News To Me!

I also want to add, if this is standard practice, I will NEVER get a job! :shock:

They will run a credit check for jobs with salaries over $70k, for jobs in which you handle money (banks), jobs with defense contractors and jobs that require a security clearance. My company ran a credit check on me 5 years ago when my credit was so far in the crapper I thought I would never get out. I'm in 3rd Party Logistics and the account I was working was Kelloggs so I couldn't figure out why the credit check until I found out that we have contracts with a lot of Tech companies that require background investigations on all contractors. Even with the pi$$ poor credit, they didn't bat an eye and hired me. Go figure.

Well crap, this was a simple cashiers job I applied for, actually I said forget it when I found out they were running a credit check. Employers already have too much access to personal info without allowing them to know my credit sucks! I may never be able to work again if this is standard practice!

yep.this is becoming more like BIG BROTHER by the day.

Don't get too discouraged Shazzers!

I got a great job at an investment bank last July (2008) and they also ran a credit check. I was sweating bullets as I had been out of work for almost 2 years and, naturally, my credit was HORRIBLE! I started crying when I got the pre-employment paperwork package and saw the credit check release form in it.

That's it. Game over.

But I figured: what the hell?!? I really had nothing to lose at that point; I had already aced the interviews and been offered the position. If they wanted to withdraw the offer after they run my credit, then that's their choice. And loss.

It's not like I was going to get any more unemployed than I already was.

Long story short, they never mentioned anything about the credit report results (and they did pull them, because I ordered them recently and saw the inquiry on all 3 CBR's) and I got the job.

But I'm with you 100%! I feel employers have way too much access to employees personal information. I think I've shared with this forum how my previous employer made my medical condition known to my coworkers while I was still working there.

I really should have sued the pants off them. At the time, though, I had other things to worry about and by the time I got it together enough to look into suing them, the SOL had passed.

Oh, and don't even get me started on CBR's and car insurance rates!

I switched car insurance companies last year because they gave me higher rates due to my CBR. Never mind I haven't had any accidents or tickets in MANY years and Florida's DMV considers me a safe driver.

I've applied for several Admin Asst. jobs, so far no takers, but I am more than willing to take ANYthing at this point. My problem with general employment is, they say I am over qualified, well for crap sakes, I will do ANYthing! Guess I am going to need to downplay my resume, the problem is, if I don't list my most current job it will look as though I haven't worked for 8 years, what to do. :?

Sometimes, you have to get "creative" on your resume' in a situation like that. Then you have to walk the thin like between "embellishing" and outright "lying".

I did a TON of research on the internet on job hunting and resume' writing while I was unemployed and learned a lot of useful and, sometimes, sneaky tricks job hunters have to resort to in order to find employment. One of the most interesting ones I read was where job hunters are buying those "TracFone" type pay-as-you-go cell phones and giving those numbers out as past employment/references to potential employers. They, of course, either get the message left on the phone or answer it when a potential employer calls and give themselves stellar references.

Not suggesting for someone to lie in order to get a job; however, I just thought it was amusing how some job seekers are using "out of the box" methods to get jobs. Sort of turning the tables on employers always having the upper hand.

I know the hospital I worked for just started requiring new employees to take background checks and drug tests. I didn't have to do anything like that when I started 10 years ago with them and unless people are handling cash, I honestly can't figure out why an employer would need a credit check done. Just my opinion...

I didn't know where to post this....But check this out. I totally agree this practice needs to stop!!

5 states challenge employer credit checks
Updated 2/13/2009 10:15 AM



By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
Amid skyrocketing layoffs and mortgage foreclosures, several states and the federal government are pushing new rules to stop employers from unfairly screening out job applicants who can't pass a credit check.

Five states are considering laws that would restrict credit checks by employers. Stuart Ishimaru, President Obama's acting chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is a vocal critic of the checks and has called for the agency to begin issuing guidelines on how such checks should be carried out.

'BAD' CREDIT: When it stands in the way of a good job

About 43% of U.S. employers check job applicants for overdue payments on anything from mortgages and rent to credit cards and student loans, according to the Society for Human Resource Management and security consultant Kroll. That's up from 36% in 2004, a Kroll survey found.

