Will my potential employer check me out?

January 10, 2005 7:05 PM

Background checks: I have a job interview coming up, and wonder if they'll do a credit check. If they do, I'm in trouble. I need this job very badly...thus the bad credit. Besides credit, employers may check education and criminal backgrounds (mine are clean), but do they have to let you know? How do you ask a potential employer about this without raising flags? While we're on it, is there a secret shit-list out there that employers may go to to see if you're a loser? Especially in software/web development in the northwest...
posted by anonymous to work & money (42 answers total)

You'll want to look into the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It's enforced by the Federal Trade Commission. You might check out this page, which is designed for employers, but indicates what is and is not required for employers who seek to use credit check information for employment purposes.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:47 PM on January 10, 2005

I don't think they can do a very good credit check without your SSN, and I wouldn't suggest giving it to them. Never ever ever ever ever would I ever ever ever give a possible employer prior to getting an offer in writing.
posted by pwb503 at 7:52 PM on January 10, 2005

PWB, you've basically opted yourself out of any job with a financial institution. In fact, I can't recall any previous employer who didn't require SSN as part of the job application. As a hiring manager, I wouldn't give a second glance to someone who didn't completely fill out the job application -- there are too many candidates and not enough time to worry about folks who may have something to hide.

Sound harsh? It probably is, but it's reality. If you're making an issue over something like this PRE-INTERVIEW, what sort of employee will you be?
posted by aberrant at 8:34 PM on January 10, 2005

Sound harsh? It probably is, but it's reality. If you're making an issue over something like this PRE-INTERVIEW, what sort of employee will you be?
posted by aberrant at 8:34 PM PST on January 10

You are the slimy corporate tentacle I wish to avoid, aberrant, at all cost.
posted by orange clock at 8:52 PM on January 10, 2005

Orange Clock, I'd say that you'll probably get your wish.
posted by aberrant at 9:08 PM on January 10, 2005

If you're making an issue over something like this PRE-INTERVIEW, what sort of employee will you be?

A smart employee, that's what.

Giving anyone your social security number for any reason other than tax reporting purposes is insane.

To anonymous: I've applied to quite a number of software jobs in the Pacific Northwest, and none of them have wanted to do a credit check, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
posted by cmonkey at 9:25 PM on January 10, 2005

Whenever I've had employers do credit checks, I had to fill out a form granting them permission to do it.

Also, I think they only do credit checks if you are going to have access to money or assets.
posted by kamikazegopher at 9:34 PM on January 10, 2005

anonymous: Relax. Background checks have become standard at many places now but you should have nothing to worry about unless you've been in prison or something. From my experience they are looking for something egregious not just someone with less than perfect credit.

Standard are:
1) Employment checks. Did you work where you said you worked? Usually they'll ask for a pay stub or taxes if they cant verify that you worked there. Again, all they're looking for is: Did X work there from 19xx to 19xx? Answer: Yes/No. Thats it.

2) Criminal background checks: They will get a history of all the jurisdictions you have lived in in the past (creepy, I know) and simply get the local court records to make sure you are not a wanted criminal.

This is the standard "background check" as it is practiced in much of corporate america these days and offered as a service by many companies. Credit checks could be part of this too but that is non-standard and unless they have told you they are doing one, it is doubtful they will.
posted by vacapinta at 9:36 PM on January 10, 2005

Also, should have added Education check: did you get a degree from where you said you did? That is, if you said you went to Harvard, you better really have gone there.

Again, to reiterate, this is to catch outright fraud. They are basic sanity checks. Its your resume, your interview your experience that should get you the job.
posted by vacapinta at 9:43 PM on January 10, 2005

Cmonkey: good luck with that. While most non-financial companies probably don't need to do pre-employment credit (or criminal) checks, they're mandatory for certain other industries.

From privacyrights.org:


For certain jobs, specific laws make a background check mandatory rather than discretionary. Often the laws that require a background check are limited to a check of criminal records. Examples of jobs that require a criminal background check are those in the trucking industry and many jobs that involve contact with children, the elderly, and disabled persons.


