comments
Oregon Bans Credit History Checks by Employers
Email
 Print
|
The Oregon Legislative Assembly has passed House Bill 1045, which would prohibit the use of credit history for use in employment purposes (it was actually signed by the governor in late March). In other words, employers in Oregon cannot use the information they collect in a credit report to make am employment decision such as hiring, firing, or demoting an employee. The law, obviously, goes into greater detail but the writing on the wall is clear – you cannot use credit checks to make any sort of employment decision.
My take on this is that it’s about time a state stepped up and stopped this practice. Not many employers do it, only about 35-40% according to an Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries spokesman, but that’s far too many.
The law does allow exclusions for:
- Employers that are federally insured banks and credit unions;
- Employers that are required by state or federal law to use credit history for employment purposes;
- The employment of a public safety officer who is a member of a law enforcement unit;
- Employers if that information is “substantially job-related and the employer’s reasons for the use of such information are disclosed to the employee or prospective employee in writing;”
If employers violate this law, employees or prospective employees are able to file a complaint and receive damages, compensatory damages or $200, whichever is greater; plus punitive damages.
We need a federal law mandating this so we can save state legislatures some time.
{ 191 comments, please add your thoughts now! }
Related Posts
 By Jim |
 Stumble It! Bookmark reddit.comTags: Credit History, Credit Report Jul 02, 2010 | Read more in NEWS |
Like this article? Get all the latest articles sent to your email for free every day. Enter your email address and click "Subscribe." Your email will only be used for this daily subscription and you can unsubscribe anytime.
I am glad to see there are exceptions – some of these jobs it’s important to know if the potential employees can handle their own money before I trust them with mine, or with access to my financial records.
I look at it like companies that employ drivers. They need to know the driver has a good driving record. Then they check on their employee every so often. That’s good business.
It’s good business for me if my bank does a credit check on their employees.
Agreed, this is long overdue. If left unchecked, the paranoid-side of me thinks that up next our medical history would be used. A prospective employee’s open heart surgery is not relevant to the job (save for the obvious exclusions such as firefighters and other jobs where a medical clearance is needed).
I disagree. As a manager, I can tell you that there have been several situations where an employee seemed great on paper and in interviews, but was a dud. The common thread? They all had awful credit, and I couldn’t figure that out before they were employed. Is it a litmus test? Of course not, But it should be allowed to be one part of a multidimensional appraisal of an individual’s abilities, commitments, and ability to follow through.
I with Grant on this one. As an employer we use it as a tool not a gauge. I’ll bet money if an prospective employee doesn’t pay his bills, take care of his obligations or care about his credit probably doesn’t care about showing up on time, treating customers with respect and promoting the company that supports him. Personally I think it is one more employer rights being taken away.
I disagree. Credit history should only be used for determining credit-worthiness, and credit-worthiness should only influence decisions related to granting lines of credit.
Employers never had a “right” to access their employees’ credit history, so this law does not take away any employers’ rights.
Grant did not establish a positive link between his dud employees and their credit history. That is, he did say that all his dud employees had bad credit scores, but he did not say that all his excellent employees had excellent credit scores.
You’re right, I haven’t done any double blind variable experiments, nor do I have the time.
However, when hiring, you’re making a very important, long term decision with very few data points. Therefore, the more you can compile and build as complete a picture of someone as possible, the better.
But collecting data that is not always relevant doesn’t help you make a better decision. You end up using the data to make unrelated decisions and assumptions.
I had very bad credit, all due to ongoing medical problems, and I have been told based on this that I had attitude problems and couldn’t deal with customers, in wholesaler stocking position, for soda pop.I had been a crew and job site supervisor in the drilling industry, which I could no longer do due to medical restrictions.
I never missed work, nor was late, I was responsible (literally) for the lives of 5-20 people everyday, as well as 5 million plus worth of equipment, plus the wells (also millions). No disciplinary problems nothing. Though I did,at the last begin to have less continuous work due to illness, at which point I too leaves or quit. As you “managers” know, if an employee misses one pay period, with most group plans, they lose health coverage.
This aside from the fact that my credit report revealed that I had some medical problem in itself( hospitalization bills etc).Though I doubt many people read what the collections were for.
(this aside from the fact that I have since medically proven it to have been caused by a recorded work injury/exposure from years ago)
Alexis Ava Correia passed away January 15 2007. My daugter, My credit went on a downward spiral since. You could talk to every company, I have ever worked for, They loved everything about me!
I recently was denied a position because of my credit history! LOL! My fiance and I, have yet to recover from loosing lexy. I have been layed off twice, we moved out of state and because of recession, moved back! We are still pay check to pay check, in a expensive state to live in! MASS!
Funny, because you will never meet someone with a better outlook on life! My credit history, does not state the tragedy of loosing a loved one! My smile, and determination, to overcome and recover from our loss, is unwavering!
Pathetic! That is all I have to say about companies who beleive credit checks reveal anything usefull.
Eric:
You obviously don’t know much about WHY somebody would have a less than perfect
credit rating.
1) Stolen identity. Sometimes you don’t find out about this for months or years.
2) Ex-spouse runs up credit cards – depending what state you are in.
3) Medical bills – insurance does not cover very much these days, and insurance companies are ALWAYS trying to et out of paying.
4) Maybe somebody typed in the wrong social security number on a credit report.
5) Credit of people with like names can get mixed up. My report says I lived a different town 5 years ago, which is incorrect.
6) What about people from a lay off? Not having a job dings your credit pretty severely.
Do you KNOW what the credit reporting rules are for your state? Do you KNOW from where the information is gathered?
i am a work from home medical transcriptionist. My credit rating has nothign whatsoever to do with how I do my job.
I love my job and I do it well, and have for
the last 26 years.
Grant:
That is not the case most of the time. I have had a credit score of over 800. Im now 40.
I have always been responsible, opened up 2 business, worked 30hrs in Technology to keep my business afloat. Lost my business due to the economy, Filed Chap7 personally. I worked 85hrs a week. Lost my last business, lost my job, because of laysoff.. Dont give me, that I must have been lazy. Credit Scores were never SOP. Ive hired my best workers without any credit checks. Just goes to prove, they are not has valuable as you think.
What planet are some people living on. We’re in the middle of a recession with lots of good hard working people that NOW have bad credit reports.
Sometimes bad credit is not an option. Take some time and look at the person…not his or her credit report.
How about the old fashion way of a good work history and progression in pay and responsibilities.
