Tell me your story if denied job/promotion due to credit/background check

[liberalhistorian]

I used to work for a major nationwide pre-employment screening company, a division of a major credit reporting agency, and I'm currently developing a side business writing customized resumes, cover letters, career plans/summaries and business plans, as well as doing career/job research, researching businesses where clients have interviews, assisting job seekers with knowledge regarding the pre-employment screening process and their rights, and other career topics and functions.

One of my major pet peeves is that far too much emphasis has been placed on credit checks, DMV checks, and other aspects of employment background checks. A person's credit report and rating has absolutely NOTHING to do with employment performance, likewise for driving record, etc. Same also for medical records, family status, and personal lives are absolutely none of an employer's damn business. There are even companies that will google a potential employee's name and deny employment, or promotion for a current employee, if they don't like something written in a blog, article, etc.

But it is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly common for these things to be considered in employment decisions. The screening companies and the credit agencies have done a masterful job of convincing employers that such information is critical in determining the potential success or failure of an employee, even though such information never used to be considered and employers were none the worse for it.

What it means is that people with even a slightly bad credit rating, whatever the cause (medical bills, previous job loss, divorce, etc.), or with a couple of traffic tickets, or with something in their medical records a screening company may label "potentially problematic", or who've been divorced too many times or single too long, or moved too many times, etc., etc., etc., are being denied the chance at employment simply because of those factors and not because of any previous bad job performance issues. And largely thanks to the sales and marketing staffs of the screening companies and credit reporting agencies. There's absolutely no consideration of the CONTEXT of a particular piece of information, either. Far too many people who'd make great employees if just given a chance, or who deserve a chance to get their lives together, are being denied just such an opportunity because of this.

I don't know about you, but I'm damn sick and tired of being judged by employers, insurance companies, etc., on my credit rating and driving record and medical history, etc., and statistical models of what MAY happen because of my ratings, and not by my actual performance or anything that I've done. And most people have no idea of their Fair Credit Reporting Acts rights concerning pre-employment screening and background checks.

So, I'm starting to put together a report on the stupidity of overreliance on these factors, and those who've suffered because of it. If you have a story to tell, please do so; you can post it here, or PM or email me if you prefer it to be private. I sincerely appreciate it!

[midnight]

1. Thanks for doing this work. But......

I would not be able to begin to judge if this type of screening was a reason for not being offered a job.

[liberalhistorian]

2. If you are turned down for a job,

legally you must be specifically told why if you ask. If it's due to the results of a background check, including credit, you must be advised of that, by law. And you also must be told the credit reporting agency that provided the potential employer with your information. That is how people are discovering the horrendous, ridiculously heavy emphasis being placed on factors such as credit and DMV checks.

[InkAddict]

3. Let's be real.....

Just how does one prove that the potential employer broke the law, a PI? Those folks don't work pro bono. The fact that a credit check form was retained w/the candidate's resume doesn't presume one didn't get the job due to an inadequate report of independent wealth and security. Even worse is the outfit that hires and then does their checks and only then has tjat closely targeted "reduction in force," of one or two, even perhaps disguised, one old/one young, one male/one female, one rich/one poor, with an explanation that it's "nothing personal--just business."

It finally dawned on me that those non-discrimination acts were not designed to protect any certain class, but to wage economic war on the >40 year old, the Vietnam Era Veteran, and the disabled. Let's be honest--employers just invent some other undisclosed criteria to dismiss that unlucky candidate with the sick parent, kid, wife, who may be doing his damnest to recover from caring from an elderly parent or, indeed, the last "layoff" twelve weeks ago that lasted six months.

It must be swell entertainment for those parachuting corporate officers to watch workers assets get gobbled up by their automated thieving of families'income source(s), homes, cars,insurance, and health. Meanwhile, just whistle a happy tune so noone will suspect...I'm afraid of the amoral domestic economic terrorists at work in this country.

Your request for stories about the perils faced by candidates facing datamining employers is commendable, but with the national security at stake, I guess, as per Dr. No/007: "ICTYBTIHTKY!" :sarcasm:

[liberalhistorian]

4. As I've said, the potential

employer is required by law to advise you of the reason for not offering you the job if it had something to do with the background check, and to provide you with any of the information it obtained on you during its background investigation. So, there would be no need for a PI or anything like that.

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. I beg to differ

I am licensed to practice law in an employment at will state. The employer here is entitled to refuse to offer a position (or to terminate an employee) for any reason or for no reason at all. You can certainly ask why a particular position was not offered (or why you were terminated). That doesn't mean that any answer (which may or may not be offered) has anything to do with the actual hiring (or retention) criteria applied. Some employers here run background checks simultaneously on multiple applicants for a given position - by taking that approach they can always justify their hiring decision using intangible factors unrelated to information contained in a background check.

[serryjw]

6. Absolutely agree

Trying to fight this is like pissing in the wind. It's a shame. Any credit problems you have can be slowly fixed when you get a NEW job but in most cases that will be a uphill battle.

[blues90]

7. I am looking for work however

I have dealt the that at will crap once after being terminated from a job i had for 12 years and I had not even a file with a complaint in it . There was nothing i could do , all i was told was they don't tolerate some things but what it was they would not say . i went onto a legal sight and was told that there was nothing that I could do , i finally got pissed and realized they don't want to even bother as lawyers to even consider your case . I was not rude just pressed them with my suspician and i was banned .

As far as back ground and credit checks or age discrimination how on earth can I prove any of this was done . It's a sick joke with the age issue , you don't have to give your age but the interview or your resume work history gives enough away .

I would prefer to be told right up front for what ever reason if i will be considered or not for a job , not have my hopes up and time wasted by idiots who don't have the balls to even call you back with a no .

I have had many interviews based on my resume alone but have not got one job in 6 months and the life on the street is getting real close , face it , no one gives a shit as long as they have their job .

[FloridaPat]

8. I had an interview at a bank. I went bankrupt last year. The head

of the department was telling me what I had to do to get a job offer and one was a credit check. He said they take most people, but people with bankruptcy is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. At the time he didn't know I had gone bankrupt. Now here's the hysterical part - the bank is Citrus Bank and katherine harris owns it. Luckily I got another job offer and didn't have to go further with this.

[Lucky Luciano]

9. fox guarding the hen house

This is true. If you work anywhere near money, then it is EXTREMELY relevant to run a credit check. Who is more likely to steal? Someone with good credit or someone with bad???? I would say the person with monster debts and what not is 10 times more likely to steal. Simple really.

[FloridaPat]

10. You missed the big point - Katherine Harris owns the bank. The biggest

fox every in charge of the biggest hen house.

As for credit checks, I've worked in banks before. Use to have good credit until I couldn't find a job in the great economy the last few years.