Back on topic, note that software development isn't specifically listed -- but if you want to work for any company whose primary business is one of the above, you'll find you'll need to provide SSN for the criminal check. More importantly, note also that credit checks are not specifically required for the non-financial jobs listed above. Since you specifically say that criminal history isn't a problem, then you should be good to go.

(Just as an FYI - my organization's NY office requires employees to take two consecutive weeks of vacation, during which time it is assumed that any proceses supporting collusion or fraud would be discovered or break down. I believe this is actually required by NY state banking law, but I could be mistaken.)
posted by aberrant at 9:44 PM on January 10, 2005

First, the good news: If you've been denied credit, insurance, or employment because of information supplied by a CRA [credit reporting agency], the FCRA [Fair Credit Reporting Act] says the company you applied to must give you the CRA's name, address, and telephone number.

Second: most employers probably don't check credit reports. As noted above, financial institutions probably will.

Third: legally, you should know if this is happening, because before an employer can get a consumer report for employment purposes, the employer must notify the individual in writing — in a document consisting solely of this notice — that a report may be used. The employer must also must get the person's written authorization before getting a credit report.

Fourth: the smaller the organization, the less likely they are to run a credit check, because of the paperwork (see above), legal issues, and (in general) because small firms tend to be less formal (bureaucratic).

Bottom line: don't under any circumstances ask a prospective employer if they plan to run a credit check on you. That is (from the employer's viewpoint) just waving a huge red flag in front of them. [And, no, there isn't any secret list. A credit check costs on the order of $5 to $20, depending on volume - there is absolutely no reason why any organization would create a list that would be (a) incomplete; (b) out of date; and (c) exposure them to a huge liability for errors - and possibly for just keeping the list, while (d) not saving employers all that much money anyway.]
posted by WestCoaster at 9:45 PM on January 10, 2005

More information re: pre-employment credit checks, this time from findlaw.

(using google cache because the real link requires you to select a state and county before proceeding, and I couldn't find a way to just go through.)

posted by aberrant at 9:55 PM on January 10, 2005

I run a software company, and I don't do credit or criminal background checks pre-offer unless I'm suspicious. I do check charachter references and employment references and run a quick googling on all known aliases and email addresses, though.

(Just as an FYI - my organization's NY office requires employees to take two consecutive weeks of vacation, during which time it is assumed that any proceses supporting collusion or fraud would be discovered or break down. I believe this is actually required by NY state banking law, but I could be mistaken.)

Actually, when I was taking audit and consulting analysis classes, this was one of the pieces of advice we were given: Look for someone who hasn't taken any vacation in several years, and investigate their work closely for evidence of fraud.
posted by SpecialK at 10:11 PM on January 10, 2005

If they tell you they're going to run a credit check (and we do by the way), take that opportunity to explain to the potential employer what they're going to find, and put the best spin possible on it. If I know in advance, and I like you enough, then I could decide to hire you anyway against my HR department's better judgment (I could not too and generally wouldn't, but you never know). Not all hiring managers will have that level of flexibility, but some will. If they don't tell you that they're going to run credit then as others have stated, don't bring it up or ask about it.
posted by willnot at 10:21 PM on January 10, 2005

What possible good would a credit check do for an employer? "Oh, looks like he's missed a lot of bill payments because of unemployment. Let's not hire him." Just another way to discriminate against the poor. I suppose your record for parking tickets should be factored in as well... I mean, you know the kinds of people that get parking tickets.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:26 PM on January 10, 2005

Civil_Disobedient, here's an admittedly-extreme case: imagine you're hiring for a cash-handler position (in a casino, say). You have a candidate who happens to have liens and judgements of many times his previous annual salary against him, and he's also got massive credit card debt. In addition, you notice (from the pre-employment credit check you performed) he's previously declared bankruptcy. He seems like a nice enough person.

