Credit checks for employment: a poor subsitute for good internal security?

[Le Jacquelope]

Hrm... I don't think I'm downgrading my position. I believe they are useful, I can show they can be useful. One is my solicited opinion, the other is what--essentially--I can maintain as a rational accuracy. My position is still that they are useful--out and out. But I maintain that's a preferential position, I don't expect anyone to hold it--but I do not expect people to argue that it can't be useful because that's just silly.

Consulting an ouija board can be useful.

Here's an interesting thought experiment to show you where I stand on how useful they are or aren't... if you had to hire someone that has a long history of bad debts, renigging on contracts, fraud (bouncing checks), collections accounts, and evictions/foreclosures OR someone that didn't have any of those problems--which would you hire?

If all other things (especially proven work history) are equal? I'd do a coin toss.

Fraud (including certain incidents of bounced checks) is a criminal issue, just so you know. That falls in the realm of criminal background checks. BTW the employer can also bounce paychecks. How does the employee do a credit check to see if that's likely to happen?

Now, we can say "well the first guy might have extenuating circumstances"--which is true... but if all those things happened over and over again for twenty years--how isolated are the incidents? If they span many, many companies and many, many addresses--how likely is he to stick around? The information that goes into "loan the money or not" can translate into information about "trust or not". They are, at the end of the day, the same question.

Exactly what does this have to do with their job performance again?

Now, that doesn't mean we should use credit reports for employment--I think I've even said I'm against that... but when your profit margin is on the line? I think we can see why a business wants /more/ not /less/ information.

All the while concealing from the employee their likelihood of bouncing paychecks, mind you.

Again, you're completely ignoring the effectiveness of better internal security. Putting RFID on unsold goods allows you to know instantly if an employee steals it out the back door, and a camera tells you who stole it. What do you need credit checks for if you have that system in place to tell you whodunit, in real time, and you can let future employees know they stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting away with this?

I had a credit check to get my last two jobs. I have nothing particularly bad on them--except that I don't have any credit history aside from a bank account. I had the opportunity to explain. I pay cash for everything.

Lucky you. You had a chance to explain. In many cases, including what S-Des related to you, the applicant did not have that chance.

Now, we can fear the idea of profiling employees... but they asked me to explain my history and I could. I wonder if we're taking into account how often /that/ happens.

Your problem is you declare your experiences to be the norm. The rest of us are asking you to explain how you think things go when the world doesn't go the way you think it goes.

You know, you lectured me about rationality and logic, and yet you're developing a reputation here of ignoring gaping holes in your reasoning. I have faith that you, being such an astute arbiter of debating skills, will rectify this.

 

[S-Des]

Credit Reports provide information that can be useful.

Fact. Let's expand that to other facts.

Credit Reports provide information that can be harmful.
Credit Reports provide information that can be irrelevant.
Credit Reports provide information that can be translated to hebrew and written with pink lipstick on Jerry Springer's shaved back.

I hadn't considered the lipstick on Springer . . . I might just have to change my opinion of them.

Joe, I get where you're coming from, but I think you are wrong on virtually every level. I've worked in several large companies, and their HR staffs were not overly well trained, but were incredibly over-worked, so to assume that they'd make a good faith effort to investigate any causes of negatives on every applicant's report is just naive. Likewise, you keep talking about the accuracy of information, but I'm not basing the bulk of my argument on mistakes. I'm much more worried about the other things that pollute reports. Just so we have some real life examples . . .

I have a repo on my history. GMAC accidently repo'd my car (yes, you heard me right). I was late on a payment, and on a Thursday made arrangements with a rep to make my payment the following Monday, but on Saturday awoke to find my car was gone. When I called them, I was informed that someone didn't review the notes on the account and ordered the repo. They were sorry, but now that it was done, I owed the repo fee, late charges, storing charges, and UPS charges (because they took anything out of my car, tossed it into a box and sent it to me at my charge). It also left a very strong negative on my credit for 7 years. Why was I late on my payment you might ask (since it obviously must be due to my irresponsibility and proof of my lack of employment worthiness)? Because the place I was working for was on the edge of bankrupcy and had stopped paying me. I had two choices, continue working while they promised to catch up, or quit, spend weeks looking for a new job (with no paycheck), and write off ever getting what was owed to me. I stayed with them, got my back money, but they eventually went out of business.

I have several defaults in my credit history. In each case, I was charged something unfairly (in my opinion). Instead of taking me to court (which would have cost them too much and would have opened them to the possibility of losing), the collection agencies just reported me in default (which is a great way for them to strong arm people). I have contested things on my credit in the past, but it can be difficult to get negatives removed.

If you look hard enough, you'll find people with horrible credit who truly are bad risks for the company, but there is no way to verify the concept that bad credit (lets say 550 - 650) has anything to do with someone's job performance. Therefore, I say it is more likely to cause people to miss excellent employees (as Hertz did with Kiten) than to protect them from bad employees (i.e. it's a poor substitute for good internal security).

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well said, S-Des. An employer who is late paying their workers suffers a far less penalty than a worker who is late making a car payment. I wonder if an employer's bankruptcy and closing creates a negative mark on the owner's credit? I've never had a business go under and my wife's insurance and staging business is absolutely on fire.

Anyway, I'm sorry Joe Wadsworth could not address these issues that you brought up. I'm sure he just dismissed what he could not fit into his narrow worldview.

 

[S-Des]

Anyway, I'm sorry Joe Wadsworth could not address these issues that you brought up. I'm sure he just dismissed what he could not fit into his narrow worldview.

Joe's a good guy who I agree with probably as often as anyone on the board. The one thing you'll never hear him say is, "I'm wrong", so don't hold your breath (he and Pure should start a club). I'm not saying he's wrong in principle, but in the real world, I believe that too often bad HR people (assuming a company is even big enough to have an HR person) will use general info off a credit check to rule out applicants, instead of what they are supposed to be used for. Because of this, I think they're a bad idea (and because of how they can be used disproportionately against the poor, I believe they are an illegal form of discrimination).

Credit card companies do it as well. I have a card with a $2000 limit that I've had for over 2 years. I've never made a late payment and have never been over my limit. One day I was making a payment on line and saw that they had more than doubled my interest rate (27.9%). I called, expecting to get an apology for some oversight, but instead was told that some information on my credit report had triggered an automatic rate increase. I asked what specific information (since I knew there was nothing new on it that was negative), and was told they didn't know. I got a generic letter a week later that said I had too many negative articles (whatever that means), and they refused to remove it. Luckily my new job has me in a position I could pay down the debt quickly and cancel the card, but if they did that to someone who was barely scraping by, that interest rate would keep them in debt indefinitely.

