Elizabeth Warren: Stop Employers From Conducting Credit Checks

[nixium]

Of course it is. We've already established that loss of employment in the current situation is not merit based. It has simply been imposed on a % of the workforce. It's also important to realize that the current situation is one of reduced churn in employment, as well. People who have jobs tend to keep 'em, and people who don't tend not to get new ones. That's not necessarily merit based, either. This concentrates the burdens of unemployment, particularly over time.

One of the marks left behind on those affected is often damaged credit. Just the way it is. Using credit scores as hiring criteria reinforces the permanent unemployment trend simply because an already employed job seeker is more likely to have good credit. Hire him away from another employer, who'll then do the same in finding a replacement. The employed & the unemployed switch places less frequently, with the unemployed taking a increasingly severe beatdown based on events beyond their control in the first place.

We have a system and headsets that make certain assumptions about unemployment, about who is affected & for how long. The system is built around rapid recovery in the labor market, around temporary assistance for the unlucky. It's not intended to create jobs- that's left to the private sector. The system was designed to deal with 2001, not 2008-

You can expound all your facts and figures but it's no use. These people basically lack empathy - 1 in 100 are sociopaths and I'm willing to bet many are tea partiers/conservatives. He'll only realize when he's in that position, but I have to wonder if his clinging to ideology would make him rationalize it away even as he suffers from it.

 

[brycejones]

Most employers wouldn't do that.

So we're down to "most" wouldn't ask to search your house. BTW Henry Ford actually did this to his employees in the early days of Ford. It wasn't a pre-condition to employment but one that kicked in after they were hired.

So far though you've failed to answer a basic question. Would you support a perspective employers ability to search the house of a job candidate as part of the pre-employment process? Its a simple yes or no question.

 

[TerryMathews]

Of course it is. We've already established that loss of employment in the current situation is not merit based.

Only in your head, and in union workplaces.

 

[TerryMathews]

You can expound all your facts and figures but it's no use. These people basically lack empathy - 1 in 100 are sociopaths and I'm willing to bet many are tea partiers/conservatives. He'll only realize when he's in that position, but I have to wonder if his clinging to ideology would make him rationalize it away even as he suffers from it.

How convenient, disregard people with opposing views as sociopaths. You must be related to Moonie

 

[nixium]

Only in your head, and in union workplaces.

So i suppose all those people without jobs when Lehmann brothers went under deserved it.

 

[senseamp]

You're just being idiotic. Most employers wouldn't do that.

Also a leech like you wouldn't be an employer.

You are dodging the question. You can personally attack me all day long, only confirms your intellectual weakness, not that the rest of the stuff you post hides it much.

 

[nixium]

How convenient, disregard people with opposing views as sociopaths. You must be related to Moonie

I'm afraid it's disturbing but true. Take a look at this very thread. Earlier there was a story about how someone's wife got denied a job because of bad credit through medical bills. She was otherwise well qualified and he was in dire need of assistance. Clearly, this was a case where her employment shouldn't have been affected. Someone would empathy would have realized this giant flaw in the system - even the employers who vehemently opposed this law mentioned it was wrong.

However, by opposing this law, you let things like that go unchallenged. Anyone with empathy would realize that the status quo is *not* adequate. It is not OK to have a vague set of suppositions and faceless HR departments determine the fate of people in dire need.

The argument in this thread is not whether the proposed law is flawed. It is whether there needs to be a law in the first place. So a certain set of people in this thread are perfectly OK with a set of the populace being "kicked when down". Ideology? Or something else?

BTW, this is the same reason I support the death penalty (in the rarest of rare cases.) Because I feel empathy for the family of the victim.