As the manager in charge of making sure that the casino's daily tally is correct, would you hire this person over someone else who doesn't have evident financial stresses?

The answer is not necessarily "no", but wouldn't you want to know whether a prospective employee has financial pressures that might take precedence over your company's bottom line? A credit check is merely due diligence.

In addition, you might even have corporate (if your company is publicly-traded) or legal (due to gov't or industry regulations) obligations to screen potential employees for evidence of financial distress that might be indicative of a propensity to cheat the company.
posted by aberrant at 11:39 PM on January 10, 2005

A criminal judgment of a similar crime may be indicative of a propensity to cheat a company.

Say my mortgage company made a stupid billing error, and until I can prove it (because I don't have a presumption of innocence in civil matters), which may take weeks or months or court time, you won't hire me? Say my credit card issuer, which has more power than I, is disputing the several charges racked up on my credit card after it was stolen. Or my entire identity has been stolen, and I'm fighting to get my good credit rating back. You won't hire me?
posted by goofyfoot at 11:54 PM on January 10, 2005

Goofyfoot: that's why criminal background checks are performed as well. In fact, if you've ever been convicted of a financial crime, you're severely limited in the types of jobs you can get at a bank (or other financial institution). Martha Stewart will not be able to hold a Director position once she's released.

Would I hire you in those situations you described? It all comes down to trustworthiness -- remember, there's some amount of discretion involved. Do you have documentation showing that you have an issue beyond your control (e.g., identity theft)? Also recall that an employer is required to file an adverse notification if the information in the credit check contributes to a decision not to hire you, and there's an appeals process.
posted by aberrant at 12:02 AM on January 11, 2005

imagine you're hiring for a cash-handler position (in a casino, say)

I can understand this part of it (even if I don't agree with it). But a software programmer? What's a credit check going to reveal about the person's propensity for anything besides being poor?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:17 AM on January 11, 2005

My sister's husband got screwed by the credit check once, applying for a job as a network admin at a big company owned by Ross Perot. He was currently employed when they offered him the job, so he gave his two weeks at that company and gave his new employers his SSN. A few days later they called him back and told him that they wouldn't hire him because he had declared bankruptcy a year ago over an uninsurable family house ("too close to the railroad tracks"). His old company wouldn't give him his job back. Sorry! Guess you shouldn't have inherited that house!

Also: is it standard for employers to google for prospective employees? I find that pretty abhorrent for a big company, but if it's a really small company where you (as the owner?) have to work very closely with whoever you hire, I could maybe see it.

And here's another vote for "you are the slimy corporate tentacle I wish to avoid, aberrant, at all cost." An "admittedly extreme" example doesn't prove the moral certitude of your case one bit. That said, I give employers my SSN and understand that That's Just The Way It Works In This Fucked-Up Country.
posted by pikachulolita at 2:08 AM on January 11, 2005

May not apply, but if the position is one that requires a security clearance, the issue of credit status is germane.
posted by Pressed Rat at 6:30 AM on January 11, 2005

To add unrelated information, I work for a security company, and I had to take a polygraph test. In Illinois (probably most states) it is a felony to work in certain professions without having a poly. You think a credit check is bad, try sweating through one of those bad boys. Yes, no, yes, I mean yes, no, no... damn. I had to take it twice!
posted by AllesKlar at 7:29 AM on January 11, 2005

As an employer, I don't care if somebody's poor. I only care about how responsible they have been. If somebody has defaulted on their obligations, or if they have a history of late payments, I'm sorry, but that is an indication of how responsible they are. There may well be an explanation in which case, they're free to fill in the blanks that I won't see on a credit report. But generally, I assume that their professional life is going to at least partially parallel their financial life.

It's very risky to hire somebody. It costs a lot, and it costs even more if the person ends up being a bad hire. You never really know how somebody is going to perform. Their resume, their references, their experience, samples of work product, their criminal background or financial background -- they all provide an indication of what you might expect, but none of them paint a complete picture. You try to get as much information as you can, and to make the best choice for the company that you can.
posted by willnot at 7:53 AM on January 11, 2005

Picachulolita:

And here's another vote for "you are the slimy corporate tentacle I wish to avoid, aberrant, at all cost." An "admittedly extreme" example doesn't prove the moral certitude of your case one bit. That said, I give employers my SSN and understand that That's Just The Way It Works In This Fucked-Up Country.