Just because something can be used in an effective, fair way, doesn't mean it will be.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Joe's a good guy who I agree with probably as often as anyone on the board. The one thing you'll never hear him say is, "I'm wrong", so don't hold your breath (he and Pure should start a club). I'm not saying he's wrong in principle, but in the real world, I believe that too often bad HR people (assuming a company is even big enough to have an HR person) will use general info off a credit check to rule out applicants, instead of what they are supposed to be used for. Because of this, I think they're a bad idea (and because of how they can be used disproportionately against the poor, I believe they are an illegal form of discrimination).

Credit card companies do it as well. I have a card with a $2000 limit that I've had for over 2 years. I've never made a late payment and have never been over my limit. One day I was making a payment on line and saw that they had more than doubled my interest rate (27.9%). I called, expecting to get an apology for some oversight, but instead was told that some information on my credit report had triggered an automatic rate increase. I asked what specific information (since I knew there was nothing new on it that was negative), and was told they didn't know. I got a generic letter a week later that said I had too many negative articles (whatever that means), and they refused to remove it. Luckily my new job has me in a position I could pay down the debt quickly and cancel the card, but if they did that to someone who was barely scraping by, that interest rate would keep them in debt indefinitely.

Just because something can be used in an effective, fair way, doesn't mean it will be.

I work in the finance industry and can tell you with great confidence that all your credit cards can and often will raise their rates if they check your credit and see derogatory issues elsewhere. It's ridiculous, really. Thank God we don't deal with credit cards, yet.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I hadn't considered the lipstick on Springer . . . I might just have to change my opinion of them.

Joe, I get where you're coming from, but I think you are wrong on virtually every level. .

We'll find I have stated, clearly, that I disagree that they should be used. But, to be realistic--I work in the car industry. Statistically speaking, people with lower credit scores and a history of bad qualifying credit /do/ wind up with more problems maintaining their contracts with regard to their cars. Its not everyone, and not a wild theory I'm sure we can agree... are there extra-special circumstances? I don't doubt for many, there are. But, their ability to understand their own finances comes into play--their ability to make sound judgement--when those people come looking for a vehicle.

I have fewer repos and missed payments happen with higher credit people--as an objective metric.

When working on those premises, I have a rough measure of someone's ability to understand their commitments and maintain them. Were I hiring for a job? I can use that information.

I still think they shouldn't be used, I don't think they are a "good idea" for many of the reasons you stated--but its a normative judgement, and I can't truly objectify it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Consulting an ouija board can be useful.

If that's true then it makes statements like "ouija boards are totally useless". See the dichotomy?

If all other things (especially proven work history) are equal? I'd do a coin toss.

Fraud (including certain incidents of bounced checks) is a criminal issue, just so you know. That falls in the realm of criminal background checks. BTW the employer can also bounce paychecks. How does the employee do a credit check to see if that's likely to happen?

If you would toss a coin in that instance, then we have very different basic and fundamental views of the utility of information or the behavioral psychology of people.

Exactly what does this have to do with their job performance again?

Reliability and responsibility are part of every job I've ever had or heard of.

All the while concealing from the employee their likelihood of bouncing paychecks, mind you.

Again, you're completely ignoring the effectiveness of better internal security. Putting RFID on unsold goods allows you to know instantly if an employee steals it out the back door, and a camera tells you who stole it. What do you need credit checks for if you have that system in place to tell you whodunit, in real time, and you can let future employees know they stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting away with this?

I acknowledge that better internal security is a good thing, very much so--but the best or even moderate levels of technology aren't a feasible option for many businesses--and "prevention" is often worth a "pound of cure". We can leverage the system to catch bad employees, and that's useful, but if we can avoid hiring/training/wasting-time-with them before we get that far? With a margin of error that ensures we don't throw away as many good apples with the bad? That's better.

Lucky you. You had a chance to explain. In many cases, including what S-Des related to you, the applicant did not have that chance.

But, then its a question of "how they're handled" and less a question of "whether they should do it or not". I agree that "best practices" are needed when using credit checks for employment, that's a given and a truth. That doesn't conflict with using them, though.

Your problem is you declare your experiences to be the norm. The rest of us are asking you to explain how you think things go when the world doesn't go the way you think it goes.

Not at all, I actually hate "experience" as a reason for most things. Experience isn't an analytical truth. As a matter of fact, I think I even said that if we bring personal anecdotes into the mix, we're watering down the issue.

You know, you lectured me about rationality and logic, and yet you're developing a reputation here of ignoring gaping holes in your reasoning. I have faith that you, being such an astute arbiter of debating skills, will rectify this.

Where is a gaping hole in my reasoning? We'll find that I may hold detestable positions, but rationally cautious ones--and I'd be wary of where I hear my "reputation"... it is varied and often colored by those who agreed with my position or disagreed with it, entirely independant of the reasons I hold it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

If they are identical in every other aspect - competence, work merits, education, social skills... (not likely)
and if the contrast between their credit situation was as cartoonishly extreme as in your scenario... (again, not likely)

...I'd probably hire the guy with the clean bill. But it's far down on my list of priorities.

That's neither a sin nor a crime to think so. Its an extremely isolated thought-experiment and, agreed, isn't ever remotely likely to actually occur. But the reasons you make that choice are important. You probably (I assume) did so because in some small way, that information was relevant and useful to your making a judgement on someone's abilities based on their history. That happens every day in every job, sometimes with better information and sometimes with less reliable information... but if you had to distinguish people, you'd want more information about their history or habits or personality, etc.

Now... still presuming that actual job qualifications are the same (and I can't stress enough how unlikely that is)... if one had no remarks and the other a slight financial problem to sort out (some overdue bills, an old eviction record).. who'd you hire? If anything, I'd actually ponder if the guy with the problems wouldn't appriciate the job more, be a more loyal employee and work harder.

And that's another way you would use the information... see, unfortunately, people are focusing on the OUTCOMES of using the information instead of the REASONS to use it. One of the better managerial advices I ever got, when I started management jobs, was that the guy who "needs" his paycheck is sometimes--for some jobs--better than the guy who merely "wants" his paycheck. The guy who needs it, has kids or mortgages or bills or etc., and will come early, stay late, and do his job. The guy who merely wants it, who has no bills and no ties and no cares and doesn't even really need the money, is a flake and a risk.

