...but I just might.  And me being Republican, you'd be surprised by what I want to fight for.

Apparently within the last 5 or 6 years, it has become common practice for employers to require applicants to authorize consumer credit checks as a condition of employment.  I think that is absolutely outrageous, for four main reasons.

1.  A credit report is not an accurate portrayal of a person's character, responsibility or integrity.  Credit problems can happen for many reasons such as sudden loss of income, unexpected expenses, identity theft, or in Maxwell's case, simply moving and forgetting to forward your mail.  Heck, our own government technically has bad credit.  Many New Orleans residents likely have bad credit due to their loss of home/job.  Should they be at a disadvantage when they search for a career opportunity?!?!?!

2. Simply put, how many credit cards I possess, how much I pay in rent/mortgage, and what class of vehicle I purchased is none of their business!!  It is a blatant invasion of privacy!

3. Credit checks allow employers to give preference to financially well-off applicants, while deeming low income prospects, who most need the income, unqualified (all the while they brag about their dedication to diversity).  This is an insult to the meaning and intent of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act.

4. Allowing our most personal financial information to be accessed by random human resources employees at various companies leaves us all vulnerable to identity theft.

California has a direct initiative set-up, so that any citizen can create an initiative and with enough signatures, it will go on the ballot in the general election.  I may start a campaign, although I have no political experience whatsoever... do you guys think I am right in my beliefs, or am I missing something??

(and no, I don't have bad credit...so it's not a personal gripe)

I took quite a few HR/managment classes in college, and on an employment application, they can ask you anything and everything.  It's the use of the information that is controlled.  Your 3rd point is ridiculous.  I have never heard of someone being turned down for a job because they were poor.  I've applied for several jobs now that I've gotten out of college and not one has asked me to sign off on a credit check.  I know that if you work at the mall (which is where my sister works), they ask you if you want one, but as I read it on the application, the credit report would be sent to YOU, not them.  And my sister didn't sign off on it anyway and she got hired. 

And as far as I know the EEOA doesn't cover financial status.  Race, creed, sex, national origin and color.....yes.  What your credit score is?  No.  Now, it has been 6 months since my last class, so maybe someone can refresh that if I'm wrong.  I have never heard of anyone suing an employmer for not being hired because of their income. 

Odyssey, what you are protesting is core of the Republican party's mission. The good news is you have had an awakening. You now have the opportunity to do yourself a favor and retract your registration as a member of the GOP, if you indeed were. Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and even Nixon--the GOP has expelled the spirits of these men from the GOP. The Republican Party is now the party of Ronald Reagan, Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, Donald Trump, and Rush Limbaugh. The party is fascist, but not state fascist, business fascist. You see, money is God, credit is grace, and the Federal Reserve is the papacy. If they have their way the poor will be exterminated via a holocaust of attrition over the next thirty years. 

Paranoia? Wish it was.

A cursory examination of economic trends since Reagan started the corporate reign of terror shows a steady decline in the number of people who are able to "make it" in this country. The middle class was a 20th century phenomenon guided by government as a social good.

"Roosevelt is dead! His policies live on, but we're starting to do something about that as well!"
--Rush Limbaugh, GOP secretary of propaganda.

The explicit intention of the fascist-occupied Republican party is to destroy the middle class. Necessities such as education, housing, transportation, and healthcare show dramatic increases in price while wages stagnate or decline. Job security is now an oxymoron. The private sector is nearly 100% non-unionized and labor issues are all but ignored by our corporate media. Student loans, consumer debt, healthcare costs, insufficient wages, and job insecurity have bankrupted an entire generation. Sixteen years ago our incipient fascist state passed legislation exempting student loans from bankruptcy protection. Last year our full-fledged fascist government pretty much did away with bankruptcy protection for the poor and middle class altogether. The ruling class sold you fascism under slogans such as "personal responsibility" and "the ownership society." I watched aghast as a feeble-minded public hummed these tunes so docilely.

Now everybody smells a rat. But it's too late.

First you had to prove you did not need a bank loan to get a bank loan. Then you had to prove you would never need health insurance in order to buy health insurance. Now...surprise, surprise...you have to prove you don't need money in order to get a job.  Hence, employer-enforced credit-checks for prospective hires. And of course, if you have bad credit, you have insulted the Money God, and as a blasphemer you must be shut out of society! I did not make it so. I wish it were not so. But it is so.

It is not yet palatable to melt down the poor for pills and soap. It was not palatable to do this same thing to Jews in Germany in 1933, yet the Nazis were doing just this when their frenzied tyranny was destroyed just twelve years later.  Whereas the Nazis worshipped a bogus "Aryan race," the Republicans worship the rich...and money itself. You ignore warning signs such as employer credit-checks and the legislative shredding of bankruptcy protection at your own peril.  Odyssey, your education has just begun!

Morphine, there are hundreds of nefarious practices in business and commerce you have never heard of. Discrimination is rampant in all facets of American society. The ability to discriminate against others is considered a badge of honor in our popular culture. The country is devolving into a snakepit, a constant struggle for dominance in financial clout, social status, and physical dimensions and pulchritude. Our government did pass a few protections against discrimination based on race, sex, and class when our country leaned a tad liberal in the preceeding generations. The Republican party has been trying to gut these protections ever since. Now it is starting to succeed.

AMERICA, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STENCH OF DEMOCRACY ROTTING AWAY!!!!

(And don't call me "Tim Robbins," I'm not rich, famous, tall, or good-looking!)

California has a direct initiative set-up, so that any citizen can create an initiative and with enough signatures, it will go on the ballot in the general election.  I may start a campaign, although I have no political experience whatsoever... do you guys think I am right in my beliefs, or am I missing something??

