For those without a job

[GoNRA 12]

This could be interesting, I feel a credit check is necessary for government jobs to curb corruption and stealing of taxpayer money, but on the private end I feel it is one less reason for a company not to call you back after an interview. So it should create jobs and hopefully people can start paying off their bills and debts. It should be up to the companies to keep an eye on their employees who do handle the money anyway.

 

Article: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/nj_senate_committee_advances_b_1.html

[Malsua 1,422]

While my credit score floats around 800, I completely agree that no company should run your credit. It's BS and none of their business.

 

Criminal background checks I can understand and while credit worthiness can indicate some things, anyone can end up with bad credit due to a lengthy jobless period.

[Maksim 1,504]

As a business owner, I will disagree. I dont need to know your credit score, but do need to know what is on it.

 

You don't want to disclose it? Fine, you don't get the job. If you have nothing to hide, dont. In most cases, I did not run a credit check on my applicants. If someone had a legitimate issue on their credit, and can respond as to why, it is not an issue if you are a good candidate.

 

Ie... do you want to hire an accountant who owes 200k and is late on his alimony who also has access to your company accounts?

 

I ask every applicant... is there anything about you that I should know about before I run the background checks?

 

Half of them will lie to your face...., yet I am somehow not supposed to verify if they are telling the truth?

 

Ie... had one guy tell me his background is clean, yet a simple google reveals he was fired from his past job for massive complaints, and him trying to hide the fact that he was arrested for drugs.

 

Another character lied about his financial issues, late on alimony and massive debt. It is those issues that would cause someone to put their own intentions first ahead of the clients they are supposed to serve.

 

Why do you think so many people are "entry level" shops such as insurance companies get put into high commission based products.... often times, it is not about the client.

[GoNRA 12]

As a business owner, I will disagree. I dont need to know your credit score, but do need to know what is on it.

 

You don't want to disclose it? Fine, you don't get the job. If you have nothing to hide, dont. In most cases, I did not run a credit check on my applicants. If someone had a legitimate issue on their credit, and can respond as to why, it is not an issue if you are a good candidate.

 

Ie... do you want to hire an accountant who owes 200k and is late on his alimony who also has access to your company accounts?

 

I ask every applicant... is there anything about you that I should know about before I run the background checks?

 

Half of them will lie to your face...., yet I am somehow not supposed to verify if they are telling the truth?

 

Ie... had one guy tell me his background is clean, yet a simple google reveals he was fired from his past job for massive complaints, and him trying to hide the fact that he was arrested for drugs.

 

Another character lied about his financial issues, late on alimony and massive debt. It is those issues that would cause someone to put their own intentions first ahead of the clients they are supposed to serve.

 

Why do you think so many people are "entry level" shops such as insurance companies get put into high commission based products.... often times, it is not about the client.

 

I think it should be up to the company to keep an eye on the people they hire, and if they have stolen in the past it will be on their background check (im guessing). I don't think a person should be penalized for their financial problems, the whole reason to work is to make money so you can tend to your financial problems, I understand where you are coming from as a business owner though. I just don't think it's a companies business what my financial state is.

[FFDP82 4]

While my credit score floats around 800, I completely agree that no company should run your credit. It's BS and none of their business.

 

Criminal background checks I can understand and while credit worthiness can indicate some things, anyone can end up with bad credit due to a lengthy jobless period.

 

Well said.

[matty 810]

While my credit score floats around 800, I completely agree that no company should run your credit. It's BS and none of their business.

 

Criminal background checks I can understand and while credit worthiness can indicate some things, anyone can end up with bad credit due to a lengthy jobless period.

 

If you are applying for a job that requires a security clearance, it is. Having bad credit may not result in denial of a clearance, but it will prolong the investigation, and the applicant may end up losing the job if someone with a cleaner past comes along. All other things being equal, if someone applied to me with poor credit and another with good, I would most certainly choose the person with the better credit rating. Don't like it? You run a business and have to deal with deadbeat employees asking for pay advances and the creditors calling you because they have stopped paying the mortgage on a crack den they bought as an "investment'. Everyone I know that has a poor credit rating has such for one of 2 reasons; spending too much for crap they did not need, buying expensive cars, and bling to put in their ARM-mortgaged Mcmansions, running up credit card bills to the max & sky high (90% of them) or catastrophic illness/injury & long unemployment attendant to that (10%).