Yes, I own a company and hire people with bad
credit. For the most part they are humble and very grateful for the work. They work harder than most.
I think that checking someone’s credit history should be very limited. I consider myself to be very responsible individual but i have bad credit; all of my employers love me. The reason i have bad credit is that when i was in college i could not afford to pay bills all the time; i made a decision to prioritize my degree over bills. I have not payed those bills today because even if i do i am screwed on my credit history for years to come. I see no incentive to paying those bills and hey i can wait seven years. Punch line is that i have bad credit but perform excellent in almost all of the jobs i had and good in the others.
You owe that money. What a self-centered attitude.
Yup. And those self-less credit card companies loaned it to you out from the bottom of their hearts.
This is an excellent example of how people decide that the obligation is not what’s important; the consequences are. Gabriel decides not to pay past bills because there’s no ‘incentive’. That’s exactly why employers should check credit; there should be an incentive for people to maintain and improve their credit scores, otherwise you penalize those people who already do this by putting them in the same group as those who pay their bills only when they feel like it.
Wait seven years for a job, and then tell us how there’s no incentive to pay your bills.
Well, first of all… I had excellent credit for about 4 years out of high school. Went to work and paid my bills on time every month. About a year ago I lost my job and my credit went down the drain. I have not been able to find a job because I lost my car. I am fetting ready to graduate from college with a 4.0 GPA and Iam afraid my credit will hurt my chances of getting ertain jobs. Its not that I pay my bills when I feel like it…It’s like DAMN DUDE, if you want to give me the damn money to pay those bills…I will!!!!
In college you chose to prioritize your degree over paying bills that you owed. Now your credit is shot whether you pay them or not. Hindsight: you should have bitten the bullet a bit harder and at least tried.
“I see no incentive to paying those bills… ”
The goods or services were made available to you at your request with the agreement that you would pay for them. If you don’t make an attempt to pay them, you are morally and ethically bankrupt, and certainly qualify as a leech.
If you have no qualms whatever about cheating, you have no conscience and no employer should trust you.
Perhaps your incentive should be to be a respectable person rather than such a dumbass.
Yeah, and personally, I think FUCK YOU. People can be god employees/workers AND bad with money/credit. Or bad with PREDATORY LENDING practices by “employers” with too many RIGHTS. Maybe if you can’t find good people to hire, or don’t make good choices in your hiring without looking at someones credit score to tell you what’s up. If you constantly hire shit heads after talkign to their old employers, calling a reference, and meeting them. If you’re always fuckin it up, maybe someone needs to reevaluate hiring your dumb ass.
WOW Eric! Where do you get off saying that people with bad credit will not get to work on time and so on? Who promoted you into a managers position anyway? To be honest with you ERIC, I think you need to get a real prospective on life in the work place. I think if maybe you were demoted and put back in the position of cashier at MC Donalds for a little while, you might be a little more sensitive to all those poor individuals that you crap on and think of as just another number. OH and by the way….. Please work on your grammer and jargon, it makes you look worse as a prospective employer.
OH one last thing Eric and all you other pig headed employers up top in this discussion….. You all need to be kicked in the balls and stabbed in your eyes repeatedly.
Mike,
PERSPECTIVE is the word you meant to use, as in “get a real perspective”.
Grammar is spelled with two “a”‘s.
What is MC Donalds?
Only a new sentence should begin with a capital letter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon. I don’t think jargon is used correctly.
Are you a hypocrite or just an idiot?
I threw your job app. away just last week…..
Ironic, isn’t it?
I agree with you. Sure wish I had been able to do a more thorough check. It would have eliminated a whole lot of problems.
Also to all who object to this – do you have something to hide? If not, you should be in favor of this. Bad employees drive up costs.
Bill Snider
billsnider,
Never had a problem with my credit score or finding a job. I just recognize that I’m no more immune from future problems than anyone else.
I truly hope you never have a serious medical problem, or are a victim of identity theft,or get laid off, or any of the other hundred problems which can tank a credit report through little or no fault or control of a persons own.
But if such a thing does occur, I’d wager an attitude change would accompany it.
Agreed. And maybe if I had been able to run a thorough credit check on the company that I went to work for here in Bend (Gottschalks), who filed bankruptcy just months after opening their store then maybe I would have thought twice about taking that job. Instead now, after months of unsuccessful, dead-end job seeking, in a city with a 13% unemployment rate, I am forced to walk away from my home and demolish my once, very good credit, so revered by many employers.
Yup, sure wish I culd have done a more thorough check as well—it would have eliminated whole lot of problems for me too….funny that it doesn’t work that way.
Well, I better get back to packin’. Wondering if I will be able to land a job with my new credit…I guess now I will I have something to hide.
Well said eddie! Credit reports don’t reveal reasons, for good or bad credit! Its a piece of paper with a good story or bad! Problem is, Companies don’t care to know why it could be bad! That is what gets me most!
I have nothing to hide, but, I lost my job in 2009 and have been unable to find another one. I have tried to pay my bills and always paid on time until now, UC benefits running out. Jobs are not out there and I cannot pay my bills if my benefits have been cut. Credit has nothing to do with how I perform on a job. I got laid-off through no fault of my own because my previous employer cut his staff severely. Not my fault. He even said it was not my fault and that I was a good worker. Credit history should have nothing to do with work history and a bad economy.
I was being facetious about having something to hide and no, credit should not be related to job performance. It is simply amazing to me that it has been for so long and still is in the majority of the other states. Will my new prospective employer(s) be sympathetic to my scarred credit or will they simply just move on to the next applicant. I’ve been raised to believe that any excuse is a bad excuse…but how does a hardworking, dependable, honest employee get passed this especially now that I have to move out of state to find employment?
Bad employees drive up costs, and therefore have no right to work and shouldnt have a job anywhere cause they suck. They just lay down in the street and die cause they arent worth anyone hiring them.
I totally agree with Grant.
An ex-employer can be held libel if they report a poor work performance by a former employee. So a reference is no longer possible. Most employers make it a policy to decline comment. So what else is an indication an employee is of good character?
A poor credit history is often an indication of irresponsibility as a whole. There are exceptions such as medical expenses, other hardships. A prospective employee should be up front and explain the poor credit score if it is an exceptional situation. A prospective employer would appreciate the candor.
Not Cintas! I was up front! My credit history took a beating when My daugter passed away!
