Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #151185 > unrolled thread

OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-09 07:21 -0700
    Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-09 12:20 -0700
      Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-09-09 12:21 -0700
        Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-10 05:43 +1000
          Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-09 13:13 -0700
            Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-11 08:13 +1000
        Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-09-09 13:05 -0700
        Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-09 15:14 -0500
        Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-09-09 22:16 -0500
        Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-09-09 23:34 -0500
        Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-12 17:14 +0100
          Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-13 17:56 +0000
            Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 22:19 +0100
              Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-09-14 00:06 +0000
            Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-14 12:50 +0000
              Re: OT: NC employers not allowed to check credit history "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 04:44 +1000
      Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 20:55 -0500
      Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-09-10 12:59 +0000
        Re: OT:  NYC employers not allowed to check credit history "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-10 08:13 -0500
        Re: OT:  NC employers not allowed to check credit history "Jim Thomas" <JT@nospam.com> - 2015-09-11 09:06 +1000
        Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-12 17:22 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#151185 — OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

Applicants for a job in NYC can't have their credit history checked.

For full article please see:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150909_Start_spreading_the_news_about_New_York_s_credit-check_ban_for_employers.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#151202

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 8:21:23 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Applicants for a job in NYC can't have their credit history checked.

Finally.

One's credit history should only be available to properly licensed 
organizations for use when one is applying for a loan.

And how is one going to improve a bad credit record if having one makes one 
unemployable?

Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to think 
of the social costs.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151203

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
 
> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to think 
> of the social costs.

Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of those.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151205

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:974cf6e4-8ce5-4465-a580-8c1e5996651a@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to 
>> think
>> of the social costs.
>
> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The 
> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police 
> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of those.

But its far from clear that a less than immaculate credit
history has much relevance to most of those you list.

And you can certainly make a case that a less than immaculate
credit history does say something very useful about how the
individual operates and that that is relevant when employing
people to do a reliable job where reliability is important for
that job.

It's a surprisingly complicated question. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151208

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:43:33 PM UTC-4, Jim Thomas wrote:

> And you can certainly make a case that a less than immaculate
> credit history does say something very useful about how the
> individual operates and that that is relevant when employing
> people to do a reliable job where reliability is important for
> that job.

No, you certainly can't make a case.

Someone's reliability can be temporarily impaired due to illness.

We all know that creditors (e.g. banks, credit cards, etc) can screw up.  When someone is ill, it can be very difficult to deal with such issues.  For instance, someone recovering from surgery isn't allowed to drive, and so can't make a personal visit to straighten out a problem without a lot of trouble.

If someone is out of work, they may end up being forced to suspend payment on some bills, giving them a bad credit rating.  That isn't because they're "unreliable", but because they can't get a decent job they would welcome.

There was a guy who proved to be excellent employee.  Fortunhately, they didn't check his credit rating, as he was out of work, going to school, and changing fields.  Actually, he was working, but making only minimum wage.  So, employers who would pass him up based on credit rating were idiots.

Every so often the economy gets lousy, or a large employer shuts down, flooding the job market.  It takes time for those impacted to find something new, and they shouldn't be penalized for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151242

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:a70e5c7a-3893-463b-b964-157cddd57372@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:43:33 PM UTC-4, Jim Thomas wrote:
>
>> And you can certainly make a case that a less than immaculate
>> credit history does say something very useful about how the
>> individual operates and that that is relevant when employing
>> people to do a reliable job where reliability is important for
>> that job.

> No, you certainly can't make a case.

Of course you can with most people.

> Someone's reliability can be temporarily impaired due to illness.

But when that happens, clearly that individual did not make
appropriate provision for the quite common event of illness
and so that is a useful measure of how useful they are likely
to be to the organisation considering giving them a job with
many jobs.

> We all know that creditors (e.g. banks, credit cards, etc) can screw up.

Yes, but the individual with a less than immaculate credit
record can be asked about that blot on their credit record
and the potential employer can check if that was due to
a screw up or whether the candidate is lying about that
and that is also useful with some jobs. The last thing
anyone needs is a known liar in quite a few jobs.

> When someone is ill, it can be very difficult to deal with
> such issues.  For instance, someone recovering from
> surgery isn't allowed to drive, and so can't make a personal
> visit to straighten out a problem without a lot of trouble.

Personal visits are hardly ever required anymore to fix screw ups.

> If someone is out of work, they may end up being forced to
> suspend payment on some bills, giving them a bad credit rating.

But that does show that they have not made adequate provision
for the inevitable time between jobs and that is useful information
about that individual which is very useful for some jobs where you
want someone who doesn't get into those situations because they
don't think ahead about what can happen and have been stupid
enough to have no provision for the inevitable time between jobs.

> That isn't because they're "unreliable",

It often is.

> but because they can't get a decent job they would welcome.

