Sixteen US States working on a ban on employment credit checks

[LovingTongue]

Remember when I posted a thread a long time ago on here about the stupidity of employment credit checks?

Well, it seems that sixteen states are joining in on the revolution, to join Washington State and Hawaii who already have laws against these checks - at least, outside of financial institutions.

http://www.mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=400239

The fight is now officially on.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Remember when I posted a thread a long time ago on here about the stupidity of employment credit checks?

Well, it seems that sixteen states are joining in on the revolution, to join Washington State and Hawaii who already have laws against these checks - at least, outside of financial institutions.

http://www.mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=400239

The fight is now officially on.

The proposed law in IL doesn't seem to do much. It excludes any job that would involve access to $1,000 in assets. I would think that would include almost any job.

 

[Xelebes]

The proposed law in IL doesn't seem to do much. It excludes any job that would involve access to $1,000 in assets. I would think that would include almost any job.

I think they are refering to highly liquid assets or long-term investment assets, not things like merchandise or capital assets. Or at least I hope the language in the bill says something like that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think they are refering to highly liquid assets or long-term investment assets, not things like merchandise or capital assets. Or at least I hope the language in the bill says something like that.

I would hope so too. In the article, it says "cash or assets." I would think that would include some merchandise, such as gourmet food and wine and other expensive stuff.

 

[Xelebes]

I would hope so too. In the article, it says "cash or assets." I would think that would include some merchandise, such as gourmet food and wine and other expensive stuff.

Not necessarily as those are not highly liquid assets - you would need to mark them down quite considerably to convert them into cash quickly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My sheriff has 200 vacancies cuz he cant get perfect applicants. He also released 900 inmates early in 2009 cuz he didnt have enough jailers.

There are no perfect people: If a person has a heart of one gallon capacity, his brain barely fills a cup.

The sheriff plays a dangerous game. If he does the work with 200 fewer bodies people are gonna start thinking he doesnt need 200 more people.

 

[sr71plt]

I'd prefer any company where I have financial interest involved to run checks on employees who will be handling my money, including checks on their track record in handling their own money, thank you very much.

I have to file a full financial disclosure statement every year--and have done so for decades--just to maintain the trust of helping to handle your foreign affairs system. If I wasn't willing to do that, it would be my responsibility to seek another kind of job.

 

[jeninflorida]

Remember when I posted a thread a long time ago on here about the stupidity of employment credit checks?

Well, it seems that sixteen states are joining in on the revolution, to join Washington State and Hawaii who already have laws against these checks - at least, outside of financial institutions.

http://www.mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=400239

The fight is now officially on.

What is so wrong with an employer requesting this type of information (if the request is legal)? After all, saying that this was a small business the owner of the company is risking his or her personal money to take on a new employee; doesn’t that owner have any rights?

If you have a problem with a legal interview/job interrogating why not walk away and find a different job?

 

[jeninflorida]

I'd prefer any company where I have financial interest involved to run checks on employees who will be handling my money, including checks on their track record in handling their own money, thank you very much.

I have to file a full financial disclosure statement every year--and have done so for decades--just to maintain the trust of helping to handle your foreign affairs system. If I wasn't willing to do that, it would be my responsibility to seek another kind of job.

Agreed, but I would have to include sales people.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Based on facts youre a lot more likely to be ripped off by a black than someone with a bad credit history. The problem is scrutiny doesnt protect you. The sheriff of this county has 200 vacancies because his criteria for employment is too severe; the only applicants with the physical stamina and unstained histories are 18 year olds.

 

[jeninflorida]

Based on facts youre a lot more likely to be ripped off by a black than someone with a bad credit history. The problem is scrutiny doesnt protect you. The sheriff of this county has 200 vacancies because his criteria for employment is too severe; the only applicants with the physical stamina and unstained histories are 18 year olds.

and just cuz a person doesn't have a criminal past...there is always a first time

I’m not really taking a stance on this one, I see both sides. Guess being a past entrepreneur I’m more pro that side as it’s my money (or my family’s money) at risk when starting a new business and historically aka peppie la what ever is more pro “unionist” on employee right

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

People change, or they dont get caught, or times change, and prejudices come and go.

I was asked to apply for a job with the sheriff, and I declined. I declined because he requires every applicant to document EVERY job theyve ever had. In my case we're talking 45 years of jobs starting at 16. He wants address, phone, contact person, etc. Most of the companies dont exist anymore. My 20 years with the state is insufficient. So fuck him. I dont care to work for anyone THAT anal.

