Employer denying jobs based on your credit score

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Vic, I still think you're wrong on this one:

http://www.cardweb.com/cardlearn/faqs/2002/jun/26.amp

My credit reports are at home, but I recall <30 days is the way it's printed.

Sigh...

Copied straight from Yahoo's Credit Manager:

Delinquencies in Past 7 Years You U.S. Avg
Accounts at least 30+ Days Delinquent 0 2.3
Accounts at least 60+ Days Delinquent 0 1.9
Accounts at least 90+ Days Delinquent 0 1.7

Viper GTS

 

[Tom]

Vic said-

"Why? When obtaining insurance, most people get a 6 or 12 month policy and then make monthly payments. Is that not credit? "


Yes it is, and so if people opt to pay their insurance in installments then my position would allow insurance companies to do a credit check.


Vic also said-

"As for employers, what if you are hiring someone to handle the company's money, trade secrets, or security? Employers shouldn't be allowed to check credit (or even do a criminal background check) in those cases?"


I don't have a problem with criminal background checks if done legally. The issue of credit checks is different. A credit report is designed for a particular purpose, and there are laws to regulate it's use in the case of applying for credit, because it is a compromise of a person's privacy.

Using the credit report for other purposes is a misuse both because it violates the principal under which credit reporting companies were allowed to gather the information in the first place; and because the information is not designed to evaluate a persons' fitness for employment.

For instance there are many inferences being drawn in this thread, including yours in my quote, that there is a correlation between a credit score and honesty, which to me is very far fetched at best, and at worst is ludicrous.

 

[Mill]

I'm almost positive they won't report a day or a week late as 30 days. My pay by phone was rejected by Audi Financial Services because I added an extra zero in my routing number. For some odd reason it still said confirmed, and the payment never went through. I noticed the next week it hadn't been deducted and repaid it. No late. I've had a time or two when I did an online payment, and it went through the day after the due date. No late on any of my reports either. Now I have automatic deduction setup either 5 or 10 days before the due date, so I don't have a single problem.

My issue is when there is invalid/inaccurate information, and the Credit Bureaus refuse to remove it. I even had my bank call, and they refused to remove it because the Collection Agency handling the charge off went out of business. Equifax and Experian removed it, but freaking Transunion refuses to remove it. You know what that means? I applied for an Amex card(I have no derogs other than that and high credit lines and a solid 4 year history) and was denied due to a charge off. I had to fax them a letter from my bank, and then they approved me, but wouldn't give me a credit line very high until it was taken off the report. I'm still fighting Transunion right NOW.

 

[DT4K]

For those of you who think this is perfectly fine, I'm still waiting for an answer to this question:

We have a friend who recently filed bankruptcy for the second time due to extremely high medical bills due to her daughter's chronic health problems. Now her credit score is fvcked.

Could someone please explain to me how the fvck her child's illness indicates she is irresponsible?
Could someone please explain to me why she should be denied a job because of this?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DorkBoy
People with bad credit are simply more likely to be dishonest or steal.

This is basic knowledge.

My employeer does a FBI background check with a credit check. In my job you can't be dishonest so I would agree on not hiring/firing someone.

Thanks

Yeah, and black people are also more likely to be criminals.
Basic statistical truth.

Does that make it ok to refuse to hire black people because they might steal from you?
Simply because there is a statistical correlation does not make it right to use that correlation to discriminate against people.

It is the generalization that is the problem. Maybe looking at a credit report and making decisions based on the circumstances of any negatives would be alright. But that is too much work. So instead, the companies will judge your character simply based on a score given to you by credit reporting agencies.

Yes, I understand that judging based on race is different than judging based on behavior. The point is that looking at a FICO score does NOT always indicate bad behavior even if it does most of the time. Sometimes it indicates events a person had no control over. And in many cases, there is no way to know that simply by looking at a score or even a report.

 

[Tom]

the sad thing is that a lot of employers wouldn't want her because her daughter's health problems might make her miss work or increase health insurance costs.

not that her situation is any of their business, imho.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Tom
the sad thing is that a lot of employers wouldn't want her because her daughter's health problems might make her miss work or increase health insurance costs.

not that her situation is any of their business, imho.

Luckily, she has a good job and wasn't denied employment based on her previous credit problems.
But the fact that she might be in the future is disturbing to me. For the record, she had health insurance, but her daughter's medical problems have been ongoing for at least 10 years and insurance will only cover a certain portion. Even with a good job and health insurance, there is only so much you can do when medical bills become astronomical.

On the one hand, we want people to work and support themselves so they don't have to turn to welfare and state provided health insurance that we all pay for with our tax money. But on the other hand, we are saying that it is ok for companies to make it harder for people to get jobs because of past medical or financial troubles.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Mill
I'm almost positive they won't report a day or a week late as 30 days. My pay by phone was rejected by Audi Financial Services because I added an extra zero in my routing number. For some odd reason it still said confirmed, and the payment never went through. I noticed the next week it hadn't been deducted and repaid it. No late. I've had a time or two when I did an online payment, and it went through the day after the due date. No late on any of my reports either. Now I have automatic deduction setup either 5 or 10 days before the due date, so I don't have a single problem.

