Is it time to abolish employment credit checks?

[cloudy]

Again, I go back to suggesting that the only folks who are incensed about this are folks who have bad credit and have let it further muck up their lives. Gotta have someone else to blame for it, though, I guess.

You're wrong. Quelle surprise.

We have excellent credit (evidenced by a new car purchase just this past week), however, I think credit info should only be used how it was intended: as a reference for new lending.

We've always lived within our means, owe zero on credit cards, and don't have to pay for what we buy with daddy's money, like some have done all their lives.

 

[sr71plt]

What I meant was that the motives to embezzle not always, not even mostly, are a dire need for fast bucks. And when it is, the need for fast bucks is probably not because of bad confidence from credit institutions, but other things that goes under the radar for a credit check. Like, stuff between you and your bookmaker, or dealer.

Both you and LaJack are throwing in exceptions that don't toss out the relevance of the general flag raising that Freshface points to. I can understand why employers would want to check credit history for applicants for a whole range of job postions--and I don't fault them for protecting their investment. If you have bad credit, apply for some other job than one that requires a credit check. Accept responsibility for yourself.

 

[sr71plt]

You're wrong. Quelle surprise.

We have excellent credit (evidenced by a new car purchase just this past week), however, I think credit info should only be used how it was intended: as a reference for new lending.

We've always lived within our means, owe zero on credit cards, and don't have to pay for what we buy with daddy's money, like some have done all their lives.

I wasn't really zeroing in on you (you'll be disappointed to know). If you want to be defensive about this, though, have at it. No telling what minutia folks decide to go off on.

 

[cloudy]

I wasn't really zeroing in on you (you'll be disappointed to know). If you want to be defensive about this, though, have at it. No telling what minutia folks decide to go off on.

nevermind. You're really not worth it.

 

[sr71plt]

nevermind. You're really not worth it.

Sorry, I saw what you posted before you changed it. That you had earned what you had and that I hadn't.

You've been sitting on my shoulder all these years? You are a real piece of work. Such a lot of hate inside you.

 

[cloudy]

Sorry, I saw what you posted before you changed it. That you had earned what you had and that I hadn't.

You've been sitting on my shoulder all these years? You are a real piece of work. Such a lot of hate inside you.

No, baby...its what you've already said, yourself. I don't hate you - I feel sorry for you.

 

[sr71plt]

No, baby...its what you've already said, yourself. I don't hate you - I feel sorry for you.

As I said, wrapped up in sooo much hate.

 

[cloudy]

As I said, wrapped up in sooo much hate.

Whatever makes you feel better. Have at it.

 

[sr71plt]

Whatever makes you feel better. Have at it.

Ah, no, thanks. You do enough of that for you, me, and three other internally angry people.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

A credit score can also be a measure of how a person handles their obligations. A history of late payments and over extensions can be an indicator of someone who isn't as trustworthy. Not saying that it should be a deal breaker, but certainly something I'd want to ask about in a job interview. Cancer and no health insurance is one thing. Chronically living beyond your means speaks to character.

How come we don't know the employer's credit report, then?

How do we know the boss/owner/employer isn't living outside their means? That's a good indicator not only of his/her character, but also whether or not he's going to be a good manager, or maybe if he's going to rob his own till and put the company out of business.

It goes both ways. But going by your logic, an employer having bad credit has a bigger effect than one bad worker - it has an effect on a LOT of people at once - sometimes an entire community.

I mean, assuming we're applying your logic fairly, of course.

 

[Liar]

Both you and LaJack are throwing in exceptions that don't toss out the relevance of the general flag raising that Freshface points to.

I don't follow. What exceptions are you talking about?

I think you're pointing at the exception, when you say that said raised flag is relevant to an employer. That bad credit equals a hightened risk that a person will in the future commit crimes against their employer. So it might be. In a dissapearing fraction of the cases. Compared to many other factors, I think it's comparatively irrelevant, and is given way too much (drumroll) credit, and is just as often misleading in that regard. People who fraud and embezzle are people who think they can get away with stunts like that. People who have been caught with their pants down by creditors and such, and live their lives with the IRS and other mercenaries of fun breathing down their, are generally stripped of that notion.

Also, that the cause of your credit situation is directly linked to your character, and therefore makes you fit or unfit for financially responsible jobs, is an equally incomplete equation.

I'm not saying that looking at credit status should be illegal for anyone. If it's public record, it's public record. I'm just saying that whenever it's used for screening job applicants, it is buying into a fallacy that grossly exaggerates it's relevance, that is unfair to many a presumptive employee, and overall pretty moronic.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't follow. What exceptions are you talking about?