All this scrutiny madness does is disqualify about 75% of Americans from working, but it wont keep them from making a living.

 

[sr71plt]

People change, or they dont get caught, or times change, and prejudices come and go.

I was asked to apply for a job with the sheriff, and I declined. I declined because he requires every applicant to document EVERY job theyve ever had. In my case we're talking 45 years of jobs starting at 16. He wants address, phone, contact person, etc. Most of the companies dont exist anymore. My 20 years with the state is insufficient. So fuck him. I dont care to work for anyone THAT anal.

All this scrutiny madness does is disqualify about 75% of Americans from working, but it wont keep them from making a living.

And yet if the sheriff hired someone who did something dispicable during an unaccounted period of their life that the sheriff didn't pin down and then this surfaced again after they were hired, who would folks come down on? The sheriff who didn't to a comprehensive check, of course.

All of this is just folks trying to shift responsibility. If you want a responsible job, lead a responsible life.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And yet if the sheriff hired someone who did something dispicable during an unaccounted period of their life that the sheriff didn't pin down and then this surfaced again after they were hired, who would folks come down on? The sheriff who didn't to a comprehensive check, of course.

All of this is just folks trying to shift responsibility. If you want a responsible job, lead a responsible life.

He had to release 900 prisoners early cuz he didnt have adequate jail staff in 2009. It involves more than responsibility. Smoking cigarettes isnt illegal and never was, yet he wont hire anyone who ever smoked a cigarette. He's welcome to run his agency however he wants until it fails or until enough voters grow weary of the BS. His jail, incidentally, was one that dumped the cripple out of the wheelchair.

 

[sr71plt]

He had to release 900 prisoners early cuz he didnt have adequate jail staff in 2009. It involves more than responsibility. Smoking cigarettes isnt illegal and never was, yet he wont hire anyone who ever smoked a cigarette. He's welcome to run his agency however he wants until it fails or until enough voters grow weary of the BS. His jail, incidentally, was one that dumped the cripple out of the wheelchair.

Dancin' around with minutia (which you probably made up anyway). You obviously aren't a good candidate for anyone's sheriff office anyway (and probably a poster child for the counter argument of this thread )--just upset on what he'd find in your background, I'm sure.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Dancin' around with minutia (which you probably made up anyway). You obviously aren't a good candidate for anyone's sheriff office anyway (and probably a poster child for the counter argument of this thread )--just upset on what he'd find in your background, I'm sure.

Bored today?

 

[bronzeage]

People change, or they dont get caught, or times change, and prejudices come and go.

I was asked to apply for a job with the sheriff, and I declined. I declined because he requires every applicant to document EVERY job theyve ever had. In my case we're talking 45 years of jobs starting at 16. He wants address, phone, contact person, etc. Most of the companies dont exist anymore. My 20 years with the state is insufficient. So fuck him. I dont care to work for anyone THAT anal.

All this scrutiny madness does is disqualify about 75% of Americans from working, but it wont keep them from making a living.

If the sheriff's department is 200 people short, who has the time to check your application and call your references?

 

[sr71plt]

Bored today?

No; got plenty to do. Just amused that those most worried about having employment background checks done are the ones I think I'd want to have one done on the most before they handled any of my transactions.

 

[Stella_Omega]

No; got plenty to do. Just amused that those most worried about having employment background checks done are the ones I think I'd want to have one done on the most before they handled any of my transactions.

What about all those other jobs that people apply for?

 

[sr71plt]

What about all those other jobs that people apply for?

Can you explain the question more fully?

I think there's a whole raft of jobs where extensive background checks, including credit checks, shouldn't be required, but I also think that any employer has the right to assure themselves that employees are going to be reliable or, flip side, that they shouldn't be held accountable for what their employees then do to customers (which is not a particularly ideal world right there).

I also think that employers shouldn't see bad credit as black/white and should weigh the circumstances of that. But I don't think this can--or should--be legislated.

I don't lump the people who selfishly mucked up their credit together with people who had life hit them hard when they were trying their best. But, although, there will be a gray band, these two extremes can be separated most of the time. (And the originator of this thread has time and again asserted that it's always someone else's fault and that the world owes him and anyone he designates a cushy living.)

If this doesn't respond to your question, you'll have to expand on your question.