[bbk 188]

In the private sector regarding security clearances, I know d-contractors who had their clearances suspended because of financial reasons... which led to them not being able to work, and their eventual dismissal.

Even in the military, albeit a government position, if we racked up a debt of 10K I believe, clearance was suspended/lost, and the person would most likely be T-spaced (at least it was the SOP in my unit), meaning they would be re-trained and moved ASAP. My understanding also is that if a person has severe debt (I'm unsure of how much that is), they cannot enlist (or are not suppose to be able too). Again, this is with a government position.

Regarding the private sector, I don't think its the financial info that matters, but what it can indicate. People in panic tend to be more willing to do unfavorable actions that can reflect poorly, or be downright criminal. With that said, I'm not judging either-- just saying.

[GoNRA 12]

If you are applying for a job that requires a security clearance, it is. Having bad credit may not result in denial of a clearance, but it will prolong the investigation, and the applicant may end up losing the job if someone with a cleaner past comes along. All other things being equal, if someone applied to me with poor credit and another with good, I would most certainly choose the person with the better credit rating. Don't like it? You run a business and have to deal with deadbeat employees asking for pay advances and the creditors calling you because they have stopped paying the mortgage on a crack den they bought as an "investment'. Everyone I know that has a poor credit rating has such for one of 2 reasons; spending too much for crap they did not need, buying expensive cars, and bling to put in their ARM-mortgaged Mcmansions, running up credit card bills to the max & sky high (90% of them) or catastrophic illness/injury & long unemployment attendant to that (10%).

 

That may be the negatives to the bill, but what are the positives?

 

1. Jobs

2. State Revenue

3. NJ Economic Growth

 

The more people that have jobs, the more people that spend money, the more money the business's make. Especially with the holidays approaching, people are eager to get to work and make some money.

 

Hopefully once this state get's out of it's financial troubles, maybe business tax cuts, a more friendly business climate through business friendly bills and property tax cuts can be down the road. Although in this state im doubtful.

 

Only problem for businesses right now is Health Care, market worries, amongst a bunch of other stuff at the federal level.

[Downr@nge 22]

I dunno about this one. When I was much younger, my credit was not the best. Yet I worked with tons of money ALL DAY LONG. NEVER once did my past PERSONAL financial mismanagements EVER affect my job performance. Though my credit rating is much better now, I personally am against ANYONE running my credit for jobs where fiscal accountability is not really an issue. Of course any financial advisory position or fiscal officers who are allowed to make judgment calls should have their credit ran. However, even then, how they manage their personal finances may not be an accurate reflection of how they manage company's finances. Nor is it an implication that they may steal.

 

Its almost the same thing we are against with firearms, the whole guilty until proven innocent nonsense. Its also kind of bass akwards to not hire someone who has poor credit; how else will they earn the money to rebuild their credit if everyone keeps denying them a job because of that? Everyone makes fiscal mistakes at some point or another in their life.

 

In times like these when the economy is HORRIBLE and people are losing their jobs left and right, I think its a sin to not give someone the opportunity to work and earn money to fix their lives, ESPECIALLY when they show proficiency at the position they are applying for.

[matty 810]

That may be the negatives to the bill, but what are the positives?

 

1. Jobs

2. State Revenue

3. NJ Economic Growth

 

The more people that have jobs, the more people that spend money, the more money the business's make. Especially with the holidays approaching, people are eager to get to work and make some money.

 

Hopefully once this state get's out of it's financial troubles, maybe business tax cuts, a more friendly business climate through business friendly bills and property tax cuts can be down the road. Although in this state im doubtful.

 

Only problem for businesses right now is Health Care, market worries, amongst a bunch of other stuff at the federal level.