(and no, I don't have bad credit...so it's not a personal gripe)


I don't know the history of the issue, but at first glance, I think your concern is valid.  You might not be able to stop them from asking for any kind of information....but I think you'd have a good chance of passing a law saying they can't require people to answer, nor use their answers as a factor in the hiring decision.  For instance, as a woman, if a prospective employer asks me if I'm pregnant or considering having children, I am not required to answer that question and they are not allowed to use my refusal to answer in their hiring decision.  Most employers who pay attention will not even ask because they don't want to risk a lawsuit.

For the record, I would not give an employer or a prospective employer permission to check my credit report. 
Good luck on this and let us know what you decide :)

I took quite a few HR/managment classes in college, and on an employment application, they can ask you anything and everything.  It's the use of the information that is controlled.  Your 3rd point is ridiculous.  I have never heard of someone being turned down for a job because they were poor.  I've applied for several jobs now that I've gotten out of college and not one has asked me to sign off on a credit check.  I know that if you work at the mall (which is where my sister works), they ask you if you want one, but as I read it on the application, the credit report would be sent to YOU, not them.  And my sister didn't sign off on it anyway and she got hired. 

And as far as I know the EEOA doesn't cover financial status.  Race, creed, sex, national origin and color.....yes.  What your credit score is?  No.  Now, it has been 6 months since my last class, so maybe someone can refresh that if I'm wrong.  I have never heard of anyone suing an employmer for not being hired because of their income. 


Of course you haven't heard of anyone being turned down because they're poor.  Do you think employers will actually go out of their way to call a prospective applicant and say "We're sorry, but while you're completely qualified for this position, we are looking for a more upscale person."??  Of course not, they just discard the person's resume and hire someone else. 

I did a little experimenting personally and found that after submitting a resume, the applicants who appear qualified are called in for interviews.  Before the interview process starts, they require the applicant to fill out an application which includes the authorization for the credit check.  Of course, on my "experiment" interviews, I refused.  It disqualified me.  For those who wish to experiment themselves, try beginning an online application for PetSmart.  It will ask you to either authorize a full background investigation including credit check, or exit the application process.


Odyssey, what you are protesting is core of the Republican party's mission. The good news is you have had an awakening.

haha I still take a Republican stance on most issues.  I've said many times how I feel about our welfare system, and how people need to be self supportive.  But in order for that to happen, everyone needs to have access to jobs they are qualified for.  If people who have financial struggles, or people who don't want their privacy invaded cannot succeed in the job force, guess who is going to have to support those people??    Also, regardless of financial status, financial records should be confidential unless you are applying for credit. 


I don't know the history of the issue, but at first glance, I think your concern is valid.  You might not be able to stop them from asking for any kind of information....but I think you'd have a good chance of passing a law saying they can't require people to answer, nor use their answers as a factor in the hiring decision.  For instance, as a woman, if a prospective employer asks me if I'm pregnant or considering having children, I am not required to answer that question and they are not allowed to use my refusal to answer in their hiring decision.  Most employers who pay attention will not even ask because they don't want to risk a lawsuit.

For the record, I would not give an employer or a prospective employer permission to check my credit report. 
Good luck on this and let us know what you decide :)


I'm glad you agree. :)
As far as the history of this, the last time I have personally looked for a job was over 7 years ago (before 9/11) and I had only heard of government agencies and defense agencies requiring credit reports for employees that would need security clearance.  I don't know exactly when it started, but I do feel it needs to stop.  I think asking for a person's financial status is just as bad as asking a person if they are pregnant.

I did a little experimenting personally and found that after submitting a resume, the applicants who appear qualified are called in for interviews.  Before the interview process starts, they require the applicant to fill out an application which includes the authorization for the credit check.  Of course, on my "experiment" interviews, I refused.  It disqualified me.   For those who wish to experiment themselves, try beginning an online application for PetSmart.  It will ask you to either authorize a full background investigation including credit check, or exit the application process.



Have you asked anyone why they are requesting the credit history?

They can ask anything and everything, but as CeeKay pointed out they could open themselves up to legal liability if some of the questions appear to be aimed at excluding persons, instead of including.  The serious problem is that labor unions, love them or hate them, have been in the forefront of protecting the rights of workers, union and non union.  They have become increasingly weaker through mismanagement, lack of public support, and conservative judicial activism.  This is a portent of things to come if the working classes sit back and want to believe that corporations will do what is best for America.  After all, you hear more whining by some the working classes about raising the minimum wage from the current $5.15 an hour, the same people shrug there shoulders(that's the way it is!) when the head of Exxon gets 6,000 an hour. 

I googled and found this government report.  Here is the site, and a couple of paragraphs I pulled out.

www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/credempl.htm

Using Consumer Reports: What Employers Need to Know



As an employer, you may use consumer reports when you hire new employees and when you evaluate employees for promotion, reassignment, and retention

IF you are going into a field where you will be dealing with $$, I can see where it should be a requirement to have good credit.  I'm not talking about a retail cashier, but someone in accounts payable/receivable, banking, financial analysts, etc.  In those instances, put yourself in the employer's position:  would you really want someone handling your company's finances if they can't handle their own?  My SIL works as an auditor for a bank and there was a woman who was fired for problems with her credit cards.  I guess she was using 3 of them to pay each other:  use A to "pay" for B, B to "pay" for C, C to "pay" for A....and she was paying them in full, so, in essence, she was not paying anything at all.

IF you are going into a field where you will be dealing with $$, I can see where it should be a requirement to have good credit.  I'm not talking about a retail cashier, but someone in accounts payable/receivable, banking, financial analysts, etc.  In those instances, put yourself in the employer's position:  would you really want someone handling your company's finances if they can't handle their own?  My SIL works as an auditor for a bank and there was a woman who was fired for problems with her credit cards.  I guess she was using 3 of them to pay each other:  use A to "pay" for B, B to "pay" for C, C to "pay" for A....and she was paying them in full, so, in essence, she was not paying anything at all.