But the checks are under fire from some lawmakers who say needy and trustworthy people are being shut out of jobs ??? at a time when the economy is bad and hiring is severely cut back.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: California | Barack Obama | Texas | New York City | Hawaii | Freddie Mac | Transportation Security Administration | Hispanics | New York Democrat | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | Society for Human Resource Management | Kroll | Rep. Marcus Oshiro | Adam Klein | Dianna Johnston

"It's almost like being forever sentenced to debtors' prison," said Hawaii state Rep. Marcus Oshiro, a Democrat.

Said Democratic state Rep. Matthew Lesser of Connecticut, "There's an awareness that a lot of people have bad credit for reasons that have nothing to do with their worth as an employee."

Bills by Lesser and Oshiro aim to eliminate many credit checks by requiring employers to prove they are vital to hiring. "Employers do the checks routinely without showing there's any connection to the job," said state lawmaker Michael Benjamin, a New York Democrat, whose bill would restrict credit checks.

Missouri and Texas are considering restrictions. Washington state enacted restrictions in 2007, the year Ishimaru told a government hearing that employee credit checks could violate civil rights law.

Employers most often run credit screening on people seeking jobs with access to money, such as tellers, cashiers and finance officers, New York City employment lawyer Adam Klein said. Post-9/11 security concerns have fueled a growth in the checks. The Transportation Security Administration is considering requiring credit checks for 1 million workers with access to secured areas of airports.

The TSA bars people with $5,000 in overdue debt or any federal or state tax lien from working as airport screeners. That ruled out 22% of applicants from 2005 to 2007, a report found.

Employer credit checks are legal, but can be discriminatory if they disproportionately exclude minorities, women or people over 40 and are not essential to a hiring decision, the EEOC says.

"There are indications they do discriminate on the basis of race, and we are looking into that," EEOC lawyer Dianna Johnston said. A 2007 Freddie Mac study found that 48% of blacks had "bad" credit records compared with 34% of Hispanics and 27% of whites.

Many employers check credit to protect against negligent-hiring lawsuits, said Lester Rosen of Employee Screening Resources, a California firm. But the checks aren't infallible. "A person with credit problems may be a great performer," Rosen said, "because they need the job."

I think that normally credit checks are used to keep out people with judgements, liens, and bankruptcies .... not just regular credit issues.

Every job I have ever had, I had to sign 1) Authorization for credit check, and 2) consent to drug test. We also make any new job applicants sign those forms.

The reality is that we don't actually do either of those screens on our applicants. We just have the form on file in case we ever want to in the future. IE if we think they're stealing or using drugs at work, then we can say "Remember when we hired you and you signed these forms.....".

The only time I can see running an applicant's credit, is if the job involves money handling. Two reasons:
1) If you can't handle your own finances, why should I trust you to handle mine? (This would be moreso if the job was to be a controller or finance manager etc, who's in charge of my cash flows).
2) Someone who is handling money (ie cashier) might be inclined to find ways to steal from me if they are having problems paying their bills.

[quote=Shazzers]My problem with general employment is, they say I am over qualified[/quote]
I do a lot of hiring, and the main reason we don't like to hire someone who's "over-qualified" is because we don't want the employment to be short-lived.

To run a job listing in the sun-times (newspaper), or post it on careerbuilder.com costs about $800 to run it for two weeks. Then it takes my time to sort through resumes, do interviews and background checks. After we hire someone, it takes me a lot of time to train them. So there is a lot of "overhead" associated with employee turnover. My goal, when hiring a person, is to make sure they're going to "stick around a while", because I don't want to constantly have to go through this whole hiring process.

There is a high probability that someone who is "over qualified" will only stay for a short duration until they find something better. IE if they're used to being paid $25/hr and I say "well this job pays $15/hr" -- they may settle for now because they need a job. But as soon as another job opens up that pays more, which they are qualified for, the employee will quit. And then I'm back at square one, having to post ads and re-hire.


