Credit checks by potential employers should be illegal

I've already done this and it didn't get me anywhere. The fact is, most employers don't care about the reason for your financial woes, especially when they can choose someone with a clean credit report. On one hand, I don't blame them. It's easier to pick the candidate who looks good on paper. Doesn't necessarily mean they'll fulfill their duties on the position but they see that as taking less of a chance than with someone like me who's in the process of paying off debts.

Exactly. If an employee has a fraudulent past with a former company, that will show in other areas and not necessarily the credit report.
As I mentioned before, if I were an accountant or worked in finance, I would expect a credit check.
A company can't ask me if my monthly cycle will keep me from performing my duties or when I plan to start a family. The only reason companies do this is because they can. It's not discriminatory in the sense of race, gender, age or anything similar but it is invasive nonetheless.
I've given my consent to a credit check at every interview. Here's my biggest problem: i'd appreciate a call from the employer telling me why I didn't get the job, for my own professional development if nothing else. By law they're required to inform you if they decide not to choose you for the position based on the credit report. I've yet to receive the courtesy of a phone call from anyone. I suppose it's too much hassle and if they can get away with not talking to you at all, they will.

Do you really think they'd give you the real reason why you have not been hired? Probably, as long as there is a justifiable, objective reason. If it is your gender or the size of your nose or probably your credit score, I don't think you'd be told that openly.

REVEREND MERCURIALBLISS's sermon. And she can walk on water.

Credit checks by potential employers should be illegal!!!!!!!!!!

1. It's an invasion of privacy.

Preach, darlin'. Preach!!!

2. The main reason it's done is to determine if you're responsible with money. But, as we all know, people go into debt for many reasons: catastrophic illness that health insurance won't cover, divorce (me), being laid off from work, victim of internet or other fraudulent activity - none of these reasons show on a credit check. All it shows is that you owe someone money. It doesn't show if you've made arrangements to pay or if you're waiting for money from another source in order to pay the debt. All it takes is one run of bad luck.

Like businesses don't have financial troubles. And don't they have bad luck, too? You would think that they would be sympathetic...yet they aren't.

3. If you refuse to consent to a credit check, then you might as well walk out the door because the employer thinks you have something to hide.

I guess that they will lose a good employee or two. Well, I always ask if I can look at their books and credit report. Tit for tat. It is only fair.

4. Employers mistakenly think that a clean credit report ensures against theft or embezzlement. Unless you're an accountant or applying for work in finance, there's no reason to think someone with less spotty credit will show more character, better judgment, or is more trustworthy than someone with a score of 760. I'd wager Arthur Anderson from Enron had an impeccable credit score.

No, you din't go there. Preach, gurlfriend. Preach!!!

5. Employers are required by law (in the US)to inform the applicant if they've decided not to offer them the position based on the credit check. They conveniently skip this part as i'm discovering for myself. The last few companies I've interviewed with asked for credit checks. I said yes each time and even took the time to explain my debt situation to one potential employer. They made it clear they were very interested in me and I've gone back for second interviews. The last second interview I was told they would schedule me to start in two weeks. I've called them twice and they haven't returned my calls. I'm fairly certain it's because they checked my credit and despite my discussion with the general manager about my debt and how I planned to repay it, they decided against hiring me.

Three years ago, I would've had my choice of any of the last few positions I applied for. Now they won't touch me. Even the staffing agency I spoke with today asked me if I could provide proof that my debt was due to divorce. WTF?

THAT is truly invasive. I would consider another staffing agency. What shitty fucks!!!

I don't get it. I'm educated and experienced in my field and it means absolutely nothing now.

Oh, well. Next time the gov't wants something from me, I'll just tell them "I'm sorry, you have a $9 trillion dollar debt therefore I cannot in good conscience recognize your plea".
*Sigh*

Ask those federal and state beyotches if you can check their credit report.
And if their debt is truly because of prolonged war.

Here's a question.

I wonder if Nick Leeson or Jerome Kerviel had credit checks and if they did were they spotless? These would be two glaring examples of a failure of the credit check system, but of course Leeson was UK and Kerviel is France.

Snoozan makes the good point about lower paid retail jobs, but having worked for four major retailers, the number one cause of theft is not shoplifters, it is usually internal theft, whether accidental or intentional. The rationale in some cases is that a cashier that cannot manage their own money our keep account will also cause shrink at the POS (Point Of Sale) by not counting money back and into the till correctly.

I may not like this, but I understand the reasons behind it.

My beef with it is the case of Mercurialbliss. Here is a woman who had her credit trashed by her ex. I dare anyone to tell me they have never heard of an ex that either maxed a card or two to "get back at the other one" at the end of a relationship. Merc is a smart, degreed woman and all because of a fiscally irresponsible spouse, she is paying the price. Employers who use the credit check as tthe "Holy Grail" of job accountability are foolhardy at best.

My ID theft was a "friend" who was so jealous of myself and my roommate having high paying tech jobs that he stole not just our credit card numbers, he stole our social security info and bank account routing numbers. I am lucky that I have held several positions where I had fiscal accountablility and my references outweighed what came back in the credit report. Some employers will take that into account when checking references. Plus it doesn't hurt that I have my credit checks fraud alerted, I have official police reports and court proceedings to back me up and the person who stole from me was apprehended and is currently enjoying a vacation on the penal system.