Cintas said too bad@
And some people screw up when they are young and end up with bad credit. And some people change. And an employer shouldnt even have the fuckin right to look at someone’s credit score. Fuck your mother. I bet youre one of those shitty dick managers who needs to be kicked in the balls and then beaten.
Yeah! And medical reasons. People getting fucked without insurancy. people who claimed bankruptcy cuase the bank fucked them on their mortage. (like my brother)
Everything thats wrong with what bussinesses do (besides leading to the person who made the decisions or carries them out and deserves to be kicked in the balls) is just a symptom of a greater problem. And its all fucked
This strikes me as a lose-lose-lose law.
It’s a lose for businesses, because one tool for picking the best employee has been removed. Sure it is arguable that the tool is or is not effective, but should the government be making that decision on how effective the tool is, or should the specific business? I would suggest the business has much more to lose if it is wrong than the state if it is wrong.
It’s a lose for the perspective employee because now one aspect which would make him stand out as the best person for the job has been removed, making the chance of getting a job less based on skill and talent, and making the whole job hunt random chance.
It’s a lose for the state of Oregon in that a new law has been added to the books that will cost additional money to a cash strapped state, and potentially will increase the demand on the states judicial system.
The point is, someone is going to be hired. Should it be a random individual or the very best person the business can find?
Mark
Good for Oregon!
With the reasonable exceptions Oregon sets aside, credit reports by themselves have no bearing on job performance(assuming they are even correct…..and after 5 years working in a credit union approving previously rejected loans after an error in members CBR reports were confirmed, I wouldn’t do a thing like that).
CBR’s for job applications are just another example of private business snaking it’s way into the personal, and it’s past time we start throwing up some barriers to the practice.
Eddie, I know I am repeating myself, but I have two questions for you…
- How do you know credit reports have no bearing on job performance. Certainly, this is not an obvious conclusion. Do you have any studies to support your claim?
- Who should decide that credit reports have no bearing? Should it be the business which has it’s very survival dependent on coming up with the right answer, or the State which has nothing to lose or gain if it’s right or wrong?
Mark
MarkBo1,
Point 1: Just to clarify, I said credit reports -by themselves- have no bearing on job performance, and that there are exceptions(which seem largely covered by the law in question). That said, I’m not sure as to how I can prove a negative…
I’ve hired people too, though, and even on the occasion where, because I didn’t check credit, someone managed to sneak by me with stellar references,great interview skills and fantastic, specific examples of what they could bring to the job(you know, all that little stuff that so many posters seem to consider easily dismissible fluff compared to 3 digits on a sheet of paper), there is still a pretty foolproof method I’ve found to weed out the lousy performers- generally known as reviewing their actual performance EVERY FRICKIN’ DAY ON THE JOB!!! It’s not a perfect system, but what is?
Point 2:I’ll answer your question with another question- would you rather have one of the most important aspects of your life decided by elected officials whose duties are public record and whose errors have remedies,or 3 shadowy companies describing your life through a formula you’ll never know based on factors that will never be completely explained, and who need never fear being held accountable for any mistake?
Not a pleasant choice….but to me, not a tough one, either.
Eddie,
You make a painful assertion in your post – that monitoring performance is a sure way to ensure anyone who isn’t cutting the mustard will make the grade or be gone. Not so easy. The amount of time I am required to invest in performance plans and other administrative pain is just not worth it. I don’t know where you work, but in a large organization sometimes it is next to impossible to let someone go due to performance outside of a RIF.
I want to add a comment about poor employees.
We once hired a person who got into a car accident after they finished their 3 month probation period. This person’s mother brought a doctors note in that said this person is bed bound. We put her on disability.
After a year we required her to come back to work or be examined by our doctor. She came back. After 3 months you guessed it. Another accident and another doctors note.
This went on and on. We finally did and investigation and found that she and her mother were scamming a whole lot of companies. If we had better systems, friendlier laws and credit checks (they didn’t exist as they do today), we could have blocked her at the interview.
This person collected almost two years of wages and a whole lot of our time. What is the big deal? We passed this cost to our cutomers in the form of higher prices.
If you don’t agree with me, hope you like paying more of your money for what we sold!
Bill Snider
I’m no so sure this ever would have shown up in a credit check. Even with credit checks, there will be people gaming the system.
Actually, such a scammer might have a great credit score! This person was collecting two years of wages without working… and had done it repeatedly! Why do you think that such a person would not have had a good credit score? And that credit checking would have helped you to weed out such a candidate?
Grant,
The only way I see cause for concern in the picture you paint, should the law go national, is given a pool of job applicants who:
1)Have a credit report which would disqualify them from a job if it were reviewed by an employer
-and
2)Are good enough in other areas that they get hired when their report is not checked
-AND
3)Are competent enough to survive their employers probation period(and, having worked in colleges, hospitals, etc where tenure is the Golden Ticket, I’ve yet to see or hear of a place offering such protection to employees without some kind of probationary period. Perhaps your employees have a better deal.If so, are you hiring?)
-but still
4)Are incompetent enough that the employer wants to fire them
-AND YET
5)they are not quite incompetent enough that they can be fired.
I’ve a cynical attitude towards the world in general and America in particular, but I’ve not quite reached the point where I’m cynical enough to see the number of those fitting all 5 points being very large.
To address the privacy claim, I agree that is a concern. But a persons credit history is not private, it is totally public!
If you want to argue that credit histories should be made private, you might have a lot of support from me. But businesses should not be punished or forced to turn a blind eye as long as that information is publicly available.
Mark
Well said!
Bill Snider
Sure, the info may be public, but not the reasons behind it. Making assumptions about the data can easily lead to wrong conclusions.
So are you saying that any time a business is capable of making assumptions about data that might lead to wrong conclusions, the State can and should step in using taxpayer money, and prevent the business from using that data?
Where do we draw the line since any data can be misused?
————-
I would point out that this law is a pure one to one trade-off law. For each potential employee that is hired due to this law, another potential employee, possibly more qualified, lost a job due to the law!
And then the taxpayers have to pay for this!
Mark
I don’t see any mention of our taxpayer money being used for anything.
A person’s health history is private and cannot be used in making an employment decision. Wouldn’t somebody with poor health potentially be a poorer candidate than somebody with a poor credit score? Especially in this economy with so many people out of work for long periods of time?
No one here has successfully made the argument that a person’s credit score can be used to designate a better vs. a worse job candidate.
The argument is that someone with a poor credit history is more likely to fail to honor their commitments or is more likely to not have a full understanding of money. Apparently you don’t believe this is true, but I think most people would agree with such a statement.
