Comments on: Should Employers Be Allowed to Check Your Credit?

By: Jayson Quilantan

Jayson Quilantan — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:23:19 +0000

The FICO score is a proprietary formula… nobody but the credit scoring agencies know all the ins-and-outs of it!

To be truly useful, wouldn’t the formula need to be PUBLIC?

Too, it is all too easy to ruin one’s credit due to unexpected circumstances beyond your control such as transportation and health problems, etc. These problems tend to linger around unnecessarily on credit reports when the problem has long since been resolved.

By: Chris Johnson

Chris Johnson — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:22:43 +0000

I disagree with allowing employers to screen people for employment using a consumer report.I am one of those who lost their job due to a store closure right after the recession hit. I am still looking for work. I had to rearrange my priorities with my unemployment check. I am single and live alone so I pay full rent, electric, car insurance, food, gas, and internet. After that there is hardly anything left. So I couldn’t make payments on my credit card that had its rates doubled thanks to the US government passing the consumer protection law. I also had hospital bills I couldn’t pay on. I need a full-time job so I can start making payments. Now since I have been long term unemployed they charged off the credit card.So for an employer to use my consumer report for an entry-level job to determine my viability for their company I feel is discrimination on a whole new level.Maybe if they went back and looked at my credit when I was still working, they will see I made my payments on time. Who knows but I know this. I may be looking to move to China renounce my US citizenship and beg for a job so I can at least make a living if the US can’t provide an environment for me to do so.

By: A. H

A. H — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:00:19 +0000

I had to file for bankruptcy last year due to having to close my business which suffered horribly in the bad economy. I have NEVER been late on a bill and before my bankruptcy I had a credit score of 780. Now I need a job and can not find one, nobody will hire me because of my credit score and bankruptcy. I am a responsible hard worker why should I be judged because of my bankruptcy? It doesn’t make me irresponsible and my character and work ethic should be judged by it. It’s very unfair.

By: BotheredByThis

BotheredByThis — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 03:39:37 +0000

I disagree that employers should make a judgment for employment based on a persons credit history. No one actually knows what may have caused a persons credit score to decline. For instance, a married couple, both working, one loses a job and the other has to carry the weight of the household expenses which causes a strain on the finaces. Typically, this would change that persons credit rating. I believe a person should be judged on their criminal history, work history & skill level. Some people should not be so quick to judge or they could lose a very valuable employee.

By: Zach Edwards

Zach Edwards — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:57:21 +0000

The “PERIOD!” argument doesn’t work for those of us who have graduated kindergarten.

By: Zach Edwards

Zach Edwards — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:29:14 +0000

Our society is a broken system, where compassion and empathy have been crushed under the foot of corporate-isum. I have great credit, scoring around 800. At this moment, I am currently looking for employment, and for the first time been asked to supply a credit report. I WILL NOT. If a potential employer can not determine that I am a man of integrity through the interviewing process, then they should not have the privilege of my hard work and loyalty.

Revolt! And FIX the system.

By: PAT

PAT — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:47:02 +0000

If you have no job you can’t pay your bills. If you can’t pay your bills your credit score goes down. If your credit score goes down you can’t get a job.

Really is there anything to debate?
So should an employer be able to ask your Ex how you are also?

By: Marie

Marie — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 10:30:29 +0000

I am absolutely against checking a potential employee’s credit, especially before any initial interviews are made with them. Resumes, education creditials and references from reputable sources are adequate to discover if they are appropriate candidates for the position. After that a criminal background check, which can be made without the social security number, but upon their driver’s license. There are many reasons in which a person may not have perfect credit or any credit at all and it does not necessarily mean they aren’t trustworthy. Some people incur medical conditions that may be resolved, but leave them out of work for a period of time and behind on payments – therefore lowering their credit scores. Also, there are young people who haven’t established credit histories simply because they haven’t worked long enough or purchased big ticket items like cars or mortgages. Personally, my husband and myself do not use credit. We are against going into debt for anything and so we only purchase what we can afford, or we save up for something we need. So, our credit is minimal. Why should low credit, which is not a reasonable indicator of personality, education or reputation be involved in job seeking, especially if they have good references, job skills or history, education and no criminal background?

By: Nick The Job Search Guy

Nick The Job Search Guy — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:23:55 +0000

I think it horrible that a company can use your credit against you. About 10 years ago I had some very serious health problems and racked up a lot of medical debit and quickly got behind on things like car payments and credit card bills. After a lengthy recovery I was finally ready to return to the working world I had heck of a time trying to get a job simply because of my credit score. So for those that think this is or ever was a good practice please remember that things happen in life and to judge someone on the merit of a stupid credit sore is very bad practice (even borderline discrimination).

By: Eruwan Gerry

Eruwan Gerry — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:08:18 +0000

Yes, employers should be allowed PERIOD!

By: Ron Congress

Ron Congress — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:22:31 +0000

What about Enron? Did any employee know they were cooking the books? So why would Enron be allowed to look a my books (a.k.a. personal credit report). What about all the American CEOs that have stolen millions? How was there credit score, perfect? So anyone with good credit should have a leg up on everone on the planet in every situation including employment? Here are some stats for you . . .