 

 

I doubt that will be the outcome of this bill anymore than OGAM reduced the number of guns on the street. This is the NJ legislature we are talking about here and the two sponsors are both dems. Not seeing the causality between no credit checks and more hiring, unless it means higher turnover and more 'hiring' due to not being able to find the deadbeats out first, and having to can them & replace them when their issues show up.

[Maksim 1,504]

That may be the negatives to the bill, but what are the positives?

 

1. Jobs

2. State Revenue

3. NJ Economic Growth

 

The more people that have jobs, the more people that spend money, the more money the business's make. Especially with the holidays approaching, people are eager to get to work and make some money.

 

Hopefully once this state get's out of it's financial troubles, maybe business tax cuts, a more friendly business climate through business friendly bills and property tax cuts can be down the road. Although in this state im doubtful.

 

Only problem for businesses right now is Health Care, market worries, amongst a bunch of other stuff at the federal level.

 

 

This is BS. As a business owner, I DON'T HAVE TO HIRE YOU.

 

The typical candidates that would have issues with me checking their financial situation are employees I would not want to hire... not because they have financial issues, but because they are afraid to come clean with it, or need to hide it.

 

When I was intereviewing years ago for UBS, I did have some financial issues, it was brought up, I was upfront an honest with them, it was not an issue. Had I LIED to them about it, it would be a huge issues. Trust me, business owners are not idiots.

 

If I had a good candidate, that had all the good qualities, yet had financial issues like anyone else has, or had a reason for them, IT WOULD NOT stop me from hiring them.

[MedicYeti 96]

I have recently started a position that involves hiring people and have learned a few things that I didn't know. It costs money to hire someone. Taking on a new employee is more then just saying "your hired". In my business when you factor in insurance, orientation, paying the training officers, paying the new hire for hospital and field orientation and multiple other factors; it costs thousands of dollars to bring in a new hire. I know this price isn't the case for every job, but every new employee does cost time and money. We look at a general picture of the credit score. If your credit sucks that doesn't disqualify you for a job. If your behind on child support or show really poor judgement in spending habbits we take that into consideration. What this means is: if HR likes the applicant, the hiring team likes the applicant, the boss likes the applicant, the medical director likes the applicant and the criminal and driving records come out clean we pay very little attention the the credit score and the person is hired. If the applicant passes all six of the above but we are all on the fence about them the credit history may make or break them. If we don't like the applicant then we don't bother with the credit check.

Maks is correct: a company is not obligated to hire someone just because they apply.

Do you want someone working with your money when they can't manage their own?

Do you want an emt or paramedic in the home of your unconscious family member when they are desperate for money?

[Malsua 1,422]

This is BS. As a business owner, I DON'T HAVE TO HIRE YOU.

 

 

 

You're right. If it's such a problem don't hire anyone.

 

Do you think by hiring someone you are privy to all their personal information before you hire them? Can you check their sexual orientation too? After all, gays are more likely to engage in high risk behavior. Is that your business too? How about their genetic makeup? Is that your business? After all, maybe they have a predisposition towards schizophrenia, or perhaps alcoholism. Do you get to evaluate employees on that too? Is Gattaca more of a utopian future for you than a dystopian one?

 

I believe that in some circumstances, a credit check should matter. Security clearances and financial jobs where one could be blackmailed or might have a proclivity to steal. Outside of those? Not your business what contracts in the past someone may or may not have violated. I don't recall signing a form allowing all future employers access to every contract I've made with a bank in the past 20 years.

 

How in the world did companies hire 30 years ago when there was no general purpose fico score?

 

I'm all for checking out people. It is only prudent, but at some point a line has to be drawn and an employer has to take some risk too. If I'm "at will" like most non-union employees then the trade-off for that is you don't get to know every little detail about me that you might like.

[Babaganoosh 192]

If I own a retail store or any type of place that handles cash. I would hire someone who isn't in a tonf of debt and/or behind on their bills. Which guy do you think would steal from you first?