Some people that are great at dealing with other people and their issues are not necessarily great with their own issues. Just because someone has a clean and orderly workspace doesn’t mean they have a clean and orderly home.
Right. And just because someone stole from their previous employer doesn’t mean they will steal from their new employer. It just means they are more likely to steal from their new employer.
If they stole and got caught (and so you would know), it’d be a criminal matter and be on one’s criminal record. Again, that would be at their job (which is irrelevant to their personal credit score), which is different then their personal activities.
But you’re not hiring them to their former job (the one they stole from), you’re hiring them to a new job and have no idea whether they will be a good employee at your business or not. Just like you have no idea whether someone with a bad credit history will be a bad employee or not. Both measurements are clues, but neither tells the entire story.
For those who argue for the credit check…..
I am not in need of a job because I am happily retired and wouldn’t consider a paid job for anything.
BUT if that weren’t the case, I have no debt other than the 6 years left on my very affordable mortgage. I haven’t had a credit card in ages and none are open as credit references. I have no loans (other than my mortgage). Ergo, I have little, if anything, in the way of a credit score.
Should someone like me be denied a job because of that? Or am I missing the point?
Thanks, Imani
Imani,
This is a situation where you would have ample opportunity to explain your situation. Besides, credit history is more than just a score, so your story would match the credit pull.
However, in this ridiculous financial world, your credit-worthiness is as or more important than employment, as it leads to both more credit (when needed) and in some cases, may impact employment decisions. So, as long as we’re in this situation, you’d be best served by playing the credit game and having a couple lines open to prove yourself if and when needed. You never know when some tragedy will strike and you depend on that credit – job or not.
Why do you think you have a low credit score?
Your facts sound okay to me.
Bill Snider
Bill
Not having open lines of credit can hurt your. I personally think it’s a another way the banks and financial institutions keep us slaves to the credit game, For example in 2007 I financed 2 vehicles both with 5 year notes. Paid both vehicles off in just under a year. believe it or not my credit took a hit from that. I was told that eliminating your debt is worse than managing your debt over long periods of time. Sounds like another way of sucking interest out of the consumer. I choose not to accumulate debt. And for this I would be penalized?
Good comments people, but in my case, my wife became seriously ill, could no longer work, lost our health insurance (provided through her employment and since she wasn’t working, we could not afford COBRA) and had to file bankruptcy ($123,000 in medical bills).
Since then, I’ve graduated with a degree in accounting and then became a CPA. My horrible credit rating had no bearing on my ability to make a general ledger dance or my honesty.
But, no one will hire a CPA with a bankruptcy on his/her record. Perhaps I’m the poor dolphin caught in the tuna net, but I think there are more out there with bad credit that have legit reasons.
So, now I’m an IT guy–funny, in the capacity of a CPA with not much access to serious, serious, serious material (at least with the ability to do something with the info), I cannot get hired. But as the IT guy who can access ANYTHING in a company’s environment, I’m hire in a jiffy. Make more money, too.
Still
M. Stewart-
Medical bankruptcies- are one of the biggest reasons I feel as I do. I had a doctor friend tell me once “In this country, anyone upper middle class or below is one serious illness from losing everything they own”.
It’s all too easy to envision a Kafka scenario of illness creating credit problems, which makes it harder to get a job, which makes it harder to fix the credit problems, which makes it harder to get a job…
The idea that an employer would give someone a chance to explain the report is idealistic at best.
I’m glad things worked out so ironically well for you.
A significant portion of bankruptcies are caused by a family member’s medical problems. The person has medical bills and/or cannot work.. or he/she has a spouse or a child who has medical problems or cannot work. Such a situation can send a credit score down the tubes in a matter of months.
Unfortunately, a credit score or recent credit history might not show years or decades of responsible financial behavior if the person’s family has recently been hit with medical problems, employmment problems, a natural disaster, etc.
I was involved in hiring people for years and we had no access to credit decades back. I have absolutely no sense that having credit information available would have made a difference in our hiring decisions. We relied on employment history and references. The best indicator of performance was a personal recommendation from a respected individual already in the company who had worked with the person elsewhere.
Why don’t we ban companies from looking at employment history. Most of the people who have been fired the last year or two were probably just let go for cost cutting measures. Why should we let companies discrimate on that basis? As you said yourself, it is not as good an indicator as a personal recommendation anyway. Perhaps we should get back to a good ol’ boys system where it’s mostly about who you know.
There’s a difference between being fired and being laid off. If they were let go for cost-cutting measures, and the person was still a good employee, I’m sure the boss or reference at the company would say so. Also, as employment history is directly related to one’s job, this is very different than personal credit history.
Except that often employers have incentives to lie and say they were fired because if they look like they are laying people off the best candidates will not work for them anymore.
And your employment history is only related to your previous jobs. It is not related to the job you’re trying to obtain.
Maybe, and that just sucks you had to work for them. However, it’s probably not in their interest to burn bridges either.
Employment history is your past employment, true, but is therefore relevant to your prospective job because it provides a background of your skills and abilities.
All too true. Everyone is so smart yet so dumb. Credit has absolutely nothing to do with job performance. In addition those who think it does are elitist “never happen to me” or just misinformed. Those credit companies sure like taking company money for apples and oranges data. Yep the IT guy now that is too funny. He it is related in terms of data integrity, confidentiality, and privacy among other factors so your CPA is valid with your experience! People are so smart eh?
I agree with those that think this law is being overprotective. I think employers should be allowed to check your credit score, just like they should be allowed to check your criminal record, or your facebook profile (if it is made public). All of these things are important factors that make up the person they are hiring.
What a bunch of conservatives! Credit score has no basis on job performance, especially after the hard times many of us have had. I have a worthless Master’s degree that I just can’t make payments on right now. Going back to school shows intelligence and forethought, but it has ruined my credit. I was better off before. Working as a graphic designer, I don’t work with money, I cannot embezzle from a company. Should you not be hired for that misdemeanor traffic violation or that time you were arrested for peeing in public after that concert? I didn’t think so…
Mookie, personally I’m a died in the wool liberal. I would suggest it’s a conservative viewpoint that says laws should be passed to support special interest (like those with bad credit). It’s a liberal viewpoint that for any law, all of the pluses and minuses must be added up, and only those that come up on the plus side of the leger should be passed.
As I previously observed, this law benefits those with bad credit (fairly or unfairly). It hurts ALL of the rest of society. The negatives far out weigh the pluses.