You've given an example (and one I've seen in real life many times) of how that information might tell you something useful.

Such has, largely, been my point from the beginning.

I still think, however, we shouldn't use it.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

If that's true then it makes statements like "ouija boards are totally useless". See the dichotomy?

Huh?

If you would toss a coin in that instance, then we have very different basic and fundamental views of the utility of information or the behavioral psychology of people.

Reliability and responsibility are part of every job I've ever had or heard of.

So if you're unreliable irresponsible with your finances, then you're also unreliable and irresponsible at work. Gotcha. Got any proof to back that up?

Really, you should also be looking for workers who cheat on their wives - dishonesty at home is dishonesty at work, right? And check for traffic tickets, too - unsafe drivers are, after all, unsafe workers. I mean really, this is where your logic leads.

I acknowledge that better internal security is a good thing, very much so--but the best or even moderate levels of technology aren't a feasible option for many businesses--and "prevention" is often worth a "pound of cure".

Internal security is prevention. In many ways it's a deterrent.

We can leverage the system to catch bad employees, and that's useful, but if we can avoid hiring/training/wasting-time-with them before we get that far? With a margin of error that ensures we don't throw away as many good apples with the bad? That's better.

But credit checks throw out a lot of good apples with the bad.

But, then its a question of "how they're handled" and less a question of "whether they should do it or not". I agree that "best practices" are needed when using credit checks for employment, that's a given and a truth. That doesn't conflict with using them, though.

Here's an idea. Since we don't force businesses to post notices when they bounce paychecks, and we don't force employers to post their owners/stockholders' credit ratings and yank their corporate license when they have a personal bankruptcy, how about businesses butt out of people's personal lives like we butt out of theirs?

I'm just asking for symmetry here.

Not at all, I actually hate "experience" as a reason for most things. Experience isn't an analytical truth. As a matter of fact, I think I even said that if we bring personal anecdotes into the mix, we're watering down the issue.

Ok and what besides "experience" do we have to justify employment credit checks?

Where is a gaping hole in my reasoning? We'll find that I may hold detestable positions, but rationally cautious ones--and I'd be wary of where I hear my "reputation"... it is varied and often colored by those who agreed with my position or disagreed with it, entirely independant of the reasons I hold it.

I've pointed out the holes above for you.

What besides "experience" do we have to justify employment credit checks?
What gives you the right to pry into someone's personal life as an employee any more than they can pry into yours as an employer?
What proof do you have that one's personal life automatically affects one's work habits? Why don't we also do DMV checks and check workers for marital infidelity, etc.?

 

[sr71plt]

Huh?


So if you're unreliable irresponsible with your finances, then you're also unreliable and irresponsible at work. Gotcha. Got any proof to back that up?

Really, you should also be looking for workers who cheat on their wives - dishonesty at home is dishonesty at work, right? And check for traffic tickets, too - unsafe drivers are, after all, unsafe workers. I mean really, this is where your logic leads.


Internal security is prevention. In many ways it's a deterrent.


But credit checks throw out a lot of good apples with the bad.


Here's an idea. Since we don't force businesses to post notices when they bounce paychecks, and we don't force employers to post their owners/stockholders' credit ratings and yank their corporate license when they have a personal bankruptcy, how about businesses butt out of people's personal lives like we butt out of theirs?

I'm just asking for symmetry here.


Ok and what besides "experience" do we have to justify employment credit checks?


I've pointed out the holes above for you.

What besides "experience" do we have to justify employment credit checks?
What gives you the right to pry into someone's personal life as an employee any more than they can pry into yours as an employer?
What proof do you have that one's personal life automatically affects one's work habits? Why don't we also do DMV checks and check workers for marital infidelity, etc.?

OK, OK, I give up. I never again will use a credit report in determining whether to hire someone (of course I never did, and I don't hire people anymore, but this thread will probably circle around forever until someone promises to not do that). And because it seems to be what you think is right, if a choice is down to two candidates of equal work merit, except one has messed up her credit, I'll be certain to give the job to her, because it's my responsibility to pull her out of the financial mess she's gotten herself in--and if the other candidate really wanted the job, he should have messed up his credit too.

Problem solved now? Whew.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Huh?

I kinda figured that would happen.

So if you're unreliable irresponsible with your finances, then you're also unreliable and irresponsible at work. Gotcha. Got any proof to back that up?

No, my position is much more intellectually cautious than that--you seem to have limited ability to disagree with it and choose to invent this other one you keep coming back to. If you're unreliable and irresponsible with your finances and commitments, then in some ways you are a documentably unreliable and irresponsible person should it show up on your credit report. Given that I'd rather have less unreliable and irresponsible people in my business, and I had access to a report that could show a record of these behaviors--I find that useful information.

/That/ is my position.

Really, you should also be looking for workers who cheat on their wives - dishonesty at home is dishonesty at work, right? And check for traffic tickets, too - unsafe drivers are, after all, unsafe workers. I mean really, this is where your logic leads.

If I could access that kind of information, reliably, and could use it legally to decide between job candidates? I would use it, yes. What one act means with regard to another is a more complicated question--but if I could find out if someone cheats on their wife or speeds frequently, that would be an indication of the type of person I'm looking at. More information is better.

Internal security is prevention. In many ways it's a deterrent.

Internal security is damage control, in my opinion. The threat of internal security can be prevention. Actual prevention, however, is better prevention.

But credit checks throw out a lot of good apples with the bad.

A calculable and manageable risk.

Here's an idea. Since we don't force businesses to post notices when they bounce paychecks, and we don't force employers to post their owners/stockholders' credit ratings and yank their corporate license when they have a personal bankruptcy, how about businesses butt out of people's personal lives like we butt out of theirs?

That sounds fine to me. But what we "ought" to do is not relevant to a discussion about what "works", I don't think--and that's the conversation I've been trying to maintain. Ethical judgements are a more complicated issue and aren't as easily kept rationally cohesive.

Ok and what besides "experience" do we have to justify employment credit checks?

To "justify" them? Nothing. I'm not at all interested in justifying them. However, to show what place they are intended to hold in the process, the possible reasons why, and what they imply--themselves? Propositions and logic and definitions, as much as possible.

I've pointed out the holes above for you.

What besides "experience" do we have to justify employment credit checks?

Analytical judgement--though I'd say less for justification and more for clarification. Incidentally, that isn't a "hole in logic".

