Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newest Job Qualification — A Good Credit History

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the this-can-only-end-badly dept.

1064

Alien54 writes quotes an article from The Day that says "In the past, only banks and financial service companies routinely ran credit checks on potential employees. But employers in other sectors increasingly are including [credit checks] in the screening process to assess applicants' honesty and integrity, traits not readily gleaned from a résumé. US employers' use of credit checks increased 55 percent over the last five years, according to Spherion, a recruitment and staffing firm with offices around the country.... "The credit check has become a general measure of responsibility and organization," said industrial psychologist Carl Greenberg, senior vice president of Spherion. "If you cannot organize your finances, how are you going to responsibly organize yourself for a company? Organization is a measure of responsibility."

cancel ×

1064 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Little Suzy. (5, Insightful)

seann (307009) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075539)

So because Mr. Smith had to max out his credit cards for Little Suzys cancer medication, he doesn't get the new job?

Re:Little Suzy. (4, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075591)

No, he doesn't get the job if he maxes out his credit cards and then never makes payments on them. Credit cards are meant to be used, they don't give you a bad credit history. It's failing to make payments that ruins you.

Re:Little Suzy. (4, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075637)

Credit cards are meant to be used, they don't give you a bad credit history.

Are you kidding?

Between a set of people with perfect payment histories, credit ratings will vary dramatically. While credit is meant to be used, there are all sorts of magic (and often trade secret) formulas for determining patterns in your financial behaviour that will bite you. Maybe you always made every payment on time, but if you ever paid the minimum, or exceeded some unknown level on your credit, then your score suffers.

Re:Little Suzy. (4, Informative)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075702)

Employers often are looking for the following things - collections, bankruptcies, foreclosures, and accounts not in good standing (24-month payment history, accounts being paid late, etc). Getting the credit score may be helpful, but it doesn't tell the entire story. And a credit report with the credit score costs more than a standalone credit report. An applicant with lines of credit is also indicative of someone who wants/needs job stability.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075645)

I don't have a credit card since I don't like the idea of being in debt, unnecessarily. Does that means I cannot have a job ?

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075727)

I am in the same position. I moved to the US a few years ago,and have not had to borrow money, thus I have 'enquiry only' logged against me by the credit agencies. - no credit. THis is totally fine by me as it offers the ultimate in 'credit theft' - the banks wont offer me a credit card, so it is unlikely a thief can get one in my name.

I'd hate to see that I miss out on a job just cos i've never needed to borrow money....

But that's Catch-22 (4, Insightful)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075678)

If you can't get a job, you can't make the payments.

This effectively relegates the poor to a permanent poor status.

I already told my HR department 3 months ago to never even think about this bullshit tactic or they'll be fired out of here like a friggin cannon ball.

We don't need credit checks for jack squat. We need criminal state & FBI background checks and that's it.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075693)

don't know how health insurance works? Mr. Smith maxes out his credit cards for necessary surgery and followup, a few months later the insurance company decides not to cover some procedures, and Mr. Smith is screwed. Happening to me, actually. Planning my ass.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075793)

Hospitals actually have payment plans with interest far below what any credit card offers.

I've had 2 kids at $10,000 each - Insurance covered 80% so I was out of pocket $2,000 each which wasn't due until 5 months after the procedure and with a very liberal and affordable payment plan.

$2,000 isn't that much to plan for especially when
A) there is a pregnancy so there is 9 months to plan for raising $10,000 in the first place if needed
B) You have a 5 month window AFTER delivery to actually pay what is due

Obviously, a surgery will be more than a typical baby delivery but I'd look at hospital payment plans over any credit card payment terms.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

evansky (997783) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075780)

i check my fico score regularly. when i took on a new car loan, my score dropped 60 points in 3 months, even though i made my payments; not just on time, but early. it has since gone back up almost 20 points, now that i've proved that i can pay. but, delinquencies and derrogs are not the only factor. total debt load affects your credit rating as well, regardless of your ability to pay.

Re:Little Suzy - Wrong! (1, Troll)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075601)

Nope. If Mr. Smith mazes out all his credit cards because he didn't buy proper insurance for little Suzy, and had zero savings, and then can't afford the minimum payments because he bought too much home and a new car, then he doesn't get a new job. Credit scores are actually a decent way to judge someone's ability to judge risk and handle finances. It rewards a conservative attitude, but also penalizes those who avoid credit totally. Seems a pretty legit factor for employment to me.

Re:Little Suzy - Wrong! (5, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075685)

Seems a pretty legit factor for employment to me.

What if some staffing consultant company one day decided that people who eat bran for breakfast are better employees (they're in cahoots with the bran industry, after all, serving each other's interests. They want to make sure you really suffer if you haven't been a fan of bran), therefore they're going to do a bran profile of all employees.

If you don't have enough bran in your history, sorry - no job for you. I guess you'll have to beg to try to start getting some bran.

Oh but don't think you'll sneak around this: They're going to do hair sampling and talk to former roommates to determine if you ate bran years ago. Simply towing the line now isn't satisfactory.

Maybe they'll do a "former lover" test to determine if you called within 6 days, and how your performance was in bed. Surely some loose, anecdotal correlation can be drawn there as well.

Sounds sort of arbitrary and ridiculous, doesn't it?

Because it is. It would be one thing if an unbiased research paper drew a strong/strong correlation between credit worthiness and performance on the job, but simply taking the word of a guy who's agenda is being served. No thanks.

Here in Canada there have been some efforts to ban any industry (for instance car insurance companies determining your rates based on your credit worthiness. Sure, they can say "Oh, but people with bad credit are more likely to be worse drivers!", but failing actual credible results, thankfully most people say "bullshit") from using metrics that haven't been positively and strongly correlated with the result they're trying to test.