 

[lotus503]

How convenient, disregard people with opposing views as sociopaths. You must be related to Moonie

Its not the opposing views that demonstrate this, lack of empathy is a trait of sociopaths, telling poor people , people who have lost their jobs essentially to fuck off, is demonstrated lack of empathy, which is a trait of sociopaths.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm afraid it's disturbing but true. Take a look at this very thread. Earlier there was a story about how someone's wife got denied a job because of bad credit through medical bills. She was otherwise well qualified and he was in dire need of assistance. Clearly, this was a case where her employment shouldn't have been affected. Someone would empathy would have realized this giant flaw in the system - even the employers who vehemently opposed this law mentioned it was wrong.

However, by opposing this law, you let things like that go unchallenged. Anyone with empathy would realize that the status quo is *not* adequate. It is not OK to have a vague set of suppositions and faceless HR departments determine the fate of people in dire need.

The argument in this thread is not whether the proposed law is flawed. It is whether there needs to be a law in the first place. So a certain set of people in this thread are perfectly OK with a set of the populace being "kicked when down". Ideology? Or something else?

BTW, this is the same reason I support the death penalty (in the rarest of rare cases.) Because I feel empathy for the family of the victim.

Its not the opposing views that demonstrate this, lack of empathy is a trait of sociopaths, telling poor people , people who have lost their jobs essentially to fuck off, is demonstrated lack of empathy, which is a trait of sociopaths.

Again, to both of you: poor credit does not trend with income level AT ALL.

Credit, when you get down to it, is your repayment history. It is not, and does not contain, your ability to repay.

You guys can sit and try to spin this six ways to Sunday but it will not change the fact that your argument is flawed: pre-employment credit checks cannot by definition be discriminatory against the economically disadvantaged.

 

[TerryMathews]

So i suppose all those people without jobs when Lehmann brothers went under deserved it.

Yes. If they had sufficient skills, another firm would have rehired them. If the field was overserviced (which I believe is what truly happened), no one was done any favors by discouraging them from finding new employment in a different field.

The economy changed, the number of employees needed in a given field varies with the demand for what that field provides. Was it discrimination when all the buggy whip makers were without a job?

 

[lotus503]

Again, to both of you: poor credit does not trend with income level AT ALL.

Credit, when you get down to it, is your repayment history. It is not, and does not contain, your ability to repay.

You guys can sit and try to spin this six ways to Sunday but it will not change the fact that your argument is flawed: pre-employment credit checks cannot by definition be discriminatory against the economically disadvantaged.

I didn't say it was, I was commenting on lack of empathy and sociopathic traits.

Ones ability to repay a loan has no bearing on one ability to perform a job. unless the job is repaying a loan. There are Jobs that require licensing and licensing requirements that require at least OK credit. But thats not to get a job its to get a license.

 

[Jhhnn]

Only in your head, and in union workplaces.

When unemployment soars as it did in 2008, then stays unacceptably high, it's not the fault of those left unemployed. It seems obvious that the vast majority were showing up & doing a good job when they were laid off. It's not like the process weeds out slackers when the factory closes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes. If they had sufficient skills, another firm would have rehired them. If the field was overserviced (which I believe is what truly happened), no one was done any favors by discouraging them from finding new employment in a different field.

The economy changed, the number of employees needed in a given field varies with the demand for what that field provides. Was it discrimination when all the buggy whip makers were without a job?

You fail to address the larger issues. You act as if mass employment opportunity were available in different fields. It wasn't, still isn't.

It's a faulty premise upon which no argument can be built.

 

[Incorruptible]

You are dodging the question. You can personally attack me all day long, only confirms your intellectual weakness, not that the rest of the stuff you post hides it much.

I answered the question and you prefer to fear monger. I insult you because you don't believe in freedom.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You didn't answer the question Incorruptible, do you support employers searching employee homes as a work requirement?

 

[umbrella39]

Oh the IncorruptibALT is at it again... why feed this parody troll any more food. Let it starve, die, and create a new account... This one is spent.

 

[werepossum]

You can expound all your facts and figures but it's no use. These people basically lack empathy - 1 in 100 are sociopaths and I'm willing to bet many are tea partiers/conservatives. He'll only realize when he's in that position, but I have to wonder if his clinging to ideology would make him rationalize it away even as he suffers from it.

