Posted on 12/18/2013 12:06:42 PM PST by ConservativeStatement
WASHINGTON — Hank Ronan knew he would get the job. He had sailed through three rounds of interviews and hit it off with the doctors at the diagnostic center in Annandale, Va., where he had applied to be a driver for $11 an hour.
Shuttling patients to appointments was a world away from his 20 years as a software engineer, but it was the best that Ronan could find after being laid off in 2011. He was eager to get back to work and granted the doctor’s office permission to run a credit check. Ronan never heard back, he said Tuesday in an interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at pottsmerc.com ...
And raaacist!
I can not predict what the unintended consequences will be if this (and the not allowing to ask about criminal behavior) is put into law, but I can predict there will be some.
I am working at a job behind enemy lines (all of management are 0bama worshipers). I constantly get child support garnishment orders, back taxes garnishment orders, creditor judgements, etc. A high percentage of the deadbeats are managers. Oh, and by the way, they are all women and minorities,they all get paid a lot more than I get paid, and they are incompetent. You have probably guessed by now that the operation is gubmint funded.
they don’t want credit checks (even if you’re hiring for positions that handle money)
they don’t want criminal history checks (same comment)
they don’t want citizenship checks or questions
and they impose all sorts of new higher costs (taxes, fees, and high “regulatory compliance” costs and hasslements, including now Obamacare) if you do dare to give anybody a job
BOTTOM LINE - Obama/Pelosi/Reid and Company are STILL working hard to Increase Unemployment and destroy American jobs. Expect more of same.
This will have wide support because so many have had their credit bruised in a crappy economy.
Eventually I am sure the plan is to make credit ratings themselves illegal. Because they’re RAAAAACIST.
Not necessarily. A lot of folks have good jobs, pay their bills for years, then run into problems. People get sick and can't work. Or they lose their job, and start using credit cards to live thinking they'll find work and pay it back, but don't. After a year or so they are maxed out and their credit is a wreck.
Not a lot of folks are looking to hire males over 50, when they can hire some 20 something. If you then won't even hire them for even a low wage job because of their credit, how are they ever supposed to pay it back?
I had a company putting negative comments in my file every time I was less than four days early on paying them. (Which was every time as I electronically paid on the due date and not before). They tried to justify it by saying they were just recording it as a reminder call. It was still a negative impact.
I’m totally for banning this practice. Too many employers DEMAND SSN for this purpose and never hire one. Lose end there.
The three major credit companies hire sleazy and arrogant staff. It’s time to see these outfits under fire.
Stop the usage of SSN except for federal taxes and nothing else.
Even stop the DMV from requiring it, stop states from using it.
listen, i agree. there was a time when companies didn’t do background and credit checks and the world didn’t fall apart. it’s a different time though, with lawsuits and all. if a person of color is fired for stealing they can now file a discrimination suit. better to not risk putting a person in your business with deep financial issues.
also, in the end, it should be up to the employer and business owner to decide what works best for his company. i’m sure the owner of a trucking company understands better than anyone that his long haul truckers need a good driving record vs a great credit score.
the feds have no business in making another regulation and again, it will be another layered law with loopholes for the businesses that can afford to pay.
It’s is my understanding that while some businesses require employees to actually have a “Good” credit history for the type of work they do, most employers use the credit check as a type of verification that the person is who they say they are, without penalizing them for having a “Bad Credit” score.
Not sure if it should be up to the employer as they are requiring me to give permission to access my personal information. Maybe it should be up to the states to decide this, I would be more comfortable with that than the Fed taking action.
I can also see where is might be a factor depending on the job. That said, I know many good people who have been financially devastated by this economy and it has nothing to do with their character. They are good and talented workers and this should not be held against them.
Every one has had a bounced check or run up bad credit. Sometimes people just have too much to handle... it doesn’t mean they’re bad people or irresponsible.
Too many employers judge a person solely by a credit bureau’s report, which doesn’t tell them why the person has debts. The practice should be banned, except in limited circumstances like renting an apartment or jobs that involving handling lots of money, like cashier or bank teller jobs.
Your debts should not be a reflection on your eligibility for a job. And conservatives who oppose it are really saying its better if such people stay on welfare than get a job and show they’re responsible.
The states could decide, or as you say you can decide. A lot places do not do credit checks. I bet most fast food chains don’t.
McDonald’s does.
Read the posts. There are freepers with the mind of a tyrant among us. They want to strip the rights away from employers to hire who they wish.
Agree. The world was actually a better place because people went more on trust and related in a healthier way.
Because Gov't wasn't so large employers had to find competency in themselves. They were better judges of character and didn't have to resort to background checks.
It’s up to the employer to decide on what qualifications they set for any position in their business, right?
If they decide in their experience that a credit check makes it less likely they’ll get a thief as a new employee, then they should be allowed to ask for permission to run a credit check on an application. Of course you can refuse and go look for work some where else.
I still don’t logically, conservatively, go from
“here’s a situation where this association may not apply”
to
“the government should, with the threat of deadly force, prohibit businesses from doing it”
Because they probably are irresponsible people who ran up big debt with material things, without saving shit, and now have bad credit and empathize with others who have bad credit.
Yep! If you read the article, you’ll see that it “exempts jobs that require a national security clearance”, and if it goes forward, it would certainly exempt people with fiduciary duties, audit functions, or other direct financial roles.
If you read the draft bill, you’ll see that’s already in there. It needs to be worded more broadly, but, well, that’s why we have a deliberative process.
(3) Exceptions
Notwithstanding the prohibitions set forth in this subsection, and consistent with the other sections of this Act, an employer may use a consumer report with respect to a consumer in the following situations:
(A) When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, employment that requires national security or FDIC clearance.
(B) When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, employment with a State or local government agency which otherwise requires use of a consumer report.
(C) When the consumer applies for, or currently holds, a supervisory, managerial, professional, or executive position at a financial institution.
(D) When otherwise required by law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.