[DevsAdvocate 112]

For a "gun" forum, I'm hearing a lot of liberal bs here.

 

An employer who owns their company should have a great deal of leeway as to their hiring practices. If you're business is financial, dealing with sensitive information, or hell: even selling guns, you're going to want to know your employees are trustworthy. Why?

 

1. If they're not, you may be penalized for their crimes. Let's say someone is in debt and works at your bank, what if they sell privileged information to a competitor or some scam artist who can steal your identity. What if they work in a gun shop and start selling guns on the side and claim they went "missing". Who gets in trouble there? Who get's all the hassle? The owner.

 

2. It hurts you're bottom line. These people will steal from you when they can and lie to your face.

 

As Maks said: if you're honest and upfront about your financial issues, you will not have any problems. That being said though: if you want to work at Walmart, a background check really isn't needed.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

You're right. If it's such a problem don't hire anyone.

 

Do you think by hiring someone you are privy to all their personal information before you hire them? Can you check their sexual orientation too? After all, gays are more likely to engage in high risk behavior. Is that your business too? How about their genetic makeup? Is that your business? After all, maybe they have a predisposition towards schizophrenia, or perhaps alcoholism. Do you get to evaluate employees on that too? Is Gattaca more of a utopian future for you than a dystopian one?

 

I believe that in some circumstances, a credit check should matter. Security clearances and financial jobs where one could be blackmailed or might have a proclivity to steal. Outside of those? Not your business what contracts in the past someone may or may not have violated. I don't recall signing a form allowing all future employers access to every contract I've made with a bank in the past 20 years.

 

How in the world did companies hire 30 years ago when there was no general purpose fico score?

 

I'm all for checking out people. It is only prudent, but at some point a line has to be drawn and an employer has to take some risk too. If I'm "at will" like most non-union employees then the trade-off for that is you don't get to know every little detail about me that you might like.

 

What right do you have telling a business owner how to run their business?

[Malsua 1,422]

For a "gun" forum, I'm hearing a lot of liberal bs here.

 

An employer who owns their company should have a great deal of leeway as to their hiring practices. If you're business is financial, dealing with sensitive information, or hell: even selling guns, you're going to want to know your employees are trustworthy. Why?

 

1. If they're not, you may be penalized for their crimes. Let's say someone is in debt and works at your bank, what if they sell privileged information to a competitor or some scam artist who can steal your identity. What if they work in a gun shop and start selling guns on the side and claim they went "missing". Who gets in trouble there? Who get's all the hassle? The owner.

 

2. It hurts you're bottom line. These people will steal from you when they can and lie to your face.

 

As Maks said: if you're honest and upfront about your financial issues, you will not have any problems. That being said though: if you want to work at Walmart, a background check really isn't needed.

 

I agree. It depends on the nature of the job. However, 90% of the jobs out there don't deal in sensitive or financial issues. Any employee has the ability to financially harm the company. When it gets into a point where it may bankrupt the company, then a financial check is warranted. Someone handling the cash drawer at Burger King doesn't rise to that level. Someone handling guns does as it can impact their ability to do business if the license is yanked. Non-union, non contract employees are "at will". This means the company can just turn you loose with no negative repercussions. The employee also can leave with no repercussions. You don't own me, I don't own you. How is it liberal to want your personal affairs respected? I literally have nothing in any report anywhere to be ashamed of. I object to the principal that some potential employer gets to rifle through my past for things that are completely unrelated to the job I'm applying for. It's simply none of their friggin business.

[Malsua 1,422]

What right do you have telling a business owner how to run their business?

 

What right do they have to look into private contracts I've made in the past? (And that's all a credit report is)

[Shug 4]

You're right. If it's such a problem don't hire anyone.

 

Do you think by hiring someone you are privy to all their personal information before you hire them? Can you check their sexual orientation too? After all, gays are more likely to engage in high risk behavior. Is that your business too? How about their genetic makeup? Is that your business? After all, maybe they have a predisposition towards schizophrenia, or perhaps alcoholism. Do you get to evaluate employees on that too? Is Gattaca more of a utopian future for you than a dystopian one?