Perhaps I can show an example you might personally understand. You stated you had a worthless Master’s degree. Certainly there is an argument that degrees have no bearing on job performance (I totally disagree, but then I think financial history also bears on job performance). So what happens if a law in your state was passed prohibiting employers from looking at degrees? This is totally consistent with your argument that financial history should not be used.
That means that those unfortunate enough not to have gotten even a high school degree can now compete for the same jobs your are looking for. Is that really a smart law? Will it bring you benefit? Is it good for society?
Mark
Mark & Mookie
You sound like young guys to me.
Talk to me again when you get a bit older and find the goverment taking everything you own.
Bill Snider
Bill, I’m 58 years old and done a little of everything and lived throughout the world in my life. I’ve certainly paid my share of taxes and seen all sorts of administrations.
While I certainly support laws (and the associated cost) when there is a benefit to society, I am also adamantly against laws that increase the cost of government when there is no or little benefit for society.
Given that for every job a person gets because of this law, another person (possibly more qualified) is going to lose a job, I would say this is definitely a law that has no benefit to society, and therefore is a bad law.
I would think that since you believe the government is taking everything from you (I doubt it, taxes are currently at the lowest level in years), I would think you would be against the government adding new costly rules and regulations, not in favor of it.
Mark
just about everything in my life. If you are concerned about the government taking from you, you should be against this law. It increases the bureaucracy (and associated cost) with absolutely no benefit to society.
I don’t see how this law constitutes the government taking anything from its citizens, nor that it uses taxpayer money.
Cubi,
When a job is given to a person because his financial history was hidden, it means someone else lost the job who had a better financial history. For every winner, there is a loser.
This law does not create jobs and it can be argued that it marginally destroys jobs because under the law businesses are less efficient.
As for taxpayer’s money, who do you think will pay for implementing and enforcing the law, the law fairy?
Mark
Mark,
The employers would only be less efficient if you believed that gaining a credit history was actually useful and allowed for a more efficient hiring process, which I don’t think it does.
I’m sure the enforcement will be rolled into similar activities and would have a marginal cost.
I said it could be argued that there would be job loss, and that depends on how important this information actually is in reality. I don’t know for sure and I’ll bet you don’t, and Oregon doesn’t know either. What is certain is that this does not create jobs (unless enforcement creates government jobs but that’s a poor use of government money).
I would also point out that Oregon thinks such information is of value, or it would not have created the exceptions in the law.
On cost, I’m always uncomfortable when someone blows off cost as being trivial or marginal. Especially, when Oregon already has a 3.8 billion dollar deficit.
Now here’s an interesting thought. This law removes one penalty for not meeting your financial obligations. Would that imply that it would therefore increase such failures? I know I’m stretching here, but it might be worth playing with.
Mark
Your argument, Mark, doesn’t make a lot of sense. A person’s education usually has quite a bit to do with their job qualifications. It usually shows specialized knowledge in a specific field… usually the field for which the person is attempting to get a job. It is a legitimate job qualification, as is experience in a specific field.
How does a person’s credit history equate as a “job qualification”?
And there is the privacy issue: A jobseeker usually reveals his/her degrees as it is a boon to his/her qualifications for employment. Even if a law should be passsed that prohibited employers from looking at degrees, most people would tell prospective employers about their degrees. You’d want a prospective employer to know that you spent a chunk of time and energy pursuing and gaining such a credential.
Jo,
I think you missed my point in my last post.
Let me put it this way. WHO should decide whether a specific piece of PUBLIC information is relevant when making a hiring decision?
Multiple Choice:
A. – You stated education is important but financial history is not, so does this mean you should be the one to decide what employment information is relevant?
B. – Should the potential employee get to decide what information is relevant?
C. – Should the State, without knowing anything about the job position or employer, get to say what information is relevant? Especially, should it do so when it must tax it’s citizens to pay for enforcing it’s decisions?
D. – Should the employer, who knows the position and has a financial stake in the decision, get to say what information is relevant?
The core issue here is NOT what public information is relevant. The core issue is “Who gets to decide what public information is relevant?”
Mark
Mark, a person applying for the job has every right not to include certain work history if they choose. The state isn’t increases taxes due to this, and the state’s job is to provide fair and equal protection. I don’t see this as a problem.
If the employer decides what is relevant, then that would allow them to ask ANYTHING, including your marital status (which is technically public but irrelevant to a job), if you have children, etc. Many of these things are currently not allowed to be asked.
Aren’t we still there. I mean screw ups get hired everyday because of who they know. not sure if thats all over the country or just Texas. Credit ratings should have no bearing on someones job performance. Look at Enron You think Ken lay and Jeff Skilling had bad credit. If someone has no moral fiber. they will do dishonest things regardless of their credit score.
Several people have argued this and I totally fail to understand the logic. Check me if you are wrong but you seem to be saying…
“Financial data may be inaccurate so it should not be used in hiring practices.”
It’s a black and while, throw the baby out with the bathwater argument. It says if the value is not 100%, it must be 0%. Grey data is not allowed.
Personally, being trained as an engineer, I don’t believe in black and white data, only grey data. However, unless I misunderstand, that is your argument. But if this argument is true, then it must apply equally to all data that a employer might consider. No changing horses in the middle of the stream!
Consider the resume. It certainly on average is less accurate than public financial data. So should Oregon also prohibit employers from using resumes when making hiring decisions?
Please do not respond back with resumes are important, financial data is not. That was not the premise of your argument, we are discussing data accuracy and usage.
Also don’t respond back with “You can check the accuracy of a resume.” The fact is you can also check the accuracy of financial data.
Thank you Mark for saying what I was thinking. No cost is trivial or marginal when you are running a deficit, and there are so many hidden costs involved in this law I think labeling the costs as marginal is wishful thinking at its best.
I know I’m posting too much here, but this discussion is interesting and another couple of thoughts occurred to me.
Hiring a person is just a financial contract, between the business and employee. If it ‘socially good’ to prohibit a business from using credit history in deciding whether to enter into such a contract with an employee, does not the same argument apply to any financial contract? In other words, shouldn’t all businesses be prohibited from using credit history when making any financial decision?
I’m also curious, did Oregon also prohibit potential employees from using the businesses credit history (and financial status) in the process of deciding to work for that business (something I always do when I’m thinking about working for someone)?
Mark
The financial contract is too general.
If I want to enter into a contract with the phone company in order to obtain a multi-year cell phone plan, it’s fine for the phone company to want to check my credit, because this contract involves my ability to pay the phone company.