OK, so let me get this straight. You're morally outraged at my stance that "failure to follow directions in a job application is a good indication that the person won't be able to do so once they're hired", yet you provide your SSN anyway?

Nice. I certainly hope our paths DON'T cross -- seems to me that if you're morally outraged enough to insult me over a stance I made publicly, you should be strong enough in your convictions to do what Orange Clock presumably does, and AVOID APPLYING TO THOSE POSITIONS THAT REQUIRE YOUR SSN FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT CREDIT CHECKS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

My organization has fewer openings for hypocrites than it does for folks who fail to follow directions, so I'm happy to say you and I probably won't be crossing paths anytime soon either.
posted by aberrant at 1:14 PM on January 11, 2005

A credit check is mandatory to work at most financial institutions, though I do believe you need to be informed and to consent in writing. FWIW, the mandatory two-week leave SpecialK mentioned might be a federal thing, or at least a nationwide industry standard. And when you only get two-weeks vacation a year, it can suck.
posted by pzarquon at 2:39 PM on January 11, 2005

I'm sorry to hear about your sister's husband, pikachulolita. That said, aberrant is just explaining hiring practices, not saying that someone is a bad person. Unfortunately hiring is often more art than science, and using heuristics is often a necessary evil for filtering a list of candidates.

Also, I've heard more instances of Google come up during hiring, but it's not at the HR level; it's more often the person trying to fill the position. So, I hope your blog isn't named "IHateMyBoss.org" or something.
posted by theFlyingSquirrel at 2:49 PM on January 11, 2005

thanks, FlyingSquirrel. He got through it OK, though the credit check has been an issue since then as well. Luckily, he was applying at a company that was kind enough to let him explain the credit problems without going through the lengthy appeals process.

Well, aberrant, I explained the reason I was against credit checks by employers - because the things on one's credit report do not necessarily reflect one's level of personal responsibility, nor do I believe that being poor makes you more likely to steal - and I also realize that in a lot of ways, I am powerless against those who hire me. I don't think that accepting that there are morally wrong practices at work in corporate America makes me a hypocrite. If I were in a position to change that policy and I didn't, I could see your point. But as theFlyingSquirrel put it, it's a "necessary evil", especially for those of us who are just starting out in the workforce.

You seem fairly defensive about this and I'm not sure why. You must see that, as far as this thread is concerned, people are not angry at you personally - only at the "slimy corporate tentacle" that, in this thread, you seem to be representing to a few people. I presume there are a lot of old scars that are coloring peoples' responses to this question, and maybe if you didn't treat people like they represented the Lazy/Poor/Makes An Issue Of Things/Damn Hippie employees that you so clearly hate, they wouldn't treat you like a representative of the employer that did them wrong. Fair enough?
posted by pikachulolita at 3:38 PM on January 11, 2005

Goofyfoot: that's why criminal background checks are performed as well. In fact, if you've ever been convicted of a financial crime, you're severely limited in the types of jobs you can get at a bank (or other financial institution). Martha Stewart will not be able to hold a Director position once she's released.

And on top of that, it can severely harm companies - especially small ones -- if they've got employees or shareholders who have a significant criminal history or poor credit. I own a small business. I have one friend (who I paid in stock for services rendered) and one investor as shareholders besides myself. If I were to seek venture funding from a firm, and they do the background check and find that the friend had, for instance, a criminal history for embezzlement, I would be denied venture funding due to his criminal background. That's just one of the ways I could get screwed over if someone who I gave stock to or allowed onto my Board of Directors has bad credit or a criminal history.