My issue is when there is invalid/inaccurate information, and the Credit Bureaus refuse to remove it. I even had my bank call, and they refused to remove it because the Collection Agency handling the charge off went out of business. Equifax and Experian removed it, but freaking Transunion refuses to remove it. You know what that means? I applied for an Amex card(I have no derogs other than that and high credit lines and a solid 4 year history) and was denied due to a charge off. I had to fax them a letter from my bank, and then they approved me, but wouldn't give me a credit line very high until it was taken off the report. I'm still fighting Transunion right NOW.

When you dispute this, you should state clearly that the other credit agencies have removed it, and send them a copy of your winning dispute letter. This should do the trick.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red
Yes, because a credit score has nothing to do with honest people being put in situations beyond their control. A persons FICO is a great determiner of their responsibility. LOL

Yes, it is. For most people with bad credit, it is a case of irresponsibility. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than nothing. Especially when sniveling idiots have forced prior employers to stop giving honest references.

What about those people who had their "identity" stolen? I guess they're screwed.

Yes, they are. And that's why identity theft is so bad. So the focus needs to be on credit bureaus to make it easier to fix the damages caused by identity theft. And the crime needs stiffer penalties.

or maybe employers could just stop using a completely unrelated statistic as an indication of employee qualification.

edit: my score was in the 740-range a year ago and is probably higher now, but i still think it's bull to ask for this. how are you supposed to get a job to build credit if you are denied one for having made mistakes in the past? it's not like you're a fvcking felon because you spent too much money once.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red
Yes, because a credit score has nothing to do with honest people being put in situations beyond their control. A persons FICO is a great determiner of their responsibility. LOL

Yes, it is. For most people with bad credit, it is a case of irresponsibility. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than nothing. Especially when sniveling idiots have forced prior employers to stop giving honest references.

What about those people who had their "identity" stolen? I guess they're screwed.

Yes, they are. And that's why identity theft is so bad. So the focus needs to be on credit bureaus to make it easier to fix the damages caused by identity theft. And the crime needs stiffer penalties.

or maybe employers could just stop using a completely unrelated statistic as an indication of employee qualification.

edit: my score was in the 740-range a year ago and is probably higher now, but i still think it's bull to ask for this. how are you supposed to get a job to build credit if you are denied one for having made mistakes in the past? it's not like you're a fvcking felon because you spent too much money once.

Look, using a credit score is not perfect. It should be used in conjunction with many different indicators. However, it is a good tool in light of the fact that lawsuits have tied the hands of past employers and their ability to give honest references.

And until they can get honest references, employers will continue to look at everything they can for a clue about a person's ability to do the job they require.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red
Yes, because a credit score has nothing to do with honest people being put in situations beyond their control. A persons FICO is a great determiner of their responsibility. LOL

Yes, it is. For most people with bad credit, it is a case of irresponsibility. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than nothing. Especially when sniveling idiots have forced prior employers to stop giving honest references.

What about those people who had their "identity" stolen? I guess they're screwed.

Yes, they are. And that's why identity theft is so bad. So the focus needs to be on credit bureaus to make it easier to fix the damages caused by identity theft. And the crime needs stiffer penalties.

or maybe employers could just stop using a completely unrelated statistic as an indication of employee qualification.

edit: my score was in the 740-range a year ago and is probably higher now, but i still think it's bull to ask for this. how are you supposed to get a job to build credit if you are denied one for having made mistakes in the past? it's not like you're a fvcking felon because you spent too much money once.

Look, using a credit score is not perfect. It should be used in conjunction with many different indicators. However, it is a good tool in light of the fact that lawsuits have tied the hands of past employers and their ability to give honest references.

And until they can get honest references, employers will continue to look at everything they can for a clue about a person's ability to do the job they require.

Yup, most companies should use it as a pass/fail and that's it. I think there's a certain negative threshold that is reached where the majority of those people can be lumped into the "irresponsible" group. But I'm sure that number (FICO) is subjective and will depend on the job required by x company.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SoylentGreen

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
You have bad credit because you lost your job. You need to get a job to take care of your outstanding debts and rebuild your dredit. You can't get a job (a decent job) to rebuild your credit and pay off your outstanding debts because of them.😕

Living paycheck to paycheck and carrying too high of a debt load is a sign of irresponsibility.

So is living beyond one's means.

LOL, How is the rarified air up there where you sit on your pedestal passing out judgement? Do you choose your friends based on their credit history too?

That guy really has a better than you attitude on almost every post he makes. If you need to do that on an internet message board we all know why.

Excuse me, but how is common sense a "better than you" attutude? anyways that is what is driving our economy and keeping these 22 y/o's in new SUVs and rice burners. That is what is splashed accross every sort of media as well. It is acceptable yet not wise all in one.

A failure to plan is irresponsible. If someone does such things in their private lives, what would stop them from doing the same thing in their professional life?

Well I was thinking you sounded a tad snobbish saying that myself... 🙁

 

[k1pp3r]

I think in specific jobs, such as banking or any financial application credit checks can be used in conjunction with other methods to determin that you are fit for employement. Howeve there are certian jobs which credit checks shouldn not be used, My dad is one of the top 3 HVAC salesmen in his company and can function extreamly well in the business realm, however he struggles in the personal realm because he has a business mind. Should he be punished for this? If he was a broker i could see using credit checks. I just don't think that is a reliable method to judge a persons fitfullness in all job titles