Re:Little Suzy - Wrong! (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075719)

Weird. I guess Slashdot doesn't like <strong>strong</strong>. Sorry about that.

Bull Shit ! (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075687)

"Nope. If Mr. Smith mazes out all his credit cards because he didn't buy proper insurance for little Suzy,"

The majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and 74% of those HAD insurance. So FOAD with the blaming of people for not having insurance. Between co-pays, non-covered items, incidental expenses, no coverage for pre-existing conditions (which can be used to deny everything except a fresh gunshot wound if they really want to stretch it) ... they haven't got a hope in hell.

Think of it. 74 % are being told to FOAD. So stop with the "its their fault because they didn't buy insurance" bullshit, and get behind a public insurance plan that covers everyone.

Re:Little Suzy - Wrong! (4, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075766)

The vast majority of people in the world can't afford proper food or housing, let alone insurance. We've got enough systems in place to keep the poor stuck where they are, we don't need another one.

Re:Little Suzy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075633)

Get this. My credit report is zero, because I've never had a credit card, never even thought about buying a new car, let alone a house. I've never owed any money to anybody, yet in credit-speak, that doesn't mean I'm good -- it means I'm bad. Therefore, I am penalized precisely because I can manage my finances. I simply never bought into the scam-world of credit, and that is the real reason I am penalized.

This is a direct result of government being entangled in the economy.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075681)

This is a direct result of government being entangled in the economy.

Considering this is all being done by private companies, how do you figure? This sounds more like a poster child case of when the government needs to interfere with the economy.

Re:Little Suzy. (2, Insightful)

Aneurysm9 (723000) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075697)

This is a direct result of government being entangled in the economy.

No, this is a direct result of business controlling government rather than the people.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

scbomber (463069) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075739)

No, this is a direct result of business controlling government rather than the people.

Sadly, business does in fact also control the people.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

Greventls (624360) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075710)

So what do you do? Buy everything in cash? How do you do anything online? Do you only buy extremely cheap cars?

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

Transmogrify_UK (902981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075781)

So what do you do? Buy everything in cash?
Mostly, yes.
How do you do anything online?
Bank debit card
Do you only buy extremely cheap cars?
Never paid over £500 for a car, so yes.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075784)

I have a Visa debit card which gives me the same ability as a visa credit card, except the money i'm spending is mine, and I only owe myself interest on what i borrowed. I can spend up to how much money i have in that account, so if i want to buy an expensive car, i just have to make sure i have the money there first.....

It looks like the Parent has fallen into the US consumer mindset, here is some advice: YOU DONT NEED TO BORROW MONEY FOR EVERYTHING! - its called savings.

(given, you might need a mortgage one day, which are pretty hard to save for, but possible. YOu then get into the economies of the cost of credit vs cost of rent)

Re:Little Suzy. (2, Interesting)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075634)

Is that really what happens in America??

Perhaps, then, the employee is choosing to disqualify themselves by showing sufficient lack of common sense that they voluntarily live somewhere without a health care system?

Re:Little Suzy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075698)

No, that's not "what really happens in America". But it makes for a good sob story, doesn't it?

(And if you voluntarily choose to borrow money you KNOW you can't pay back, no matter what it's for, well, you'd made your own bed and now you'll lie in it.)

Re:Little Suzy. (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075774)

You think it's easy to move to one of these healthcare utopias, get resident status sufficient to benefit from the infrastructure, or even get a job there? It's almost impossible! It's hardly a *choice* that someone born in the US, stays in the US.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075716)

So because Mr. Smith had to max out his credit cards for Little Suzys cancer medication, he doesn't get the new job?

Why would you hire someone not smart enough to have purchased health care or save a thousand or two for deductibles? Most people without health care in the US today just have their priorities in different places, drugs, poor use of credit, cars, booze, poor planning etc. Now that is who you want making multi-million dollar decisions for your company?

I think this is a good idea myself. Everyone in a company benefits when a manager makes a good decision... conversely everyone suffers if they drive a company to insolvency mimicking their own financial behaviors.

And the best part about this metric is that it is less subjective and a measurement over a longer period of time. What they do for themselves is an indication of what they might be able to do for the company.

Re:Little Suzy. (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075721)

A. Your credit history tells much more about you than your dead kids medical problems.
B. If you're going to screw your creditors how long till you screw us for a "good" cause.
C. There are pleanty of aid organizations that take care of A without you having to do B.
D. Outside of a world where your credit score *is* your resume, interview, and represenative your argument is weak.

E. Regarding D, it's also so easy and inflamitory it'll get you +5 insightful before I finish writing this comment. I wish I had beat you to it.

so, chicken or egg? (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075540)

So, what if a candidate's credit history is a result of not finding a job. I've seen stories of (especially) IT people with long careers summarily right-sized out of their jobs. I've read articles (Enron?) of employees who lost their life savings and retirement funding because of (ironically) mismanagement at the top.

So now a candidate must show good credit? WTF? And if a candidate is in this financial situation because he (she) can't get a job, an employer who dismisses such candidate because they have bad credit perpetuates their situation. Shame on them!

From the article:

Federal laws require that companies notify job applicants before conducting credit checks, butmany (sic) firms reason that viable applicants with good credit have nothing to hide.

I call bullshit. This is an unadulterated power play and invasion of a candidate's privacy. And I suggest all out there looking for work decline the credit check as a part of the interview process.

I also think some public vetting of companies who use credit checks as part of the interview process would be interesting.

Re:so, chicken or egg? (4, Insightful)

thesandtiger (819476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075600)

I say that any candidate should be allowed to examine the personal finances of the C*O executives at the company she's applying for - you know, just to make sure something like an ENRON doesn't pop up. And hey - a good C*O should have no problem with it, right? Nothing to hide and all that.