I think you're pointing at the exception, when you say that said raised flag is relevant to an employer. That bad credit equals a hightened risk that a person will in the future commit crimes against their employer. So it might be. In a dissapearing fraction of the cases. Compared to many other factors, I think it's comparatively irrelevant, and is given way too much (drumroll) credit, and is just as often misleading in that regard. People who fraud and embezzle are people who think they can get away with stunts like that. People who have been caught with their pants down by creditors and such, and live their lives with the IRS and other mercenaries of fun breathing down their, are generally stripped of that notion.

Also, that the cause of your credit situation is directly linked to your character, and therefore makes you fit or unfit for financially responsible jobs, is an equally incomplete equation.

I'm not saying that looking at credit status should be illegal for anyone. If it's public record, it's public record. I'm just saying that whenever it's used for screening job applicants, it is buying into a fallacy that grossly exaggerates it's relevance, that is unfair to many a presumptive employee, and overall pretty moronic.

Freshface covered it well. I guess if you're not going to see it, you're not going to see it.

 

[sr71plt]

How come we don't know the employer's credit report, then?

How do we know the boss/owner/employer isn't living outside their means? That's a good indicator not only of his/her character, but also whether or not he's going to be a good manager, or maybe if he's going to rob his own till and put the company out of business.

It goes both ways. But going by your logic, an employer having bad credit has a bigger effect than one bad worker - it has an effect on a LOT of people at once - sometimes an entire community.

I mean, assuming we're applying your logic fairly, of course.

God, this is so lame. It's not the employer trying to get a job. The employer is the one responsible for handling the risk and progress of the company he/she is hiring for. If you're not going to understand the basics . . .

 

[cantdog]

Some guys like moronic. They feel at home in it.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

How come we don't know the employer's credit report, then?

How do we know the boss/owner/employer isn't living outside their means? That's a good indicator not only of his/her character, but also whether or not he's going to be a good manager, or maybe if he's going to rob his own till and put the company out of business.

It goes both ways. But going by your logic, an employer having bad credit has a bigger effect than one bad worker - it has an effect on a LOT of people at once - sometimes an entire community.

I mean, assuming we're applying your logic fairly, of course.

Hmmm... Freshface isn't willing to deal with any criticism of his reasoning?

 

[ravenmx]

A credit score can also be a measure of how a person handles their obligations. A history of late payments and over extensions can be an indicator of someone who isn't as trustworthy. Not saying that it should be a deal breaker, but certainly something I'd want to ask about in a job interview. Cancer and no health insurance is one thing. Chronically living beyond your means speaks to character.

I don't agree. People live beyond there means for several different reasons, some choose to but quite a few also don't have a choice. Sometimes the old adage robbing Peter to pay Paul is a very true adage. I have several employees under me who all have to have credit checks because they deal with credit cards. Because the pay is not very good we see lots of people whose credit is not the best however we are not extremly rigid so it would take alot to not be hired. Most are single parents, single parents with dead beat dads, single family income ect. Most are very trustworthy and show up to work all the time.

And if you were to ask me in a interview why I was constantly late on payments and living "beyond" my means I would tell you it is absolutely none of your business and move on. Most people I interview and extend offers to don't even know they had a credit check done, we don't tell them (I don't agree with that either but...) My work ethic has nothing to do with my credit just as my driving a car does not either.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I don't agree. People live beyond there means for several different reasons, some choose to but quite a few also don't have a choice. Sometimes the old adage robbing Peter to pay Paul is a very true adage. I have several employees under me who all have to have credit checks because they deal with credit cards. Because the pay is not very good we see lots of people whose credit is not the best however we are not extremly rigid so it would take alot to not be hired. Most are single parents, single parents with dead beat dads, single family income ect. Most are very trustworthy and show up to work all the time.

And if you were to ask me in a interview why I was constantly late on payments and living "beyond" my means I would tell you it is absolutely none of your business and move on. Most people I interview and extend offers to don't even know they had a credit check done, we don't tell them (I don't agree with that either but...) My work ethic has nothing to do with my credit just as my driving a car does not either.

Nearly EVERY position I have applied for (as well as leases for housing, opening new bank accounts, or applying for any type of loan or financing)requires a credit check and most of the positions I have applied for require much more.


And EVERY time I had to sign a consent form for such a check.


You say you don't tell them....but it shows up on their credit report....AND if a person is responsible enough to monitor their credit report....they will know and investigate any unauthorized access to the credit history. I sure as hell do.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Our local sheriff use credit checks and polygraphs and psychological evaluations and employer interviews to hire every employee, yet none of this culls out the bad apples who embarrass the sheriff (in recent times 2 deputies were fired for speeding and driving drunk, 3 more were arrested for dealing drugs, and one had to quit because of insurance fraud).

 

[freshface]

How come we don't know the employer's credit report, then?