70+ Million Americans Suffered “Bad Credit” (Previous to July ’09) long before the full economic collapse – that’s more than 1/3 of the entire population between 20 and 75 years old

379,000 Bankruptcies Filed Q1, 2010, (17 percent increase over Q1, 2009 during a year in a year which they soared upward by 32%)

35% Increase in Foreclosures and a 16% Increase in Foreclosure Notices Q1, 2010 (over Q1, 2009) and 1 in every 4 Homes in America are at least 10+ % “underwater.”

In survey after survey, including a recent MSNBC survey, more than 90 percent of Americans say that workplace discrimination based upon someone’s personal credit report is wrong and should be illegal. ZERO statistical evidence exists to tie bad credit reports to fraud! It’s already illegal in 3 states and HR3149: The Equal Employment for All Act would make it illegal in every state, but most Americans don’t even know the legislation exists. Please support the overwhelming will of the people and the rights of highly qualified American workers to compete on a level playing field during this horrible economic disaster. Join our FB PAG at: http://groups.to/h.r.3149 or shoot us an e-mail at hr3149@gmail.com with”sign me up” in the subject line.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:33:57 +0000

Ordinarily, I’d agree that credit scores can be helpful to potential employers in screening applicants. But these are not ordinary times and depending on a credit score is hazardous, at best. There are far too many otherwise qualified candidates whose credit scores have taken a beating due to prolonged unemployment and the downturn in the housing market. It doesn’t take much to have had your credit score whacked like a pinata if you’ve spent the past 6+ months with half of your typical income in a house that’s upside down on the mortgage. If allowed to place emphasis on credit scores, we may well be denying employment to a whole cross-section of candidates based solely on circumstances beyond their control.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:27:16 +0000

David (and to George). I completely agree about credit score accuracy, et cetera. However, an employer still has the right to do as they wish in this case. They have a right to use information, however inaccurate, to make business decisions. If credit worthiness was measured via some free-market means, then I’m certain the data would be more accurate (if it wasn’t, then who would rely on such companies to measure lending and employment risk?). In the end, they [employers who choose to use quasi-government credit scores] will likely lose out on strong talent that would have benefited them. Their policy, their loss. This should not be regulated other than by the choices of those seeking employment.

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:21:22 +0000

Then employers will find it hard to attract talent (should most of the talent be unwilling to submit to credit checks). This will lead to a change in their policy or to their demise.

By: David

David — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:17:36 +0000

The credit score is only possible today because the Government assigns to each of us a unique Social Security Number. The credit score cannot be accurately labeled a free-market phenomenon.

Government does this all the time: It creates social institutions and norms that end up being regarded as part of the natural order of things. Those institutions and norms inevitably help Government itself as well as its large corporate allies.

By: George Leonidas

George Leonidas — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:15:43 +0000

Not just no. Hell no! I think of the small business owner one block away who went bankrupt from medical bills. Are we to screen him out because of a bad credit history? I’m sure that all of our college graduates will love having their potential measured by their debt to income ratio on graduation day. I could go on with many more examples. There are far too many intangibles and false indicators for this to be a reliable indication of personal character. Its purpose is to help a financial institution gauge someone’s ability to pay for a service or repay a debt. Using it for unintended purposes will bring unintended — and probably tragic — results.

By: Jim in Philadelphia

Jim in Philadelphia — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 22:18:04 +0000

The first problem is with the “value” of the information; it is usually inaccurate.
I presently do not have a credit score because my father passed away last year and the “big three” think that I too am dead.

The second problem is that when one is unemployed, and broke, and has a family to feed, house, clothe, and educate, one makes decisions under duress, including the decision to give up ones privacy.

I think the unemployed , and those seeking better employment should be spared from being under that duress.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:29:08 +0000

It would seem to me that the problem is more to do with the prevalence of this credit checking process. If the majority of companies does this then there is no choice involved for the prospective employee, they can’t simply seek employment elsewhere. If they are a perfectly valuable employee then they are being unfairly discriminated against. It seems to me the main issue is whether or not a minority of genuinely valuable employees with some credit discrepancies should protected from potentially unfair profiling, or if they should be allowed to ‘fall in between the cracks’ for the greater good of businesses.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:19:17 +0000

Here here, Jake. This principle, choice, is one that should be cherished.

By: HL

HL — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:00:23 +0000

I think Jake addresses your point below very well from the libertarian rights viewpoint. I just want to add that I disagree with your empirical hypothesis regarding why certain people get lower or higher scores. Sure, the banks are screwing us all, I’ll give you that. Also, many (many!) innocent folks were caught up in the bubble. “Real estate only goes up, right?,” they foolishly thought, and now they are being wiped out en masse, through no “real fault” of their own. All that conceded, it still stands to reason that comparatively speaking a higher credit score bodes well for certain occupations. Period. My own experience in the financial world bears this out. Sure, a couple of great candidates get screened out, but who cares?