Typical proggie empathy, demonstrated by damaging someone else at no cost to you.

Again, to both of you: poor credit does not trend with income level AT ALL.

Credit, when you get down to it, is your repayment history. It is not, and does not contain, your ability to repay.

You guys can sit and try to spin this six ways to Sunday but it will not change the fact that your argument is flawed: pre-employment credit checks cannot by definition be discriminatory against the economically disadvantaged.

This is true. One's credit history while employed and healthy is a lot more indicative of a person's character than one's credit history while unemployed and unable to work, for whatever reason. Like any tool, credit history needs some discretion in interpretation. Employers unable or unwilling to use that discretion probably aren't going to be employers for long.

When unemployment soars as it did in 2008, then stays unacceptably high, it's not the fault of those left unemployed. It seems obvious that the vast majority were showing up & doing a good job when they were laid off. It's not like the process weeds out slackers when the factory closes.

This is a good point. It's true to an extent all the time, but generally the smarter and more prudent people have better prepared and do a better job in finding a new employer. A singularity like 2008 may mean that almost no employers are hiring and that the recovery, being slower and weaker than ever before, took far greater reserves than anyone expected. A wise employer knows this, of course.

 

[glenn1]

You are dodging the question. You can personally attack me all day long, only confirms your intellectual weakness, not that the rest of the stuff you post hides it much.

Potential employers should be allowed to ask whatever questions they like so long as they're not illegal. Potential employees should be allowed to tell potential employers to fuck off, it's none of your business.

As far as the credit check question, I don't support the Warren bill. If you fuck creditors over with the money they loaned you, then employers should have the right to know and not hire you. Likewise, if you attempted to do the right thing (like continued to make payments in lieu of default), or were hit with a unrecoverable castastrophe that forced a bankruptcy, you should be able to make that case to a potential employer as well.

 

[senseamp]

Potential employers should be allowed to ask whatever questions they like so long as they're not illegal. Potential employees should be allowed to tell potential employers to fuck off, it's none of your business.

So if Warren's bill makes it illegal to ask employees for credit report, you will agree that employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for it?

As far as the credit check question, I don't support the Warren bill. If you fuck creditors over with the money they loaned you, then employers should have the right to know and not hire you. Likewise, if you attempted to do the right thing (like continued to make payments in lieu of default), or were hit with a unrecoverable castastrophe that forced a bankruptcy, you should be able to make that case to a potential employer as well.

Credit reports are not public records, they are private financial information. Why should my employer have the right to know who I have private financial dealings with? I am not asking for a credit, in fact, the only party whose creditworthiness matters in employment is the employer, because he has to meet payroll.
If the employer wants to search PUBLIC court records for bankruptcy cases, they should be able to do that. But to snoop around in employees PRIVATE financial information should be illegal.

 

[glenn1]

So if Warren's bill makes it illegal to ask employees for credit report, you will agree that employers shouldn't be allowed to ask for it?

Of course, that's implied in what I wrote. That still doesn't mean I think it's a good idea or will support the bill being passed into law.

Credit reports are not public records, they are private financial information. Why should my employer have the right to know who I have private financial dealings with? I am not asking for a credit, in fact, the only party whose creditworthiness matters in employment is the employer, because he has to meet payroll.
If the employer wants to search PUBLIC court records for bankruptcy cases, they should be able to do that. But to snoop around in employees PRIVATE financial information should be illegal.

You can redact the names of the creditors for all I care; the important part IMHO is whether someone unlawfully failed to pay their contracturally owed debts. That is theft, no different than embezzelment or robbing a bank. Just because credit non-repayment theft doesn't typically get referred for criminal prosecution and thus become public record doesn't mean employees should be able to effectively shield this information from potential employers.

 

[senseamp]

Of course, that's implied in what I wrote. That still doesn't mean I think it's a good idea or will support the bill being passed into law.



