E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThere's some good news for job seekers who have been faced with financial issues, or have had brushes with the law.
Fewer employers are snooping into your criminal or credit background today.
Criminal background checks have become increasingly popular partly because technology has made it easier to dig up dirt and partly because hiring managers want any tools to help them weed through the many applicants, given the tight labor market.
But such reviews had a tendency to disproportionately hurt African-Americans and Latinos, according to many labor advocates. Not to mention the fact that lots of other job seekers from all groups who've faced unemployment, or underemployment, have faced money woes and may have had their credit histories impacted as a result.
Steps by the federal government and states to crack down on the practice have gotten everyone looking more closely at the process.
In April, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission approved new rules for employers who use criminal background checks, calling for careful consideration of how and when such reviews can be used in pre-employment screenings and in the workplace because of their potential to be biased against certain groups, such as racial minorities.
A handful of states have moved to ban or curb credit history checks on jobs applicants, including Illinois that passed a law in 2010 prohibiting the use of such reviews. “A job seeker’s ability to earn a decent living should not depend on how well they are weathering the greatest economic recession since the 1930s," Gov. Pat Quinn said in signing the bill into law.
Employers are now scaling back their use as a job-screening tool.
"Some of the decline in the use of credit checks may be related to measures put in place by state governments and municipalities, as well as increased attention to the issue," said Mike Aitken, vice president of government affairs at the Society of Human Resource Management.
The organization just released its figures on such background checks and found:
More than one-half (53 percent) of respondents to a SHRM survey said they don’t use credit background checks in hiring. That’s an increase from 2010, when 40 percent of organizations reported not using credit checks, and from 2004, when 39 percent did not.
"Employers – through their HR professionals – are continually evaluating practices and programs. And this is no different," Aitken said.
The SHRM survey also found that:
- Most employers focused on credit histories of two to seven years. Only 6 percent of organizations said that all years of credit history were equally important, a decrease from 17 percent in 2010.
- Of the 34 percent of employers that conducted credit checks on selected job candidates, 87 percent did so for positions with financial responsibilities and 42 percent used them for senior executive positions.
- More organizations saying that complying with state law requirements was among the primary reasons criminal checks were done, up 8 percentage points from 2010 to 28 percent.
- Fifty-eight percent of organizations allowed job candidates to explain the results of their criminal checks before the decision to hire was made.
"We think employers are looking more closely at these practices," he continued. "They want to ensure that any screening or evaluation tool used during the hiring process is related to the duties of specific positions and consistent with federal law prohibiting job discrimination."
Amen to that.
(A version of this story first appeared on CareerDiva.net.)
More money and business news:
- Dollar stores are shedding their cheap reputation
- Big screen? Hardly, most payday borrowers buy food
- Not yours, but some companies offer unlimited vacation
- Video: For first time, Canadians richer than Americans
- Sign up for our Business newsletter
Follow TODAY Money on Twitter and Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
I can understand the need for a criminal background check to determine if the perspective employee has a history of violence (or embezzlement/theft for financial positions). But credit checks for those who are unemployed or underemployed are absurd when the position is not financial in nature. You certainly expect bad credit for the majority of applicant's in this category.
Most are for Financial positions. Others were possibly for clearance positions.
I work at a location where background and credit checks are standard.
It's not like most places, but credit checks can matter -- we don't want someone selling classified information because of money troubles -- so they try to make sure people they hire aren't already buried in debt.
I personally think that some of the checks to get a job have gone too far. Credit checks, background checks, health checks, DNA checks, and the fact that many of the jobs require that you are currently employed. Now everyone requires that you have a laundry list of experience to get the job. What ever happened to training someone for a job? Heck, they even disqualify people for being over-qualified for the job. Its no wonder why there are so many unemployed.
just have to remember, business HATES LABOR.
Credit checks are used for much more than employment. It is also used to determine how much your insurance policies will cost you. Having worked directly for a credit bureau company located in SoCal, I can promise you that "score" is so off base it isn't even funny! It is so easily manipulated by the consumer OR the score manipulates the consumer. The latter is more common than the former and bureaus had NO oversight until recently.
