It’s Time to Stop Employer Credit Checks

[Playball40]

Did she say she was great running businesses? If not, why are you inventing such statements?

How many businesses has she ran, how many employees, market cap on them?

I have no idea. This has what to do with the OP?

Her point is that she knows how to run a business better than someone running a business.

No, it isn't.

By outlawing credit checks, she is saying a business is wasting money paying for the credit check because she knows better than a business on whether or not that credit check is useful.

She is not outlawing credit checks.

So she isn't proposing any legislation regarding what businesses can't or can't do?

What's that have to do with outlawing credit checks?

Credit checks will still be legal to do.

Just not for hiring purposes.

Boy, if you guys put half the energy you use finding reasons why we shouldn't do some things to better society into finding things we can do to better society we probably wouldn't be able to keep up with the flurry of new ideas!

It's simple really. They buy into the fact that if you have a less than stellar 'score' you are a scumbag, irresponsible piece of shit that doesn't deserve a job. You're probably a minority too! They forget the number of bankruptcies Saint Trump has had.

 

[dismal]

Excellent. Now all we lack is a comprehensible reason why if you were trying to hire someone you would pay extra for a meaningless credit check so you can more easily reject qualified people.

What exactly is your point if not to derail this thread? Are you asking why a company would want to save time by cutting down an application pool?

I am asking why a company that wants to hire someone would pay extra money to cut down the applicant pool.

If there was some value to having fewer applicants, which is itself counter-intuitive, it seems they'd have plenty of other ways to cull them that do not cost money. Like a trash can.

- - - Updated - - -

Did she say she was great running businesses? If not, why are you inventing such statements?

How many businesses has she ran, how many employees, market cap on them?

I have no idea. This has what to do with the OP?

Her point is that she knows how to run a business better than someone running a business.

No, it isn't.

By outlawing credit checks, she is saying a business is wasting money paying for the credit check because she knows better than a business on whether or not that credit check is useful.

I posted a link to research that shows credit checks are not predictive of how well someone will perform in a job.

No one's commented on that study yet or linked to any studies that show credit checks are predictive of how well someone will perform in a job.

Wait, wait, I have an answer: perhaps not everyone automatically believes this research.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Did she say she was great running businesses? If not, why are you inventing such statements?

How many businesses has she ran, how many employees, market cap on them?

I have no idea. This has what to do with the OP?

Her point is that she knows how to run a business better than someone running a business.

No, it isn't.

By outlawing credit checks, she is saying a business is wasting money paying for the credit check because she knows better than a business on whether or not that credit check is useful.

I posted a link to research that shows credit checks are not predictive of how well someone will perform in a job.

No one's commented on that study yet or linked to any studies that show credit checks are predictive of how well someone will perform in a job.

And we who have been forced to them as part of the hiring process find them worthless.

Here are the things we use that are more useful:
(1) Former colleagues
(2) Professional associations
(3) Former supervisors
(4) Credential verification
(5) Public records
(6) Social media (LinkedIn and Facebook)
(7) Google search
(8) Criminal background check

These will give us far more relevant information on a person that a credit score. It's none of my business if an applicant declared bankruptcy or had a cheating spouse run up a credit card bill during a divorce. There are so many reasons for a bad score that has absolutely have nothing to do with their knowledge, skills and abilities that it is pointless to run one.

 

[ksen]

What exactly is your point if not to derail this thread? Are you asking why a company would want to save time by cutting down an application pool?

I am asking why a company that wants to hire someone would pay extra money to cut down the applicant pool.

If there was some value to having fewer applicants, which is itself counter-intuitive, it seems they'd have plenty of other ways to cull them that do not cost money. Like a trash can.

Reality obviously isn't conforming to your expectations since: a) the science provided so far says credit checks for hiring aren't effective and b) companies do pay money to use this ineffective tool rather than the much cheaper trash can.

Wouldn't be the first time management put into place policies that cost the company more than necessary as well as being ineffective.

 

[ksen]

I posted a link to research that shows credit checks are not predictive of how well someone will perform in a job.

No one's commented on that study yet or linked to any studies that show credit checks are predictive of how well someone will perform in a job.

Wait, wait, I have an answer: perhaps not everyone automatically believes this research.

Perhaps.

Then maybe they should attempt to discuss why they don't automatically believe it and/or provide a study that disagrees with the one I've provided so far instead of just ignoring it like no evidence was provided at all.

