Union President: At least 62 DFAS workers to be fired for bad credit ratings

[Newsjock]

Source: WKYC Cleveland

For 17 years, Troy Marshall claims he's had "excellent" and "highly recommended" reviews working at DFAS, the military payroll accounting facility in Cleveland.

It now appears he won't make 18 years.

He claims at least 62 workers have received letters, telling them they are losing their security clearance because of credit problems. And that means they will lose their jobs.

... Ohio Congresswoman Marcia Fudge said she is "outraged" by what's happening to veteran DFAS workers suddenly faced with new standards.

She vowed to seek meetings, maybe with the Secretary of Defense, to address this.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich is trying to rally the Northeast Ohio delegation to tackle this problem together.

Marshall claims Social Security numbers and maiden names are the most classified information DFAS handles. He said no information involves national security.

Read more: http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=132794&catid=45

[Orrex]

1. Yeah, nothing helps you get your credit on track like a loss of income

The whole idea of using a credit score to determine employment eligibility is 100% bullshit.

[SoCalDem]

5. That's true, but

there have always been jobs that are considered to be sensitive or vulnerable to coercion, bribery, or other "bad things" , if employees have a "weak" spot in their lives.. If there is a security clearance issue, employers will look for every vulnerability in the personal life..and bad credit "can" be a red-flag to them.

Most people are probably doing their best to wrestle with their own family finances, but if there's a person who MIGHT be open to taking a little extra money on the sly, that agency cannot afford to overlook that possibility. They may just feel that the fewer "possibly vulnerable" people, the better.

It sucks, but it is what it is..

[Orrex]

14. I don't fault you for that argument, but it's likewise 100% bullshit

Bad credit can result from any of a million factors, only a handful of which are reflections of shoddy personal responsibility, and none of which guarantee personal dishonesty. Additionally, bad credit isn't a weak spot any more than is conventional greed. The crooks who decimated Wall Street weren't struggling to overcome their bad credit scores; they were just plain greedy.

Most people are probably doing their best to wrestle with their own family finances, but if there's a person who MIGHT be open to taking a little extra money on the sly, that agency cannot afford to overlook that possibility. They may just feel that the fewer "possibly vulnerable" people, the better.

I accept that they may feel this way, but it's simply a tactic for excluding a candidate. Absolutely anyone at all "MIGHT be open to taking a little extra money on the sly." To assume--as companies do--that someone with a bad credit score is somehow more vulnerable in this regard is nothing but prejudice.

[SoCalDem]

17. I agree, that it is not fair, but in an atmosphere like we have now

where there are far more workers available, than jobs, bosses DO look for ways to "cut costs".. A way they do it is to eliminate the higher paid workers and replace them with cheaper workers.. A way they can do this, is to scour the personal records, looking for flaws..

In positions that have security clearance, many items "can" be at issue.. I am NOT saying the "all" or even "most" people might be vulnerable to bribe-taking or other nefarious practices...just that being in financial need, "could" be a "reason" a boss might use.. especially if there is some paper that was signed years earlier..on file..that lists a circumstance like that , that could lead to termination..

Bosses hold the cards..until a lawsuit forces them to back down.:(

[Orrex]

18. Heh. As it turns out, we're arguing toward the same point.

I agree, that it is not fair, but in an atmosphere like we have now where there are far more workers available, than jobs, bosses DO look for ways to "cut costs".. A way they do it is to eliminate the higher paid workers and replace them with cheaper workers.. A way they can do this, is to scour the personal records, looking for flaws..

I got into a rather heated discussion last week about pretty much this exact same concept, and I made basically the same point that you're making.

So, do we agree? They do use credit checks as a means of exclusion, and it is bullshit.

[SoCalDem]

20. we agree..

:hi:

[Orrex]

21. Don't you take that tone with me!

We'll fight right here!
:grr::mad::grr::mad::grr::mad::grr:

[liberalhistorian]

15. That is a horseshit argument that was

concocted by FICO and the credit bureaus in order to drum up further business for themselves. Just like they concocted the whole ridiculous need for auto insurance companies to equate credit with the type of policy you'll get.

There has never been any conclusive, solid evidence equating poor credit with being a poor or dishonest employee. One really has very little to do with the other. I used to work for a credit bureau, so I know the deal here. It's simply tactics dreamed up by their sales people to get more business, only now, since it's becoming far more common and mainstream, it's really doing damage. People should be evaluated on work performance, work history, educational credentials and work references and not shit that has nothing to do with work.

I've known people with poor or weak credit to be excellent employees and I've known people with good or excellent credit to be bad and/or dishonest employees. One has little to do with the other.

You can get bad credit by having an illness or injury that causes tremendous medical bills, for God's sake, or a divorce, prolonged job loss, etc. The whole thing is bullshit and employers and insurance companies should NOT be permitted to check credit, period.