What gives you the right to pry into someone's personal life as an employee any more than they can pry into yours as an employer?

Nothing. And you'll note I haven't said otherwise. That, also, isn't a "hole in logic".

What proof do you have that one's personal life automatically affects one's work habits? Why don't we also do DMV checks and check workers for marital infidelity, etc.?

I haven't argued that one's personal life "automatically affects one's work habits". I have argued that one's past behavior is indicative of one's future behavior--that's just Behavioral Psychology and most of the social sciences talking, there. I have also argued that many financial arrangments are committments, they are promises--and breaking them is indicative of an inability to keep to committments and promises in some respects. That's just purely categorical logic. That is, also, not a "hole in [my] logic".

Why don't we do DMV checks? I don't know. But not knowing that isn't a "hole in logic" either.

So, again, and this is really the only question that I think is primely important... where is the "hole in my logic" that you say you point out?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I kinda figured that would happen.


No, my position is much more intellectually cautious than that--you seem to have limited ability to disagree with it and choose to invent this other one you keep coming back to. If you're unreliable and irresponsible with your finances and commitments, then in some ways you are a documentably unreliable and irresponsible person should it show up on your credit report. Given that I'd rather have less unreliable and irresponsible people in my business, and I had access to a report that could show a record of these behaviors--I find that useful information.

At this point you are being totally intellectually dishonest.

You equate documented indications of financial irresponsibility. You say it proves "you are a documentably unreliable and irresponsible person" in the financial and you say that you need to know this why? Because as you said you'd "less unreliable and irresponsible people in my business". You are now explicitly saying that if you're unreliable irresponsible with your finances, then you're also unreliable and irresponsible at work.

I'm getting tired of you espousing a position and then arguing vociferously that you're not. If you're not man enough to own up to what you're saying then why should you be allowed to be in charge of anyone?

If I could access that kind of information, reliably, and could use it legally to decide between job candidates? I would use it, yes. What one act means with regard to another is a more complicated question--but if I could find out if someone cheats on their wife or speeds frequently, that would be an indication of the type of person I'm looking at. More information is better.

And so your argument goes further off the deep end.

How about this - more information is more unwanted intrusion into someone's personal life. Stay out of my personal life - unless you're willing to post yours up on the wall next to the workers comp law poster.

Internal security is damage control, in my opinion. The threat of internal security can be prevention. Actual prevention, however, is better prevention.

Then you are hopelessly unaware of what internal security is about.

Your attempts at "prevention" are totally ineffective against people with great credit, who nonetheless rip you off. The scenario is completely alien to your argument.

A calculable and manageable risk.

And are thefts by people with good credit, a calculable and manageable risk?

That sounds fine to me. But what we "ought" to do is not relevant to a discussion about what "works", I don't think--and that's the conversation I've been trying to maintain. Ethical judgements are a more complicated issue and aren't as easily kept rationally cohesive.

Employment credit checks are easily demonstrated to not work. As in the case of people with good credit who still steal from you. Or who run an entire company into the ground.

This is less about ethics and more about making the rules apply to both sides. You as an employer would never consent to being investigated and publicly exposed the way you propose doing to employees. You think you're above those rules and that's certainly not logical, nor is it very effective.

To "justify" them? Nothing. I'm not at all interested in justifying them. However, to show what place they are intended to hold in the process, the possible reasons why, and what they imply--themselves? Propositions and logic and definitions, as much as possible.

The place they are intended to hold, isn't one that they are holding very effectively.

Analytical judgement--though I'd say less for justification and more for clarification. Incidentally, that isn't a "hole in logic".

Your position can hardly be considered analytical judgement. You completely ignore the issue of thefts and embezzlement by people who would pass your credit checks. It's not just a hole in your logic - it's a yawning chasm.

Nothing. And you'll note I haven't said otherwise. That, also, isn't a "hole in logic".

You haven't said otherwise? Good. Then you agree to have a company post its bounced paycheck history and its inability to honor pension contracts, as well as details concerning its managers' personal lives, etc.?

I haven't argued that one's personal life "automatically affects one's work habits". I have argued that one's past behavior is indicative of one's future behavior--that's just Behavioral Psychology and most of the social sciences talking, there. I have also argued that many financial arrangments are committments, they are promises--and breaking them is indicative of an inability to keep to committments and promises in some respects. That's just purely categorical logic. That is, also, not a "hole in [my] logic".

Yes it is a hole in your logic. You are saying that what goes on in one's personal life is an indicator of what will happen in their professional life, and the two are absolutely not the same. Logically you're way off the mark.

Why don't we do DMV checks? I don't know. But not knowing that isn't a "hole in logic" either.

So, again, and this is really the only question that I think is primely important... where is the "hole in my logic" that you say you point out?

Hole #1 in your "logic" - you lied when you said you tried to deny saying financial irresponsibility means on the job irresponsibility.

Hole #2 - your argument completely ignores the threat of people with good credit still ripping you off.

Hole #3 - you continue to erroneously equate what goes on in one's personal life, with what would happen when they go to work.

That's three holes right there.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

At this point you are being totally intellectually dishonest.

You equate documented indications of financial irresponsibility. You say it proves "you are a documentably unreliable and irresponsible person" in the financial and you say that you need to know this why? Because as you said you'd "less unreliable and irresponsible people in my business". You are now explicitly saying that if you're unreliable irresponsible with your finances, then you're also unreliable and irresponsible at work.

I said that it is an indicator of the sort of person you are, looking at the history of your behavior. As such, personal and professional lives have things in common--namely, /you/ are still at the heart of both. The history of one's behavior is relevant to the prediction of one's future behavior... this is the nature of resumes, credit checks, references, and all other forms of information for employment.

And so your argument goes further off the deep end.

How about this - more information is more unwanted intrusion into someone's personal life. Stay out of my personal life - unless you're willing to post yours up on the wall next to the workers comp law poster.

I agree, it is intrusion. The conversation, however, hasn't been about the rightness or wrongness of privacy... only the utility of the information. Again, you keep trying to make this a moral conversation. I am disinterested in that. If it will help you stop bringing it up--know that I think that credit checks are "bad", which has nothing to do with how useful they are.

Then you are hopelessly unaware of what internal security is about.

Your attempts at "prevention" are totally ineffective against people with great credit, who nonetheless rip you off. The scenario is completely alien to your argument.