 

I believe that in some circumstances, a credit check should matter. Security clearances and financial jobs where one could be blackmailed or might have a proclivity to steal. Outside of those? Not your business what contracts in the past someone may or may not have violated. I don't recall signing a form allowing all future employers access to every contract I've made with a bank in the past 20 years.

 

How in the world did companies hire 30 years ago when there was no general purpose fico score?

 

I'm all for checking out people. It is only prudent, but at some point a line has to be drawn and an employer has to take some risk too. If I'm "at will" like most non-union employees then the trade-off for that is you don't get to know every little detail about me that you might like.

 

 

AMEN

 

The hiring for a job should stay with your qualifications and your background check. How about this lets now check to see if a applicant owns a weapon or is a member of the NRA. Or just give me the keys to your home and I will get all the information I need.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

What right do they have to look into private contracts I've made in the past? (And that's all a credit report is)

 

If you don't like it, then you can work for someone else. It's their business, and their money to hire you with.

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I agree. It depends on the nature of the job. However, 90% of the jobs out there don't deal in sensitive or financial issues. Any employee has the ability to financially harm the company. When it gets into a point where it may bankrupt the company, then a financial check is warranted. Someone handling the cash drawer at Burger King doesn't rise to that level. Someone handling guns does as it can impact their ability to do business if the license is yanked. Non-union, non contract employees are "at will". This means the company can just turn you loose with no negative repercussions. The employee also can leave with no repercussions. You don't own me, I don't own you. How is it liberal to want your personal affairs respected? I literally have nothing in any report anywhere to be ashamed of. I object to the principal that some potential employer gets to rifle through my past for things that are completely unrelated to the job I'm applying for. It's simply none of their friggin business.

 

Thing is: an employer should have the right to screen their employees in a matter they deemed fit. Maybe to you, the applicant, the justification for a credit search is not warranted, but maybe the employer had issues in the past with other applicants. Maybe they just want to cover their asses.

 

I see no reason for the state to be involved in this.

[vladtepes 1,060]

As a business owner, I will disagree. I dont need to know your credit score, but do need to know what is on it.

 

You don't want to disclose it? Fine, you don't get the job. If you have nothing to hide, dont. In most cases, I did not run a credit check on my applicants. If someone had a legitimate issue on their credit, and can respond as to why, it is not an issue if you are a good candidate.

 

Ie... do you want to hire an accountant who owes 200k and is late on his alimony who also has access to your company accounts?

 

I ask every applicant... is there anything about you that I should know about before I run the background checks?

 

Half of them will lie to your face...., yet I am somehow not supposed to verify if they are telling the truth?

 

Ie... had one guy tell me his background is clean, yet a simple google reveals he was fired from his past job for massive complaints, and him trying to hide the fact that he was arrested for drugs.

 

Another character lied about his financial issues, late on alimony and massive debt. It is those issues that would cause someone to put their own intentions first ahead of the clients they are supposed to serve.

 

Why do you think so many people are "entry level" shops such as insurance companies get put into high commission based products.... often times, it is not about the client.

 

If I am being totally honest.. I agree completely.. I don't think it is the governments job to tell us who to hire and who not to hire.. if you want to only employ people who pay bills on time, it should be your right as an employer to do so.. as maks pointed out.. don't like it? go look elsewhere for employment....

 

paying bills on time and establishing good credit shows good money management skills amongst other things.. does bad credit mean the person is terrible? no of course not.. but the employer should be allowed to weigh things like credit in a hiring decision..

[Maksim 1,504]

Mark, I understand your point about privacy... however I really couldn't give a shit less about your personal fico/experian/equifax/transunion score. To some degree, I really dont give a rats ass if you owe money to Capital One, Chase, Citibank or have 20 collections accounts.

 

What I do care about is if you are lying to my face.

 

If someone came out and told me they have massive issues, I would not even bother to run the check because they told me the truth. If they tell me they have no issues and they just filed BK... it is not about the BK, but the problem is the employee is not truthful. If they are lying to my face AT THE INTERVIEW... what makes you think they will stop lying after I hire them.