Re:so, chicken or egg? (2, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075624)

So, what if a candidate's credit history is a result of not finding a job. I've seen stories of (especially) IT people with long careers summarily right-sized out of their jobs. I've read articles (Enron?) of employees who lost their life savings and retirement funding because of (ironically) mismanagement at the top.

Remember that the quote in question is by a recruitment/staffing company, and they're always trying to sell the snake oil that they have a magic formula that can give you a nice metric of the worth of a prospect.

For the reasons you mentioned, and more, the fundemental premise is full of shit, and Mr. Greenberg (an "industrial psychologist"? His credentials would have a bit more credibility if he were speaking as an unencumbered academic, purely making a quantitative statement. Instead he's some shill trying to use some paper to sell some nonsense) is pretty unconvincing.

That is, unless "growing up with a silver spoon and parents who bail you out of every financial misstep" is a critical element in hiring.

Re:so, chicken or egg? (1)

ipfwadm (12995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075627)

This is an unadulterated power play and invasion of a candidate's privacy. And I suggest all out there looking for work decline the credit check as a part of the interview process.

I'm curious where the companies are getting the social security numbers from. I've never been asked for mine during an interview. And honestly, I don't think I'd be willing to fork that over until after I've been hired (even before reading this article). They just don't have a need for that much information as part of the interview process.

What's next, asking candidates about their sex lives, since a satisfied employee is a productive employee? /.'ers beware!

Re:so, chicken or egg? (1)

ip_fired (730445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075669)

What's next, asking candidates about their sex lives, since a satisfied employee is a productive employee? /.'ers beware!
Funny that you should mention that. My company just had an "anonymous" satisfaction survey, and the last question on the questionaire was about sexual preference!

It was hardly anonymous. It required that I specify the manager that I report to, and other information such as how long I have worked at the company. There is only 1 person in my group that meets that information...me.

I refused to answer that question, because it's none of their business. I'm just apalled that they would even ask that though.

Re:so, chicken or egg? (1)

xplenumx (703804) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075688)

So now a candidate must show good credit? WTF? And if a candidate is in this financial situation because he (she) can't get a job, an employer who dismisses such candidate because they have bad credit perpetuates their situation. Shame on them!

Sure, a candidate may have bad credit due to lack of a job, medical costs, or a number of other legitimate reasons. However, to be honest, these are the vast minority from what I've seen (and I worked with cancer patients for several years, and credit did come up). By far, the people I've seen with bad credit have been those who maxed out their credit cards and got in too deep. I can think of a handful of people who overspent planning in advance to negotiate with the credit card companies figuring that they weren't going to buy a house in the near future anyway, so what the heck. While I think eliminating applicants due their credit scores is a piss-poor thing to do, I would be very interested in how many people with poor credit scores are there due to situations out of their control, or because of their own ineptitude/selfishness. Also, before we get all up in arms, do we have any clue as to what other companies are running credit checks and for what positions? TFA gave one example (and very little info at that). Are the credit checks run on the peanut gallery (how much does it cost for a credit check? Would it really be cost effective?) or for people who are applying for high end positions in companies where they could have the opportunity to embezzle. This article really doesn't give us enough information to get piss off... yet.

Re:so, chicken or egg? (1)

non (130182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075742)

this post [slashdot.org] was in response to a discussion on privacy, but it is equally valid here. the parent is in my opinion right on the money; this is an invasion of privacy. furthermore, it is a change in the status quo; citizenship now depends on your financial participation in the system in a manner in which business approves.

democracy *is* being replaced by a corporate republic.

Well (1)

nickthisname (630860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075542)

I'm boned.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075798)

The funny thing is that businesses will probably be doing themselves a disservice. Yeah, some boneheads have bad credit because they have no personal responsibility, but other has bad credit for a variety of reasons - some of which have nothing to do with their abilities as a potential employee.

Also, if a company hires only 800+ credit score employees, then they have just populated their entire company with people who tend to think a certain way. That might be ok for some businesses, or departments, but do you want your creative people to be robots?

Eventually it should sort itself out. Smaller independent companies without any such nonsense will begin to overtake large, structured businesses that are employing only accountant types.

Moo (2, Informative)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075546)

Major points:

Companies are relying on credit reports because employers, afraid of being slapped with libel suits, are no longer as candid about the performance of former workers.


but are looking for other information...the identity of a person...full legal name...A lot of people change their names if they have something to hide, and it lists former employers who might not be named on the résumé.


Insurance companies have been criticized in recent years for using credit information to set individual homeowners insurance rates.


35 percent of US employers were checking credit reports in 2004, up from 19 percent in 1996.


The Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group supports legislation that would freeze consumers' credit reports, making it unavailable to a range of people and organizations. A similar measure, introduced after ChoicePoint Inc., a personal and financial data collection firm, reported that it had mistakenly sold the financial information of more than 145,000 to a group of criminals, died in committee this year.

Re:Moo (1)

Mad_Rain (674268) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075763)

From the article:
Horton, 30, of Dorchester, didn't get the job after her credit report showed $18,000 in deferred student loans. "My credit wasn't perfect, but I never thought my student loans would go against me," said Horton. "The company said I could reapply once I had two years of excellent credit, but there is no way I am going to be able to pay off those loans that quickly."

As someone with massive student loan debt (easily into the 6-digit range), I think the key word there in her case is deferred [ed.gov] student loans. I've had some pretty stringent background checks for working in secured areas where there is concern about employees being compromised ("sex, drugs, and serious debt" being easy ways to get compromised), and my debt hasn't been an issue (neither has my sex or drugs). The reasons for deferment of her loans seems like why she is having problems getting employment, and since we don't know about her reasons, why is everyone jumping to some ridiculous conclusions?

A perfect example (5, Insightful)

xinu (64069) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075548)

of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.

Do you think the employer wants to hear the part about the divorce and paying alimoney and child support? They probably don't care about that part...