Face it, it may not be your fault that you have bad credit, but there are ways to correct it and there are explanations you can give to counteract negative scores. Call us corporate tentacles all you want, but in the big kid world, this kind of stuff matters and can mean the difference between me going back to my soul-crushing job at the Mall and building a successful company that I love.
posted by SpecialK at 3:44 PM on January 11, 2005

Thanks, TFS. I'm certainly not implying that someone's evil for objecting to providing SSN; I'm merely saying that that person won't make it out of the HR interview here without it. Whether that's good or bad is certainly subjective; I view it as a necessary annoyance (I've had to do much worse, including fingerprinting, peeing in a cup, and giving a blood sample) where Orange Clock takes a much stronger negative position. Frankly, I don't know where pikachulolita stands -- it's certainly a novel (if apparently inconsistent) position to talk about my lack of moral certitude in one sentence, and then in the next be outraged enough to insult a complete stranger but finally admit (confess?) that she's not outraged enough to take a nonanonymous stand against it when it matters.

When I have 200+ résumés to filter through for two positions, I can afford to be choosy. It may sound crass, or offensive, but I choose to focus on the folks who won't cause me delays in getting their initial paperwork finished. If you choose not to divulge your SSN, that's certainly your right, but if it means extra delays in getting the position filled, I'm afraid I'll take a pass on you unless there's something absolutely outstanding about your qualifications. I've never been in that situation, though.

That someone would choose to brand me a "slimy corporate tentacle" for mentioning a practice that, in my experience, is widespread and necessary in my industry, is a bit unfair. But whatever. My skin's thicker than the octopus they portray me as being a part of. :)
posted by aberrant at 3:47 PM on January 11, 2005

pikachulolita:


maybe if you didn't treat people like they represented the Lazy/Poor/Makes An Issue Of Things/Damn Hippie employees that you so clearly hate, they wouldn't treat you like a representative of the employer that did them wrong. Fair enough?


No, not "fair enough". You presume to know things about me, and your assumptions are wrong. Show me where I labeled someone lazy, poor, or a damn hippie. I've been all of those in previous lives. The "Makes an Issue of Things" is important, though. My experiences have taught me to choose my battles: if I'm going to make an issue of something, it had better be worth taking a firm stand, even if it means I won't get a desired outcome. You apparently have no such conviction. I'd suggest that your cries of "lack of moral certitude" are best delivered in front of a mirror.

I don't want folks who "make an issue of things" and then back down when the going gets tough. If it's important enough for you to levy ad hominem attacks against a stranger, then shouldn't it be an important enough principle for you to not abandon at the first sign that it might risk your getting a job?

Defensive? Nope. Just amused at the

"I'm TOTALLY OFFENDED BY YOUR ACTIONS, YOU SLIMY CORPORATE TENTACLE...


but I'll go along if it means I'll get a job out of it. And I'll hate every minute, too!"

posted by aberrant at 3:58 PM on January 11, 2005

and maybe if you didn't treat people like they represented the Lazy/Poor/Makes An Issue Of Things/Damn Hippie employees that you so clearly hate

projection, much?
posted by mlis at 5:34 PM on January 11, 2005

If I were hiring I would object more to someone refusing to provide a SSN than to someone who had a bankruptcy or some credit card debt. Sometimes you just need employees who aren't gonna second-guess every single freakin thing -- that's a waste of time and effort.
posted by dagnyscott at 6:53 PM on January 11, 2005

Holy shit. What exactly did aberrant say that was so offensive? Way to stick it to the Man in a totally useless and irrational way.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 8:05 PM on January 11, 2005

Basically the same thing dagnyscott just said: fuck off if you have a spine and refuse to just march along. You can call it the grown-up world all you want to, but judging people's employability by their credit is wrong. Aberrant stood up for it and people slammed him.

