States may ban credit checks on job applicants

[bobbyw24]

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — It's hard enough to find a job in this economy, and now some people are facing another hurdle: Potential employers are holding their credit histories against them.
Sixty percent of employers recently surveyed by the Society for Human Resources Management said they run credit checks on at least some job applicants, compared with 42% in a somewhat similar survey in 2006.

Employers say such checks give them valuable information about an applicant's honesty and sense of responsibility. But lawmakers in at least 16 states from South Carolina to Oregon have proposed outlawing most checks, saying the practice traps people in debt because their past financial problems prevent them from finding work.

Wisconsin state Rep. Kim Hixson drafted a bill in his state shortly after hearing from Terry Becker, an auto mechanic who struggled to find work.

Becker said it all started with medical bills that piled up when his now 10-year-old son began having seizures as a toddler. In the first year alone, Becker ran up $25,000 in medical debt.

Over 4½ months, he was turned down for at least eight positions for which he had authorized the employer to conduct a credit check, Becker said. He said one potential employer told him, "If your credit is bad, then you'll steal from me."

"I was in a deep depression. I had lost a business, I was behind on my bills and I was unable to get a job," he said.

Hixson calls what happened to Becker discrimination based on credit history and said his bill would ban it.



http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-03-01-jobs-credit-checks_N.htm

[Chester Copperpot]

yes... states should ban this practice.. fuck the bankers and their beloved credit reports

[psi2941]

yes... states should ban this practice.. fuck the bankers and their beloved credit reports

i would want to take it a step further, if its not your name then, you can't run someone else's credit score.

[foofighter20x]

i would want to take it a step further, if its not your name then, you can't run someone else's credit score.

Assuming that you are going to make an exception for those running credit scores because they are contemplating lending that person money, right?

[Anti Federalist]

yes... states should ban this practice.. fuck the bankers and their beloved credit reports

Agreed.

[Icymudpuppy]

As a business man, I find it very useful to check credit reports. It affects my costs for vehicle insurance, contractors bonding and insurance, and trustworthiness for using my commercial account at various hardware stores. Ban it, and I'll just not hire any new people until my insurance companies and creditors have checked my applicants credit reports themselves.

[DamianTV]

Dude, I dont even know what to say to that. Just keep supporting their system.

[Fox McCloud]

employers have the contractual and property rights to discriminate in any way they deem fit--if they feel that hiring a high-credit employee is more beneficial to their business in the long run, and that's accurate, then they'll be rewarded for it with higher productivity and/or profits. If this turns out to be the case for a number of professions, then it'd likely become common-place (no big deal there).

If it's a bad idea, then they won't gain anything and businesses won't use it as a factor for employment.


the credit reporting agencies shouldn't be so tightly controlled by the government, and there needs to be way less regulation in the banking industry, but, never-the-less, this should be something that shouldn't be banned.

[Stary Hickory]

employers have the contractual and property rights to discriminate in any way they deem fit--if they feel that hiring a high-credit employee is more beneficial to their business in the long run, and that's accurate, then they'll be rewarded for it with higher productivity and/or profits. If this turns out to be the case for a number of professions, then it'd likely become common-place (no big deal there).

If it's a bad idea, then they won't gain anything and businesses won't use it as a factor for employment.


the credit reporting agencies shouldn't be so tightly controlled by the government, and there needs to be way less regulation in the banking industry, but, never-the-less, this should be something that shouldn't be banned.

Exactly I am amazed at how fast so called liberty lovers will turn into statists when it suits them. Agree with it or not the companies are private and can use whatever criteria they want to fill employment positions. If they feel it is a valuable tool for hiring employees then that is their prerogative.

You have absolutely ZERO say in how a man conducts his private affairs or what he does with his property.

[TastyWheat]

It sucks that employers use this information in hiring considerations, especially since we're a debt-driven society, but if that's how they want to conduct their business nobody should force them to do otherwise.

[akforme]

Exactly I am amazed at how fast so called liberty lovers will turn into statists when it suits them. Agree with it or not the companies are private and can use whatever criteria they want to fill employment positions. If they feel it is a valuable tool for hiring employees then that is their prerogative.

You have absolutely ZERO say in how a man conducts his private affairs or what he does with his property.


Yeah I was a bit amazed by that as well. I hate the credit system, I think it's complete bullshit but if a business wants to use it I don't want the state to get involved.