Definately not a utopian society we live in.

Re:A perfect example (1)

glomph (2644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075578)

This is just grand. Just as police here in Freedomland can confiscate (and keep permanently!) property belonging to people -suspected- of drug trafficking or other Freedom Hating Activities, we have Yet Another Way that a few stray bits in a database, or a spurious / malignant accusation can f*ck up somebody's life bigtime.

Why not do financial scans on -current- employees? How about starting with HR people applying this lovely policy?
Perhaps that would slow down the implementation, a bit.

O rly? (5, Insightful)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075572)

I had my identity stolen years ago and my credit was ruined.

Does this mean that as a victim, employers are allowed to victimize me by denying me employment? Yep.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Laws exist to protect big business, politicians and the financial top 1%.

Re:O rly? (1)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075616)

Not really a valid point, for two reasons:

1. You can recover from identity theft. It's not easy, but you can get all the activity from the theft purged from your credit history and it will be restored to what it should be. So a year/two later, (maybe shorter), it would be a non-even credit history-wise.

2. You can explain this fact to your employer. I certainly would if they asked to check my credit history.

Re:O rly? (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075656)

You can recover from identity theft. It's not easy, but you can get all the activity from the theft purged from your credit history and it will be restored to what it should be. So a year/two later, (maybe shorter), it would be a non-even credit history-wise.

If you've got a few thousand dollars to spend on a lawyer to help clear your name, maybe. Otherwise I doubt it.

You can explain this fact to your employer. I certainly would if they asked to check my credit history.

That's assuming they tell you.

Re:O rly? (2, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075734)

"That's assuming they tell you."

They have to, by law. Even if they didn't, you would see that they accessed your report when you get a copy of your yearly free credit report.

No, you cannot. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075657)

Even if you think that you've cleaned up your record, there have been instances where the financial companies then sold your debt to a collection agency. Even after you've "proved" that the debt was from the theft.

And the financial companies do continue to issue new credit cards even when you've supposedly "locked" your credit.

Re:O rly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075662)

You can recover from identity theft.

I take it you've never had your identity stolen. When a company that wrongfully issued credit in your name wants you to travel to their offices at your own expense (offices that can potentially be on the other side of the country) in order to sign an affidavit in person, you sometimes don't have much choice in the matter. You can either spend a grand of your own money to have a grand of wrongfully issued credit removed from your record, or you can just suck it up and attempt to live with it.

Re:O rly? (1)

linguizic (806996) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075738)

1. You can recover from identity theft. It's not easy, but you can get all the activity from the theft purged from your credit history and it will be restored to what it should be. So a year/two later, (maybe shorter), it would be a non-even credit history-wise.
So, if you are applying for a job in between when your identity was stolen and the year or two later when you've cleared it up you are screwed.

2. You can explain this fact to your employer. I certainly would if they asked to check my credit history.
If potential employers were that trusting, why don't they just ask you what your credit rating is instead of doing the credit check?

So reform your democracy (4, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075655)

If it doesn't serve you, change it.

Or, you can sit back, fat and happy and allow the guys at the top, the ones with the sociopathic personalities and pathological need to win, to decide how you're going to live.

 

Re:O rly? (1)

eraserewind (446891) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075707)

Ask yourself why it's legal for corpoate donors (supposedly excluded from the electoral process) to influence your lawmakers to a far greater degree than your vote ever would. Let me know if you come up with a good answer. As far as I can see it is a betrayal of any notion of democratic principles, and is nothing more than graft.

Re:O rly? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075729)

And you know why this is? Because the single most influential factor in elections is the amount of money people spend. The one who spends the most wins a disproportionate amount of elections, at any level. There's two things to note here: one, it means that elections are essentially bought these days. Two, the fault for this rests largely with the people who let themselves be influenced by well placed ads on TV, radio and paper. If you've made up our mind before the marketing blitz starts, money would play far less of a role. Sadly, this won't happen. And the result of that is that the vast majority of the laws are not made for the voters, but for the people who helped the congress critter into office: top 1% income earners, big business and various organizations - and of course the people who make the laws.

Re:O rly? (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075768)

Both Equifax and TransUnion (I'd bet Experian does too) have fraud alerts that are broadcast with their credit reports for people in your situation. A good employer takes this into consideration. If they don't, you don't want to work for them anyway.

Bad credit != Poor (4, Insightful)

mabu (178417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075576)

I know plenty of people who have money and bad credit. Credit reports have been used for more than a decade to analyze risk in situations like employment. This is nothing new. You don't have to be rich to avoid having bad credit; you merely have to honor your financial obligations. Granted, there are some cases where you can be in good shape and something like sickness appears and the next thing you know, you're in financial trouble.. and this is more of a testimony to the neglect the government has towards the problem with healthcare. If this is the only ding you have on your credit report, employers can note the distinction between a medical related debt and something like consistently missing your mortgage payment.

maybe Bad credit != Poor BUT poor=bad credit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075648)

you dont have to be rich to have good credit but it sure helps
being very poor can definately lead to poor credit
when you have very little money whos gonna choose to pay debts over food and a roof ove rtheir head?

Do they run credit checks on offshore workers... (1)

VampireByte (447578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075577)

... when they outsource U.S. jobs?

It's a pity people don't do the reverse (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075585)

If employees checked up on businesses before going to work for them or buying products from them, we might not have so many ENRONs.

How did credit evolve (4, Interesting)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075586)

Is the good credit history from rich parents or hard work.
Is the bad credit history from circumstances outside your control, or the inability to control spending.

Most people I interact with have no spending control, they blame their poor credit on things happening, not their failure to have an emergency fund, or that they eat out 4 nights a week, have 2 cars, a boat and a pair of motorcycles.