As other people have pointed out, having bad credit can be the result of being poor. Or, to put it another way, someone with money can be more irresponsible than someone poor and still have good credit because someone else takes care of him or bails him out.
posted by dame at 9:11 PM on January 11, 2005

Dame, where exactly did I say that? What I said, should you choose to READ my previous comments without reacting to the responses, is backed up by fact: in my entire job history (spanning finance, government, and consultancies), a SSN is a required part of the job application. Having someone refuse to put a SSN on their application puts them at a disadvantage for the position, because I, as the hiring manager, will have to do extra work in order to get that particular candidate to the second round interview (with me). I don't (and won't) know about their reasons for omitting this information -- it could be because they're taking a stand, it could be because they can't follow directions, it could be a million other things -- but if they omit it, for WHATEVER reason, and there are other suitable candidates who have completed the application correctly, they're going in "stack 2".

Now, as far as pre-employment credit checks: I demonstrated that, in certain industries, the practice is widespread and can be (arguably) justified for certain positions. Others have agreed and have lent their experiences, some have disagreed but have no practical experience to lend, just a notion that "it's bad to discriminate against poor people and that's what you're doing".

If you look carefully, you'll notice that I made no correlation between poverty and propensity to commit crime. What I did mention is that folks under financial duress (not necessarily poor!) may be more likely to look for opportunities to relieve that pressure when they're put in a position of having access to significant assets owned by a large company. I assume that's why we do pre-employment credit checks in the first place. If it's not, then I'm at a loss as to why we do them.

(That's actually untrue. I know for a fact that this is why we do them.)

It's not judging people's employability based on a credit score. It's making an assessment of employee risk to the organization based on many factors, including whether they've got debt up to their eyeballs and no viable means of getting out of the hole that they find themselves in (for whatever reason).
posted by aberrant at 9:36 PM on January 11, 2005

Most people are not theives. Even if debt slightly increases the likelihood that one will become a theif (and I haven't seen any proof that this is the case), most debt-ridden people are still not theives. It is too wide and too invasive a metric. To not see that one's employer has no right to any information beyond work-based qualifications is to have already become a corporate tentacle. (Yes, I would refuse drug tests, blood tests, etc., too.)

But I do have a question for you. If someone wrote next to the SSN request, "I do not release my number for any but tax purposes," would you immediately throw that out? If so, then yeah, you are interested in a drone not a person, and therefore in your work-based personhood, suck.
posted by dame at 10:23 PM on January 11, 2005

Look. You can argue the morality of it. What you can't argue is that it happens, and it's due to government regulation in some cases and corporate risk requirements in others. We happen to disagree on whether it's all bad, all the time.

I'll answer your question (without perjorative language, you might note), and then offer some more commentary.

Would I immediately throw that person out? No. Would I interview other candidates before that person, and possibly make a hiring decision before I've gotten to them? Likely. Assuming everything else equal, I want someone whose paperwork won't be held up by HR, and for whom I won't have to vouch, PERFORMANCE AND REPUTATION UNKNOWN, to the officers of the company.

If that means that I suck, then so be it. I don't think you can jump to the conclusion that I'm interested in a drone as opposed to a person.

As far as the credit report goes, the work my team does has some serious security implications. I don't want someone on that team who can be bribed or otherwise pressured to do something wrong. It's not fair to the company, and it's not fair to the prospective employee, to put him in a position of having to decide whether to do the unethical thing that gets him out of a particularly nasty hole, or whether to do the right thing and risk financial ruin. That's why we do credit, criminal, psychological and drug testing, and other checks for the staff.

Here's another article I found interesting. Some interesting quotes:


“Credit has not turned out to be a good predictor of workplace theft. This is what our customers are telling us, anyway,” Lee said. “A better predictor is a criminal history involving bounced checks.”
...
The federal government still routinely requests credit checks for employees, Lee said, but typically denies jobs or promotions only when the employee would have direct access to cash on the job, or security clearances are involved.
...
In the private sector, the people most likely to have their credit reviewed are those who will deal with cash or valuables, or who are financial executives, said Greenblatt, a labor attorney with 26 years’ experience in employee testing and screening.

