 'things' happen to everyone...& they can explain those 'things' in the interview.'

Your personal life is not the business of a company.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

got shitty credit huh? like it or not...it does reflect on character & that IS a perspective employers business.

like i said 'of course 'things' happen to everyone...& they can explain those 'things' in the interview.'

But if an employer does not grant an interview based on credit scores...what then?

It is also not good to assume that someone has bad credit, or anything else, based on his support or opposition of something, but assumption seems to be an OK way for you to make a decision. It is not for me. Looking at a credit report, I would not assume that...

1. There are no mistakes

2. There is no fraud

3. There is no divorce from an irresponsible spouse (jeezum, even the cold hearted folks at the IRS have an "innocent spouse" rule)

4. There was no period where a person just took advantage of credit offered to him and them lost a job through no fault of his own and got behind because he made some bad decisions as a younger guy/gal. Heck you wouldn't have hired him as a 26 year old but now he is 32.

I mean did you get a "soft" credit report? Just a score? Or did you get the full history? Maybe the bad stuff is going to drop off in a year or two because he straightened out his problems and the score will jump up 100 points. I doubt many places are doing the homewoirk needed to determine this. Maybe the score is low because he is using a large proportion of his available credit BUT making payments. There is just too much you DON'T know to make a decision on employment based on credit anything but stupid. Erring on the side of caution is not any better than any other form of laziness. If someone working for me that was in charge of hiring came to me and said "I am going to base employment decisions on credit reports" I would fire THEM. Too stupid for that job.

I know, I know, you say "fix it in the interview" Two problems...one actually. There will probably be no interview AND the interview should not be about discussing credit reports, which is probably WHY there will be no interview.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Your personal life is not the business of a company.

I agree. I also agree that this is the rule even if you are gay/lesbian. And even if the employer is the government. And even if the employer is the military. Right?

Because, otherwise, you are just as oppressive as liberals but for different reasons.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Just because you have information, doesn't mean you're going to sell it or use it. Again, this is assuming too much based off one's personal affairs. Next thing you know they'll be setting up cameras in the home so they can see if every cop beats his wife ( a lot do) and therefore should not be hired or kept on the force.

Paranoid much? I think it is a reasonable request for someone who has access to information that could be sold for quite a bit and be potentially embarassing to some. Yes, your personal life is your own, but if conflicts within your personal life could possibly cost a company millions in either direct liability, or as a result of a crime, then it becomes their interest. If you dont' like it Paul, you can choose another profession, you have that choice.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Hate to tell you, Kip, but even construction companies are doing it now.

The really bad news is that some get a bad credit report and that is the last you hear of them. There is no "opportunity" to explain anything in an interview...bad credit, no interview.

If anything should be changed, and it could be, THIS would be it. It would be very simple to make it illegal to do credit checks for employment purposes. In theory I do not oppose it but there is simply way too much possibility of there being mistakes, errors, things caused by fraud, etc., to simply look at a credit report and make a decision about a person without explanation or an opportunity for correction. You may as well do anonymous internet checks for other unverified information.

I think it is also a mistake for an employer to use this as a "deal breaker" criteria for employment without balancing it with other information such as a reliable work history.

It is, however, a indication of how impersonal the hiring porocess has become and this is directly linked to litigation against employers, legislation making it difficult to terminate employees, and "discrimnation" legislation. In itself it creates a whole NEW fields for litigation (you won't keep the lawyers down for long)as they calculate that it is racial discrimination since blacks are more likely to have bad credit...or some such nonsense. It could even be age discrimnation since old people are more likely to have bad credit than young ones, etc. Wait and see.

They might be doing those credit checks with the suits, but they don't do them with the actual workers...or at least not up here.

On a good note, I was talking to some chick on the phone this morning from the unemployment office and I found out I can technically draw unemployment until next summer. Something called "tier two" from the Feds. Laying on the couch surfing the net and football on the tube ftw!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They might be doing those credit checks with the suits, but they don't do them with the actual workers...or at least not up here.

On a good note, I was talking to some chick on the phone this morning from the unemployment office and I found out I can technically draw unemployment until next summer. Something called "tier two" from the Feds. Laying on the couch surfing the net and football on the tube ftw!

Dems will be happy to hear this because it is what they are always promoting. They almost shut down the government earlier this year so you could do this. And I am sure the ones here that support unions and unemployment will be happy to hear it and see an actual beneficiary of their ideas!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Paranoid much? I think it is a reasonable request for someone who has access to information that could be sold for quite a bit and be potentially embarassing to some. Yes, your personal life is your own, but if conflicts within your personal life could possibly cost a company millions in either direct liability, or as a result of a crime, then it becomes their interest. If you dont' like it Paul, you can choose another profession, you have that choice.

Do these forms of racial discrimnation come from dreams or are they from KKK newsletters? It is a fact that minorities and single women have more problems with their credit, often the women have bad credit due to former husbands who they have dumped in an effort to straighten out their lives and now this will discriminate against them based on unverified information from faceless credit reporting agencies. More repulsive racism and sexism. Anyone knows darn well that this kind of discrimination favors white males. Disgusting.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Gary and Alla

[SMOKE 1,426]

They might be doing those credit checks with the suits, but they don't do them with the actual workers...or at least not up here.

On a good note, I was talking to some chick on the phone this morning from the unemployment office and I found out I can technically draw unemployment until next summer. Something called "tier two" from the Feds. Laying on the couch surfing the net and football on the tube ftw!

hell yes! file today & get those checks rollin.

[^_^ 5,021]

really? we run them between the second & final interview...by then its down to 2-3 people anyway.

That's interesting. I've always seen it right at the very end but then again I haven't been through this process in about four years.