Re:How did credit evolve (5, Insightful)

malilo (799198) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075679)

I can't make any judgements about the average-joe-with-bad-credit, but for myself (I have a "medium - low" score, it's not absolute trash, thankfully), I can say that while it certainly is my fault, I seriously question that it would have anything to do with how responsible or hard-working I am. The reason is that I incurred 90% of the damage to my credit while I was 18 and stupid. Yes, at that time, it might be true that I was irresponsible and would have been a bad employee (although it wasn't, really). I just had no idea how to deal with anything in the real world because it had never been a concern before. Some people might claim that if I'm a "new person" now, with my life and finances in order, I should be able to recover quickly. Since I'm in school and not making much money however, those debts are not going away soon. Nor do you find credit card companies to be quick to forgive. I think it will be at least 10 years before my credit is really on the mend, and I don't begrudge the lesson that high interest rates, etc will teach. But I think denying me a job on this account is quite out of order. In short, it presumes too much.

Staff from strength! (5, Insightful)

also-rr (980579) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075589)

Drucker once wrote that you should seek to staff an organisation based on the strengths you could find, not the lack of weakness, because that way led to (at best) being average.

Who cares if your R&D department cant remember to pay their bills? If they are good enough it'll be cheaper to hire someone to handle all that tedious interfacing with the real world while they prove that P=NP and engrave the steps onto the back of an atom using a method they developed in the bath.

In fact the business world *already* does this. The reason I have a purchasing department and a finance department and a contracts department is because I, as an engineer, am more valuable when I can forget about problems which are more efficiently dealt with by someone else.

Now I tend to pay my bills mostly on time, because it's the lazy option. I can even see how this might be a valid test for someone who was going to work in commercial or administration. But for most staff? Work out what the job needs to be sucessful and then ignore the other flaws - after all, managing flawed but brilliant people is why you have middle management and a HR department, employing their strengths to make you money.

Re:Staff from strength! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075611)

P is not equal to NP. There's never going to be such a proof. Count on it.

Foreigners? (4, Interesting)

lxt (724570) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075590)

I'm an international student studying in America. My credit rating is therefore practically zero, because I have no fixed long term address in the USA, few assets in the US, etc. To get a contract for my mobile phone I had to put down an extremely large deposit precisely because I had no credit rating. One of my concerns would be it can take a very, very, very long time for someone in my position to build up a good US credit rating, if even my rating at home is quite good...

Re:Foreigners? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075632)

If you've got a US bank account and you have no credit as opposed to bad credit, it should be fairly simple to get a decent credit rating. Get a credit card (a secured card if you can't get a regular one, but not a debit card), charge all your normal expenses to it and pay it off every month.

Big Suprise (5, Insightful)

rogabean (741411) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075605)

It's another example of ways to keep the poor... well poor.

And I'm not typically the type to rag on that bandwagon. But lower income families typically do not always have the luxury of being able to manage credit. Especially not in a way that would result in a good great rating.

This also doesn't take into account things that were beyond the control of the potential employee. Unless you are going to allow potential employees to speak up for the problems on the credit report, then I see this as discrimatory.

Strike that. I find it discrimatory period.

I'm a damn good employee at work, but my credit rating is horrible. I've fallen on my face too many times and have struggled to get back up. I hold myself above water now, but not enough to even begin repairing my credit. If something happened and I lost my job tomorrow, not being able to find new employment isn't going to help that situation.

Re:Big Suprise (2, Insightful)

Marx_Mrvelous (532372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075621)

Financial status has no impact on credit. I know people who live at/below the poverty line but have fine credit. And, I know people with 6-digit incomes who have terrible credit.

Poor != bad credit.

Unable to control spending and poor risk management == bad credit

What's wrong about discriminating against people with a history of making bad choices?

Re:Big Suprise (2, Insightful)

rogabean (741411) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075686)

Oh I agree. Poor != bad credit. But those at the poverty level and below sometimes have to make choices that will affect their credit to "get by".

How can you penalize someone who may have messed up their credit score for this reason in the same way as someone who messed up their credit by being frivolous?

And how are you giving those in the lower income levels a chance to repair the decisions they made if you deny them better jobs because of those decisions?

If you do not give the potential employee a chance to speak on behalf of their credit score, it's discrimatory. Period.

Blanket statements do NOT work. I would think by 2006 we would have gotten past blanket assumptions.

Re:Big Suprise (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075699)

Well it would be hard to find people for the board of directors for one thing.

Re:Big Suprise (5, Insightful)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075720)

What's wrong about discriminating against people with a history of making bad choices?

Because for people living between a rock and a hard place all choices look as if they were bad to those who have never been there.

Re:Big Suprise (1)

malilo (799198) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075762)

"What's wrong about discriminating against people with a history of making bad choices?" Because a lot more goes into a credit rating than "Timmy can't remember to pay his credit card bill" or "Suzie is a shop-a-holic and can't stop". 1) There is a lot of "joint credit" out there. Maybe you got a card with your parents or spouse and they totally charged it up and quit paying. This happened to a friend of mine in college who had his name on his parent's account and since it was virtually the only credit he had, when they stopped paying he was totally screwed. He never even used the card. 2) You can't say Poor != Bad Credit, it's more of a probability function. Any no, it's not because poor people are poor because that's what they deserve. Because I am in the lower middle class, and therefore not poor enough to get financial aid, nor rich enough to afford school (or have my parents give me a dime, for that matter), I have a lot of student loans. Fine, right? They'll pay off later. But for the time being, I have a debt/credit ratio of about 100%. Maybe you don't know, but this number accounts for a sizeable portion of your score (30%, I think) 3) Sometimes people go through a period in their lives that affects their choices. Say, you have a manic episode and buy three houses. But a year later you are on medication and recovered, but you still have totally fucked credit. Or say you are an 18 year old college student and get handed 3 credit cards on arrival at university. A year later you are $3000 in debt and you haven't paid your bills a half-dozen times. Stupid, yes, but maybe that person has learned their lesson. But you're still fucked. 4) Lastly, yes, some people (or say, a lot of people) can't handle their finances in the best manner. Partly I would blame the total lack of education on this subject (at least that I've encountered) - and you can hardly trust parents to teach what they don't know. But I just don't think the correlation between credit rating and success as an employee can be that strong.