Having a credit check for clearance is about the dumbest check done in that area. There is NO way a creditor can hold you as a prisoner to devulge secret information. What a joke. If this actually does happen it isn't with a company the consumer owes that reports. It is most likely a bookie or something and a check would NEVER reveal that.
I've known a lot of people that are extremely bright about their careers and no clue about money! Haven't you seen someone that may have great street smarts but are as dumb as a rock when it comes to book smarts, and vise versa? Same thing.
It isn't so dumb. And, the concern isn't about a creditor blackmailing the employee. An employee who is way, way over-extended may be more willing to sell out to a competitor or foreign government out of desperation. But, I think the number of positions where this is a real risk are probably fairly small.
Employer credit-checks need to be outlawed period.
Life comes with problems. Sometimes unforeseen financial problems.
And it has no relationship to whether someone can perform their job if they have the skills.
.
Credit checks,except in cases where the prospective employee would be managing company finances,should never have been made legal.They give corrupt employers an excuse to engage in illegal discrimination against the worker during the hiring process.
Credit checks on potential employees are abused in a number of ways:
The prospective employer who gets consent to run a credit check then has an underhanded way to paw through the potential employee's personal business to see whether there are any medical bills and if so with who-a way to find out whether the worker has medical issues that the employer isn't legally allowed to ask about.
Employers also look to see if a prospective employee's wages are being garnished-a situation that they don't want to deal with but, as long as the garnishment is to only one creditor it's none of the employer's business and s/he isn't allowed to discriminate against a worker for it or legally even ask the worker if they are being garnished before hiring them.
There are a number of other juicy forms of a prospective employee's personal business that an employer isn't permitted by law to ask but will be able to find out from a credit report.The worker's age and marital status are obtained from credit reports BEFORE the worker is considered for employment,which is highly illegal.Then the worker's personal information is further scrutinized just to snoop through all of the personal business of the worker's that the employer can find on the report.
Additionally the market is full of corrupt employers looking for workers who they can bully into working a lot of unpaid overtime.If a prospective employee appears to have some personal power of their own-such as having a spouse who works full time or having emergency funds available,a corrupt employer may pass over such a person for someone who has less support and can more easily be taken advantage of.
The potential employer obtains an applicant's physical address,SS#,and DOB when they run a credit report,at a time that the applicant still doesn't know them from Adam.
Reading allot of these comments sure makes allot of sense. Credit check, now that needs to stop. The way the economy is today, REAL American's have not only lost their jobs to (cheap oversea's outsourcing), but many have no choice but to cash out some or maybe all of their retirement or 401k plans to make ends me. Now to use their credit against them is not only UN AMERICAN, but wrong.
Criminal background checks, is okay to be done...every case is different. Now, they have employer's not hiring you if you smoke, look to old (because you don't fit the "Image" for them) or even overweight (they said because the insurance will be to high for THEM at cost).
Sadly, their are lots of hard working American's out their, that need and want to earn a living to survive. Some of these tactics from these companies are sickening to say the least.
The one problem with criminal checks is our system is a mess. I'm not saying they're not necessary, but when you have a ridiculously common name it's easy to get your records mixed up with someone else's, and the employer isn't required to tell you they declined your application because of a mixup you're unable to control. There's dozens of articles about this happening and we really need a better system to prevent it.
Yeah, this is just great. Let's let felons get the jobs, or let's make sure those who've been irresponsible in the past get a chance to do it again. Brilliant move.
Right kraussk,
Once they screw up let's keep them second class citizens for the rest of their lives. Tack that on to the Koch/GOP healthcare (Let 'em Die) plan while you're at it.
Well said working poor. I agree with you.
I second that motion. I agree with you, "workingpoor."
I don't know of anyone who's never experienced a bad time in their life due to extenuating circumstances or consequences not of their making, particularly when they have to try to survive (or sink) in the stresses, privations and demands of an economic recession.