Why do you think the study I linked to is wrong?

 

[dismal]

I am asking why a company that wants to hire someone would pay extra money to cut down the applicant pool.

If there was some value to having fewer applicants, which is itself counter-intuitive, it seems they'd have plenty of other ways to cull them that do not cost money. Like a trash can.

Reality obviously isn't conforming to your expectations since: a) the science provided so far says credit checks for hiring aren't effective and b) companies do pay money to use this ineffective tool rather than the much cheaper trash can.

Wouldn't be the first time management put into place policies that cost the company more than necessary as well as being ineffective.

Do you think government force should be applied to anyone who every acts contrary to what a research report says?

Or is there something exceptional about this research report that its finding should be crammed down by force on all of us by the government?

 

[dismal]

Wait, wait, I have an answer: perhaps not everyone automatically believes this research.

Perhaps.

Then maybe they should attempt to discuss why they don't automatically believe it and/or provide a study that disagrees with the one I've provided so far instead of just ignoring it like no evidence was provided at all.

Why do you think the study I linked to is wrong?

Where did you ever get the idea that in a free society I have some burden to prove a research report is wrong before completely ignoring it when it comes to how to conduct my own affairs?

I, for example, routinely ignore the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" research. Please don't tell the Breakfast police.

 

[ksen]

Reality obviously isn't conforming to your expectations since: a) the science provided so far says credit checks for hiring aren't effective and b) companies do pay money to use this ineffective tool rather than the much cheaper trash can.

Wouldn't be the first time management put into place policies that cost the company more than necessary as well as being ineffective.

Do you think government force should be applied to anyone who every acts contrary to what a research report says?

Or is there something exceptional about this research report that its finding should be crammed down by force on all of us by the government?

Do you routinely ignore reports while coming to a conclusion in a work related matter? Or instead do you read a bunch of different reports before coming to some sort of conclusion?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What exactly is your point if not to derail this thread? Are you asking why a company would want to save time by cutting down an application pool?

I am asking why a company that wants to hire someone would pay extra money to cut down the applicant pool.

And I told you. Time. You see these companies have things called "employees" and some of them work in what we call "human resources" and these "employees" have things called "work" which takes "time" and having them take this "time" to do "work" costs companies "money". These people need to "screen" each application to see if they meet the qualifications of the job. This takes "time" and costs a business "money". By finding quick ways to reduce the "time" needed to review all application by all the "employees" involved in the process, the business saves "money" by allowing the "employees" to spend "time"on other "work".

I know it is complicated. If you still don't understand you may want to have a trusted friend explain it to you.

If there was some value to having fewer applicants, which is itself counter-intuitive, it seems they'd have plenty of other ways to cull them that do not cost money. Like a trash can.

See above.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Do you think government force should be applied to anyone who every acts contrary to what a research report says?

Or is there something exceptional about this research report that its finding should be crammed down by force on all of us by the government?

Do you routinely ignore reports while coming to a conclusion in a work related matter? Or instead do you read a bunch of different reports before coming to some sort of conclusion?

What happens if a business finds that they've hired 50 people after a credit report and they got better results then when they didn't use the credit report?

 

[dismal]

Do you think government force should be applied to anyone who every acts contrary to what a research report says?

Or is there something exceptional about this research report that its finding should be crammed down by force on all of us by the government?

Do you routinely ignore reports while coming to a conclusion in a work related matter? Or instead do you read a bunch of different reports before coming to some sort of conclusion?

I have seldom seen reports by academics paid much attention in work related matters.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Did she say she was great running businesses? If not, why are you inventing such statements?

How many businesses has she ran, how many employees, market cap on them?

I have no idea. This has what to do with the OP?

Her point is that she knows how to run a business better than someone running a business.

No, it isn't.

By outlawing credit checks, she is saying a business is wasting money paying for the credit check because she knows better than a business on whether or not that credit check is useful.

She is not outlawing credit checks.

So she isn't proposing any legislation regarding what businesses can't or can't do?

That is not what you said. You said "By outlawing credit checks..." She is not doing that. Credit checks for mortgages, credit cards, financing the purchase of a car are all unaffected.

Legislating what businesses can and cannot do is her job, so yes, she is doing her job.

When you want to actually address the OP, please let me know.

 

[Playball40]

What was the justification to do away with polygraph tests as a means of employment or employment retention?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Did she say she was great running businesses? If not, why are you inventing such statements?