[KenInMontiMN]

I fully support any and all law that restricts general information dissemination regarding people's private matters; that preserves the individual's liberty to present their own person forward each day anew, free of long trails of past history that is always hopelessly generalized. Any person or organization that disseminates or requests past credit info for reasons other than matters directly about extending further credit should be subject to the potential of civil penalties proportional to the damages done by such actions, as determined by a civil jury.

[akforme]

I fully support any and all law that restricts general information dissemination regarding people's private matters; that preserves the individual's liberty to present their own person forward each day anew, free of long trails of past history that is always hopelessly generalized. Any person or organization that disseminates or requests past credit info for reasons other than matters directly about extending further credit should be subject to the potential of civil penalties proportional to the damages done by such actions, as determined by a civil jury.

So you believe I don't have the liberty to run my business how I want?

[bobbyw24]

So you believe I don't have the liberty to run my business how I want?

What does that mean? Run your business how you want?

Need to be careful with that argument. That's the same argument that many business owners used in the 50s and 60s in order to discriminate against black Americans who wanted to exercise their liberty and use the servies that those businesses freely offered to white Americans.

[noxagol]

What does that mean? Run your business how you want?

Need to be careful with that argument. That's the same argument that many business owners used in the 50s and 60s in order to discriminate against black Americans who wanted to exercise their liberty and use the servies that those businesses freely offered to white Americans.

Which was well within their rights. It wasn't their liberty to use them, it was their liberty to ASK to use them. It's up to the provider of the service to determine if they will get to use it or not, as they are the one provided the service or the one that owns the product. You might not like it, but that is the way it should be. Those business owners were idiots for turning away extra business.

And banning this practice, the use of credit checks, will just result in more unemployment as businesses will be more reluctant to hire people since this would introduce more uncertainty into hiring people.

[puppetmaster]

What does that mean? Run your business how you want?

Need to be careful with that argument. That's the same argument that many business owners used in the 50s and 60s in order to discriminate against black Americans who wanted to exercise their liberty and use the servies that those businesses freely offered to white Americans.

this is what gets me....why would anyone want to support a business that does not want your business?? I have seen it first hand with a black owned business that did not want me to use their business,....so i didn't, happily.

private biz folks PRIVATE. let them run themselves out of business if what they do is so wrong

[ArchPaul]

Exactly I am amazed at how fast so called liberty lovers will turn into statists when it suits them. Agree with it or not the companies are private and can use whatever criteria they want to fill employment positions. If they feel it is a valuable tool for hiring employees then that is their prerogative.


I wouldn't mind IF THE SYSTEM WASN'T FIXED! Your going to tell me I'm irresponsible because my credit score is hosed... why? because a bunch of monkey
fucks screwed up the economy and I had to take a pay cut. That pay cut resulted in me losing my home because the bank didn't want to negotiate! FUCK YOU!
Credit scores are legalized extortion rings!
The card companies are going to charge you, to keep their credit
card, and if you don't pay up. Well, they'll close your account,
which will affect your insurance, ability to get a job and all
the other propaganda they pump out from the cutsy free credit report
.com commercials. So you either pay up, or your gonna get hurt!
All these ratings agencies should be tried under RICO.
They are CRIMINAL organizations.
Extortion.
Racketeering.
Counterfitting.
Just to name a few.





You have absolutely ZERO say in how a man conducts his private affairs or what he does with his property.

You can't even see the hypocrisy in your own statement! You want to defend the right to pry into my private affairs via credit report. But you don't want the state to be able to tell you not too! At least be fucking consitent!

[torchbearer]

here is the problem i see-
a person gets laid-off and thus can't make his mortgage or credit card payment gets dings on his credit report. this person tries to find more work so he can pay those bills but can't.
now no one is getting paid back and that person isn't allowed to produce.

[Inflation]

I wouldn't mind IF THE SYSTEM WASN'T FIXED! Your going to tell me I'm irresponsible because my credit score is hosed... why? because a bunch of monkey
fucks screwed up the economy and I had to take a pay cut. That pay cut resulted in me losing my home because the bank didn't want to negotiate! FUCK YOU!
Credit scores are legalized extortion rings!
The card companies are going to charge you, to keep their credit
card, and if you don't pay up. Well, they'll close your account,
which will affect your insurance, ability to get a job and all
the other propaganda they pump out from the cutsy free credit report
.com commercials. So you either pay up, or your gonna get hurt!
All these ratings agencies should be tried under RICO.
They are CRIMINAL organizations.
Extortion.
Racketeering.
Counterfitting.
Just to name a few.