And "krauss," unless you're perfect and very fortunate to not experience privations in your life, or if you're very wealthy and legally shielded by said wealth, or if you are simply in denial, I'm sure you've made mistakes, learned from them, and, were a victim of circumstances, just like all of us. Shall we then, by your own logic, NOT give you another chance?
The system is designed to keep the people down and poor for life.
There is no need to see of a person has bad credit or an eviction on their record. If a person has a criminal record that is a traffic violation, a jaywalking ticket, or some other crime of smoking pot or prostitution, and have served their time in jail, then they have paid their dues and should not be persecuted all over again by being denied a job to get them back on their feet.
This is why criminals go back to criminal activity. How else are they suppose to survive is they cannot get a job so they can have an apartment and pay their bills.
Background checks should only be allowed if a person has a felony on their record.
Refusing to hire someone based on credit card debt or an eviction is just wrong, and never should have been allowed in the first place.
When does the past become the past? Show me one single person in the world who has never made mistakes in their life - financially or otherwise. There are far too many people with criminal pasts who vwant to make a clean living but CAN'T because no one will hire them. There are far too many people who are trying to crawl out of a financial hole by getting a good job, but are blocked because they have bad credit. What sort of backwards horse crap is that?
I may be wrong but I hypothesize that it's evidence of an economic caste system in operation in this society. Intentionally prevents people in certain targeted demographics from becoming upwardly mobile, so they cannot be in a position to challenge those on the top that wield long-term, political and financial power in the U.S.
Will is correct. Unfortunately many times the only difference between a bad credit rating and a good one is whether or not you have a daddy that will bail you out when (not if) you make mistakes.
I agree with you itgranny, a persons criminal record should not be seen by anyone except law enforcement unless they will work with the children or the elderly. The practice of seeing a persons credit report should never be allowed unless that person is attempting to buy something on credit, and I especialty include insurance companies. They are selling a service not a product and that service can be disolved after the first payment is missed. To our so called government representatives, can you resist excepting these bloodsuckers money for once and do somthing for the people. Once you have done the time and your probation you should be allowed to become a full citizen again with all rights restored, now if you choose to repeat you deserve nothing.
"because of their potential to be biased against certain groups."
Really? Isn't it actually the case that "certain groups" have that type of history? If that history truly exists, how is this a bias? Is it not then a fact?
Employers hire individuals, not "certain groups." If they don't want "certain groups" they will find a way to exclude them. These checks are just another way to figure out who you are hiring.
PC run amok once again.
How casually so many people brush by the facts that blacks folks have a much higher incidence of contact with police, often through no fault of their own. It is also quite common for them to be charged where a white person might be let go with a warning. Additionally, coming from a poorer background can leave someone without the life experience to properly understand how to use credit, and the right ways and wrong ways to go about it.
It's true, whether you like it or not.
It's also a statistically observed fact that blacks are victims of "last to hire first to fire" ideology, even when they're performing their job duties perfectly fine. It's hard to keep current on your mortgage or other bill when a financial crisis hits and you're let go because you're "black" and don't fit in as well with the "rest", not because you're actually doing anything wrong on the job.
I think the biggest problem is that people like King of the Jungle pretend that these practices don't occur.
One thing they are finding out is that people who have never made a mistake are usually terrible employees. Look at those in our government who claim to be perfect people like Michelle Bachman, she is completely insane but yet a background check of her would turn up a "perfect angel". I don't trust people who have never made a mistake, that means they never LIVED.
Fred -- provide us with documented examples or be quiet. It is really easy to say that blacks are charged with grand theft while whites are let go for the same crime, but it is another thing to prove it.
King is absolutely correct. This is PC run amok and thanks to the idiot in the white house.
Also, ever notice how Asians are never mentioned as being affected by stuff like this. Everyone knows why, but the PC crown shuts us up from saying it.
Since when does the color of your skin or the hardness of life justify stealing or harming others. That's total crap.
I've been background checked by my company when I got hired, then by the federal government when we got bought out, then again by and for a certain agency of the federal government. I get fingerprinted all the time for various agencies, etc. Pretty invasive stuff, but part of the job when you work for a defense contractor.