She should not have been fired unless she did something that was harmful, or dishonest, in regards to the company for which she was working. 

She should not have been fired unless she did something that was harmful, or dishonest, in regards to the company for which she was working. 



I agree.  Certain financial situations in life sometimes bring you to desperate measures, but it does not necessarily reflect how good or bad or responsible of an employee you are.

She should not have been fired unless she did something that was harmful, or dishonest, in regards to the company for which she was working. 
I guess what she was doing was considered credit card fraud and one of the credit cards was issued by the bank she worked at.

IF you are going into a field where you will be dealing with $$, I can see where it should be a requirement to have good credit.  I'm not talking about a retail cashier, but someone in accounts payable/receivable, banking, financial analysts, etc.  In those instances, put yourself in the employer's position:  would you really want someone handling your company's finances if they can't handle their own?  My SIL works as an auditor for a bank and there was a woman who was fired for problems with her credit cards.  I guess she was using 3 of them to pay each other:  use A to "pay" for B, B to "pay" for C, C to "pay" for A....and she was paying them in full, so, in essence, she was not paying anything at all.

Here's what it is, mmmmkay....

Most people with "bad credit" got there because debt they owe money on education loans, for medical bills, for mortgage and car payments, or because they lost a job and had not choice but to run up credit card tabs and let bills go unpaid. There are indeed some impulsive shoppers out there who run up credit card bills buying luxury goods. However, the vast majority of "bad credit" people got there not because they are irresponsible but because they were just trying to survive in America, and that's gotten damn hard to do in the past decade!

If you are going into banking/financial services I could understand an employer wanting to know if you were ever convicted of larceny or embezzlement because these are crimes. "Bad credit" is not a crime, not yet. If employers are allowed to use your credit records as a disqualification for hire, we as a society are one step shy of criminalizing poverty.

Say you and your spouse were out of work for a spell. You could not pay your student loans. You could not pay your rent or mortgage. You got behind in car payments. You maxed out your credit cards to feed and clothe your kids. Happens all the time. Would you call yourself an untrustworthy person? No, but the credit bureaus and the banks would if you applied for a loan. So you go for a job. You're qualified. You're the best candidate...then the boss pulls up your credit score and tells you to go to hell. What's your crime? What have you done that is so heinous and iniquitous you are not wanted at the company? You accumulated more debt than you could pay the loan sharks on time!

YOU HAVE BLASPHEMED AGAINST THE MONEY GOD!!!


The Republicans love to talk about the "foundations" of our country. Well, when our forefathers drafted the Constitution, there were debtors prisons. The Repugs want to go back to those days. If you have debt you cannot pay and companies are permitted to deny you employment because you have "bad credit," you become a member of the permanent underclass. Our fascist government cannot destroy social service programs fast enough. If you are prevented from supporting yourself and your family, and the government will not intervene to help you out, then all you can do is wait to be charged with a crime and go to jail. "Get rich or die" is not freedom, my friends. This is not the America you want to live in!

Here's what it is, mmmmkay....

Most people with "bad credit" got there because debt they owe money on education loans, for medical bills, for mortgage and car payments, or because they lost a job and had not choice but to run up credit card tabs and let bills go unpaid. There are indeed some impulsive shoppers out there who run up credit card bills buying luxury goods. However, the vast majority of "bad credit" people got there not because they are irresponsible but because they were just trying to survive in America, and that's gotten damn hard to do in the past decade!

If you are going into banking/financial services I could understand an employer wanting to know if you were ever convicted of larceny or embezzlement because these are crimes. "Bad credit" is not a crime, not yet. If employers are allowed to use your credit records as a disqualification for hire, we as a society are one step shy of criminalizing poverty.

Say you and your spouse were out of work for a spell. You could not pay your student loans. You could not pay your rent or mortgage. You got behind in car payments. You maxed out your credit cards to feed and clothe your kids. Happens all the time. Would you call yourself an untrustworthy person? No, but the credit bureaus and the banks would if you applied for a loan. So you go for a job. You're qualified. You're the best candidate...then the boss pulls up your credit score and tells you to go to hell. What's your crime? What have you done that is so heinous and iniquitous you are not wanted at the company? You accumulated more debt than you could pay the loan sharks on time!

The Republicans love to talk about the "foundations" of our country. Well, when our forefathers drafted the Constitution, there were debtors prisons. The Repugs want to go back to those days. If you have debt you cannot pay and companies are permitted to deny you employment because you have "bad credit," you become a member of the permanent underclass. Our fascist government cannot destroy social service programs fast enough. If you are prevented from supporting yourself and your family, and the government will not intervene to help you out, then all you can do is wait to be charged with a crime and go to jail. This is not the America you want to live in!
So, you'd just hand your $$ over to anyone who seemed qualified, regardless of what they had done with THEIR finances?  Maybe I'm just jaded, but I wouldn't.  I also beg to differ that a "vast majority" of people with bad credit aren't irresponsible.  Some, yes, maybe even half, but a "vast majority"?  Don't think so.  Most credit companies will negotiate with you to lower or even suspend your payments if you find yourself in a bind financially...they figure something is better than nothing.  I've done it for my parents and grandparents and their credit ratings were not adversely affected.

So, you'd just hand your $$ over to anyone who seemed qualified, regardless of what they had done with THEIR finances?  Maybe I'm just jaded, but I wouldn't. 


Yes, I absolutely would.  The fact that a person is having financial struggles means that they are in need of income or more income.  It does not mean the person has done anything fraudulent or irresponsible.

And keep in mind that if you as an employer don't want to pay a poor person for their services, then you as a person will pay for their welfare, medical care and housing, getting nothing in return.