[quote=FloridaRon]One of the most interesting ones I read was where job hunters are buying those "TracFone" type pay-as-you-go cell phones and giving those numbers out as past employment/references to potential employers. [/quote] For that reason, I never call the job # that the applicant gives me. We have a program we use, and it will tell me if a phone # is a cell or landline. I'll run the # an applicant gives me, and if it comes up as cell, I'll flat out tell them "You need to give me a real number and not a cell phone." Also, I always do a search on the internet to find the real phone # to the company, and I'll call that # instead.

Thanks for posting that info Imale! I personally think it's a crock that employers have so much access to our personal information. Like I said, I'll not be working anytime soon if each employer requests a credit check and finds how bad my credit is, therefore, my debts will never get paid.

Side note: Drug and criminal background checks makes perfect sense to me, but a credit check?

Debtcruncher, thanks so much for your informative (as always) post. Speaking of being overqualified, my daughter, who is a restaurant manager (and has a degree in Hospitality Administration) tells me that since the economy has tanked, she can't count the number of people who have actually come in asking for a job "until something better opens up!!" I won't even go into what she says about people like that, lol, as all she has ever done in her working life has involved restaurants...
And I think one main reason that people handling money need to have a credit check done is that if you are collecting money and have financial problems, it would be SOOO easy to slip an extra $20 into your pocket when noone's looking, enough said.

You know, I'm sorry but just because someone has bad credit does not somehow mean they are morally deficient or more of a risk when it comes to handling money.

Some people have medical problems and may have lost their jobs and that is why their credit is bad. Some people may just plain have errors on their credit report they either didn't know about or have been fighting with the CBR's to get corrected. Some people may even be the victim of identity theft and may also be fighting with the CBR to get their reports corrected. Some people may have had a two-income family that has been reduced to a one-income family (for whatever reason) and my have fallen behind on their bills.

I wonder how many of those CEO's and high level executives that pillaged their companies (Enron, Tyco, Meryl Lynch, etc) and made off with millions had perfect credit? But they sure managed to run the companies into the ground, even more so than some teller that was denied a job because they had bad credit and might have been "tempted" to steal. Believe me, with the controls most banks and stores have in place, a teller/cashier is more likely to get caught stealing a few dollars than some CEO running the company into the ground.

You do have a right to put a "Consumer Statement" on all three of your CBR's, though. It's an opportunity for you to voice your side as to why you may have negative items on your credit report. This statement is included with the regular CBR any time your report it pulled.

Speaking as one who has bad credit, it definately doesn't mean they are morally deficient, but with all due respect, as a former union shop steward who has represented people who have quite literally pocketed hospital copays on the job, I do believe that having bad credit and/or other financial problems would make it easier for someone to go down this wrong path, because quite frankly, I have seen this in my working career. Most of us with bad credit would never think about doing this, but there are indeed some who have.

kscornell, your right. There are some that may but that shouldn't punish the majority that won't. Again, the few are punishing the majority.

I waned to work from home, part time(to help with bills, and my current health problems limit what I can do... mainly sit and do desk type work.. which is what I do now anyway for my real job) and applied to a reputable company, and got this in response to a question I had about them running credit reports. Background checks/Drug tests I have no problem doing.

Please keep in mind, we will be reviewing 4 years (2004 - 2008) when counting the number applicable. If it shows within that time period, it will be counted and considered.

Do you feel that you can pass with 4 or less collections and/or charge-offs from 2004 - 2008? If so, please log in and update your application. The system will flag it for re-validation. Thankfully this company didn't include bankruptcies etc (but mine is 7 years old in July).

The company that I now work for does credit checks, drug tests, background checks and criminal checks. I have bad credit and 2 judgments on there along with a bunch of charge off's and collections and I still got hired. When hubby had to have all that done our BK was still on there and they hired him also. What they say they need the checks for, is because their product is used world wide and they need to make sure we are not going to put anything in their product that is going to harm/kill people. So with them it really didn't matter if my credit sucked but if I had anything criminal then I wouldn't have gotten the job.