There are other employers. The govt can kiss my butt.
employers, in my opinion, do not have the right to much of the background information they get. if a person has finished a prison sentence for a crime, especially non-violent, employers should not have access to that persons record. otherwise its impossible to get a job and the person may become a crook or ward of the state. i agree with most posts that say credit info should be completely off limits. i mean the very human trash that caused this depression (i.e., banks and wall street) are now using credit reports to discriminate against people, this is bizarre. its obvious that congress is owned by these institutions and that's why they have this type of access to personal information.
The corporate scarlet letter! We have allowed ourselves to become corporate property which is sad and pathetic.
I was wrongly accused once of something I did not do. Once they take you down and get a mug shot it is amazing how bad the internet can punish you. Even when the Judge says to your face "not guilty" it is always out there even with expungement.
I told my new employer upfront and they checked it out. They said one of our valued traits is "transparency" and I was hired into a better job than before. Honesty works if you were innocent or have cleaned your act up.......
Sometimes, but not always. In a job market like we have today, trying to help someone 'fit' is often an unnecessary risk in employers eyes. Best not to chance it, and pick someone else who is squeaky clean.
Don't like it, but it is what it is.
The police are allowing the news media to have access to arrest records at the jail house in Alabama. They even have a paper who does nothing but publish the mug shot of the people arrested who have not been convicted. This paper is scum. There should be a law against this, the freedom on the press should not be able to trample on the fredom of the people. If they want to do this then they should be at the courthouse and publish on only those who are convicted. I say again, do you really believe you live in a free country.
The employee/employer relationship is adversarial. That has gotten much worse as employers know they have people lined up to take crappy jobs.
So they can pick and choose.
I have no idea what the solution is however if we don't start working together we shall all fail.
The vast majority of info through background checks is a matter of public record someplace, meaning if you are a convicted criminal public records will show that so employers have more than one mechanism to search potential employees. Regardless an employer will pursue every avenue on an employee they are interested in and rightly so. If you hire someone that turns out to be unacceptable for whatever reason getting rid of them and their negative influence is very difficult and can cost thousand in legal fees, so pursuing as much background info as you can is not a bad thing. If you have questionable info in your background then go prepared to discuss those issues with the employer if you are serious about employment with them, it is better to be proactive than reactive because if they find out later you'll lose in the end anyway. And frankly I don't call it job discrimination, any one of you out there would do the same thing if you were going to hire someone, I know I didn't when hiring someone five years ago as a manager. This employee after six months turned out to be something he didn't present himself as and it took two years of court wrangling to get rid of him. So even with background checks people will eventually show their 'TRUE' selves after they are hired so better to find out before than after in my book.
Nonsense. You want to be property that's on you. References and employment history should be enough to determine if a person is right for a position.
...and thus you are a worker bee, and not the head honcho.
There are employers who use this as a way to hire cheap labor and take advantage of these people. How else can you get a machinist for 10.00 a hour when the usual rate is 25.00 a hour, and of course since it is very hard if not impossible to get a good job with a criminal record they have no choice but to take the job. These are sorry bloodsucker companys and they are the ones who will cheat you and steal from others without conseqenses , and even if caught they have expensive lawyers to get them off or at least a sentence on the country club.
I think anything checked besides your work history and references should be illegal. We are not an acquisition OF the company they are renting our time and skill. With that these should be the primary focus.
Corporations search our bodies, financial records, criminal history ect.. this is nonsense. Its none of their business. More corporate totalitarianism as if we didn't have enough already.
Are we free or not? Under this model we certainly are not. Your performance should be evaluated not the person you are.
I agree to some extent. I think that people should at the very least be given a chance to explain themselves. They have too much power. BUT, consider their side. I have hired people who turned out to be absolute nightmares. There are times too when an employer might be found liable when an employee does something heinous.
The problem is that your references will be people you know will paint you in a positive light. Most former employers will not even give a reference other than your job title, length of employment, and salary. They are often legally prohibited from providing any additional information. So then you have to trust that the work history the applicant put on their resume is accurate....which it usually isn't.