> There was a guy who proved to be excellent employee.
> Fortunhately, they didn't check his credit rating, as he
> was out of work, going to school, and changing fields.
> Actually, he was working, but making only minimum
> wage.  So, employers who would pass him up based
> on credit rating were idiots.

Not necessarily. A good credit record in that situation
would show that he was capable of handling even that
situation very well and so would be much more likely
to be a useful employee than someone who couldn't
organise his affairs so that situation could be handled.

> Every so often the economy gets lousy, or a large
> employer shuts down, flooding the job market.

And the best individuals realise that and make adequate
provision for those situations and those are clearly much
more likely to be worth employing than the ones who don't.

> It takes time for those impacted to find something
> new, and they shouldn't be penalized for it.

Those who make adequate provision for those times
that can happen to anyone should be rewarded by
being employed first by those operations with enough
of a clue to work out how to identify those individuals
in the group applying for a particular job when it's the
sort of job that not everyone can do well.

Its hard enough to pick who are more likely to be the
most useful new employees. The credit record is a very
good measure of who is capable of organising their
personal affairs effectively and so may well be much
more useful employees than those who can't do that. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151207

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:21:45 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of those.

Except one's credit history is no indicator of being "the wrong people".

That applies not only to employment applicants, but also insurance applicants.  Those with bad credit could pay more for car insurance.

People can find themselves with bad credit through no fault of their, such as via job layoff and/or illness.  Illness is especially rough on someone's finances; not only is their loss of earnings, but also _many_ expenses not covered by insurance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151209

"Quadibloc" <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message 
news:974cf6e4-8ce5-4465-a580-8c1e5996651a@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to 
>> think
>> of the social costs.
>
> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The 
> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police 
> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of those. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151219 — Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

On 9/9/2015 2:21 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>  
>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to think 
>> of the social costs.
> 
> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of those.
> 
Sounds like those occupations (well, pharmacies seem pretty good,
aside from the temptation to sample the wares or collude with crooked
doctors) are already full of the wrong people, apparently requiring
good credit doesn't prevent them from hiring haters of civil
liberties, greedy banksters, and triggerhappy cops.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151220 — Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

On 09-Sep-15 14:21, Quadibloc wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we
>> need to think of the social costs.
> 
> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The
> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police
> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of
> those.

If you think credit scores reliably identify the "wrong people", you
don't understand what credit scores are and/or you don't understand who
the "wrong people" are.

Plenty of trustworthy people have bad credit scores and plenty of
untrustworthy people have good credit scores.  A credit score is no more
than a convoluted way to determine someone's parents' income level, just
like school standardized test scores.  It says nothing about their
suitability for _any_ particular job; it's not even particularly good
for assessing lending risk, which is all it was _designed_ to do.

S


-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151284 — Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

On 09/09/2015 20:21, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we
>> need to think of the social costs.
>
> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The
> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police
> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of
> those.
>

The official government view is a few debts are OK providing you can 
afford to service them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151307 — Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

On 2015-09-12, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 09/09/2015 20:21, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we
>>> need to think of the social costs.
>>
>> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The
>> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police
>> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of
>> those.
>
> The official government view is a few debts are OK providing you can 
> afford to service them.

If you can't afford to service them, just increase taxes until you can.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151313 — Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

On 13/09/2015 18:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2015-09-12, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/09/2015 20:21, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we
>>>> need to think of the social costs.
>>>
>>> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The
>>> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police
>>> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of
>>> those.
>>
>> The official government view is a few debts are OK providing you can
>> afford to service them.
>
> If you can't afford to service them, just increase taxes until you can.
>
I was talking about the personnel debt of the applicant not the national 
debt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151316 — Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

On 2015-09-13, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 13/09/2015 18:56, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-12, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/09/2015 20:21, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we
>>>>> need to think of the social costs.
>>>>
>>>> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The
>>>> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police
>>>> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of
>>>> those.
>>>
>>> The official government view is a few debts are OK providing you can
>>> afford to service them.
>>
>> If you can't afford to service them, just increase taxes until you can.
>
> I was talking about the personnel debt of the applicant not the national 
> debt.

Ah.  I've been seeing too much of the latter lately, especially here in
Canada with a federal election coming up.

"A billion here, a billion there... pretty soon it adds up to real money."
  -- Sen. Edward Dirksen

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151329 — Re: OT: NYC employers not allowed to check credit history

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2015-09-12, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/09/2015 20:21, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we
>>>> need to think of the social costs.
>>>
>>> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The
>>> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police
>>> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of
>>> those.
>>
>> The official government view is a few debts are OK providing you can
>> afford to service them.
>
> If you can't afford to service them, just increase taxes until you can.
>
Illinois is trying that.  It's going to fail miserably.  they're even
giving IOUs to their lottery winners.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151345 — Re: OT: NC employers not allowed to check credit history

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051FB4BE458797@aca41b29.ipt.aol.com...
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2015-09-12, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/09/2015 20:21, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 1:20:15 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we
>>>>> need to think of the social costs.
>>>>
>>>> Still, upon reflection, perhaps there should be a few exceptions. The
>>>> National Security Agancy, banks, jewelery stores, pharmacies, police
>>>> departments... we don't want the wrong people sneaking into any of
>>>> those.
>>>
>>> The official government view is a few debts are OK providing you can
>>> afford to service them.
>>
>> If you can't afford to service them, just increase taxes until you can.