You can redact the names of the creditors for all I care; the important part IMHO is whether someone unlawfully failed to pay their contracturally owed debts. That is theft, no different than embezzelment or robbing a bank. Just because credit non-repayment theft doesn't typically get referred for criminal prosecution and thus become public record doesn't mean employees should be able to effectively shield this information from potential employers.

Bankruptcy is a perfectly lawful way to discharge debts. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Comparing it to a bank robbery is full retard. Bank goes into a loan contract knowing that there is a chance the debtor will be unable to pay. Bank willingly accepts that risk in exchange for interest rate in excess of treasuries, knowing full well that the borrower has the option of bankruptcy.
Employer has no business having access to this information, outside of public records. If you want to search public court records for bankruptcy for prospective employee, knock yourself out.

 

[TerryMathews]

Bankruptcy is a perfectly lawful way to discharge debts. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Comparing it to a bank robbery is full retard. Bank goes into a loan contract knowing that there is a chance the debtor will be unable to pay. Bank willingly accepts that risk in exchange for interest rate in excess of treasuries, knowing full well that the borrower has the option of bankruptcy.
Employer has no business having access to this information, outside of public records. If you want to search public court records for bankruptcy for prospective employee, knock yourself out.

You misunderstood his point. Failing to repay and not filing bankruptcy is the situation he was describing.

 

[glenn1]

Bankruptcy is a perfectly lawful way to discharge debts. It's silly to suggest otherwise. Comparing it to a bank robbery is full retard. Bank goes into a loan contract knowing that there is a chance the debtor will be unable to pay. Bank willingly accepts that risk in exchange for interest rate in excess of treasuries, knowing full well that the borrower has the option of bankruptcy.
Employer has no business having access to this information, outside of public records. If you want to search public court records for bankruptcy for prospective employee, knock yourself out.

You're missing my point entirely. Bankruptcy is a proceding where the debtor explicitly assumes legal responsibility for the debts and it becomes public record, even if the debts are subsequently discharged or reduced. If the Warren bill made it illegal to discriminate against those with bankruptcies in their history, I'd be fine.

You on the other hand want to limit credit checks which could allow employers to find out about potential employees who have run up debts and refused to pay them and/or are in collections. That's the exact opposite of a bankruptcy, both in the moral and practical sense. Of course, if you want to encourage people to refuse to take reponsibility for their debts and enter delinquency rather than a structured repayment settlement or bankruptcy, by all means pass the Warren bill.

 

[senseamp]

You're missing my point entirely. Bankruptcy is a proceding where the debtor explicitly assumes legal responsibility for the debts and it becomes public record, even if the debts are subsequently discharged or reduced. If the Warren bill made it illegal to discriminate against those with bankruptcies in their history, I'd be fine.

You on the other hand want to limit credit checks which could allow employers to find out about potential employees who have run up debts and refused to pay them and/or are in collections. That's the exact opposite of a bankruptcy, both in the moral and practical sense. Of course, if you want to encourage people to refuse to take reponsibility for their debts and enter delinquency rather than a structured repayment settlement or bankruptcy, by all means pass the Warren bill.

Not sure why you claim it's exact opposite of bankruptcy when there are bankruptcies over unpaid bills too. It's not different at all.
When you take non-cash payment from someone, you extend credit to them and assume the risk of counterparty default.
Do you want to surrender consumer's private credit report data to make employers the enforcers of some "moral" code you think exists in finance?

 

[glenn1]

Not sure why you claim it's exact opposite of bankruptcy when there are bankruptcies over unpaid bills too. It's not different at all.
When you take non-cash payment from someone, you extend credit to them and assume the risk of counterparty default.
Do you want to surrender consumer's private credit report data to make employers the enforcers of some "moral" code you think exists in finance?

I guess there's no real discussion to be had if you don't feel debtors have a "moral" obligation to pay and potential employers should have no right to see who has committed credit fraud. BTW, can I borrow some money from you?