If you are going into banking/financial services I could understand an employer wanting to know if you were ever convicted of larceny or embezzlement because these are crimes. "Bad credit" is not a crime, not yet. If employers are allowed to use your credit records as a disqualification for hire, we as a society are one step shy of criminalizing poverty.



I agree 100%.  The fact that an individual does not have enough money to pay their basic expenses doesn't have anything to do with job performance.  Likewise, a person with excellent credit who works for a company that doesn't receive enough revenue to pay it's bills will not automatically be able to keep the company out of debt because his personal finances are in order.  Good example: Arnold Schwarzzeneger.  I assume he had good credit...yet California is still in debt.

And I can't imagine what the victims of the hurricanes who lost their homes and jobs are going through trying to get back on their feet.  I guess they're just "irresponsible". :\'(

So, you'd just hand your $$ over to anyone who seemed qualified, regardless of what they had done with THEIR finances?
I was not talking about the ability to borrow money. I was talking about the ability to earn money.
 
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I wouldn't.  I also beg to differ that a "vast majority" of people with bad credit aren't irresponsible.  Some, yes, maybe even half, but a "vast majority"?  Don't think so.  Most credit companies will negotiate with you to lower or even suspend your payments if you find yourself in a bind financially...they figure something is better than nothing.  I've done it for my parents and grandparents and their credit ratings were not adversely affected.

As you know, credit cards are just one fasset of credit. The credit card companies will "negotiate" with you. The credit bureaus will not. Remember, I am not talking about running up charges at Tiffany's here. I am talking about the necessities--housing, medical care, transportation, and education--all of which have risen astronomically in price over the last fifteen years. Creditors have increased interest rates through the roof. Meanwhile, the earning power of labor has diminished, job security has disappeared, and the government has in all cases taken the side of the corporations and lending institutions not the citizen.
When the Republicans use the term "personal responsibility," they mean nothing more than "screw you if you're not rich!"
You have not been jaded, Mama, you have been fooled.



And I can't imagine what the victims of the hurricanes who lost their homes and jobs are going through trying to get back on their feet.  I guess they're just "irresponsible". :\'(

"Hurricane victims"? Hrrrumph. Nobody has to be a victim in America unless they want to! Watch CNBC. Jim Cramer can teach you how to go from being a hurricane "victim" to being a hurricane "opportunist."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_salut.gif
Do I jest? Not exactly. Just as I heard Cramer screaming for sympathy on behalf of the oil companies, I have heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Coulter and the other nazi-cons make statements just as absurd as the preceeding paragraph. This what corporate America and the Republican party sells, and that's no joke!

I was not talking about the ability to borrow money. I was talking about the ability to earn money.
 As you know, credit cards are just one fasset of credit. The credit card companies will "negotiate" with you. The credit bureaus will not. Remember, I am not talking about running up charges at Tiffany's here. I am talking about the necessities--housing, medical care, transportation, and education--all of which have risen astronomically in price over the last fifteen years. Creditors have increased interest rates through the roof. Meanwhile, the earning power of labor has diminished, job security has disappeared, and the government has in all cases taken the side of the corporations and lending institutions not the citizen.
When the Republicans use the term "personal responsibility," they mean nothing more than "screw you if you're not rich!"
You have not been jaded, Mama, you have been fooled.
"Hurricane victims"? Hrrrumph. Nobody has to be a victim in America unless they want to! Watch CNBC. Jim Cramer can teach you how to go from being a hurricane "victim" to being a hurricane "opportunist."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_salut.gif
Do I jest? Not exactly. Just as I heard Cramer screaming for sympathy on behalf of the oil companies, I have heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, Coulter and the other nazi-cons make statements just as absurd as the preceeding paragraph. This what corporate America and the Republican party sells, and that's no joke!



Well, you have to be realistic and understand that there ARE opportunists out there...there are in every society, although I would say the majority just want to do what they can to return to a normal lifestyle, which means working, obtaining housing, etc.

If employers are specifically looking for signs of fraudulent or irresponsible behavior, why not create an independent agency which can examine a person's credit, specifically looking for signs of irresponsibility (not hardships) and then provide the applicant with a "clearance" which can be submitted to employers??

I was required to do this when I became a realtor, I had to get clearance to enter people's homes... and it involved a credit check... but I didn't have a big problem with this, because my employer (who was making the decision whether or not to hire me) had no access to my personal info... all he knew is that I received my license, which meant I passed all background checks.  I still think even that would be invasive in many cases, but at least somewhat acceptable.

Yes, I absolutely would.  The fact that a person is having financial struggles means that they are in need of income or more income.  It does not mean the person has done anything fraudulent or irresponsible.

And keep in mind that if you as an employer don't want to pay a poor person for their services, then you as a person will pay for their welfare, medical care and housing, getting nothing in return.

Before a potential employer can deny someone a job based on a credit report, they have to notify the applicant and give them a chance to explain.  Now, if the person HAS a good explanation, i.e. Max's scenario above, the employer is not likely to count that against them.  If, however, they HAVE no (good) explanation, I wouldn't fault the employer for denying them employment.

If I were an employer, unless the person was going to be dealing directly with $$, I probably wouldn't care what their credit report showed.  If they were, I'd like to know that they were responsible enough to take care of their own finances before I entrusted mine to them.  That being said, I would also give the potential employee a chance to explain a bad credit or employment history.  It would all come down to how honest the person was with me.  I have much more respect and trust in people who tell the truth, good or bad, than people who try to lie or cover it up.

If employers are specifically looking for signs of fraudulent or irresponsible behavior, why not create an independent agency which can examine a person's credit, specifically looking for signs of irresponsibility (not hardships) and then provide the applicant with a "clearance" which can be submitted to employers??


As a real estate agent, you know more about the world of "credit" than most people on this board do. We have also disagreed on lots of issues, as I recall. When we both agree credit ratings are given too much power, I think that's significant!