Re:Big Suprise (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075775)

But lower income families typically do not always have the luxury of being able to manage credit.

How is this any different than saying that lower income families typically are unwilling to live within their means? If you can't afford to have a baby, perhaps you shouldn't be risking it, and so forth. Tv's and air conditioning aren't 'necessities'. Nor is steak(or any meat for that matter), a comptuter, the internet, or carpet. I sympathize with the desire to live a decent life, but debt isn't the way to do it, poor or not.

Credit history concept is flawed (4, Insightful)

mce (509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075609)

The entire credit check history idea is wrong, not just when used for filtering job appplicants. It builds on the notion that those who pay their debts are more reliable, completely ignoring several key facts.

For instance, it "paints over" the problems of people who structurally use debts to pay back earlier debts. In other words: you can easily dig a hole as deep as you want, provided that you are sufficiently clever at hiding it by moving it around.

It also ignores those who do not want/need to have debts at all, as they simply have no "history". Never mind that Mr. X has had enough money of his own to survive for years and has carefully built this position by working hard from day one and by never spending money on stuff he didn't need or couldn't afford. I'd argue that people in this situation are much better at keeping track of their money and spendings than those who have payed back debts everywhere.

Re:Credit history concept is flawed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075695)

"For instance, it "paints over" the problems of people who structurally use debts to pay back earlier debts. In other words: you can easily dig a hole as deep as you want, provided that you are sufficiently clever at hiding it by moving it around."

Interviewer: "We've taken a very thorough look at your credit history, Mr. Anderson, and notice that you have changed names, banks, credit cards, and many other dubious activities. You've attempted some pretty clever and sneaky tricks to hide your debt problems. Most companies probably wouldn't notice these things, but we have alot of experience with your kind." [dramatic pause]

"Congratulations! Not only are we hiring you, we think you could be executive material, and you will have a bright future here." [rises to shake hands]

"Welcome to Enron!"

Re:Credit history concept is flawed (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075724)

Credit history makes perfect sense... when evaluating whether to extend credit to someone. But it's also the only readily available and objective proxy measure for general reliability and responsibility, which means the temptation to use and misuse it is very high. With employers it is worse because HR departments in general really have no idea how to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in technical jobs, so they'll grab at straws for seemingly useful, objective, and easy to apply measures to cut down the applicant pool.

The other problems you mention, I think, are not as bad as you make them out. Someone with no credit history might have a problem, but nearly everyone who has lived independently for a while will have SOME credit history. Paying utility bills establishes credit history, for instance. So can paying rent (if you're paying to the Big Faceless Property Management Company rather than an individual landlord who probably doesn't deal with credit agencies). If Mr. X wants to establish credit, he can get credit cards and pay them off within the billing cycle. All that is enough to establish a very good credit history.

On the flip side, someone who manages to keep debt up in the air may have a good credit history (no late payments or defaults) but it will count against them in credit score, where their debt-to-credit ratio will probably be high, as will the amount of new debt.

Re:Credit history concept is flawed (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075737)

Financial institutions don't use your credit rating to evaluate how 'credible' you are, they use it to estimate their risk when entering into a loan or other arrangement with you. People with good credit history are lower risk than people with bad credit history, so the institution is willing to charge them less. They care about making money, not about getting paid back. Sure there is only a limited distinction, but rest assured creditors are making it.

Someone who does as you suggest and manages their debt cleverly is likely a lower risk than someone who doesn't. The credit rating/history doesn't paint over anything. If you look into it, you'll find that having large outstanding balances(as a percentage of your available credit) lowers your credit rating and thus your ability to take on new debt, which helps limit the risk of a clever debtor collapsing.

The thing about the person who paid back debts everywhere is that you know they did that. There is no way to know anything about Johnny Spendthrift, which is a worse situation for the other party.

reason #234 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075613)

that I'm self-employed. good lord, why do people put up with this.

Police Officer (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075615)

My buddy wanted to be a cop, long story short his credit was bad because of his friend, and when the did a credit check they told him he cant have the job.

Turns out you're most likely to accept a bribe with bad history.

Overreact (0)

Balthisar (649688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075617)

Jeesh, there's a lot of overreaction going on here. If you've got good qualifications, it's not like the employer's going to say, "gee, he's only got a 400 FICO score; let's throw him into the trash pile." There's a whole lot more to a credit report than just today's FICO score. If you were unemployed, then your score will drop as you rack up credit to survive. That will show up in your credit history. If you've done it responsibly, the new boss will see that, despite the score. If you've got shit-loads of defaults, though, at the same time you were working and getting paid, then maybe there's something about you that merits further questioning, don't you think?

We all have things that get outside of our control. FICO scores represent you TODAY. But your credit history represents you up to SEVEN YEARS (10 for bankruptcy) ago, so yeah, it tells about YOU and not necessarily only today's bad luck.

Case in point (anecdotal "evidence"): I had two charge offs when I secured my first mortgage, and my FICO was lower than normal as a result. But a HUMAN BEING looked at my entire credit history rather than just "today's score" and could see the path that I was taking.

Re:Overreact (1)

Perseid (660451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075747)

You assume a lot. You give a lot of credit where credit may or may not be due. You assume that Bob in the HR department is actually going to be able to interpret the credit history well enough to see 'the path you're taking'. Some employers will. Many will not.

And that's not really the point anyway. What I do with my finances is my business and contrary to what Spherion would have you beleive, there's little if any reason to beleive that someone credit history is going to reflect the kind of worker they are.