But I do agree if you are going to work with money then a good background and credit check should be done. A friend of my sisters was in jail for that. She was working for a finance company and ended up taking thousands of dollars because her lazy, drug addict husband couldn't/wouldn't get a job to support her and their son. And it was very easy for her to do this. It took the company a couple years to figure things out.

Here's another factor which has bearing on a person's credit report:

In my experience (with my own employees, and also with my customers who we ultimately have to sue), many employees quit as soon as they get garnished. This is especially true in an entry-level position where "the job doesn't really matter" to the employee. Like a game of cat and mouse, some people hop from job to job, hoping their creditors won't find them. When they do and start garnishing, the employee quits and moves on to the next job.

If a job seeker has lots of short-term jobs on their resume, and open judgments on their credit report, one might conclude that they are hopping around to evade a garnishment.

Referring to my previous post re costs/overhead associated with hiring new employees -- I might not want to hire someone who is going to quit as soon as their creditors find them at my employ.

Now before I get too much hate mail over this, I've never actually used this reasoning in denying employment. I'm just trying to give some insight.

LOL!

Well, you're not going to get any hate mail from me. I might not agree with your opinion, and I definitely don't like it; however, you at least reasonably explained it and I can see your point of view.

I just see the entire practice of running credit reports on an employee, and possibly denying employment because of what might be on them, as telling someone they are "guilty until proven innocent", and they aren't going to get to prove their innocence because they aren't going to get the job.

I definately see where both Debt Cruncher and Florida Ron are coming from. Let's face it--in today's economy, there are a lot of us fighting for a limited number of jobs, and the pool of jobs is growing smaller every day. Employers can be picky--as if one person doesn't work out, there are three more right behind him who will do anything to get that job.
I don't have the solution to this--and I really don't think anyone does at this point in time.

also it is probably based a lot on statistics ... just because someone has bad credit DOESN'T mean that they will do something fraudulant / bad / whatever ... but the percentage of those who DO fraudulant / bad / whatever things and who also have bad credit is very high.

I believe that it is a good thing to check the credit of someone who my be entrusted with handling money or any other position where security may be of concern but I feel it should not be allowed in other cases. I do not think a person should give there SS number and photo of their drivers license to anyone prior to being hired. That is how ID theft happens. Who knows who will get there hands on that. The practice should be illegal along with forced polygraph testing which is already banned in most cases. Also collecting unemployment at 1/4 or less of ones salary can put anyones credit in the tank in 90 days.

In the past, when I have been asked for ID/SSN, I have smiled very sweetly at the person doing the asking before the job is offered and said "I assume I'm hired, then?? In that case, I'll complete the I-9 now." It's interesting to see who is on the up and up at that point...

The only thing I wanted to add is, I see both sides of this issue, however with today's economy, many good hard working folks are going to lose chances at good jobs, due to the review of the CR. Many folks who aren't loser have ran into money problems, causing the CR to look really bad. The same thing with this housing mess. All these folks have lost their homes, credit is down the tubes....But yet they want people to buy houses to get us out of this mess. How the heck is that going to happen? And for years to come....I just don't get it. Reny

Thank GOD someone is finally addressing the issue about credit checks for job applicants. I guess you could say I have marginally bad credit... while I did recently purchase a house; I had debts that I was behind on. I am now unemployed and trying to make ends meet. But this in no way reflects the person that I am... I would say that the fact I worked at my last job for 15 years is more of an indicator. I don't mind someone running a background check on me, as I have never done anything illegal, but to base employment on whether or not I can pay my utility bills on time is just plain stupid in my opinion.

Also, to respond to the person who is planning to embellish/hold back info on their resume? While I understand your position, it's not a good idea to do that it will most likely come back to haunt you in the end. My best friend did this and years later it came back to bite her in the !!!! I also had a problem with being over-qualified; I applied for a job and was told that I have more education and experience than the manager at the job, so that person would feel uneasy having me around. Then, the same company sent me an email asking me if I knew anyone I could recommend for the job. I made me so MAD that I called them back and told them how unprofessional that email was. Just because they are employed during this recession, doesn't mean that they should treat people in an unfeeling manner. Needless to say, they probably don't want to hear from me again. TOO BAD! There are other fish in the sea.