That's true. More information is better, still, then less information. I miss the sly ones that have great credit (an indication they can fullfill their financial promises), who may then still hurt my business... but I weeded out /many/ in the process. That's the general idea. I'd have had ALL the good and ALL the bad instead of SOME of the good and MOST of the bad. This is the general idea.

I agree to multiple levels of protection, that's a good idea. Prevention is a huge part of any security. If it weren't, then we'd have to just throw out the metal detectors at the airport for the occasional money-clip getting through.

And are thefts by people with good credit, a calculable and manageable risk?

It is calculated and managed every day in a wide variety of industries by countless businesses... this is not new.

Employment credit checks are easily demonstrated to not work. As in the case of people with good credit who still steal from you. Or who run an entire company into the ground.

And are easily demonstrated to work, as in the case of people with horrible credit who are not put in positions of authority over finances or resources. If we're to say that "anecdotal examples" are "demonstrations", then we've demonstrated the whole range of possible occurances.

This is less about ethics and more about making the rules apply to both sides. You as an employer would never consent to being investigated and publicly exposed the way you propose doing to employees. You think you're above those rules and that's certainly not logical, nor is it very effective.

How is this at ALL relevant to any of my points? I think its another example of Straw-Man-ing the issue... you make many logical fallacies. Please stop.

The place they are intended to hold, isn't one that they are holding very effectively.

Well, given the popularity of the practice and the number of books that encourage its use and perfection... I'd say, they're likely to be as effective as they need to be. My company uses them. They believe, based on the number and profits, that it is worth the cost and risk--because they don't want to stop. That's effect.

Your position can hardly be considered analytical judgement. You completely ignore the issue of thefts and embezzlement by people who would pass your credit checks. It's not just a hole in your logic - it's a yawning chasm.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just acknowledging that it is possible for people to get "around" the check. Just as its possible for people to get "around" a background check or a drug check or a reference check... but doing away with the procedure for those reasons isn't entirely rational without some kind of metric to show it "isn't worth its cost". That's just business. That's just logic.

You haven't said otherwise? Good. Then you agree to have a company post its bounced paycheck history and its inability to honor pension contracts, as well as details concerning its managers' personal lives, etc.?

They can. They might. They won't. They will. Meh. Its not really relevant to any of my points. Go ahead and insert whatever answer you want.

Yes it is a hole in your logic. You are saying that what goes on in one's personal life is an indicator of what will happen in their professional life, and the two are absolutely not the same. Logically you're way off the mark.

Logically, someone is a product of their history, biology, psychology, and envronment. People's behaviors are automatically stopped and started pending what kind of name-tag they're wearing. As such, given the pervasiveness of one's personality and behavioral history in what they act like, yes... one's personal life and one's professional life have much in common. A record of one's ability to be responsible (professional?) in their personal business is relevant--in some ways--to their ability to do so in MY business.

That IS logical.

It may be detestable. It may be unfortunate. It may be sad or something we wouldn't want to be true.... but if you think that's "irrational"? You don't have a formal understanding of "rationality".

Hole #1 in your "logic" - you lied when you said you tried to deny saying financial irresponsibility means on the job irresponsibility.

Not at all. I said that fiancial irresponsibility may indicate on the job irresponsibility. That's not a lie. That's making sure you use my DIRECT quote and the WHOLE sentence it was contained in. That's not "hole in logic". Again, read a logic book.

Hole #2 - your argument completely ignores the threat of people with good credit still ripping you off.

It doesn't. I've covered that issue. It is not relevant to my argument. That's not "hole in logic" thats "not arguing some other point". Relation is essential to validity. Again, read a book on logic--its all right there in chapter 1.

Hole #3 - you continue to erroneously equate what goes on in one's personal life, with what would happen when they go to work.

I do so because behaviorally... they are related. You're still the same /you/. Some people may be very good at changing everything about their habits, and who they are, when they go to work... but, the same person is still there, the same history and beliefs and ability to make judgements. One's history is relevant to predicting one's future. That's not irrational, nor a "hole in logic".


I'll say this again. And I don't mean to be unkind.

You... reason... poorly. Please... stop. You produce a half-dozen fallacies in a short back and forth, you don't seem to be aware of it. You throw "hole in logic" around, but don't seem to understand basic propositional or quantifier logic.

I have a degree in this. That's not to say I'm perfect, but you are academically off the reservation.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I said that it is an indicator of the sort of person you are, looking at the history of your behavior. As such, personal and professional lives have things in common--namely, /you/ are still at the heart of both. The history of one's behavior is relevant to the prediction of one's future behavior... this is the nature of resumes, credit checks, references, and all other forms of information for employment.

You're still arguing the fallacy that one's failures in personal life will lead to failures in one's professional life. It's a fallacy no matter how often you repeat it.

I agree, it is intrusion. The conversation, however, hasn't been about the rightness or wrongness of privacy... only the utility of the information. Again, you keep trying to make this a moral conversation. I am disinterested in that. If it will help you stop bringing it up--know that I think that credit checks are "bad", which has nothing to do with how useful they are.

Well, it's easier to bring up morality here than to make a new thread about it. It's not like you haven't been repeatedly introduced to the fallacies of your utility arguments, by multiple people.

That's true. More information is better, still, then less information.

I love it when you keep pitching this. More information is better than less information. Hmmm. Going by that reasoning, you would be well off by putting a camera in your workers' bedrooms. Kinda like a modern company town. You don't care about getting the right information - you are justifying a panopticon-like system in which you can use whatever looks unsavory to you, as a reason not to hire someone. You've made absolutely no solid case whatsoever that the particular information you've brought up, in any way shows the person would be a bad worker.

Why would I flip a coin if I had two equally good workers and one had bad credit and one had good credit? Simple. The one with bad credit might intend on working his ass off to improve his financial standing. He might even want more good work references and a nice long work history. How do I know that he won't? A credit rating doesn't show me anything about that one way or another, but you're damned skippy it's of critical importance to a company. There's nothing in his credit report that is of any relevance to the job he'll do as an employee.

Heck, I might as well fire him for wearing argyle socks or saying "I'm a Chicago Bears fan" in a remote part of the forest where one of my employees is out camping and happens to hear him. I bet you I can show you statistics that (name your hated football team) fans are more irresponsible than (name your favorite football team) fans. It would be just as accurate as running a credit check.

On the real, going by your reasoning, it's wise not to hire blacks or hispanics. After all there are more of them in jail, proportionately speaking, than whites. Your reasoning leads to exactly that.