You can't even see the hypocrisy in your own statement! You want to defend the right to pry into my private affairs via credit report. But you don't want the state to be able to tell you not too! At least be fucking consitent!

good points re: the hypocrisy of the bankrupt, corrupt bankers grading citizens worthiness.

Credit Scores are just the Banker's Blacklist. They will cease to be relevant in less than 10 years, as the fake bankster economy collapses and is replaced with real production.

[RCA]

employers have the contractual and property rights to discriminate in any way they deem fit--if they feel that hiring a high-credit employee is more beneficial to their business in the long run, and that's accurate, then they'll be rewarded for it with higher productivity and/or profits. If this turns out to be the case for a number of professions, then it'd likely become common-place (no big deal there).

If it's a bad idea, then they won't gain anything and businesses won't use it as a factor for employment.


the credit reporting agencies shouldn't be so tightly controlled by the government, and there needs to be way less regulation in the banking industry, but, never-the-less, this should be something that shouldn't be banned.

I agree that business should have a choice in their activities, but credit reporting ALREADY isn't voluntary, so the libertarian argument is out the window.

[Inflation]

here is the problem i see-
a person gets laid-off and thus can't make his mortgage or credit card payment gets dings on his credit report. this person tries to find more work so he can pay those bills but can't.
now no one is getting paid back and that person isn't allowed to produce.

That's not a problem for the Banksters. They see it as a benefit.

What's better than bringing back debt slavery, peonage, and debt prison, to reduce our once free nation to poverty and dependence?

[andrewh817]

Exactly I am amazed at how fast so called liberty lovers will turn into statists when it suits them.

Agreed, many people who claim to love free market principles all of a sudden abandon principle for credit organizations, banks, corporations, etc.

These same people would probably want to force Ebay to remove their rating system.

[stu2002]

Too many Libertarians are A**HOLES who love and defend the banks

No wonder they are only 3% of the voters--Thank God

[Anti Federalist]

here is the problem i see-
a person gets laid-off and thus can't make his mortgage or credit card payment gets dings on his credit report. this person tries to find more work so he can pay those bills but can't.
now no one is getting paid back and that person isn't allowed to produce.

Exactly.

Debt slavery and indentured servitude is not "free market".

[Fox McCloud]

Exactly.

Debt slavery and indentured servitude is not "free market".

then attack the system that causes that to be a mainstay in society, and not legitimate business practices.

[Anti Federalist]

then attack the system that causes that to be a mainstay in society, and not legitimate business practices.

I am, but when businesses take part in the system, then they become culpable.

[psi2941]

my problem with the credit issue is because of privacy. I have a problem that someone can run my credit and find out what i spend my money on for only like 50 dollars. and yes of course this would exempt people who you do business with.

as for business hiring people with only good credit, i would not have a problem with this only if the system was fair and the credit rating company wasn't so in on with the bankers.

[noxagol]

Pro tip: If you have to use the government to do something in the market place, then it's not a free-market.

All of you advocating this restriction are not advocating a free-market.

[bobbyw24]

Pro tip: If you have to use the government to do something in the market place, then it's not a free-market.

All of you advocating this restriction are not advocating a free-market.

Oh my God. What ever should we do with these evil people????

[Pericles]

Pro tip: If you have to use the government to do something in the market place, then it's not a free-market.

All of you advocating this restriction are not advocating a free-market.

Is this the same credit industry that had Congress pass an exemption from libel laws, so that I can't sue them for telling a potential employer lies about me?

[Stary Hickory]

Is this the same credit industry that had Congress pass an exemption from libel laws, so that I can't sue them for telling a potential employer lies about me?

Certainly this is a separate issue altogether. Whereas telling a private business that he can't use certain types of information to hire people is patently wrong. There is no morally grey area here. Business have this right. I can't believe those that come out in favor of the use of GOVERNMENT FORCE for aggressive reasons.

You cannot pick and choose to use government force aggressively or not. You are no better than neocons or socialist/statist scum when you hold this view. You yield the principle completely and lose the battle for freedom with your own inconsistency.

[Inflation]

This is one area where the often abused Commerce Clause actually applies.

If credit reports are interfering with interstate commerce by creating economic discrimination, then they can be regulated for the same reasons that racial discrimination is.

Prospective employees don't get to examine the books of the firm they are considering working for, so there exists a large imbalance of information/power in favor of firms. Lack of information leads to misallocation of (labor) resources.