I'm currently training a woman we hired based on the strength of her resume and the lies she told during the interview. Her assertion that she was an expert with various software packages turned out to mean that she had once seen that software but really doesn't know how to use it. She claimed to have programming skills but later told me she was "not a technical person" and doesn't understand any of it. She has two months left in her probationary period to come up to speed and live up to her claims on her resume or I'll have to replace her with someone who actually has the skills we need.
You then should not be in the position you are in, I to have hired people based just on their personal references and previous employment and during the interview can readily ascertain whether they knew anything about their previous positions, besides that, they are on a three month probationary period and if my supervisor comes in a tells me at anytime they cannot do the job I let them go immediatly, I do not have to waste three months to find that out.
I didn't get to do the interview. Another supervisor did the interview and hired this person. I want to give her a fair shot before I let her go. I'm also caught up in corporate rules and HR really doesn't like it when we fire people right away.
Honestly, our applicant pool has been pretty weak lately so the next one might not be any better. This one looks great on paper...until you try to teach her something and realize she's just not very smart and needs step by step directions for every single task. I need someone who can think for themselves and not wait for directions for everything.
In addition, she's in a very protected demographic group so HR wants proof she can't do the job...not just my assessment that she's a slow learner and doesn't have the higher level critical thinking skills the job requires. HR has been known to tell us to keep useless workers because it's cheaper than a lawsuit or bad publicity.
I wonder if the federal government uses the same standard...no criminal, or financial background checks when they hire for themselves. I wonder if they even bother with employment history or educational background. Hard to believe that there are other people in this country that are not Black or Hispanic.
The DOJ has turned into a huge money pump for the Black community. It has got to be stopped. Anybody but Obama in the next election. Holder has got to go.
The government didn't ban criminal checks. Their standards just require that they be appropriate and related to the job.
Psssst, your ODS is showing!
ABO?
Jokers like you would have Palin as VP. Please don't vote, you obviously don't have the judgement to use it wisely.
There is nothing wrong with doing criminal background checks on prospective employees. Perhaps none of you have heard of the negligent hiring/negligent retention lawsuits? Employer hires "A", doesn't know he has a history of violent behavior, he hurts another employee or a customer--bingo-employer on the hook for a huge lawsuit. Our company asks for criminal history on applications--we evaluate on a case by case basis. But if you lie about it and we catch you, job automatically withdrawn. Seems reasonable to me, protects the company and employees/customers and doesn't unduly penalize someone who is honestly trying to change their life.
it's the computer's fault
C-O-O-L Haven't worked in 9 months and my $$$ situation is B-A-D. Kiss my A$$ corporate world.
Be sure to say that at your next interview.
Yes, keep repeating that sentence while sleeping on your grandmothers couch in her basement.
Yes, I do background checks. Both criminal record and credit. About half fail. I got very tired of dealing with the attitudes of people with criminal backgrounds and also people who are deadbeats. I expect to deal with a better class of people. Just look at the posts of some of them here....Would you really want to deal with that crap?...Keep screwing up and you will not get that job or be able to rent that apartment.
Credit reports are actually a terrible means of record keeping. They are often VERY inaccurate, or only contain one side of the story.
And good luck finding folks with sterling credit in a market like this.
Fred, The people I accept dont have to have good credit...or a lot of credit... or any credit record at all, They just cannot have bad credit. It doesnt take too many questions to find out why they have such bad credit. I get very suspicious of the people who say things badmouthing the credit report and that all the information is inaccurate...I also dont accept people who tell me that the cops pick on them, that their last three landlords were criminal and unfair and that the people that they worked for were all unfair...and that they are thinking about taking them to court....I have heard all that crap so many times....
So often now the drug issue comes up and that class of people with criminal backgrounds and really poor credit seem to often enough think that drugs are OK.
Read my post below. I think you are full of crap, and despite my outstanding work ethic and work history, you would pass me over like it was nothing.