I miss the sly ones that have great credit (an indication they can fullfill their financial promises), who may then still hurt my business... but I weeded out /many/ in the process.

Another huge error in your reasoning. There are MANY who have good credit and who rip off their bosses. And a few among those who outright embezzle funds and do orders of magnitude more damage than your average bankrupt schmuck. To put it shortly, you wrongly assume that you do more good than harm by weeding out people with bad credit.

Moreover, you're leaving out those with bad credit who are looking for work in order to improve their credit and fulfill their financial responsibilities.

That's the general idea. I'd have had ALL the good and ALL the bad instead of SOME of the good and MOST of the bad. This is the general idea.

I agree to multiple levels of protection, that's a good idea. Prevention is a huge part of any security. If it weren't, then we'd have to just throw out the metal detectors at the airport for the occasional money-clip getting through.

Bad logic again. Metal detectors detect weapons - a clear and present danger. Credit checks do not detect clear and present dangers. A criminal background check would be closer to that.

It is calculated and managed every day in a wide variety of industries by countless businesses... this is not new.

Excuse me while I stop to laugh out loud, this may take a few minutes.

Ok now hold up. What makes hiring someone with a poor credit history any less of a calculated or managed risk than the risk of embezzlement by people with good credit?

And are easily demonstrated to work, as in the case of people with horrible credit who are not put in positions of authority over finances or resources. If we're to say that "anecdotal examples" are "demonstrations", then we've demonstrated the whole range of possible occurances.

It's not easily demonstrated to work. You have no proof at all of that. I could put a bankrupt guy with 20 chargeoffs in charge of the bank but if his ass gets nailed trying to embezzle money then what greater risk have I incurred?

I face an equal threat from greedy, well heeled people trying to enrich themselves. Happens all the time. And I bet they have good credit.

You've failed to show that this works. At least a tuna net catches the tuna along with some dolphins - credit checks fail even that standard.

How is this at ALL relevant to any of my points? I think its another example of Straw-Man-ing the issue... you make many logical fallacies. Please stop.

Why don't you stop pushing your "credit checks work" fallacies?

Well, given the popularity of the practice and the number of books that encourage its use and perfection... I'd say, they're likely to be as effective as they need to be. My company uses them. They believe, based on the number and profits, that it is worth the cost and risk--because they don't want to stop. That's effect.

That's not effect - it's marketing. These credit check companies are good at marketing, that's all. I bet not one of them could answer the hard questions put to them that were put to you here.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just acknowledging that it is possible for people to get "around" the check. Just as its possible for people to get "around" a background check or a drug check or a reference check... but doing away with the procedure for those reasons isn't entirely rational without some kind of metric to show it "isn't worth its cost". That's just business. That's just logic.

Drugs stay in your system and can hamper your judgement and even fry your brain cells. This has no relevance to a credit check. You're wandering, and yet you accuse me of such. Whiskey tango foxtrot, man.

Logically, someone is a product of their history, biology, psychology, and envronment. People's behaviors are automatically stopped and started pending what kind of name-tag they're wearing. As such, given the pervasiveness of one's personality and behavioral history in what they act like, yes... one's personal life and one's professional life have much in common. A record of one's ability to be responsible (professional?) in their personal business is relevant--in some ways--to their ability to do so in MY business.

That IS logical.

Insisting that it is logical doesn't necessarily make it so.

As I said, you may be dealing with a person with bad credit who desperately wants a job so they can put their life back in order. That's just one more huge hole in your reasoning.

A person can go home and get roaring drunk on the weekend and party until 2am in the morning. Going by your reasoning, they are certain to come in drunk as a skunk on Monday and party at work. Really, you just logically said that.

It may be detestable. It may be unfortunate. It may be sad or something we wouldn't want to be true.... but if you think that's "irrational"? You don't have a formal understanding of "rationality".

There is absolutely no rationality in your whole post. Your entire reasoning is based on imaginary logical connections between one's personal and professional life that simply are not anything nearly as solid as you think.

Not at all. I said that fiancial irresponsibility may indicate on the job irresponsibility. That's not a lie. That's making sure you use my DIRECT quote and the WHOLE sentence it was contained in. That's not "hole in logic". Again, read a logic book.

"May" is useless in this context - you have proposed that financial irresponsibility off the job DOES justify a refusal to hire. Not MAY justify. DOES.

You're utterly delusional. There isn't even a shred of logic in what you just posted. This is good advice for you - you need to log off right now and restart your education completely from scratch.

 

[NoJo]

Is it

just

me,

or was that last post

really hard to follow?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

You're still arguing the fallacy that one's failures in personal life will lead to failures in one's professional life. It's a fallacy no matter how often you repeat it.


Well, it's easier to bring up morality here than to make a new thread about it. It's not like you haven't been repeatedly introduced to the fallacies of your utility arguments, by multiple people.


I love it when you keep pitching this. More information is better than less information. Hmmm. Going by that reasoning, you would be well off by putting a camera in your workers' bedrooms. Kinda like a modern company town. You don't care about getting the right information - you are justifying a panopticon-like system in which you can use whatever looks unsavory to you, as a reason not to hire someone. You've made absolutely no solid case whatsoever that the particular information you've brought up, in any way shows the person would be a bad worker.

Why would I flip a coin if I had two equally good workers and one had bad credit and one had good credit? Simple. The one with bad credit might intend on working his ass off to improve his financial standing. He might even want more good work references and a nice long work history. How do I know that he won't? A credit rating doesn't show me anything about that one way or another, but you're damned skippy it's of critical importance to a company. There's nothing in his credit report that is of any relevance to the job he'll do as an employee.

Heck, I might as well fire him for wearing argyle socks or saying "I'm a Chicago Bears fan" in a remote part of the forest where one of my employees is out camping and happens to hear him. I bet you I can show you statistics that (name your hated football team) fans are more irresponsible than (name your favorite football team) fans. It would be just as accurate as running a credit check.

On the real, going by your reasoning, it's wise not to hire blacks or hispanics. After all there are more of them in jail, proportionately speaking, than whites. Your reasoning leads to exactly that.


Another huge error in your reasoning. There are MANY who have good credit and who rip off their bosses. And a few among those who outright embezzle funds and do orders of magnitude more damage than your average bankrupt schmuck. To put it shortly, you wrongly assume that you do more good than harm by weeding out people with bad credit.

Moreover, you're leaving out those with bad credit who are looking for work in order to improve their credit and fulfill their financial responsibilities.