How do we know the boss/owner/employer isn't living outside their means? That's a good indicator not only of his/her character, but also whether or not he's going to be a good manager, or maybe if he's going to rob his own till and put the company out of business.

It goes both ways. But going by your logic, an employer having bad credit has a bigger effect than one bad worker - it has an effect on a LOT of people at once - sometimes an entire community.

I mean, assuming we're applying your logic fairly, of course.

Hmmm... Freshface isn't willing to deal with any criticism of his reasoning?

Um, her reasoning. You do realize, right, that everyone in the world doesn't live in your time zone? You maybe noticed that my location is Germany? We're actually several hours ahead of you over here.

As SR said, the employer isn't the one looking for a job. He/she is the one looking for a new worker. Presumably, unless the one hiring you owns the business, that person also had a credit check before being hired.

And it's not just about who might or might not embezzle from you. It's about the whole package. There are all sorts of reasons why a person might have bad credit that can be discussed in the interview. I don't agree that a bad score is an automatic disqualifier for most jobs. But as a rule, I suspect that people with good credit histories are also more likely to show up for work on time and perform responsibly. Remember, it's not just about your score. It's about how often you pay on time and how often you walk away from your obligations.

 

[Safe_Bet]

... Most people I interview and extend offers to don't even know they had a credit check done, we don't tell them (I don't agree with that either but...) ...

You don't live in California, then. You need to sign an authorization for EVERY credit check that any employer/prospective employer runs on you and you have the right to receive a copy of the report that the requester receives.

If you don't notify the prospect/employee you are subject to MEGA fines and civil lawsuits.

I personally am fine with a prospective employer running a credit check IF THERE IS A VALID REASON. If I'm handling their money or am dealing with proprietary info, like SR said, then fine. If I'm not then then they have no VALID reason to look at it.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Um, her reasoning. You do realize, right, that everyone in the world doesn't live in your time zone? You maybe noticed that my location is Germany? We're actually several hours ahead of you over here.

As SR said, the employer isn't the one looking for a job. He/she is the one looking for a new worker. Presumably, unless the one hiring you owns the business, that person also had a credit check before being hired.

Well, I am talking about the one who owns the business. The fact that the employer is not the one looking for a job is a lame excuse. Their bad credit is as much a risk to employees and the community as an employee's bad credit is to him/her.

The entire community takes a risk letting this employer set up shop and out-compete another, maybe more ethical, employer.

And it's not just about who might or might not embezzle from you. It's about the whole package. There are all sorts of reasons why a person might have bad credit that can be discussed in the interview. I don't agree that a bad score is an automatic disqualifier for most jobs. But as a rule, I suspect that people with good credit histories are also more likely to show up for work on time and perform responsibly. Remember, it's not just about your score. It's about how often you pay on time and how often you walk away from your obligations.

You can't get that from a credit score. You don't get that from a credit score. But by your reasoning, an employer's credit score is also how often a n employer pays on time and how often they walk away from their obligations. Just because they're the one doing the hiring doesn't make that fact go away.

Credit checks don't save employers the trouble of bad employees and all they do is let them sit in judgement over aspects of an employee's life that has nothing

nothing at all

statistically speaking, not a bloody thing

to do with the way they work.


There are way too many employees out there with 10 collections on their record who are working their tails off to make ends meet. The last thing they want is to get fired or be seen as a crappy worker. I'm not the only person here telling you this.

I've nixed credit checks at my workplace and my employees work their asses off. It's the economy - as bad as things are out there, more people than ever want to keep their jobs and will do what it takes to keep it. People with poor credit are even more desperate to keep their jobs.

 

[sr71plt]

Why don't you just get off of porn chat rooms and start doing something about improving your credit, LaJack? (Might do something about your overall "it's all their fault dammit" attitude too, if you really want to make a good job interview impression.)

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I wonder if Propeller Boy can tell us what this guy's credit rating was.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/portle...int_article.jsp?articleId=11290239&siteId=181

Fry's exec arrested in alleged $65 million fraud scheme to pay off Vegas debts

By Lisa Fernandez

Mercury News
Contra Costa Times
Posted:12/22/2008 03:05:49 PM PST

A one-time computer salesman who rose through the ranks to help build Fry's Electronics into a robust national retailer is facing allegations that he defrauded the San Jose-based company out of $65 million, much of which he used to pay off enormous gambling debts in Las Vegas.

Ausaf Umar Siddiqui, 42,who goes by "Omar" and has been Fry's vice president of merchandising and operations, appeared in federal court today, where prosecutors filed a complaint that alleges he was involved in a "secret kickback scheme to defraud Fry's Electronics of millions of dollars.''