Your loss, AH.
I have been self employed most of my life and have enjoyed good credit through the majority of that time. We did not make it through the 2008 crash however. We have since made a big comeback adapting to the markets and working twice as hard, but our credit burned so we deal in ALL cash and are better off without the debt, unpredictable terms of lenders and overhead.
I somehow doubt based on life experience your company is a nice environment to work in. All the checks indicate to me a lack of common sense or ability to properly read folks, and no as soon as someone starts making excuses and blaming I am with you... Take responsibility for that DUI or bad credit or whatever other issues you have in life. A person blaming the system is not anyone I would trust!
GHX....I have great concerns for our country, our workers and our whole economic system. It is all under attack and the programs being offered will only make it worse faster. So many are pushing for "progress" with the solution that we all depend on government to bail us out with government debt that is growing in catastrophic terms. Many people have lost a great deal in the last four years thru no fault of their own and our government is doing nothing about real solutions. When I speak of my personal business experiences, I have had many people who I have worked with that were first class people and I enjoyed it very much. I dont have much time to feel for those who are third class or worse and are a big part of the problem. I guess my point is that good people deserve the opportunity for success and not have the circumstances swallow them up. We need the return of honest work for honest companies and a government that likes and appreciates all that is involved. This division and hate towards success has only one outcome and it is not good. Get the country moving forward again, get good business going again and good people will be rewarded again.
This talk about third class people should deserve the fruits of the labor of the good honest hardworking people will continue to take our country lower....I have children who are doing well enough....and I dont want them to be faced with living in a failed country with a failed economy with no opportunity....
Criminal background checks don't discriminate. If you haven't committed a crime, you have no reason to complain. If you have, you don't deserve that job. If you commit the crime, you deserve to be shunned. I don't see how a criminal check is racist - if you play that card, then you admit that there is a certain propensity for groups of people to commit crimes. If you don't want to play the race card, then you don't have to face reality.
A lot of people have not committed a crime, but rather the illegal alien utilizing their SSN. This alone is good enough to relegate them to food kitchens for the duration of their natural life. These people have to face reality too and the reality is that is someone uses your SSN to commit a crime YOU are going to pay. And well you should if you are going to rely on these databases for everything
It's been my observation that people who are so high and mighty about being on a moral high horse are trying to draw attention away from something that they're doing themselves which is unscrupulous.
I can understand criminal checks for sure. But what I can't understand is the credit checks. I got caught without insurance a few years ago, and got TB. (Meaning it wasn't a lifestyle issue). The medical bills, and medications wiped out every penny I had. Not being able to work for 8 months left me in a bad situation. I am still trying to fight my way back from that, and now I'm being judged as a bad risk because I got sick one time in my life. Some of you in hiring positions say you judge on a case-by-case basis, but I say BS! I think my resume gets 86'd as soon as the credit report comes back.
Think of them weeding themselves out for you. You would not want to work at any of these companies and if they are so moronic all they can do is check credit scores to see if you are good at your job or willing to work hard move along and thank them for allowing you to avoid working in a still authoritarian environment akin to Dilbert...
Illinois passed a bill prohibiting credit check before hiring an applicant! That really funny! The same characters that have bankrupted Illinois by over spending and after allowing unbelievable pay increases to public union employees,now don't want you to know about their irresponsible actions!Typical worthless elected officials!
Honestly, I've worked at companies where the HR staff were just nosey . . .
Honestly, I have had employers with nosey HR staff . . . They would just do checks to blab to other employees. Yes, this is absolutely inappropriate but it happens
That is illegal...a good lawyer would fix that problem quick!
JA: Can't wait til your Arss is in the unemployment line. You sound crusty and old and it shouldn't be too far off for you! He, he, he
He, He....You can wait forever. I have worked for many years and never had to accept unemployment. I have owned several businesses and worked for others and reached the position of VP. I now have much more income from investments that I have made(owning/operating apartments) and you will never have to gloat that I couldnt make it. On the other hand I have dealt with all kinds of people and I have never dealt with a rich criminal....They are always all broke and have hate for the successful.