Bad logic again. Metal detectors detect weapons - a clear and present danger. Credit checks do not detect clear and present dangers. A criminal background check would be closer to that.


Excuse me while I stop to laugh out loud, this may take a few minutes.

Ok now hold up. What makes hiring someone with a poor credit history any less of a calculated or managed risk than the risk of embezzlement by people with good credit?


It's not easily demonstrated to work. You have no proof at all of that. I could put a bankrupt guy with 20 chargeoffs in charge of the bank but if his ass gets nailed trying to embezzle money then what greater risk have I incurred?

I face an equal threat from greedy, well heeled people trying to enrich themselves. Happens all the time. And I bet they have good credit.

You've failed to show that this works. At least a tuna net catches the tuna along with some dolphins - credit checks fail even that standard.


Why don't you stop pushing your "credit checks work" fallacies?


That's not effect - it's marketing. These credit check companies are good at marketing, that's all. I bet not one of them could answer the hard questions put to them that were put to you here.


Drugs stay in your system and can hamper your judgement and even fry your brain cells. This has no relevance to a credit check. You're wandering, and yet you accuse me of such. Whiskey tango foxtrot, man.


Insisting that it is logical doesn't necessarily make it so.

As I said, you may be dealing with a person with bad credit who desperately wants a job so they can put their life back in order. That's just one more huge hole in your reasoning.

A person can go home and get roaring drunk on the weekend and party until 2am in the morning. Going by your reasoning, they are certain to come in drunk as a skunk on Monday and party at work. Really, you just logically said that.


There is absolutely no rationality in your whole post. Your entire reasoning is based on imaginary logical connections between one's personal and professional life that simply are not anything nearly as solid as you think.


"May" is useless in this context - you have proposed that financial irresponsibility off the job DOES justify a refusal to hire. Not MAY justify. DOES.

You're utterly delusional. There isn't even a shred of logic in what you just posted. This is good advice for you - you need to log off right now and restart your education completely from scratch.

Look, I'll make this easy. Name one logical fallacy that I've commited (and haven't agreed to commit based on convention in the conversation--e.g. arguments from anecdotal evidence aren't sound, you want to use them as facts, so I show you what can be done on my side of the argument by using them).

Just one.

Not imploring about things being wrong. NAME a fallacy. Just one. Just one "Hey, Joe, because NOTHING you've said has been logical... I have MANY examples of fallacies... here's one. You said 'X,Y,Z' and then 'P,Q,R', which is the fallacy of Argument from 'blah'. Because that fallacy is when such-and-such happens and you did such-and-such."

You are at the brink of being the most aggressively ignorant person I've ever met on here. I will lay down and totally turn over to your way of thinking if I've been strictly and truly logically fallacious. You say I have. This should be an easy one for you.

Go ahead.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I've named several fallacies you've made, Joe Wadsworth, along with countless holes that you simply are either too dim or too dishonest to admit. My error was seeing them as holes in your logic - the real problem is you have no logic for there to be holes in.

You were a desperately needed challenge for a while, but now you're just making the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I've named several fallacies you've made, Joe Wadsworth, along with countless holes that you simply are either too dim or too dishonest to admit. My error was seeing them as holes in your logic - the real problem is you have no logic for there to be holes in.

You were a desperately needed challenge for a while, but now you're just making the same mistakes over and over again.

You haven't named any fallacies...

Straw Man?
Ad Hominem?
False Dichotomy?
Authority?
Etc.?

Name ONE logical fallacy I have committed, and tastefully quote where that commitment was made, and relate the two. If I've made SO many, it shouldn't take but a few meager sentences to show the fallacy at work.

Please.

By ALL means.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Anyway, Joe, you have a nice Sunday. It's a great time for a barbecue and I've got baby back ribs to tend to.

While you're at it, look up "proof by blatant assertion".

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Anyway, Joe, you have a nice Sunday. It's a great time for a barbecue and I've got baby back ribs to tend to.

That's alright... I really didn't think you could, anyway.

While you're at it, look up "proof by blatant assertion".

(1) That's not a logical fallacy. (2) I'm not building a proof on phrases like "studies show". (3) I suppose this means you have not only backed out of pointing out a logical fallacy I've made, but you've entirely failed to point out something that is a formal logical fallacy.

Good job. Click-gnore.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

"Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction."


Sad, sad, sad.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Alright, now we're finally getting somewhere.... unclick-gnore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

"Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction."

So you're saying that I'm committing a fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Where? Because repeating one's point, alone, is not that fallacy. That fallacy rests on the repetition of one's point in the face of contradiction of the point. So, where did I state something that was in contradiction to my points? And where did I repeat that point in the face of contradiction (keep in mind that stating an opposition is not proving a contradiction, it has to be a logical contradiction... the purporting of impossibility).

You got the first half (finally) and named a fallacy... now you just have to show WHERE it happened.

Truly, what is sad is that it is taking all but an act of Congress to get you on one point to completion. This is an opportunity to do so. Take it.

Although, Wikipedia isn't really the best place to get formal logical fallacies from. We'll forgive that for now, because I want you to continue.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Oh, so there was a response here. Oops!

Alright, now we're finally getting somewhere.... unclick-gnore.



So you're saying that I'm committing a fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Where? Because repeating one's point, alone, is not that fallacy. That fallacy rests on the repetition of one's point in the face of contradiction of the point. So, where did I state something that was in contradiction to my points? And where did I repeat that point in the face of contradiction (keep in mind that stating an opposition is not proving a contradiction, it has to be a logical contradiction... the purporting of impossibility).

Contradiction of the point can come not just from you, but from others.

Like I said, you are not worthy of talking badly about someone else's logic and reasoning.

You got the first half (finally) and named a fallacy... now you just have to show WHERE it happened.

Once you realize that a contradiction of the starting point can come not just from you, but from others, we'll get to the actual incidence of the contradiction. It has come from multiple directions, actually.

Truly, what is sad is that it is taking all but an act of Congress to get you on one point to completion. This is an opportunity to do so. Take it.

In what instance have I not gone to completion with a point?

Although, Wikipedia isn't really the best place to get formal logical fallacies from. We'll forgive that for now, because I want you to continue.

Really? Is wikipedia wrong in this instance?