[Orrex]

19. A fine post!

:thumbsup:

[Brickbat]

2. What a fucking nightmare. I hope they have some kind of action.

[Better Believe It]

3. Is this what is called "the corporate state"?

[601Liberal]

4. What BS!

There ought to be a law banning using a credit score to determine employment, unless the job involves making a decision if someone can get a credit card, loan, etc.

[RedCloud]

6. Moral: Don't make the rich, richer and you lose your job.

[G_j]

7. darn that grandstanding Kucinich

:sarcasm:

[laughingliberal]

9. Fucker! Always like trying to, you know, stand up for people!

Also :sarcasm:

[Hawkowl]

8. Credit scores should be banned. PERIOD.

Everybody is unique and everybody who wants a loan should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Credit scores are a scam perpetrated by the huge banks to oppress middle class and poor working people.

What about credit scores for corporations, or banks, or tranches of CDO's? Oh that's right, it's all BULLSHIT masquerading as analysis to perpetrate fraudulent rates. Never give a sucker an even break.

[dmallind]

11. Evaluated how though?

Should someone's record of paying or not paying debts not be a factor in whether they get loans? I have to be honest I have loaned people cash a few times. Not for interest or anything, but because I could. Most paid it back perfectly in agreement. A couple didn't. I personally would be loth to repeat the trial with the latter if it were my money. Wouldn't you? Shouldn't banks?

[rox63]

10. This is nothing new

I had a friend over 10 years ago who's ex-husband lost his security clearance because he was in a lot of debt. Apparently, the govt thought it would make him more likely to sell govt secrets to make money. So he lost his job and stopped paying child support. Meanwhile, his girlfriend took out a home-equity loan and he started at law school. He had no official income, so he got out of most of his child support obligation for quite a while based on that. Yeah, he was a major asshole.

[Statistical]

12. This is more than credit check for employment. Security Clearance should look at credit.

Bad financial problems should result in loss of clearance.

Currently anything working for DFAS requires a clearance. They also pay a substantial premium (as any classified job) compared to the national average due to the fact that you need to have and keep a clearance. Classified jobs tend to pay 150%-300% of market rates of unclassified work. Nothing wrong with dropping clearance for financial problems.

The real issue is why are these jobs classified. If they don't meet criteria for classification they shouldn't require employees with security clearance.

If the job requires a clearance then it requires good financials and anyone without them should lose their clerance.
If the job doesn't require a clearance then declassify it however it should pay equal to similar unclassified federal positions.

Can't have it both ways. Can't be classified (for higher pay) and at the same time isn't really classified (so we can keep people without a valid clearance).

It is either classified or not classified. There is no gray area.

[liberalhistorian]

16. Why? If they have poor credit due to medical bills,

(which is nuts, since I strongly believe that medical bills shouldn't even be permitted on credit reports, period), divorce or death of spouse causing reduced income or many other unfortunate life circumstances that don't involve being an irresponsible deadbeat with credit cards, why should they be penalized for it the same way as an irresponsible deadbeat? There should be some consideration for circumstances.

[Statistical]

22. Not everyone qualifies for security clearance.

Having excessive debt (medical or otherwise) is a significant pressure and a foreign entity can use that pressure to cause someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't. It doesn't mean that everyone denied a clearance will betray their country but some could. The system is designed to be conservative and minimize risk to classified material. It isn't designed to be fair or give people second chances.

The system also doesn't use a credit score. The OPM (Office of Personnel Management) pulls your background information as well as credit as well as result from SF-86 (Questionnaire for National Security Position). All the information is put together by an investigator (a human, federal employee) who makes a determination based on protocol as to the level of risk the person represents. If they represent an unacceptable risk they will be denied clearance.

I have seen more people lose a clearance or be denied a clearance by omitting information of SF-86. The OPM takes their job seriously if they feel someone doesn't warrant a security clearance they likely don't. The larger question is why does working with non-classified DFAS information require a clearance to begin with.

Still even if you are denied you have right to appeal decision. They don't use credit score they will ask for details. If someone can show their credit issues were onetime situation and are under control they can win the appeal. Usually though the reality is more complex than the sound bites on TV. Not paying debt even when it is possible (based on discretionary income) or not paying debt over extended period of time is considered a lapse in judgment.

I have worked for Defense Contractors off and on for last 20 years. I trust OPM decision when they indicate someone should have clearance revoked. Not being qualified for security clearance isn't a reflection that the person is a deadbeat. Very small percentage of population will ever qualify for a clearance.

[Orsino]

13. The military-industrial complex won't risk clearing...

...its victims.

[Marie56]

23. DfAS employees credit ratings

It is about time someone did something about this practice. In today's economic environment how dare our government deny someone a job based upon his or her credit rating? You are no more apt to steal due to a credit issue than someone with perfect credit is. It is an integrity issue. Look at the number of executives that have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. There are 6 people for every job, and that means someone does not have a job, so how are they supposed to handle their financial obligations with no money coming in. Our government is bailing everyone but the little people. Kudos to the fighters. I hope they win the battle.