But if the phone company wants to hire me, the money is flowing the opposite direction: from the company to me. What I am giving in exchange for the salary is my time, effort, skill, etc. My credit report HAS NO DATA about whether I am able to give my time, effort, and skill to the phone company.
I’m aware that credit-worthiness may have some relationship to character and responsibility, but surely there are other (and better) ways to assess these traits than credit history.
“My credit report HAS NO DATA about whether I am able to give my time, effort, and skill to the phone company.”
I absolutely agree with this.
“I’m aware that credit-worthiness may have some relationship to character and responsibility, but surely there are other (and better) ways to assess these traits than credit history.”
I think you’d have to know a person’s complete financial history before you could make an assessment that credit-worthiness has any relationship to character or responsibility. Responsible people who can’t pay their bills due to job layoffs, being off of work for a period of time due to health problems, having a family member who can’t work or has health problems, etc., are generally extremely distraught about it.
Grant…
You raise a question I often debate with myself…to play the credit score game or not. I have chosen to not play that game.
Like I said, I have no debt other than the last 6/7 years on my mortgage. I am retired. If my retirement money fails, that means the federal government fails and my and our problems would be severe.
Getting back to the point, I would hope nobody in my situation, i.e. next to no credit history, would be denied a job because of that or because of age over 55.
Maybe paying my mortgage and few utilities help my credit score. Who knows?
Anyway, Grant, thanks for your thoughts.
Imani
I work for a company that does pre-employment credit checks, and a large part of my job involves the reviewing/deciding about applicants based on their background check results. I can tell you that we really struggle with the credit checks. We don’t even check credit scores, so Imani would be golden in my book. We are just trying to rule out people who have large amounts of seriously overdue debt, or bad debt write-offs, with no history of taking some responsibility for these debts. We want to see payment agreements, or any small steps in the direction of taking ownership and resolving the obligations. To my mind, they are obligations; if one enjoyed the goods or services, one should also plan to pay for them. Sometimes adverse circumstances get in the way, but we want to see that there’s an intent and effort to eventually make good on that promise for payment. We would also never dream of making an adverse employment decision based on a background check without talking to the candidate first. We want to know if there are errors on the report, or serious extenuating circumstances. Finally, there are laws restricting the ability to consider a bankruptcy against a candidate. For most of our decisions, a bankruptcy filing is an automatic pass, as counter-intuitive as that might sound.
I didn’t realize that bankruptcy is an automatic pass. Actually that makes sense, at least for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. A Chapter 13 filing probably indicates that a person is an extreme financial situation and is making an effort to pay off some of that debt vs. just walking away from it.
Not counter intuitive at ALL. A person with a bankruptcy does not have high debt and thus is not under financial pressure to exploit an opportunity to steal. This is one of the premises for checking credit in the first place.
Credit Reports should not be used for employment because they are not a good predictor of employment. They are predictor of you defaulting within 90 days, nothing else. Also the average employer does not have enough knowledge to analyze the information. Instead it creates a blacklist of people who can not work.
Is a person who can not pay for their own or family’s cancer treatment irresponsible? How about someone who uses their credit limit up to the max for groceries when they can not afford to put food on the table. This shows rational good decision making wouldn’t that mean they are good employees?
Guess which group of people walked away from mortgages when they could afford to pay 750+ crowd, why? Because people with good credit know how to use it that is all. It is very imperfect information. Much like looking at someone’s teeth to see if they are good for a job. It relates to other matters but most employers end up misusing it because they misunderstand it.
Also, if I have incorrect information to protect my rights I should be able to sue my creditors for not posting positive information and correct information. Otherwise my rights are violated.
OK, I’m going to go out on the macro scale for a second. One of the characteristics of a true effective free market (according to no less a person than Adam Smith) is that information must be transparent throughout the market.
The reason ALG, Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff and BP were all able to do so much damage both to society and the free market was that they were able to hide information from the market.
In simplest terms, hiding information from the market is almost always damaging to society!
This is a law that demands the hiding of information from the market. This is a bad law.
———–
I still have to hear anyone say why this law is good for our society. Yes, such a law helps people with bad credit, but the opposite side of the coin is that this law hurts everyone else, including people with good credit, society as a whole, businesses and the state of Oregon! Give me something to hang my had on, why is this law good for the people of Oregon?
Mark
So there should be true transparency in the hiring process and only those people who look excellent on paper after that process should be hired?
If that were the case, then the company should have full access to all your information including your medical and all of your families files (because let’s face it, they distract the employee from what’s really important).
In the scenerio you listed above, that would be totally acceptable.
People are more than numbers. A vast majority of people with low credit have very good or extenuating reasons (medical, death in the family, divorce, even acts of nature. I’m sure Katrina and the gulf spill have been wonderful for peoples credit). As far as I’m concerned, your credit score Should be private.
Let’s circle back to the reality of the question here. The question is, it is good or bad for society to prohibit businesses from using public information in making hiring decisions? I am suggesting that it is very bad for society in general, it is bad for most individuals, it is bad for businesses and it is bad for the state. I do note it is good for people with bad credit records, but I see no evidence that this good for a small subgroup of individuals comes even close to overriding the damage to the rest of society.
Continuing to argue that it is good for the subgroup does not change anything. That’s already a given. It’s obviously good for the subgroup, what you need to show is that is it good for society as a whole!
Does my open market argument imply that my observations might extend from public information to private information like medical records? Certainly it can be argued so. However, just because my argument extends into that space doesn’t mean it trumps there. There is an excellent counter argument of individual privacy when we come to private information that just does not apply when we are discussing public information.
Mark
Why is it good for the state of Oregon? It will help many good, deserving workers get jobs and again become productive, taxpaying citizens. Otherwise these people with bad credit might wind up on the public dole, using food stamps, defaulting on their mortgages, ultimately living on the street. Isn’t it in the public interest that people work and pay taxes… vs. not work, not pay taxes, and use government resources?
Or it will lead to an influx of people with bad credit who cannot get jobs elsewhere and an outflow of people with good credit who want to leverage their status to their own benefit. If we did a study, I wonder which type of person would be more likely to pay their state taxes…
Doubtful. Oregon already has an influx of people even though there is a lack of jobs. I doubt more people with bad credit will decide that Oregon is the place to be, any more than people with good credit will decide that they have a better opportunity elsewhere because of their credit.