JA life can be humbling no matter how tall a pinnacle you have climbed. I have seen many successful folk relegated to living in a grocery cart in my life. Even Government workers who have historically been some of the most stable credit risks and now questionable given their employers are going bust in record numbers.
Trust me on this one the math is clear on the matter. In the next 25 years most Americans will be bankrupt as our debt based economy continues to unravel. It is baked into the system and there is nothing anyone can do about it short of devaluing our currency massively which I don't see happening.
GHX...I cannot disagree with anything that you said in that post. We are in some hard times and we are headed into hard times. The growing debt will kill us...We need to get our government at least acknowledging that. Even now it would be very late to attack our problems, but the fact is that those in government at this time are doubling up on the problem and only offering pie in the sky crap for solutions. We need to get our country producing again and building for the future again. The present attitude is in dividing up the spoils and blaming everyone else. Even with intelligent great effort we have a tough fight ahead.....Without that intelligent great effort we only have failure and disaster ahead. Too many are giving up and voting for the hand outs...
However JA, by using credit scores and criminal records as your criteria you eliminate the tens of millions of Americans who simply suffered bad luck or worse in the case of criminal records have the mis-fortune of a badly entered SSN. A british man was arrested on setting foot in South Africa and maltreated in one of their prisons for weeks because an American guy living in Las Vegas had taken his identity and was committing crimes in his name. I doubt he will EVER clear his name because there are so many databases. When it comes to Credit you know and I know a lot of it is luck. You take out that car loan and borrow on those credit cards assuming your job will hold or that you will be able to get another, but that does not always work out. In my case we had invested in a lot of expensive hardware and used the credit source available to us. Credit cards. After the crash our biggest client who justified most of the new expense went bankrupt and failed to pay us some $40,000 in fees owed. The banks raised our rates to 30% and we were roasted credit wise. Looking back I wish we had been more conservative but that is what it is.
That aside we are now at some 120% of our business level in early 2008 and have bounced back income wise, but for the first time in my life my credit score is trash and there is nothing I can do about it.
To you though I am just a deadbeat you would not want to expose those you work with to.
Fair enough, but there is a lot more to life than your DNA or credit score and I am going to guarantee you that you and ALL of your employees will within the next 20 years be bankrupt
IFFFFF! you hold ANY debt and do not own your home outright and can keep health insurance or whatever comes after.
I see huge storm clouds on the horizon and doubt we will survive.
We need to reset everything and move forward, not look back and pass judgement and blame!
GHX....There are a lot of things wrong with your post. 99.9% of bad criminal records are not the result of an accident or mistake or bad luck. Taking out car loans and using credit card debt assuming that your job will hold is just asking for trouble. Never buy a car that gives you too much debt(or boat, or motercycle, etc.) Never use credit cards excessively. If you cannot pay off the balance in 30-60 days, you are in over your head. Get on the habit of spending less than you make...anything else is dumb. Get on a savings plan so that when money is needed, you have some and not forced to go for a bad credit situation. To finance a business with credit cards is just crazy. The only legitimate thing that you said is that a customer declared bankruptcy...and you should have not let that customer accrue such debt in a business that cannot afford a 40m hit.....Think back now and you should be able to see your mistakes. Business is tough and the people who wing it without a lot of thought and preparation will find a lot of bad luck. There are always competitors out there who are better financed and better prepared.
Craven: Sue their nosy little arsses.
Yeah, don't check those pedophiles, sexual assault offenders, rapists or murderers, they need jobs too.
/sarcasm off/
cunical...That actually reminds me of a real situation. A long time ago I had a school teacher who worked for me part time. When I said that I was having a difficult time finding a good application out of the last batch of applicants, he made the statement that those people needed jobs too and that someone has to hire them.....I had to explain to him that it was my job to hire the best of the applicants....otherwise I would not be doing my job properly and that the company would suffer if we accepted people who could not possibly do the job. I am not sure that he ever understood that...