How many businesses has she ran, how many employees, market cap on them?

I have no idea. This has what to do with the OP?

Her point is that she knows how to run a business better than someone running a business.

No, it isn't.

By outlawing credit checks, she is saying a business is wasting money paying for the credit check because she knows better than a business on whether or not that credit check is useful.

She is not outlawing credit checks.

So she isn't proposing any legislation regarding what businesses can't or can't do?

That is not what you said. You said "By outlawing credit checks..." She is not doing that. Credit checks for mortgages, credit cards, financing the purchase of a car are all unaffected.

Legislating what businesses can and cannot do is her job, so yes, she is doing her job.

When you want to actually address the OP, please let me know.

Dismal has done it. So Warren doesn't like that businesses try to find a way to gauge potential employees. She thinks she can do it better for them, so she is proposing legislation that says businesses have to do it her way.

- - - Updated - - -

What was the justification to do away with polygraph tests as a means of employment or employment retention?

It's an interesting question. The Supreme court has ruled out IQ tests based on discrimination.

 

[Bronzeage]

Who said they were smart? I've known employers who gave job applicants polygraph tests and used handwriting analysis to help decide who to hire. Ouija boards are just as reliable.

The hiring process is the single most stressful and time consuming duty of a manager. An employer will grab at any straw that promises to make the job a little easier. The old saying, "It's who you know," is the Golden Rule. When it comes to hiring, a manager is desperate for any reason to favor one person over another, because there is seldom any significant difference in any of them, and usually not many from which to choose.

Credit checks are used for screening future employees because it is easy. Every person's report is laid out in the same format. When a manager is asked why he hired a person, he/she can point to a box on a form and say, "He had a high number."

So businesses who actually employ people *think* the credit checks add value and are wiling to pay for it but politicians know better?

As I said before, who said they were smart? The value credit checks add is minimal. It's real appeal is that it's available and easy. It's certainly easier than calling references and former employers. As a screening method, it's probably as good as polygraphs and hand writing analysis, but maybe not as good as the Ouija board.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What happens if a business finds that they've hired 50 people after a credit report and they got better results than when they didn't use the credit report?

I'll eat my hat.

 

[Playball40]

So I looked it up and they ARE still allowed to be given - just not used as justification for hiring/firing. (Unless you are a government employee)

Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). This prohibits business from not hiring an individual due to a polygraph alone or firing someone on the basis of a polygraph alone. It is important to note that the EPPA does NOT apply to government workers, which is why a polygraph exam is often used for law enforcement job interview purposes, and can be the reason why someone does not receive that job.

So, it would seem to me that perhaps an Employee Credit Check Protection Act could be enacted, with exception allowed for handling of cash or something like that.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So businesses who actually employ people *think* the credit checks add value and are wiling to pay for it but politicians know better?

As I said before, who said they were smart? The value credit checks add is minimal. It's real appeal is that it's available and easy. It's certainly easier than calling references and former employers. As a screening method, it's probably as good as polygraphs and hand writing analysis, but maybe not as good as the Ouija board.

Except we all know references aren't a good way to evaluate people and former employees can only validate that they worked there. But a credit report is also looking at past behavior too.

- - - Updated - - -

What happens if a business finds that they've hired 50 people after a credit report and they got better results than when they didn't use the credit report?

I'll eat my hat.

So let's find the businesses that use credit reports and ask their opinion on why they use it.

 

[ksen]

Do you routinely ignore reports while coming to a conclusion in a work related matter? Or instead do you read a bunch of different reports before coming to some sort of conclusion?

What happens if a business finds that they've hired 50 people after a credit report and they got better results then when they didn't use the credit report?

Do you have a real example of this happening? I don't think you do.

But while we wait:

http://www.demos.org/discredited-how-employment-credit-checks-keep-qualified-workers-out-job

 

[Nice Squirrel]

As I said before, who said they were smart? The value credit checks add is minimal. It's real appeal is that it's available and easy. It's certainly easier than calling references and former employers. As a screening method, it's probably as good as polygraphs and hand writing analysis, but maybe not as good as the Ouija board.

Except we all know references aren't a good way to evaluate people and former employees can only validate that they worked there. But a credit report is also looking at past behavior too.

Irrelevant behavior and the behavior of other people. People get poor credit scores for a variety of reasons many having nothing to do with the morality of the person.