There was a troubling 
article in this past Saturday’s New York Times that revealed that an increasing number of employers are using job applicants’ credit scores to determine whether or not to hire them. Persons with poor or lower credit scores are assumed to be less reliable and trustworthy employees (despite experience and skill sets) as compared with those with good credit scores. Interestingly, while many would be employers subscribe to this notion, there are no data whatsoever to support the claim! In other words, there is no scientific or statistical evidence showing that people with weak credit are more likely than those with good credit to be bad employees or steal from their employers. Because of the recession, many people’s credit scores have been adversely affected. This has prompted legislators in 13 states to introduce bills to limit the use of credits reports as a factor in the hiring process. To date, three states have passed such laws.
Supporters of these laws contend that the use of credit checks to screen prospective employers unfairly targets a huge pool of individuals whose credit was damaged by layoffs, medical bills or other factors beyond their control. This caused one Connecticut legislator, who recently introduced legislation to curb the use of credit checks by employers to quip “Bernie Madoff had a pretty good credit score. And yet there is this consistent message that if you have a bad credit score, there is something wrong with you.” Finally, and perhaps most egregiously, the practice tends to disproportionately screen out prospective minority employees.
Not surprisingly, companies that sell credit checks (Experian, TransUnion, etc) have mounted a vigorous lobbying campaign against any legislation limiting the use of credit check by employers in the hiring process. These lobbyists contend that preventing the use of credit checks could seriously jeopardize a company’s assets, reputation or security.
A survey released earlier this year by the Society for Human Resources Management revealed that 13 percent of employers used credit checks on all job applicants whereas 47 percent say they use credit checks for certain applicants. Among those surveyed, 54 percent said they use credit checks on prospective employees to prevent theft and embezzlement. Ninety0one percent they used credit checks for job applicants seeking positions with fiduciary or financial responsibility. Most of the proposed bills to curb the use of credit checks allow them to be used for positions that involve the handling of money or confidential and proprietary information.
Unfortunately, in the current economy, employers are looking for any excuse to not hire certain job applicants. In my opinion, the growing use credit scores to screen job applicants is offensive and demeaning and should not be a determining factor (unless handling money is involved) in the hiring process. It is an overtly discriminatory practice that can seriously impede hardworking people from securing gainful employment to provide for themselves and their families. Kudos to the legislators who possess the moral and ethical convictions to propose legislation that protects the rights of jobseekers who simply want to make a living.
In case you are wondering, my credit score is in the mid 750s. Conventional wisdom suggests that scores below 600 may be dicey. With this in mind, I highly recommend that you check your credit score before you go on your next job interview—it may give you some insight into whether or not to expect a job offer.
Until next time…
Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!
.png)
A positive workplace environment can make or break a company. Companies with low employee morale often suffer from cultures of blame—pointing a finger at a team member (other than you) when things go awry —and not giving credit to deserving employees when credit may be due. .jpg)
Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) made a presentation this morning at the Credit Suisse Healthcare Conference that showed the company plans on saving an additional $2.5 billion in “productivity initiatives.” According to its new CFO, the company plans to squeeze the savings out of “headcount and related costs” — which likely means more downsizing and layoffs. Rumors have it that these job cuts will take place by December 1, 2008 just prior to when employee bonuses are traditionally decided.