They have an influx of people about at the rate of the US as a whole. We will likely never know whether this law has an effect on migration paterns, but I don’t see how it is going to help.
Oregon is already generally considered business unfriendly, so I’m not sure this would change anything.
This also makes it more unfriendly to employees with good credit histories.
LOL Bernie had good credit.
This is quite an interesting discussion, I have to say. As much as I empathize with people’s concerns, I completely side with business on this one. Here’s why:
1. People have a choice as to what business they want to work for. They can pick and choose companies that do extensive character/background/credit/other checks, or they can choose companies that do not. There will always be companies that do not for various reasons.
2. People and Employers should be able to use any and all information they choose to make an acceptance/hiring decision. The contract goes both ways, I would not want to work for a company that is flat broke and/or does not pay their bills on time and I would not want to hire anyone in a similar situation. Regardless of any extenuating circumstances, we all have standards and we should be allowed apply them.
3. The argument of business taking all the risks here and government taking none is a valid one. Note the language: An exclusion is made for Employers that are required by state or federal law to use credit history for employment purposes. This clearly shows that this law is an example of Do As I Say, Not As I Do.
4. I find it very hard to believe that your credit score, which primarily checks your ability and history of how you fulfill your financial obligations, would have no relevance to how you fulfill other obligations in life, such as those in a work setting. How much relevance is certainly arguable, but to say there is no link would be to deny that how we handle money has any bearing on our lives.
My opinion is the opposite; Money and money-related decisions have a HUGE effect on our lives, from where we live to where we work to whether we marry to how many children we have to our overall health to our overall happiness and a great many more things I could list.
Thank you for listening.
Benjamin
1. This reflects the old thinking that the contract between employer and employee is equal. This kind of thinking, when it resulted in laws, has usually been overturned. Wish I could refer you to a few such Supreme Court cases.
2. If a company is privately owned, the employee will not be able to judge the financial health of such a company. If you are considering working for a privately held company, you usually have no way of knowing whether it is flat broke.. and I can understand that you might not want to work for a company that is “flat broke”: They are paying you to work there; the inverse is not true.
Also pertaining to 2: Should a company have a right to look at a prospective employee’s health records? What about checking on how well the prospective employee’s children are doing? Or how well he/she maintains the home in which he/she lives? Does the prospective employer have a “right” to investigate all of these things in making a decision about a prsopective employee?
4. The problem is that checking recent credit history, a recent credit score, doesn’t give the full picture of how a person fulfills financial obligations. If a person has had a great to stellar credit record for decades and within a couple of years their credit descends into the pit due to long-term unemployment and/or health problems, their current credit score will not be any indication of how well the person fulfills their obligations.
And a person’s financial situation (credit score) doesn’t reflect how well they fulfill their obligations in life. An honorable, responsible person who can’t pay their bills… who cannot honor their financial commitments… is generally going to be distraught and depressed. Responsibe people don’t feel good about not paying bills. The key word here is “cannot”… and don’t for one minute assume that the reason that that person has these financial commitments is because he/she has taken trips to Vegas, bought expensive new cars, etc.
Most people who are having financial problem now have them for two major reasons: Long-term unemploymenet and/or decrease in pay; or family health problems and bills.
Correct some in this world seem to live on another planet. They are really out of touch with reality and their current external environment. It makes me wonder about their ability to really do their jobs effectively. They make static judgments in a dynamic environment.
I think you are misunderstanding information with respect to the free market. First the information should not be free it has a cost, if the cost of information is higher than it’s acquisition than the market will not adjust for that information. Also, the market’s information is based on perception not reality. So we we perceive people with bad credit as being bad employees it would show up in the market. Although if you really believe in that than you know a company will see medical collections and know you or your family will increase there health care cost. In a free market the employer needs to adjust for that information. So they would not hire you because of that reason. Also wages are not completely flexible or else an employer might just adjust the wage downward for a risky employee. In low wage labor that option is not there. So the free market argument needs to be in that context.
The only way it makes sense to allow these records to be used is if you can access your report 24/7 for free. So you can dispute mistakes on the spot. Things like inquires and stuff do not matter since employers are not looking for score so not worries there really. We should probably not show medical collections on those reports, or show them for a shorter period of time say 2 years. That way it still does damage but is more realistic. But that will only partially solve the issue. We also need to allow people to sue for mistakes on reports. If I lose a 50k job I need to get that compensation plus punitive damages so maybe 500k. But then no one would post information. See it is because the government protects these agencies that this is an issue. Oh and a lot of people do not know credit affects employment prospects. So we need to have that warning an everything we apply for.
I myself have excellent credit, my father does not. He is a very good worker though and gets excellent evaluations from his employer. If he were to lose his job it would be hard for him to get another because of this. Although he has no more debt, since he payed it back there was a period we he was late on payments but always paid. He paid the penalties but why should he have to pay twice? Also, I fear for myself what if I get cancer one day and can not afford all the care and it goes to collections. Since I specialize in finance/economics my employer or future employers will not hire me. Oh course only irresponsible people get cancer we all know that right?
Would everyone also support laws that say that employers can’t take criminal records into account. Obviously, the law would exclude police officers, etc.
Yes, if it was for nonviolent drug charges and other related issues yes. Or else it blacklist employees.
This is just like lie detectors, a lot of experts believe they do not work but certain employers and government use them. Why? I will explain say you have 100 applicants and only 25 are qualified for a job. You need to offer the job to one of three people per positions since some will turn it down. Say you need 4 people you now need 12. Now you can use other non exact measures to cut people off. Requirement for college education so you can “signal” to the employer you care about job. Requirement of good credit, even if it does not work hey either candidate of the remaining 25 is good so what if you knock of a few good people. Problem is we are in a society that expects people to remain employed for most of the time, so this has extremely high social cost. The only way these cost would not appear is in a tight labor market. What for short-term is nonexistent. Even in the long-run employers complain and we increase immigration or have a blind eye to illegal immigration. So the market can not adjust on one side, that is the side of labor.
But why allow employers to use violent or non-drug charges for jobs that aren’t related to those crimes? Just because someone has been convicted for murder doesn’t necessarily mean they would be any less of an engineer.
Are you really going to equate someone who has been convicted for murder with someone with bad credit or even someone who has had a misdemeanor drug charge 40 years ago?