> Illinois is trying that.

No they aren't.

> It's going to fail miserably.

We'll see...

> they're even giving IOUs to their lottery winners.

Only temporarily until there is a new budget. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151217

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 12:20:13 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 8:21:23 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Applicants for a job in NYC can't have their credit history checked.
>
>Finally.
>
>One's credit history should only be available to properly licensed 
>organizations for use when one is applying for a loan.
>
>And how is one going to improve a bad credit record if having one makes one 
>unemployable?
>
>Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to think 
>of the social costs.
>
>John Savard

I had that problem some years ago. The interviewer said it wasn't
their problem. I politely pointed out that me finding work so I could
pay bills would raise my credit rating. I got hired by another company
that had sense enough to realize an out of work person cannot always
make payments on bills.
-- 
JimP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151228

Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 8:21:23 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
>> Applicants for a job in NYC can't have their credit history checked.
>
> Finally.
>
> One's credit history should only be available to properly licensed
> organizations for use when one is applying for a loan.
>
> And how is one going to improve a bad credit record if having one makes one
> unemployable?
>
> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to
think
> of the social costs.

I never understood why personnel thought checking was a good thing.
College grads have enormous debt so their credit rating is no good
before they start.  Any one whose identity has been stolen will have
a "bad" credit rating because lenders no longer validate identity.
Legal scams can also ruin a person's credit history.  Data entry
errors in the credit history data bases will ruin credit.
Anyone who preferred paying in full at the time of purchase also
has a bad credit rating (no credit is also deemed to be bad).

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151229

"jmfbahciv" wrote:

<WRT credit history>

> Anyone who preferred paying in full at the time of purchase also
> has a bad credit rating (no credit is also deemed to be bad).

That can be a real bummer. I ha a GF who had tons of money but she couldn't 
get a credit card.  She had to, essentially, give them a deposit so they 
would give her a credit card.  They did accept her as a bona fide human 
being after a year or so and gave the money back transforming her "credit 
card" into a credit card.

If you are 18 years old, the rules are entirely different.  They *want* to 
give you a credit card. 18 may be the wrong number, but you get the idea. 
Young people are innately sponge worthy. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#151243 — Re: OT: NC employers not allowed to check credit history

"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:PM00051F6465FC5DBF@aca41621.ipt.aol.com...
> Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 8:21:23 AM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> wrote:
>>> Applicants for a job in NYC can't have their credit history checked.
>>
>> Finally.
>>
>> One's credit history should only be available to properly licensed
>> organizations for use when one is applying for a loan.
>>
>> And how is one going to improve a bad credit record if having one makes 
>> one
>> unemployable?
>>
>> Yes, employers might prefer to hire more reliable people, but we need to
> think
>> of the social costs.
>
> I never understood why personnel thought checking was a good thing.

It is clearly a good measure of how well they have organised their
personal affairs and whether they have made adequate provision
for the inevitable time between jobs and illness etc.

> College grads have enormous debt so their credit rating is no good
> before they start.

That isnt their credit rating, that is what they owe.
And presumably all of the candidates would have
those college debts anyway for that level of job.

> Any one whose identity has been stolen will have
> a "bad" credit rating because lenders no longer validate identity.

And those who have had that happen to them can explain
that that is why they have a bad credit record and the
potential employer can check if they are lying about that.

And those who have had their identity stolen are clearly
those who are incapable of organising their own person
affairs properly and so are unlikely to be very useful if you
are trying to fill a job that requires a well organised person.

> Legal scams can also ruin a person's credit history.

And the fact they they weren't able to recognise a legal scam
and got involved in it is useful information when considering
who is likely to be most effective in a particular job.

> Data entry errors in the credit history data bases will ruin credit.

The candidate is welcome to point out the error and prove it.

> Anyone who preferred paying in full at the
> time of purchase also has a bad credit rating

BULLSHIT.

> (no credit is also deemed to be bad).

BULLSHIT.

A bad credit rating comes from not being able to pay what
is due when it is due. And when that happens between jobs
its useful evidence that that individual is not capable of
organising its affairs so that that doesn’t happen in the
inevitable time between jobs by at least getting a credit
card while still working and not maxing it out if they
aren't capable of organising their affairs so that they
have some decent saving for that sort of inevitable
time between jobs. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web