I work in healthcare. You can be a criminal and work in healthcare - I am not, but I do know that there is a list of 10 crimes here in FL (Child abuse/abduction, rape/sex crimes, crimes against the elderly, drug trafficking - the worst crimes) If you rob a bank, you can be rehabilitated and work in healthcare...swear to God!
What about drug testing - can I light a J today and not worry about being tested tomorrow if I apply for a job a Burger King?
I can....As long as you think that getting high on pot is one of the most important greatest thinks in life....greater than the job....be prepared for failure.
I have a clean credit history and no criminal history, but I still find the idea of an employer checking up on me irritating. I can see the purpose of a background check for national security or "public trust" positions, but other than that applicants have a reasonable expectation to privacy.
A lot of this paranoid nonsense started 15 years or so ago when the Supreme Court decided that forcing employees to take a drug test was not a violation of their 4th Amendment rights. Since then employers have continued to find more invasive ways to investigate current and potential employees. The Supreme Court was wrong in that decision, everyone has an inherent right to privacy.
What I have told employees and tenants is that they will not be forced to interact with criminals, deadbeats and druggies on a daily basis. They will not occupy the next desk or the nearest apartments. Good people really do appreciate that. I like to treat people as equals and good people deserve that.
The article states that criminal background checks "disproportionally" hurt African Americans and Latino's, why is that anyone's fault but their own? It's the fault of the applicant's if they chose to commit a crime and then down the road expect an potential employer to overlook the fact that he/she committed a crime. Maybe it's because most of the crimes are committed by those two races and why should those two races get any special consideration or have the potential employer turn a blind eye to their criminal backgrounds?
Hey Doug, I fall into this category. I am a African American male. One day I was leaving a bar after watching a game. While in the bar I had words with 3 white guys over the game. I didn't feel good about staying at the bar so I paid my tab and left. When I walked out the bar the 3 men fallowed me outside. All 3 of these men were bigger than I am and I really thought I was going to get my head bashed in over a basketball game. I got to my car and pull my LEGAL gun out. I bought the gun from a gun store here in town. The gun was in my name and legal for me to have. I got the gun out my car and pointed the firearm at the men and told them to STOP and leave me the hell alone so I could just leave and drive out the parking lot with out having my car bashed with rocks and stones. They did - they turned around and went back inside the bar. While driving home 2 cop cars pulled me over, told me to step out the car and get on the ground. I did. They ran a alcohol test but I was not over the limit. They run me for warrants but I didn't have any. So, the cops started to ask me what happen at the bar. I told them the truth. the whole story. They arrested me for assault with a fire arm (3 counts). They said because I POINTED the gun at the men that was assault. I was charged with a felony and a lawyer got it down to a gross misdemeanor. I didn't take it to court because I was told if I lost I would be a felony and I would go to jail for a year. I was scared so I just took the deal the D.A. gave me. I paid a $500 fine and I went home. I thought that was the end of it, but now I have a criminal record and it is very hard for me to fine a job. I'm not a gang member, I have never sold or done drugs. But I am caught in this system.
Plea bargains need to be outlawed. They punish the innocent who are forced to plead guilty and reward the guilty who actually are guilty and get off easy.
I am not sure what I would do if accused of a crime and then given the choice of 6 months in jail if I plead guilty vs 20 if I am convicted by a jury. Many Many Americans are in this terrible position.
It has completely changed my life. My whole life! I have two more years before I can get my record sealed because Nevada does not have expungement, but even with that every time an employer runs a back ground check on me a "sealed" record will come up, and you know what the next question from the employer will be...
I dunno, maybe it's because African Americans and Latinos are disproportionally targeted by a racist criminal "justice" (lol) system which wants to disenfranchise them? That might have something to do with it. See Jw12345's story above for one of many, MANY examples. I bet if he were white and those thugs he had pointed the gun at were black he wouldn't have gone to jail.
Also, many racial minorities are financially poor and so are seen by the Prison-Industrial Complex as easy targets, being unable to pay for a decent lawyer and such. After all, the PIC needs more warm bodies. Gotta keep those stock prices up.