“Bank tellers, CFOs (chief financial officers), controllers, people who work for brokerage institutions, financial institutions,” he said. “Jewelry manufacturers do credit checks . . . when you’re dealing with diamonds, they’re easily concealed (and stolen).”
...
An employer needs your permission to run a credit check. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA) requires your written permission any time an employer hires a third party to conduct a background check, said human resources consultant and attorney Wendy Bliss. That includes running a credit report. Of course, you likely won’t get the job or promotion if you don’t agree.


From the linked article,


Your credit: Your potential employer can find out how much you owe on your mortgage, your car and your credit cards as well as how often you've been late on your bills. Unless you're in a position to rob the company blind, however, your lousy credit usually isn't a reason to blackball you from a job.

"The person has to be in a position of trust -- handling cash, for example," explained Karol Pollock, US Search's general counsel. "What you're looking for is someone in such dire financial straits that they'd be tempted to steal."

And, as a nice change, this article appears to be exactly on-point to the original question.
posted by aberrant at 11:29 PM on January 11, 2005

Wow.

I don't think that many of you "get it." Companies are required to perform due diligence in business. This includes performing credit & criminal checks in certain jobs. If a bank for example, is audited by the Fed and it is found that funds had been stolen and in the process of the investigation it is found that no credit check had been performed on the thief, what do you think would happen? The bank would be in deep shit with the Fed for not performing due diligence in its hiring practices.

And what's with all this "poor" equals bad credit crap? I've been working with credit bureaus for over 10 years. Most people that have judgements, charge offs, late pays, tax liens, child support liens, etc. are not "poor." They are irresponsible. In very rare occasions, the person had some life altering event occur that caused them to be financially unable to meet their obligations. And, most "poor" people simply don't have credit to let go bad.
posted by Juicylicious at 9:03 AM on January 12, 2005

The article aberrant linked to notes that "credit has not turned out to be a good predictor of workplace theft." Yet you both are arguing as though it did.

I don't want someone on that team who can be bribed or otherwise pressured to do something wrong. It's not fair to the company, and it's not fair to the prospective employee, to put him in a position of having to decide whether to do the unethical thing that gets him out of a particularly nasty hole, or whether to do the right thing and risk financial ruin.

1. Everyone can have pressure applied in some form. Debt just happens to be the one you can check easily.

2. It is not your job to protect people from ethical dilemmas--a fool's errand in any case. Really, how rude. "You have financial problems, perhaps as a result of not having a job. So I cannot let you have this one, because you may be tempted and I must protect you from yourself."

But you were right on one thing. You are much more polite than I am. I would rather you be ruder and see the grossness of this invasiveness, but hey.


Juicy: Like I said above, having fewer funds can compound a small blip into something that spirals out of control. For example, banks often put through all your debits and then all your credits for a certain day. I once (in my ramen days) had my funds set up exactly for a check to clear (with about $8 to spare). However, the bank put through the monthly fee before crediting the deposit, thereby bouncing the check and hitting me with a $30 fee. That fee made me unable to pay the bill till my next paycheck, making it late, and making other bills late on top of that. Getting the extra cash to make that up and put the bills back where they belonged took about a month. That was all a result of being poor, not irresponsible. I could imagine for people in a worse position, it would spiral even more.

Also, anyone who went to a good college but didn't have lots of money has student loans. So plenty of reasonably poor people have credit.
posted by dame at 10:14 AM on January 12, 2005

Dame:

I figured you'd just focus on the first quote. Please read the rest of them, specifically the ones dealing with financial institutions and government.

"1. Everyone can have pressure applied in some form. Debt just happens to be the one you can check easily."

So, what are you arguing? That we shouldn't check it, because it's easy to do so? Or that, by itself, a credit check doesn't give a complete picture of risk? (That I agree with. It's a useful component of a risk profile, though. And don't feel compelled to answer if you don't want, since I won't be following up.)