As I said before, there are plenty of people with bad credit who would never commit a workplace crime or even do substandard work because they want to recover their credit and to do so means to work hard. Credit checks deny the existence of these people, or at best, the contribution they can make to society.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

So was this guy's credit bad or good, before he was signed on as CEO?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105...o&printer=1;_ylt=Ap5hz8yYcXFR97HQWOBunkpv24cA

Citigroup CEO resigns; interim named

By MADLEN READ, AP Business WriterSun Nov 4, 9:03 PM ET

Citigroup Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Charles Prince, beset by the company's billions of dollars in losses from investing in bad debt, resigned Sunday and is being replaced as chairman by former Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin.

The nation's largest banking company announced Prince's widely expected departure in a statement following an emergency meeting of its board. Citi also said Sir Win Bischoff, chairman of Citi Europe and a Member of the Citi management and operating committees, would serve as interim CEO. Rubin, a former co-chairman of Goldman, Sachs & Co., has served as the chair of Citi's executive committee, and it was also expected he would take a greater role in leading the company.

In a separate statement, Citi, which took a hit of $6.5 billion from asset writedowns and other credit-related losses in the third quarter, said it would take an additional $8 billion to $11 billion in writedowns.

"It was the honorable course, given the losses we are now announcing," Rubin said of Prince's resignation in an interview with The Associated Press.

Prince joined former Merrill Lynch & Co. CEO Stan O'Neal, who resigned from the investment bank last month, as the highest-profile casualties of the debt crisis that has cost billions at other financial institutions as well.

Prince, 57, became chief executive of Citigroup in October 2003. Many shareholders criticized him openly for much of his tenure, as Citigroup's stock lagged its peers while Prince executed what was called an umbrella model of corporate organization, with several separate lines of business. Shares closed Friday at $37.73, about 20 percent below where they were when Prince became CEO.

Prince's position looked especially shaky after the company on Oct. 1 estimated that third-quarter profit would decline about 60 percent to some $2.2 billion after seeing nearly $6 billion in credit costs and write-downs of overly leveraged corporate debt and souring home mortgages. At that time, Prince said the bank's earnings would return to normal in the fourth quarter.

But when Citigroup released its third-quarter results two weeks later, the write-downs and credit costs exceeded $6 billion, and Chief Financial Officer Gary Crittenden indicated the outlook going forward wasn't as upbeat as Prince had predicted.

Citigroup wasn't alone in its third-quarter turmoil. When borrowers with poor credit stopped paying their mortgages, many banks not only had to take losses on those subprime mortgages, they also saw instruments in their portfolios backed by mortgages plummet in value.

But Citigroup's stumbles were particularly grievous, given the bank's size, history and CEO, who had been telling shareholders for years to give his strategy a chance. Even in October, Prince said in a call to analysts: "I think any fair-minded person would say that strategic plan is working."

Fixing Citigroup will take more than just cleaning up bad debt. The umbrella model that Sanford I. Weill created and Prince touted looked like a giant mess compared to its conglomerate counterpart JPMorgan Chase & Co. — now led by Weill's former protege, Jamie Dimon. JPMorgan's writedowns were smaller, and strength in asset management, security services, card services and commercial banking units made up for weakness in other areas. Having cut costs and built up cash reserves in previous quarters, the bank was better prepared for a tough lending climate.

Meanwhile, Citigroup's expenses outweighed revenues, it botched its fixed income trading operations, and its cash-to-debt ratio dipped.

The anger toward Prince was so intense that during a conference call last month, Deutsche Bank analyst Mike Mayo told Prince that investors wanted a significant change in management. His supporters, though, argue that he was dealt a tough hand when his predecessor Weill gave him the reins, and that matching the hefty profit gains Citigroup saw in the 1990s would be difficult for any CEO.

Weill was a fairly popular leader, building Citigroup through various mergers and acquisitions over the course of about 20 years into the huge conglomerate that it is today. When he stepped down as chairman in 2006 and handed the position to Prince, Weill — now a board member — got two standing ovations from shareholders and a big blue banner from employees that read, "Thank you, Sandy!"

Prince, whose compensation came to nearly $25 million last year, is leaving under a much darker cloud.

Citigroup, along with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp., is trying to create a fund to buy up distressed securities in the tight credit markets, a move some industry experts say smacks of desperation. Citigroup is the only major U.S. bank to manage "structured investment vehicles," or SIVs, and may end up having to take losses on them because demand for the assets that fund them has dropped.

Rubin, 69, after 26 years at Goldman Sachs, became President Bill Clinton's chief economic adviser in 1993 before leading the Treasury Department. His experience steering the U.S. economy during the Mexican and Asian financial crises could come in handy as Citigroup attempts to navigate the tight credit markets.

Bischoff, 66, was the chairman of the British investment bank Schroders PLC, then joined Salomon Smith Barney Inc., a subsidiary of Citi, when it acquired Schroders. He began his current position in May 2000.

"There's no change of strategy that we see, actually, going forward," Bischoff said, noting that the company still plans to focus on international expansion, at least until a new CEO is chosen.

It was not known whether Bischoff was in the running to replace Prince as CEO. Before Sunday's meeting, many ideas for Prince's replacement were floated by industry watchers; one name that has come up often is John Thain, who was once president of Goldman Sachs and is now CEO of NYSE Euronext.

In 2004, Citigroup had to close its Japan Private Bank amid allegations of improper activities. And in January, former head of global wealth management Todd Thomson resigned, reportedly having been forced out for extravagant spending and dealings with CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo.

Citigroup did a minor reshuffing in early October, combining its investment banking and alternative investments businesses into one unit led by Vikram Pandit, who had led Citigroup's alternative investments unit. Tom Maheras, co-CEO of the investment banking unit, left.

At the time, Rubin and Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — Citigroup's biggest individual shareholder and once a critic of Prince — expressed their support for the bank's embattled CEO.

 

[Handprints]

So was this guy's credit bad or good, before he was signed on as CEO?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071105...o&printer=1;_ylt=Ap5hz8yYcXFR97HQWOBunkpv24cA

On the off-chance you're not kidding... Prince and O'Neal were both boldface names by the late 80s, so they'd have been flagged by Bloomberg/Reuters for any and all connections with bankruptcies/receiverships or other credit events. Their own IR teams - as well as top-end headhunters such as Heidrick & Struggles, would be checking their credit records annually. Findings from those reports are always the best kind of Street gossip, especially when a divorce hits the papers...

The lead portfolio manager at a high-profile hedge fund, for another example, can expect to have his personal credit history details purchased by prospective clients a few hundred times a year as part of their due diligence process.

Hope that's of interest (and where are we on the middle class, by the way?),
H