The problem with "irresponsibility" is it's a subjective term. Sure, 99 out of 100 people would say a person who runs up unpayable tabs at Neiman Marcus is "irresponsible." The rightwing calls anybody who is poor "irresponsibile."

If you you didn't go to college and you're poor, you are irresponsible because you didn't go to college.
If you went to college and you are still poor, you didn't study the right thing, so you're irresponsible.
If you were a business major, and you're STILL poor, it's because you didn't get your MBA, so you are STILL irresponsible.
If you got your MBA and you can't find a job, then you didn't get into the right MBA program, so you are irresponsible nonetheless.
If you got a Harvard MBA and you can't find a job, you didn't rank high enough in your class...

And so on and so on and so on.

The above is not just hyperbole. I know a guy who went through that exact scenario!

I was not talking about the ability to borrow money. I was talking about the ability to earn money. I was also.  If I'm an employer or investor, they're handling MY $$.

As you know, credit cards are just one fasset of credit. The credit card companies will "negotiate" with you. The credit bureaus will not. Remember, I am not talking about running up charges at Tiffany's here. I am talking about the necessities--housing, medical care, transportation, and education--all of which have risen astronomically in price over the last fifteen years. Creditors have increased interest rates through the roof. Meanwhile, the earning power of labor has diminished, job security has disappeared, and the government has in all cases taken the side of the corporations and lending institutions not the citizen.
When the Republicans use the term "personal responsibility," they mean nothing more than "screw you if you're not rich!"
You have not been jaded, Mama, you have been fooled.
Mortgage companies, hospitals, doctors, etc will also negotiate with you.  I've done it MULTIPLE times.  My grandparents had no credit cards, but they had over $150000 in medical bills.  I negotiated with the hospitals/doctors offices/labs, etc. to each take $5/month (each) because that was all they could afford.  The bank where they obtained their car loan also agreed to accept 1/2 payments on the condition that they were paid on time.  My parents mortgage company agreed to renegotiate their loan to lower their payments before it went into default.  All you have to do is ask....many times, you'll be surprised at the answer.

The problem with "irresponsibility" is it's a subjective term. Sure, 99 out of 100 people would say a person who runs up unpayable tabs at Neiman Marcus is "irresponsible." The rightwing calls anybody who is poor "irresponsibile."

I agree.  There's no cut-and-dried way to define who is or isn't "responsible". 

Well, you have to be realistic and understand that there ARE opportunists out there...there are in every society, although I would say the majority just want to do what they can to return to a normal lifestyle, which means working, obtaining housing, etc.

If employers are specifically looking for signs of fraudulent or irresponsible behavior, why not create an independent agency which can examine a person's credit, specifically looking for signs of irresponsibility (not hardships) and then provide the applicant with a "clearance" which can be submitted to employers??

I was required to do this when I became a realtor, I had to get clearance to enter people's homes... and it involved a credit check... but I didn't have a big problem with this, because my employer (who was making the decision whether or not to hire me) had no access to my personal info... all he knew is that I received my license, which meant I passed all background checks.  I still think even that would be invasive in many cases, but at least somewhat acceptable.
Let's say you hadn't passed all of them.  Wouldn't you want to be able to find out which one and why?  Let's say the criteria was NO criminal record, but you had a misdemeanor assault charge from a fight that someone else started when you first turned 18 and you're now 35.  But, all the employer knows is that you didn't "pass".  MOST would say "eh, that's not a big deal", but if a "neutral agency" was making the decision, they wouldn't know and you'd be out of a job.

As a real estate agent, you know more about the world of "credit" than most people on this board do. We have also disagreed on lots of issues, as I recall. When we both agree credit ratings are given too much power, I think that's significant!



Yes, I agree... however I do think a credit report is relevant in the real estate market, because whether or not you have sufficient income to pay your bills is a factor on whether you will be able to repay loans....whereas it is not a factor on whether you can perform a job.


Let's say you hadn't passed all of them.  Wouldn't you want to be able to find out which one and why?  Let's say the criteria was NO criminal record, but you had a misdemeanor assault charge from a fight that someone else started when you first turned 18 and you're now 35.  But, all the employer knows is that you didn't "pass".  MOST would say "eh, that's not a big deal", but if a "neutral agency" was making the decision, they wouldn't know and you'd be out of a job.


I agree..and I don't have a problem with criminal investigations.. because that involves safety.  And if a person isn't convicted, it doesn't go on their record.  I am only referring to credit reports.  Why can't an employer just know that a person doesn't have any signs of fraudulent or irresponsible activity on their credit report?  Why does an employer need to know how much your rent/mortgage payments are, what credit cards you have (and what their account numbers are), how much you spent for a vehicle, etc??  It's none of their business regardless of financial status!!  I don't even like that idea..but it's alot better than what's going on now!

I agree..and I don't have a problem with criminal investigations.. because that involves safety.  And if a person isn't convicted, it doesn't go on their record.  I am only referring to credit reports.  Why can't an employer just know that a person doesn't have any signs of fraudulent or irresponsible activity on their credit report?  Why does an employer need to know how much your rent/mortgage payments are, what credit cards you have (and what their account numbers are), how much you spent for a vehicle, etc??  It's none of their business regardless of financial status!!  I don't even like that idea..but it's alot better than what's going on now!
I see what you're saying.  Maybe if the reports were just made more generic, without actual amounts, but still showed defaults/delinquencies?  I still stand by my opinion that if I'm entrusting someone to handle MY finances, I'd like to know that they are able to handle their own.  If I'm an employer hiring someone for accounts payable, would I rather have someone who consistently paid their bills late or someone who paid their bills on time? 

If I'm an employer hiring someone for accounts payable, would I rather have someone who consistently paid their bills late or someone who paid their bills on time? 


I see your point... which is why I think a credit report should be evaluated by an outside party for signs of irresponsibility.