Merc, if you were here, I could get you hired millions of places with just a phone call. I find that Washington state is a place where people take the persons actions into account rather than a piece of paper from a greedy credit bureau.

I think we may be on the same page here. I agree that it's discriminatory, but companies discriminate in all kinds of ways, other than those that are expressly prohibited (e.g. the menstruation question you hypothesized). People lose jobs because of bad credit checks, but they also lose jobs for typos in their CV's, dressing badly, saying stupid things in interviews, being unattractive, going to the wrong school, or catching the hiring manager on a bad day. None of those things are necessarily less arbitrary than a credit bureau.

The cynic in me wonders if (along with the other valid comments) the reason isn't also an equally cynical rationale that - if you're badly in debt (as in payment arrears etc) you'd perhaps be more likely to seek any opportunity to steal from the company to deal with the debts. I appreciate the some jobs would offer more such opportunities than others, retail being a good example.

I appreciate there are many flaws with that argument, but not every employer thinks through their hiring policies (in this case indebtedness equates susceptibility to fraud) with absolute logic or integrity. After all we'd do a credit or deeper check on a potential tenant.

I agree, but employers can do anything they want. We need a laborer's revolt!

I think it's also used as a deterent to filter out unresponsible people from applying.

I don't think they make decisions about your credit score, rather, assessing if you are trustworthy. Are you going to steal from me, are you living beyond your means...I think they are looking for another way to verify that you are who you say you really are.

Also for government checks, they only get a limited profile of your information - they don't get a FICO score, they just get a copy of what's in your file (the same info you would get if you wrote to the credit reporting agency to challenge something on your report). They will show your accounts and history, just not a calculated score.

I agree that a credit check is an invasion of privacy but I see the importance of the check for potential employers. A bad credit rating should not disqualify you from a job, but it may indicate your unsuitability for a job.

It is fairly obvious that people having jobs related to finance and in financial departments of companies should have their credit checked. The potential for fraud and abuse is there and companies need to protect themselves against it.

I think bad credit may indicate serious concerns about an employee's honesty and loyalty in any given job. What is the gurantee that an employee will not part with sensative internal information to outsiders to help relieve their financial crunch. It can happen regardless of financial circumstances but someone in financial trouble is more likely to engage in such activities.

I totally understand.

My roommate/boyfriend once wrote me a check for rent, and then I wrote the rent check to the landlord. The check bounced, because his check bounced so that was one instance.

Then his checks kept bouncing, and it was either pay the rent or don't pay your credit cards.
So I paid rent, and had credit cards go to collection.

I think we should credit check people who we date.

I have restored my credit back to good standing from where it was in 2002, and I can't wait until 2009 when everything will fall off.

Some of the experiences on this thread beg another question: Should you be allowed to get a credit check on potential spouses and common-law partners?

Why not? My understanding is that the person whose credit is being checked must consent, though (as they must for all credit checks).

The irony in my particular case is that my ex had good credit (as did I) when we met and we continued to build on that. We made an agreement that he would put me through school after he finished his graduate degree. Well, he left when I was 3/4 's of the way through my program. He basically disappeared for a few months and I was saddled with a mortgage and all the other household expenses when I was working only part-time. We got the typical "no fault" divorce where everything was basically split in half but that also meant I was responsible for half the debt that accumulated while we were married (student loans, etc). The courts weren't interested that I was forced to drop out of school, had considerably less earning potential, and no medical insurance. I'm still waiting on my settlement from part of his pension to come through so I can pay for the rest of the aforementioned outstanding debts. The company's HR department is so inept, it's taken me this long to receive it. My point is, whether you're responsible for your debt or not, that doesn't show on the report. Employers will naturally assume what they will when they see it.

I can inform an employer about my problem in detail (and have done so), but they may not be interested and would prefer to move on to the next applicant. hence my predicament.

I am a big bad nasty employer.

We do not do credit checks on staff in the UK, but I can tell you some of the problems that I have faced with staff who have been in debt.

a/ Theft - yes it happens, one case cost me $80,000 and then about $10,000 in management time etc.

b/ Data theft - if your company has any brains, this is about the scariest thing that can happen and one of the easiest.

c/ Moonlighting on the job - like running an ebay store or other online business from work.

d/ Moonlighting out of hours. Whilst perfectly legal, it doesn't help a team if a member is half asleep during the day.

e/ Constantly asking for subs on wages - the company is your employer, not your bank.

f/ Being harassed at work by debt collectors.

g/ with the above really, but the general stress that debt causes people, thereby affecting their ability to do the job.

Having said all that, I would not have a credit check policy. Ability to do the job would always come first. If debt became a problem, I would then get rid of the person.

Don't we expect people to be in debt? And these companies are largely responsible for not stopping the sub prime disaster. So great, they fucked a lot of people's mortgages, now they're fucking their employment.

Fact-check!

Don't believe everything you get e-mailed (and don't pass it on without checking!)

This has been floating around the internet since at least 1999, and has "morphed" a few times since then. You can find an earlier version of the same report at:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

(...and the 10000+ Google hits suggest how widely and indiscriminately the report has been circulated.)

Note how vague the language is: 36 have been "accused" of spousal abuse, 19 have been "accused" of writing bad checks. How many of these accusations were supported by evidence? How many were convicted?

And which ones? By not mentioning names or specific details, this misinformation is vague enough that people like Osiris mistake it for current nine years after the original was written.