Maybe as a Risk Predictor for specific jobs (1)

AngryNick (891056) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075619)

The fact that Joe Employee has a bad credit history and a pending bankruptcy might make you think twice before you allow him access to your credit card db. People in desperate situations sometimes do desperate things when presented with temptations.

I once had an employee run a few credits through on her personal credit cards to reduce her balances. A nice person, but there were things going on with her finances that caused her to compromise her ethics. Had I know, I wouldn't have put her in a role that handled cc transactions.

Bull (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075625)

This is rediculous. The only way to get a "good credit history" is to go in debt and then pay for it regularly. Those of us who are responsible and have next to no credit score, well maybe they just aren't interested in us.

A FICO score is a stupid measure of responsibility for something like this. I would argue the person who plans well and doesn't get into debt is MORE responsible than the person who gets into debt and pays his monthly payments.

I know what Dave Ramsey [daveramsey.com] has to say about this.

So right my friend. (1)

CHK6 (583097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075785)

I agree with 100% with what you said and then some.

"If you cannot organize your finances, how are you going to responsibly organize yourself for a company? Organization is a measure of responsibility."--Carl Greenberg

Let me reword this to show what he really means.

"An organization is like debt, as soon as you are hired you are indebted to them. If you can not pay your debt to the company, because you are indebted to them, that would be a bad investment. So companies don't fire, they just write off the employee as bad debt so they can keep their good score."

So if you have a zero FICO score because you never went into debt, what does this mean then? I bet Carl would say "this shows a lack of need and greed from an individual. And being companies like greedy and needy folks, canidates like this would be better off not being hired."

Heresay (1)

eko33 (982179) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075628)

WARNING: Heresay is included in the following comment.

I've been told by several people that the rich typically have bad credit. I mean... why worry about paying of debt quickly when your loaded?

Re:Heresay (1)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075770)

I think you meant "Hearsay"... regardless, if you're loaded to that extent your debt payments are probably done automatically without you knowing, drawing from one account to cover the other.

Evidence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075629)

Have there been any real-world studies that correlate having good credit with good job performance? Sounds like bullshit to me.

McDonald's anyone? (2, Funny)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075638)

This reminds me of that joke that was posted on the net before:

McDonald's Fast Food Job Application

DESIRED POSITION: Reclining. HA But seriously, whatever's available. If I was in a position to be picky, I wouldn't be applying here in the first place.

MAY WE CONTACT YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?: If I had one, would I be here?

stupid attempts at correlation (1)

Scudsucker (17617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075642)

Someone may be a great worker on the job, but could be an obsessive-compulsive gambler or shopper off the job, which will hose their credit rating.

And organization and care in one area of someones life does not mean organization and care in all parts of their lives. Like that old bit of advice dads would give their daughters over potential dates - look at how well the guy takes care of his car. But what if you're dealing with someone who cares more for material possessions than people?

this sucks (1)

Spiked_Three (626260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075644)

Credit reporting institutions and banks are some of the worst most disorganized institutions there is.

Take for example Bank of America, who lost thousands of customer records not long ago.

My first personal experience was that I had bogus charges from a moving company. They trashed my belongings and then charged without authorization the credit card I used initially. I wrote letters, made phone and Bank of America would do nothing about it, except report me to the credit bureau. That in turned caused the interest on my other accounts to go beyond what even a loan shark would charge (30%+). It also prevented from getting a home equity loan on a paid in full house when I really needed it - so now the bad credit I am further accumulating is real.

The banks and the credit bureau have the politicians so in their pocket it isn't funny. Does anyone think the recent changes to bankruptcy laws were to the benefit of ANY of the public?

My second experience was the mistake of suing a bank for blatant errors and illegal activity, removing funds from my account after an explicit in writing instructions not to. For some reason, the sheriff's department could not locate the bank to serve the warrant (5 local branches). But I now have the benefit of not being welcomed at any bank in my town. It's not only the politicians the banks have in there pocket.

I don't know (0, Troll)

hyfe (641811) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075663)

A persons credit history is valid information about somebody. You're not supposed to lie to potential future employers, so in principle, this sounds sane to me. You are what you've done, and if you haven't lived, you probably haven't learnt either.

That said, I don't think employers credit checking is the real problem here. As far as I've understood, US credit checking companies are usually inaccurate sleaze-bags who generate overall scores based on amazingly inaccurate information. Atleast here in Norway, there are reasonably strict rules on what information credit-scoring companies are allowed to hold, for how long and they have to tell you whenever somebody checks you up. As far as I can tell, it's working wonders for privacy. Fix the information itself and the rest will sort itself out :)

Illegal credit checks (4, Insightful)

ipfwadm (12995) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075673)

Federal laws require that companies notify job applicants before conducting credit checks, butmany firms reason that viable applicants with good credit have nothing to hide.

When a company does a credit check, it is listed in your report, so this is just another reason to look at your credit report as often as possible. If I were to find that a company I had interviewed with had checked my credit without my knowledge and I didn't get the job, I would certainly be in contact with a lawyer or the attorney general.

Companies hav "lawyered up"... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075764)

If I were to find that a company I had interviewed with had checked my credit without my knowledge and I didn't get the job, I would certainly be in contact with a lawyer or the attorney general.
If you carefully read all the documents you signed when you applied for that job, I'm sure you will find that you did agree to a credit check. Most comapnies have lawyers involved with HR these days...

Re:Illegal credit checks (1)

-noefordeg- (697342) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075783)

Illegal?

I think it's perfectly ok thing to do.
My company often runs a credit check on possible customers, which is a sane thing to do. I hope you agree on that one.
Doing it on a possible employee seems like a even more sane thing to do.

The interview process is not... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075709)

... a means to determine your suitability for a job.