Would you have a problem hiring someone who consistently paid their bills late, if their problem was  that they didn't have enough funds to pay them on time, but that they did pay their bills as soon as the funds were available??  That is the case in many circumstances of bad credit.  And if people can't get jobs because they are economically disadvantaged, please tell me how that is going to improve things for anyone!  Even the well-off should be concerned...because they will be the ones supporting the unemployed, qualified-but-can't-get-a-job-to-pay-their-bills-because-they-need-money-to-improve-their-credit people!!

I see your point... which is why I think a credit report should be evaluated by an outside party for signs of irresponsibility.

Would you have a problem hiring someone who consistently paid their bills late, if their problem was  that they didn't have enough funds to pay them on time, but that they did pay their bills as soon as the funds were available??  That is the case in many circumstances of bad credit.  And if people can't get jobs because they are economically disadvantaged, please tell me how that is going to improve things for anyone!  Even the well-off should be concerned...because they will be the ones supporting the unemployed, qualified-but-can't-get-a-job-to-pay-their-bills-because-they-need-money-to-improve-their-credit people!!
How is some person sitting at a desk going to be able to distinguish the person who isn't paying their bills on time due to financial hardship from someone who is just forgetful?  Either way, they're still not getting paid on time.  A majority of creditors will change your due date with no penalty....if your payment is due on the 15th, but you don't get it paid each month until the 20th, all you have to do is contact them and ask them to adjust your due date.

Unless the job is specifically dealing with $$, I doubt an employer is not going to hire someone because of bad credit.  If they're hiring someone to do warehouse work or stock shelves or whatever, a person's ability to handle finances will have no bearing and they probably won't even bother getting a credit report.  I have a friend who used to work in accounts payable and her company pulled a credit report before she got the job, but did no criminal background check (though she signed consent for both).....she recently applied for and received a job in the HR department and had to consent again.  This time, they just pulled her criminal record.  Just because an employer can doesn't mean he will.

Another scenario:  You have 1 position open as a financial analyst with 2 equally qualified applicants.  Neither has a criminal record, but one has bad credit....which one do you hire (all other things being equal)?

How is some person sitting at a desk going to be able to distinguish the person who isn't paying their bills on time due to financial hardship from someone who is just forgetful? 



Thank you!  That is EXACTLY my point!  A person at a desk CAN'T distinguish, which is why they shouldn't be able to use that as a condition of employment!



Another scenario:  You have 1 position open as a financial analyst with 2 equally qualified applicants.  Neither has a criminal record, but one has bad credit....which one do you hire (all other things being equal)?


Again...my point exactly... only look at it realistically and although I'm sure you personally as an employer would have good intentions... but I'm sure just from your own statement you can see how that translates into "which one do you hire...the well-off BMW driver who owns an expensive home in the suburbs, or the one who rents an apartment in the inner city projects?"   Can you really say that's Equal Opportunity Employment??  Remember, both are equally qualified and neither has a criminal record... as per your scenario.

Thank you!  That is EXACTLY my point!  A person at a desk CAN'T distinguish, which is why they shouldn't be able to use that as a condition of employment! Which is also why an employer has to notify you of any problems (according to FCRA) and give you a chance to explain....


Again...my point exactly... only look at it realistically and although I'm sure you personally as an employer would have good intentions... but I'm sure just from your own statement you can see how that translates into "which one do you hire...the well-off BMW driver who lives in the suburbs, or the one who lives in the inner city projects?"  Can you really say that's Equal Opportunity Employment??

Actually, it's the BMW driver who's more likely to have "bad credit".  Most of the more "affluent" people have lower credit scores than the poor ones simply because of the amount of credit they have.  I know hubby's credit score is lower than mine, even though I have NO income simply because he is the "primary" on almost everything.  The one who lives in the inner city projects probably has NO credit.

Which is also why an employer has to notify you of any problems (according to FCRA) and give you a chance to explain....


So what good does that do??  I'm sure every employee who is asked to explain can come up with a valid reason.  Nobody is going to explain "Well, I have a gambling problem, and I like to shop, and I just don't feel like paying my bills."  Every employee is going to explain that they don't have enough money to pay their bills, or that there was a discrepancy somewhere (which again, is none of the employers business anyway) so if you're saying that an employer is going to take the explanation into account in all cases, it is a waste of time to even bother checking it.


Actually, it's the BMW driver who's more likely to have "bad credit".  Most of the more "affluent" people have lower credit scores than the poor ones simply because of the amount of credit they have.  I know hubby's credit score is lower than mine, even though I have NO income simply because he is the "primary" on almost everything.  The one who lives in the inner city projects probably has NO credit.


It may be true that an "affluent" person has a lower credit score in some cases... conveniently, the credit score is about the only thing left OFF the credit report given to employers.  So employers are looking at what you own, how much your assets are worth, and alot of other private information that enables them to slip around the intent of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. 

...but I just might.  And me being Republican, you'd be surprised by what I want to fight for.

I may start a campaign, although I have no political experience whatsoever... do you guys think I am right in my beliefs, or am I missing something??

As a Reaganite who's now apolitical (my position on most issues "reclined in my chair, a beer in my hand, watching it all fall apart" :-), I wouldn't be surprised by what you're fighting for.

As someone who knows a thing or three about politics, it doesn't matter whether you're right in your beliefs.  Unless you've got a few million bucks you're willing to lose, you will almost certainly lose this fight.  Even if you *do* have a few million bucks you're willing to spend on making your point, the odds aren't in your favor.  If you've got a few tens/hundreds of thousands, I'd strongly encourage you to spend the next few years schmoozing with your Party officials.  Maybe you can convince 'em to make it part of the platform, but I doubt it.