I’m not equating them. I’m just saying that both a murder conviction and a bad credit history reflect poor choices that may mean a candidate is not as suited for a job. Both can be obtained for reasons that show lack of character, but both can also be obtained for other reasons. There are many people in this country who are convicted for murders they didn’t commit. And even if they did commit a murder 20-30 years ago, does that make them unfit to be a telemarketer or an accountant? What does a past murder conviction have to do with how well someone can do a job?
A bad credit history does not necessarily equate to poor choices. There are many situations where its just bad luck.
Cube – are you suggesting that a conviction always equates to poor choices?
There are no certainties in life. Being fired doesn’t always equate to doing a poor job at work. Going to college does not always equate to being more knowledgeable. But we let employers use this information as they see fit because having as much relevant information as possible is helpful.
I agree with this. Really I do not feel that credit should come into play with employment. As long as you do the job which they pay you for why should your credit history really matter?
I’m glad for Oregonians!!! Especially during this economic times; due to a job loss potential candidate might fall behind on her/his bill and not be able to get a job because their credit is messed up (are behind on their bills). It seems unfair for something that may have nothing to do with their skill or job they’re after.
Any way, companies should spend their money on productivity, service, training employees, etc… not policing personal/employee credit. As long as this person has the skill to get the job done, that should be the end of it. If they took the time to acquire the skill + knowledge, that’s their credibility. Circumstances are different for everyone. Credit isn’t a good gauge. Have you ever watched “American Greed: Scammers on cnbc”? They all had perfect credit
“When hiring, you’re making a very important, long term decision with very few data points. Therefore, the more you can compile and build as complete a picture of someone as possible, the better.”
This logic therefore holds that its necessary to see health records in there too? How about driving record and tax returns? Certainly drug testing shouldn’t be option? And if I cheated on my ex-girlfriend then I’ll cheat and pinch a little off the books too.
All it it is gross intrusion!
May the tide sweep across the land
At my company, we disregard all medical-related debt.
Never heard of that one before…I guess because medical debt is often unavoidable?
But many people put medical related bills on credit cards. If a person has medical-related debt, there’s a very good chance that his/her credit cards also reflect a significant amount of medical debt.
The problem is that Oregon is taking away the business owner’s choice to make hiring decisions based on what they think matters. This sort of restriction wouldn’t work if it was reversed and applied to employees, and the question of whether credit makes a difference in work performance is just that, a question. The best answer I can think of is, some of the time. Others might say always, or never, but it doesn’t matter. People, business owners or employees, should have the right to decide for themselves.
As Bill’s earlier story point out, businesses will simply pass the cost of this law onto their customers, as they do with all others that affect them negatively. That means every good, hard-working citizen of Oregon (of which I’m sure there are many) is subsidizing the few lazy, scamming, or just incompetent ones. This law helps to perpetuate a system where the latter group is enabled to continue what they do, rather than be flushed out because the system will not support them.
Thank you for listening.
Benjamin
So, Benjamin, you then do believe that employers should have the right to investigate the health history of prospective employees? Why should a business have to subsidize the cost of an employee with a serious chronic disorder who is going to be off of work more than the next guy?
It’s also clear that you believe that people with bad credit are uniformly lazy, scamming or incompetent? The system should “flush out” those who have been economically devastated by employment and/or health problems? Why shouldn’t someone who has been in a bad financial situation be allowed to pull themselves back up by honest work?
Do you really believe that all people who have bad credit should wind up on the public dole to be subsidized by the “good” hard-working people of Oregon who have good credit?
I would suggest that recent scammers, such as the officials involved in Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc., probably had golden credit. As will many successful thieves and con men.
Hi Jo, thank you for your direct response, although you seem to have twisted my words a little bit. I do not think that everyone with bad credit is dishonest, anymore than I think everyone with good credit is honest. The same goes for the other negative adjectives, lazy, incompetent, etc. they don’t automatically apply based on credit score. However, credit scores do exist as a check/balance system, and everyone (business owners and regular individuals) should be able to use it along with their own judgement to make determinations.
As for health history, since you bring it up I do think that is relevant information as well when making a hiring decision. I know we are all concerned with our own privacy, but businesses have the right to be concerned about the overall health of their employees because it can affect them in many ways.
Please understand me clearly: These are simply isolated factors that contribute to the whole of an individual, and any business that makes a decision based on one of those factors only is probably making an uninformed decision. But people everywhere should have the right to choose.
Thank you for listening.
Then we might as well roll back decades of employment decisions and allow employers to discriminate in hiring for anything, race, gender, etc.
There’s a reason these laws exist, to try and equalize opportunity for the good of all.
Hi Geoff, I’ve been reading your responses, here are a few thoughts:
There is a difference between having hiring standards and discrimination, but the line is becoming increasingly blurred. Anyone could argue that all sorts of standards (like hiring someone with a good work history, good credit, good interview performance) are discriminatory, citing all sorts of examples where a particular factor did not apply. However, if you follow that path to the end you reach a place where employers are simply mandated to hire anyone regardless of circumstance or any information acquired. This sort of thinking will crush small business, the type that can least afford a bad employee. The way that comes back on the taxpayer is that government will step in to subsidize businesses that should be allowed to run profitably but can’t due to their restrictions. This money is not easily traced back to the taxpayers, because most of it comes out of our pockets through inflation.
In summary, businesses should be allowed to be profitable and use their own hiring standards rather than having those standards chosen by others who are not taking the same risks. People should work to maintain and improve their credit, and knowing that this will help them in getting a good job will be added motivation for them to do so.
Thank you for listening.
Your assuming that most people with poor credit are few, lazy, incompetent and scamming. In addition your correlating credit with job performance. You are condoning violation of personal privacy. The problem is on this issue you have tunnel vision and “never happen to me” There are many circumstances in life that can lead to poor credit. You obviously not living in the great depression number 2. Your factoring past data that does not work in the current external environment.
As an employer, you have at most 60 minutes to ‘get to know’ a prospective employee. You must make your hiring decision on just a few limited bits of information: the resume, the interview, past employment references (most of whom won’t comment on bad employees), and whatever paper records you can gather.
This law strips the employers ability to get a telling glimpse at how responsible an individual is with their personal finances without replacing it with an alternative.
I hired for years without benefit of knowing their credit history. Some of the people I hired were great; some not so. Are you telling me that the people who use credit histories to discriminate against employees are making much better decisions than I did.. when all we had to look at were recommendations, references, and discussions of technical knowledge?
As an alternative, what about checking references and recommendations (not just past employers)? Panel interviews so that several people can give feedback on a prospective individual? Technical interviews or tests?
another not living in the current world.