The interview process is the means to determine your non-suitability for a job. During the interview process, employers are looking for some reason, any reason, not to hire you. A credit check is just another way for the employer to find a reason why you should not be hired.

Re:The interview process is not... (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075773)

During the interview process, employers are looking for some reason, any reason, not to hire you.

You have beautifully described the path to mediocrity. Inherent to striving to do great things is occassional failure. If you only hire people who have never failed then are hiring people who have never taken a risk. Such people make wonderful bean counters ... hence the ever growing desire in the US to account for every bean, never mind the steadily declining quality of production - we at least didn't take chances! And we wonder how the icons of American business have lost so much of their market share.

What else do they see? (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075713)

I remember reading that a majority of all credit reports contain errors. Unless you work really hard at getting old stuff removed there can be tons of wrong or outdated information.

They will also possibly see where you shop if you use store credit cards, whether you bought a sofa at Levitz if you finance it with Levitz, where you bought your last car from and whether you are applying for other jobs. The main reason people fall into credit problems are: divorce, a huge medical bill or loss of employment. Do this employers take this things into consideration or do they just look at the credit report and not care why it looks like it does?

About ten years ago I guy I know withdrew his application for a job that he was well qualified for because the new employer wanted a credit report. The job was for butcher. Cause we all know that keeping your spending in line is really important when slicing steaks.

Forever more... (1)

careysb (566113) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075731)

Searching my credit history is bad enough but the release forms you sign to allow employers to do this usually has fine print that gives them permission without any time restraints. That is, they can check up on you whether they hire you or not and for an indeffinte period of time. I always modify their fine print to give them only 30 days of access.

errors? (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075736)

How about my GF who got bad credit for ignoring a final demand. Seems reasonable until you know that they were sending everything to the wrong address and she simply didn't know. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to work now? She has suffered from this problem for a couple of years and is finding it very hard to clear her name even though she earns very good money. Once you're into the 'computer says no' scenario it can be very hard to extricate yourself. I find this trend a bit worrying.

10 years ago AOL almost ruined my credit history because of their flakey accounting systems. Took me a while to sort things out there too. Little mistakes like this should not lead to enormous consequences.

Stupid tool (2, Interesting)

svunt (916464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075749)

I was an irresponsible youth with a drug habit once upon a time. During that time, I managed to ruin my credit rating pretty thoroughly, and it remained tarnished during the period when I'd got my shit together, and was working in the IT industry as a credit controller. I was extremely good at my job, which was enforcing business to business credit terms, despite having shockingly bad personal credit. Professional ingetrity and the ability to manage your personal affairs aren't necessarily related. I don't rate this as a valuable selection tool.

Student Credit? (1)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075751)

I am a student in Electrical Engineering about to graduate. Now, I managed to pay for part of my education through scholarships, but the rest I had to borrow on credit cards and other lines of credit. My credit rating is not as good as I'd like it to be (terrible?) and I can't imagine having to fork over those records. Hopefully if I am required to get a credit check, my potential employer would have the insight to see that students might have absolutely terrible credit, and it is not due to money mismanagement. When you have to shell out 5 times what you make in a year to pay for something that you HOPE will help you in the future, if it was anything other than education, people would call you stupid. My younger brother on the other hand dropped out of grade 9 and is working at Wendy's and he has great credit, almost perfect. They just let him buy a $45000 truck (Canada). Me on the other hand, probably couldn't lease a second-hand pinto.

credit check != credit score (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16075755)

Checking to see if someone has repeatedly missed payments or defaulted on loans is not the same as checking to see that they have a "strong" credit history, whatever that may be. Certainly the credit score is irrelevant, but it doesn't even show up on a standard credit check. What does show up is all of your past loans and how many times you missed payment deadlines. So if you have no credit history (recent immigrant) or have massive amounts of debt (paying for Suzy's cancer treatments), you don't have bad credit per se. I may not want to give you a loan at a favorable interest rate, but I won't judge you to be irresponsible. But if you've repeatedly missed making payments on your credit cards, car lease, mortgage, etc., I may deem you irresponsible and not want to hire you.

I understand this but the problem is. . . (1)

pravuil (975319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075757)

For a lot of individuals that will have to depend on school loans for reducating themselves within the market it's a hard call for those that are actively pursuing better things for themselves. Then there are those caught in unforeseen events such as medical emergencies that they can't avoid, otherwise they might die. Then there are those that are not necessarily educated enough to know any better to protect themselves from smiley glad-hands. I know a lot of people take advantage of the credit system and I know that there are those that depend on high interest for their income. To decrease lifestyle due to bancruptcies or accumulating debt, more so than what they are already going through, is like beating a dead horse. It goes no where for no one and only satifies a very negative agenda. It might be a measure of imcompitence on both sides but ultimately both sides will be motivated to change their policies.

What's the problem? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075771)

It shouldn't be a problem if you actively working on maintaining good credit and your finances. I wouldn't be concerned about whether or not your credit history would prevent you from getting a good job. A bad credit history can prevent you from getting a good place to live. When I got my apartment last year, my deposit was $200, the first month rent was $200 off, and I got a free microwave oven for signing a one-year lease. I had a great credit history and my income wasn't that consistent because I was contracting at that time. A friend applied for an apartment in the same complex because he thought he would get the same deal since he was contracting too. Nope. Bad credit history would get him an apartment with a deposit equal to the first month for a month-to-month agreement. Now he's living with a couple of recovering drug addicts since they didn't require a credit check or that much money up front.

Potential employers can see my credit history... (1)

cunina (986893) | more than 7 years ago | (#16075796)

... as long as it's okay for me to see their current balance sheets. Fair is fair. It's the same principle as asking me what I made at previous jobs: I'll tell them only if they'll release their current payroll numbers to me. If they don't like it, to heck with 'em.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>