 

That is the point about the background checks. It is not about what is on them, it is about what it tells me about the person.

 

Do you honestly think business owners are stupid enough not to know that unemployment is at a very high point and people will have issues on their credit report?

65% of the people residing in the United States are in debt. It is not a secret.

 

Many successful businesses now were once on the brink of financial collapse. We all get that people go through financial issues. If I had a good employee, I would even help them out with company loans or what not to get them to take care of their financial issues, but it has to be earned.... and it starts with being truthful. Anytime you sign up for a credit card... you are waiving your rights to your privacy. With everything on the internet, there is very little anyone can hide. What is next? Employers are going to be prohibited from looking people up on facebook?

 

Every person that I interviewed, for myself, or for Ameriprise, we would do a check on Facebook to see what the person is truly like.

[vladtepes 1,060]

 

What I do care about is if you are lying to my face.

 

If someone came out and told me they have massive issues, I would not even bother to run the check because they told me the truth. If they tell me they have no issues and they just filed BK... it is not about the BK, but the problem is the employee is not truthful. If they are lying to my face AT THE INTERVIEW... what makes you think they will stop lying after I hire them.

 

 

A little to this point.. My credit.. not so hot due to a bad marriage.. when I went back to the renting world my landlord informed me he planned to do a credit check.. I informed him that it was likely a waste of time and explained exactly why.. he listened and understood respected my honesty and ended up renting me the place.. I have not been late on rent a single time and we get along great..

[Maksim 1,504]

A little to this point.. My credit.. not so hot due to a bad marriage.. when I went back to the renting world my landlord informed me he planned to do a credit check.. I informed him that it was likely a waste of time and explained exactly why.. he listened and understood respected my honesty and ended up renting me the place.. I have not been late on rent a single time and we get along great..

 

 

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Such a great example.

 

this is no different than doing a Drug test, or a criminal check.

 

It is not about if they had issues in the past... it is about if they are hiding it. If someone pissed on a building 10 years ago, one day when they were drunk at school.... does not surprise me.

 

A terrific example... my close friend, also in the financial services industry... has vibrant past, filled with stupid stupid stupid stuff he did over the years, including DUI's amongst other Yet, right now he has a terrific position with Bank of America/Merril Lynch, and was a good advisor with Ameriprise and Chase before. His past did not stop any of those companies because he was upfront with everyone of them, and his experience weighted alot more than his stupidity 10 years ago.

[StephanieSeven 70]

Can you check their sexual orientation too? After all, gays are more likely to engage in high risk behavior.

I'm curious as to your source of this claim. Please post your reference.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I'm curious as to your source of this claim. Please post your reference.

 

 

I believe it is an exaggeration to make a point but I could be wrong..

[Malsua 1,422]

I believe it is an exaggeration to make a point but I could be wrong..

 

Yes, but it is rooted in truth. Don't take my word for it. Start here: http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r020710.htm Google more if you're so inclined. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gays+more+likely+to+engage+in+high+risk+behavior&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[FFDP82 4]

 

Come on guys, we're better than that. Let's not post bigoted crap. You don't like it when the government says what kind of stock your gun can have, why would you care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home.

[vladtepes 1,060]

 

Come on guys, we're better than that. Let's not post bigoted crap. You don't like it when the government says what kind of stock your gun can have, why would you care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home.

 

 

I don't care at all.. No matter how I say this it will come off wrong.. but whatever..

most if not all gay people I have ever dealt with were nice.. polite.. kept up with the homes they lived in and if anything were an asset to the community..

 

the much larger point is

 

I have no right to tell someone what sexuality to be....

and

The government has no right to tell me who I should or shouldn't hire.. and what criteria to use when hiring them...

 

these are both private issues.. if a business wanted to hire people who are 5 foot or shorter.. I wouldn't sit and cry about it... I wouldn't seek legal action.. I would simply take the cue that I am not wanted there and look elsewhere for employment...