The preceding advice applies just as much to Democrats as it does to Republicans in favor of pro-privacy initiatives/legislation at either the State or Federal levels.  There's very little money to be made from protecting consumer privacy, and hundreds of millions / billions to be made from selling consumer data to the highest bidder.  You can expect the folks in the data collection business to pay their lobbyists accordingly.  Unless you can outbid them, you will  lose this fight, and every dollar you spent promoting your proposition. 

But you asked if you were right in that the practice in question was a bad thing.  Yeah, you're right.  It's a bad thing in anything except finance or defense (in finance, the more poor you are, the more likely you are to take advantage of the opportunities to embezzle that your job offers, and in defense, the more poor you are, the more likely you are to sell what you know to the Bad Guys.)

But being right and winning aren't the same thing.  Unless you're willing to lose the hundreds of thousands of dollars it'll cost to have even the slightest chance at winning a CA initiative, I'd strongly suggest that you shrug your shoulders and say "life sucks these days".  That's politics these days.  And like I said a few paragraphs ago, it doesn't matter whether you have checked "R" or "D" on your voter registration. 

As a Reaganite who's now apolitical (my position on most issues "reclined in my chair, a beer in my hand, watching it all fall apart" :-), I wouldn't be surprised by what you're fighting for.

As someone who knows a thing or three about politics, it doesn't matter whether you're right in your beliefs.  Unless you've got a few million bucks you're willing to lose, you will almost certainly lose this fight.  Even if you *do* have a few million bucks you're willing to spend on making your point, the odds aren't in your favor.  If you've got a few tens/hundreds of thousands, I'd strongly encourage you to spend the next few years schmoozing with your Party officials.  Maybe you can convince 'em to make it part of the platform, but I doubt it.

The preceding advice applies just as much to Democrats as it does to Republicans in favor of pro-privacy initiatives/legislation at either the State or Federal levels.  There's very little money to be made from protecting consumer privacy, and hundreds of millions / billions to be made from selling consumer data to the highest bidder.  You can expect the folks in the data collection business to pay their lobbyists accordingly.  Unless you can outbid them, you will  lose this fight, and every dollar you spent promoting your proposition. 

But you asked if you were right in that the practice in question was a bad thing.  Yeah, you're right.  It's a bad thing in anything except finance or defense (in finance, the more poor you are, the more likely you are to take advantage of the opportunities to embezzle that your job offers, and in defense, the more poor you are, the more likely you are to sell what you know to the Bad Guys.)

But being right and winning aren't the same thing.  Unless you're willing to lose the hundreds of thousands of dollars it'll cost to have even the slightest chance at winning a CA initiative, I'd strongly suggest that you shrug your shoulders and say "life sucks these days".  That's politics these days.   And like I said a few paragraphs ago, it doesn't matter whether you have checked "R" or "D" on your voter registration. 


I agree with everything you said (except for your suggestion that I shrug my shoulders and say "life sucks these days") and I have many of the same concerns.  You're right, I don't have the financial means to compete with corporations.  But luckily, corporations can't vote, they can only lobby.  So at election time, there will be 1 CEO voting for every 500 employees/job searchers. (That number is off the top of my head and is not meant to be exact...I am probably way off)  And I don't plan to spend large sums of money, I am just thinking of taking baby steps... starting off with an online petition (which is free) and maybe a website linking to my petition.. then I can email organizations that advocate privacy, equal opportunity and low income/diversity issues, and ask them to link to my site and/or contact their local congressperson.  Then maybe, there will be enough activity to gain some minor media attention... and then who knows how it could progress??  Even creating a CA initiative only costs $200...

I totally realize that there is a very good chance I will lose... but I won't really have lost anything by trying.

  But luckily, corporations can't vote, they can only lobby. 


"Luckily"?

That's like saying, "I can't shoot you, I can only drop atomic bombs."
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/teufel.gif

I agree with everything you said (except for your suggestion that I shrug my shoulders and say "life sucks these days") and I have many of the same concerns.  You're right, I don't have the financial means to compete with corporations.  But luckily, corporations can't vote, they can only lobby.  So at election time, there will be 1 CEO voting for every 500 employees/job searchers. (That number is off the top of my head and is not meant to be exact...I am probably way off)  And I don't plan to spend large sums of money, I am just thinking of taking baby steps... starting off with an online petition (which is free) and maybe a website linking to my petition.. then I can email organizations that advocate privacy, equal opportunity and low income/diversity issues, and ask them to link to my site and/or contact their local congressperson.  Then maybe, there will be enough activity to gain some minor media attention... and then who knows how it could progress??  Even creating a CA initiative only costs $200...

I totally realize that there is a very good chance I will lose... but I won't really have lost anything by trying.


Go for it Odyssey!  I disagree with the idea that you can't be successful without big bucks.  On the local level, it can be easier than you realize to get something started and once it has momentum...you'd be surprised what can happen in your favor.  Send out press releases to every media outlet in your state (minimal cost, especially with Internet communications available)(start at the state level, then build from there).  Send a letter to politicians at all levels of your state.  Then go through whatever process to get something on the ballot.  If you're lucky, someone with some deeper connections will pick up on this and the ball will start to roll.  At some point, you get someone with those big bucks interested and there you go.  Just make sure you do your research and understand the current laws -- a well-constructed ballot question is important -- because the best issue can lose if your proposal is constructed poorly.

Today's political climate is ripe for this issue.  Rock-n-Roll!

corporations can't vote, they can only lobby.  So at election time, there will be 1 CEO voting for every 500 employees/job searchers.

As for lobbying vs. voting - you miss the point.  Citizens elect polticians.  But politicians are the only ones whose votes count, and their votes are swayed (more to the point, the legislation on which they vote is written) by lobbyists. 