As for #2:
As a manager, it is absolutely my responsibility to help ensure that my folks don't get put in an ethical dilemma due to my lack of due diligence, just as it's my responsibility to make sure the organization isn't put at risk through my lack of due diligence. Juicylicious is entirely correct in her assessment of what happens when financial institutions don't perform the requisite due diligence, but I'll spell out the consequences since she didn't:

The implications of a negative risk rating are profound: banks can find their reserve requirements increased, which in turn limits the amount of income they can lend, which decreases their revenue, which affects their bond ratings, which can lead institutional investors being forced to divest, which leads to lost jobs, tarnished reputations, and other nastiness.

THIS is why banks do whatever they can to build accurate risk profiles -- of their customers, of their employees, and of their business practices. They're required to -- again, either by government regulation or by self-preservation insticts. If you don't like it, the only suggestion I have is to find another industry. As it stands, this behavior isn't likely to change anytime soon.

This is my last post on this topic. I have to say, as I review the comments, that I'm surprised and disappointed at the level of personal insults that have been levied by some folks. I'd expect this in the grey, and possibly in the blue, but not in the green. To anonymous: I'm sorry if your question got derailed. I hope that my previous posts gave you some useful information, and that my experiences provided you some benefit.
posted by aberrant at 10:35 AM on January 12, 2005

Yet you both are arguing as though it did.

Are you looking at me?

I'm not now, nor have I ever argued that credit checks are a "good predictor of workplace theft." I so very hate being misquoted and misinterpreted (if in fact you were looking at me).

From a legal perspective, businesses have a duty to safeguard company assets and in certain industries that would include conducting credit checks on prospective employees. It also includes conducting criminal background checks and drug tests in some instances. If a company does not take these measures it could potentially be held liable for misdeeds of employees that could have been predicted had the checks been conducted prior to employment.

having fewer funds can compound a small blip into something that spirals out of control. For example . . .

But Dame, what you've described is not really bad credit. It was a one off circumstance that most creditors and employers would understand. Credit reports contain tons of information, including how many times you were 30, 60, and 90 days late on every account. They also contain the payment history for the last 24 months. In your case, your credit report will show that a few of your accounts were 30 days late (and really, most creditors give you 2 billing cycles before they report a 30 day late payment) all at one point in time. This is easily explainable by you and your explanation would make sense. But if your credit report shows that you have several 60 & 90 day lates and several lates within the last 24 months, it would indicate a bigger problem that was not caused by your bank debiting your account before one check cleared. I think that part of the problem is that people often think that they have "bad" credit when in fact they don't.

As for college loans, anyone can get them as long as they're not in default. You can even get college loans if you have a discharged bankruptcy. Once you start paying them back, good payment history will help your credit score.

Frankly, I think we've become a live-on-credit society and it's not good. I really believe that credit & banking fundamentals should be taught in high school. It just seems like a basic life skill that everyone needs and many of us, myself included don't learn this at home.
posted by Juicylicious at 12:50 PM on January 12, 2005

If you're worried about a credit check, I would look at it as an opportunity to see if you fit into the corporate culture. If you don't get hired due to bad credit, and you think that stinks, it's likely the case you're not going to get along with your boss (the one who says no to hiring you due to your credit report). And for banks, security firms, it just seems like common sense.

I don't think a credit score indicates how well someone will perform as an employee. My job is all deadlines and budgets, but you'll see more than my fair share of blips on my credit history. I am lazy and irresponsible in my personal life. I won't be mortgage shopping anytime soon, and I don't have kids to feed. It's no indicator of how I perform on the job, where being lazy and irresponsible are tragically undervalued qualities in an employee. I take it more seriously when others are counting on me.

I think my main concern with the idea of the credit check is control of the information once it's with a prospective employer. When you sign for this check, are you also given assurances as to who sees it? How confidential it will remain? Is there a chatty Cathy working in HR who won't be able to keep it to herself if it does show you're in financial trouble? Do the results of these checks stay on file with the company on it's (likely not very secure) network? For how long? You're putting an awful lot of trust in a company that your personal life will remain just that.
posted by Salmonberry at 10:03 PM on January 12, 2005