I'm totally sympathetic to the private property absolutists, but that ideal does not fit the facts on the ground. So some degree of pragmatism is called for. Save your righteousness for Galt's Gulch, because we'll never get there if you absolve the mixed economy for the sins of its statist component.

"We were only following crappy regulations, please don't blame us for our crappy actions" doesn't cut it IMO.

[noxagol]

Is this the same credit industry that had Congress pass an exemption from libel laws, so that I can't sue them for telling a potential employer lies about me?

Then you should move for a repeal of that law instead of advocating more law. Some would also think you wrong for thinking libel to be a crime, such as Walter Block for instance. I, however, lump purposeful libel in with fraud.

Also, all you people advocating this with reasoning based on hatred of bankers and credit are taking it out on the wrong people. This law will hurt businesses, not your 'evil' bankers.

[Pericles]

Then you should move for a repeal of that law instead of advocating more law. Some would also think you wrong for thinking libel to be a crime, such as Walter Block for instance. I, however, lump purposeful libel in with fraud.

Also, all you people advocating this with reasoning based on hatred of bankers and credit are taking it out on the wrong people. This law will hurt businesses, not your 'evil' bankers.

Where did I say that I was in favor of the proposal?

My point is that potential employers / creditor are relying on information that has had a high percentage of inaccurate information about consumers in credit files and has had success in being able to avoid substantial penalties for those actions.

Case in point - I have $40K in credit card debt on my credit report that is not mine. After 10 years, and settlements, errors are still there. I have 0 debt and thus can't show any harm unless I apply for a job somewhere (unlikely to happen as I own a business) and am denied employment based on credit report or such.

Of course the Rothbard believers are OK with this - " We can, of course, readily concede the gross immorality of spreading false libels about another person. But we must, nevertheless, maintain the legal right of anyone to do so. ......For in that libertarian society since everyone would know that false stories are legal, there would be far more skepticism " from

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

Which is the same Rothbard who wrote "It should also be pointed out that modern technology makes even more feasible the collection and dissemination of information about people's credit ratings and records of keeping or violating their contracts or arbitration agreements. Presumably, an anarchist society would see the expansion of this sort of dissemination of data and thereby facilitate the ostracism or boycotting of contract and arbitration violators."

found here http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Which is it Murray? Either your reputation and accurate information are important, or we know that everybodv lies in order to gain advantage, so we discount what everybody says accordingly.

[Stary Hickory]

Where did I say that I was in favor of the proposal?

My point is that potential employers / creditor are relying on information that has had a high percentage of inaccurate information about consumers in credit files and has had success in being able to avoid substantial penalties for those actions.

Well then the employers are missing out on good employees and more savvy employers will benefit. There is nothing wrong with employers using this information, if it is bogus and misleading then it will behoove employers to understand this quickly and not pass up great employees as a result.

There is absolutely no argument for the use of government force to stop employers from using credit checks.

[devil21]

Exactly I am amazed at how fast so called liberty lovers will turn into statists when it suits them. Agree with it or not the companies are private and can use whatever criteria they want to fill employment positions. If they feel it is a valuable tool for hiring employees then that is their prerogative.


The real problem is that credit reports are consistently inaccurate or lacking important information so using them as a measure of a potential employee is a bad practice. I agree with you that private corporations should be free to use whatever means they wish to make hiring decisions. However, they should be using methods which are the most reliable and lemme tell you, credit reports (and scores) are far from reliable. Consider that the data in credit reports is provided by the creditor (or collector, or government, or court, or whatever) and few people routinely monitor their credit reports for inaccuracies. You rarely hear about the Fair Credit Reporting Act in the news so there is a HUGE knowledge void there in the general population. Companies routinely misreport for various reasons and never are they in the favor of the consumer.

Credit reporting would be a fair and effective method if the reporting process was fair and effective. It isn't. I don't excuse bad practice just because it's an available practice.

Approximately 80% of credit reports contain at least one inaccuracy. These vary from unnoticable (misspelled alternate name) to catastrophic (bankruptcy record that isn't yours) and the process to fix it is....well....
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/credit/2005-09-27-credit-report-usat_x.htm

[ghengis86]

Use cash!

If the government did not create and enforce a monopoly on credit reporting I would support the business to do whatever it wanted. Since this is not the case, I think being forced to use the system is not consistent with libertarian thinking.

[Icymudpuppy]

I'll stop doing them when hiring when my Insurance company stops charging more on contractor's bonding for employees with low credit scores.