Fry's executives didn't know about the illegal kickbacks, the federal complaint states. The alleged scheme occurred from 2005 until mid-October when a Fry's high-level employee walked into Siddiqui's office at 600 E. Brokaw Road and saw confidential spreadsheets, letters and extraordinarily high commission amounts on Siddiqui's desk.

Siddiqui is expected to be formally charged in U.S. District Court on Jan. 15, on counts of money-laundering and wire fraud.

According to the complaint, which was unsealed today, Siddiqui convinced Fry's that the company should eliminate sales representatives on his accounts, and instead, he'd act as a middleman between vendors and Fry's. He promised that he'd save Fry's a lot of money that way. But instead, the complaint alleges, he ended up charging exorbitant commissions — up to 31 percent, or ten times the normal amount — to the vendors, which he funneled to his own "straw'' company PC International. Vendors were guaranteed steady business, so Siddiqui would have a steady cash flow to pay off casinos. Siddiqui spent $162 million in three years at just two of his favorites, the MGM Grand Casino and Las Vegas Sands Casino, according to his bank statements detailed in the complaint written by IRS Agent Andres Gonzalez.

The complaint says Siddiqui made "secret, backroom sales contracts to vendors, and in return, vendors gave him a kickback.''

"It was his responsibility to find Fry's the best price,'' said IRS spokeswoman Arlette Lee. "He was allegedly causing Fry's to overpay millions on merchandise.'' None of the vendors are household names.

After seeing the documents on Siddiqui's desk, the Fry's employee called the Internal Revenue Service. Federal agents swarmed Fry's corporate headquarters Friday and arrested Siddiqui, taking him away in handcuffs. Stunned co-workers watched as he was taken away.

Siddiqui was a "longtime friend" of John Fry, said Fry's spokesman Manuel Valerio. The reaction of employees and management to Siddiqui's arrest, he said, "is one of surprise and shock — and that's an understatement."

He made it clear, however, that "anything that may have taken place that may have been wrongful, Fry's as a company has not been financially harmed nor have any of our customers been harmed through the purchase of products," he said.

For his part, a clean-shaven Siddiqui appeared worried and serious in court today. He stood mostly silent, wearing the standard bright orange shirt of the Santa Clara County jail, where he was held over the weekend. Through his criminal attorney, Sam Polverino, he declined comment.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg altered Siddiqui's no-bail conditions today, allowing him to post $300,000 bond and be monitored with an electronic bracelet. The judge also ordered Siddiqui to stay away from Las Vegas, and was assured through Siddiqui's lawyers that he wouldn't be flying there anymore to on the Fry's corporate jet, or casino-paid jets, which he apparently has done before.

"I know you do a great deal of travel to Las Vegas,'' Seeborg said. "That's not allowed anymore. Nevada is off limits.''

Before setting his lowered bail, Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Moore and defense attorneys discussed how much Siddiqui is worth; revealing that he owns a $1 million Palo Alto condominium and a Ferrari.

A woman who appeared in court on Siddiqui's behalf declined comment. During the court hearing, conversations in court also revealed that Siddiqui has no close family; he is "estranged" from his siblings and his parents are deceased. He has no wife or children, and according to his civil attorney, who appeared as a "friend of the court,'' Siddiqui has several casinos after him to pay off gambling debts.

How much does he owe the casinos?

"I don't know the answer to that question,'' said Eric Sidebotham, an attorney who represents clients facing collections. "It's very complex.''

In general, Sidebotham said he has seen too many "very successful men, single, middle-age fall into a gambling addiction trap. They just get in and they can't get out.''

According to the criminal complaint, Siddiqui began working at Fry's Electronics in 1988, three years after the company was founded. He landed in one of the top positions of Fry's management, after working his way up from salesman, to department manager, to director of advertising to vice president of merchandising in 2003, where he was responsible for all of Fry's purchasing, and supervised 120 employees. He earned an annual salary of $225,000 at Fry's, which has 34 retail stores nationwide, and was listed in Forbes Magazine in 2007 as having 14,000 employees and generating a revenue of $2.35 billion.

The vendors that Siddiqui worked with include: Phoebe Micro Inc., Lead Data International, U.S. Media Technologies, and Elite Group Computer Systems. The companies sell a variety of computer equipment, wireless cards, Internet cameras. Some of the correspondence between the companies and Siddiqui were discovered on Siddiqui's desk when the Fry's informant saw them one day, and other documentation was discovered in Siddiqui's trash on Nov. 24.

Lee, the IRS spokeswoman, wouldn't comment specifically on whether or not these vendors acted illegally, but she did say: "In a typical case, we'd make contact with anyone who is alleged to be involved. We're going to want to talk to them to see what they know.''

Mercury News staff writers Julia Prodis Sulek Steve Johnson, Mark Gomez and researcher Diana Stickler contributed to this report. Contact Lisa Fernandez at lfernandez@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5002.