In gneneral, whenever a "popular" initiative passes (e.g. "no services for illegal immigrants", or "no race quotas") - the government ignores the initiative, and the lobbyists either write (and purchase sufficient legislators to guarantee its passage) a law to make it legal, or it gets dragged into the courts, where the lobbyists (whose lawyers can beat up your lawyers) get the initiative neutralized.  An outcome like "The initiative was unconstitutional" is possible, but not unlikely.  The most likely outcomes are along the lines of "Well, the government's bound by the initiative, but the government isn't authorized to spend money enforcing it" or even "Well, the government's bound to enforce it, but if it did that, it'd have to shut down.  Which it won't.  So here's my signature as a judge, and which the government'll just ignore."

I don't plan to spend large sums of money, I am just thinking of taking baby steps... starting off with an online petition (which is free) and maybe a website linking to my petition.. then I can email organizations that advocate privacy, equal opportunity and low income/diversity issues, and ask them to link to my site and/or contact their local congressperson.  Then maybe, there will be enough activity to gain some minor media attention... and then who knows how it could progress??  Even creating a CA initiative only costs $200...


An online petition's just a waste of time or a way to build up a mailing list.

Schoomzing around with pro-privacy organizations will give you some perspective into how the game's played. There are some pro-privacy state-level legislators on either side of the aisle. 

$200 on a CA initiative sounds like you'd get more than $200 worth of fun out of it.  So if that's the extent of your financial costs, I'd say go for it.  Use the aforementioned pro-privacy organizations' lawyers to figure out exactly what the initiative should say, so that it can actually go on the ballot.  Use your Demopublican party represenatives to figure out whether you want to tailor your message to Democrats ("Evil corporations are trying to steal the workers' privacy and sell it to their running-dog lackeys in management!  Power to the people!" (With bonus points because Californians seem to go for this "all corporations are evil" rhetoric more than other states)) or Republicans ("Evil privacy-invading credit reporting agencies are trying to steal a free man's right to his own financial life and sell it to _your_ lousy boss!  Liberty demands a response!"  (With bonus points if you can establish Democratic political bias on the part of the credit reporting agencies' donation records, which means they're not just evil _privacy-invading_ corporations, the're evil _Liberal_ privacy-invaders!)). 

My snarkiness aside, I really _do_ recommend you talk to everyone from the hardest-core anticaptitalist moonbat Democrat to the most laissez-faire ultralibertarian taxpayer's right's advocate Republican you can find.  (Hey, this is state politics, there are still some anti-tax Republicans at the state level :)

Just don't get in over your financial head.  The #1 rule of politics - use SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY to spread your message.  With that in mind, good luck, and have fun.  Long as it's someone else's money, it doesn't matter whether  you win or lose, it's how you set yourself up with the people who have the money, for the next round of the game.

As for lobbying vs. voting - you miss the point.  Citizens elect polticians.  But politicians are the only ones whose votes count, and their votes are swayed (more to the point, the <EM>legislation on which they vote is written</EM>) by lobbyists. 

In gneneral, whenever a "popular" initiative passes (e.g. "no services for illegal immigrants", or "no race quotas") - the government ignores the initiative, and the lobbyists either write (and purchase sufficient legislators to guarantee its passage) a law to <EM>make</EM> it legal, or it gets dragged into the courts, where the lobbyists (whose lawyers can beat up your lawyers) get the initiative neutralized.  An outcome like "The initiative was unconstitutional" is possible, but not unlikely.  The most likely outcomes are along the lines of "Well, the government's bound by the initiative, but the government isn't authorized to spend money enforcing it" or even "Well, the government's bound to enforce it, but if it did that, it'd have to shut down.  Which it won't.  So here's my signature as a judge, and which the government'll just ignore."


IAWTC!!!
(recheck your HTML tags)

It may not be possible to get a law passed...but there is an alternate outcome that I would like to see if the legislative path isn't going to work.

Right now, the job seekers who aren't willing to have their privacy invaded are having to search for the low percentage of employers that do NOT require credit checks.  However, the job market seems to be taking a turn in the employee's favor.  It would be nice to start a movement where more and more employees are refusing to submit to these credit checks... and then while it may still be legal, the employers will be searching for the low percentage of employees that WILL allow their privacy to be invaded.  That may cause some corporations to change their policies voluntarily.

Do you think that is a more feasible outcome, or a better goal to set starting out??  I know some people won't be able to refuse, because they can't afford to risk losing the job.. but those who can't afford the risk are probably the same people who won't be eligible because of their credit.  And those who already have jobs and are just looking to change employers would have much more freedom to set their own conditions that the employer must follow if they want to hire them.

I'm thinking that might be a better place to start... but then again, I am below rookie status at this stuff.. so any suggestions would be great.

It may not be possible to get a law passed...but there is an alternate outcome that I would like to see if the legislative path isn't going to work.

Right now, the job seekers who aren't willing to have their privacy invaded are having to search for the low percentage of employers that do NOT require credit checks.  However, the job market seems to be taking a turn in the employee's favor.  It would be nice to start a movement where more and more employees are refusing to submit to these credit checks... and then while it may still be legal, the employers will be searching for the low percentage of employees that WILL allow their privacy to be invaded.  That may cause some corporations to change their policies voluntarily.

Do you think that is a more feasible outcome, or a better goal to set starting out??  I know some people won't be able to refuse, because they can't afford to risk losing the job.. but those who can't afford the risk are probably the same people who won't be eligible because of their credit.  And those who already have jobs and are just looking to change employers would have much more freedom to set their own conditions that the employer must follow if they want to hire them.

I'm thinking that might be a better place to start... but then again, I am below rookie status at this stuff.. so any suggestions would be great.

The way our government is going, once you give the boss your name and SS#, he's got carte blanche. He can find out anything he wants about you. That's why it's important for the bosses to keep employment a buyer's market! As GWB2004 so nimbly put it:
"The poor need the rich, the rich don't need the poor." Or as I'd say, "no labor unions, no rights for workers."