Re-blogged from Februrary 2013
Technorati Tags: credit report,employment credit check
Let’s face it, our economy is still in the crapper. The latest statistics from US Department of Labor and Industries says the national unemployment rate is still hovering around 8.1%. However, the real
unemployment picture is much more discouraging. Here is an excerpt from an article I read today; Jeff Cox, a reporter at CNBC.com wrote:
The laws preventing a company from making a hiring decision based upon a potential employee’s credit history have some limitations, however. For example, if a person applies for a job where he or she has to handle money like at a bank, or at an investment firm, the law still permits the employer to consider issues like theft, or fraud convictions. Sixty percent of employers recently surveyed by the Society for Human
Resources Management said they run credit checks on at least some job applicants. That compares with 42 percent in a similar poll in 2006. Employers say credit checks give them valuable information about an applicant’s honesty and sense of responsibility. But lawmakers in Missouri and at least 15 other states have proposed outlawing most credit checks, saying the practice traps people in debt because their past problems could prevent them from finding work. Under federal law, a prospective employer must get written permission from an applicant to run a credit check, but consumer advocates say most applicants feel they are in no position to refuse. Most of the bills proposed this year resemble laws in Hawaii and Washington that prevent employers from using credit reports when hiring for most positions.
On a national level, Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat, introduced a similar bill last summer in the U.S. House, where it is still in committee. More companies use credit checks, but only 13 percent perform them on all potential hires, according to the most recent survey by the Society for Human Resources Management. Mike Aitken, the group director of government affairs, said a blanket ban could remove a tool employers can use to help them make good hiring decisions. Aitken cited a 2008 survey by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners that found the two most common red flags for employees who commit workplace fraud are living beyond their means and having difficulty meeting financial obligations. The same survey estimated that American companies lost $994 billion to workplace fraud in 2008. Aitken said someone who cannot pay his bills on time may not be more likely to steal but might not have the sense of responsibility to handle a job like processing payroll checks.
While it might be tough to argue against statistics- not impossible, but tough – those statistics do not account for issues like race discrimination. It is a known fact that racial minorities, especially African Americans, tend to have more credit problems than their white counterparts as a result of higher rates of unemployment. And what about CEO’s who commit acts of dishonesty and leave the company with a golden parachute amounting to millions of dollars? Just this past Friday CEO Russell Wasendorf, SR. of PFGBest, one of the industries 10 largest brokerage firms, tried to commit suicide after leaving a note confessing to 20 years of fraud and forgery. The MSNBC.com article stated:
I wonder what Mr. Wassendorf’s FICO score is? I do not doubt that there are others out there like him who tout amazing FICO scores, have a great credit rating, and are getting away with similar acts of fraud and dishonesty. This is proof positive that a FICO score is no real indication of the content of a person’s character. And as for Mr. Aitken’s assertion regarding workplace fraud, just ask yourself: how many people do I know who live beyond their means, and have some trouble meeting their financial obligations? The honest answer is almost everyone. Not because they are irresponsible, but more because the cost of living has out-paced the average living –wage position. So does that mean almost everyone is dishonest or would commit fraud? Certainly not. I am not saying that financial pressures cannot cause a person to commit workplace fraud, but I am saying that the decision will more often come down to that person’s sense of morality no matter how intense the pressure. If committing an act of fraud was simply a function of a person’s financial condition and no other factors were relevant, our prison’s would not be able to hold all of the criminals that would be sent there. Yet, when a person applies to a job for which they are qualified, sometimes the only other relevant factor upon which they are hired or not, is their credit rating. I have personally experienced this occurrence myself so I know it’s true.
Technorati Tags: credit report,employment credit check
Let’s face it, our economy is still in the crapper. The latest statistics from US Department of Labor and Industries says the national unemployment rate is still hovering around 8.1%. However, the real
unemployment picture is much more discouraging. Here is an excerpt from an article I read today; Jeff Cox, a reporter at CNBC.com wrote: “While the national unemployment rate paints a grim picture, a look at individual states and their so-called real jobless rates becomes even more troubling. The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time. For that count, the government releases a separate number called the "U-6," which provides a more complete tally of how many people really are out of work.”
The numbers in some cases are startling.In these hard times, as a country, this is definitely not the time to add to the difficulties of finding work. We should be trying to remove barriers to finding work, not reinforce them. A few forward-thinking legislators are doing just that – removing barriers. In four states, legislators have created laws to limit pre-employment credit checks. Those states are Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon, and Illinois.
Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.
Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009.
Only three states — Nebraska (9.1 percent), South Dakota (8.6 percent) and North Dakota (6.1 percent) — have U-6 rates under 10 percent, according to research from RBC Capital Markets.”
The laws preventing a company from making a hiring decision based upon a potential employee’s credit history have some limitations, however. For example, if a person applies for a job where he or she has to handle money like at a bank, or at an investment firm, the law still permits the employer to consider issues like theft, or fraud convictions. Sixty percent of employers recently surveyed by the Society for Human
Resources Management said they run credit checks on at least some job applicants. That compares with 42 percent in a similar poll in 2006. Employers say credit checks give them valuable information about an applicant’s honesty and sense of responsibility. But lawmakers in Missouri and at least 15 other states have proposed outlawing most credit checks, saying the practice traps people in debt because their past problems could prevent them from finding work. Under federal law, a prospective employer must get written permission from an applicant to run a credit check, but consumer advocates say most applicants feel they are in no position to refuse. Most of the bills proposed this year resemble laws in Hawaii and Washington that prevent employers from using credit reports when hiring for most positions.
On a national level, Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat, introduced a similar bill last summer in the U.S. House, where it is still in committee. More companies use credit checks, but only 13 percent perform them on all potential hires, according to the most recent survey by the Society for Human Resources Management. Mike Aitken, the group director of government affairs, said a blanket ban could remove a tool employers can use to help them make good hiring decisions. Aitken cited a 2008 survey by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners that found the two most common red flags for employees who commit workplace fraud are living beyond their means and having difficulty meeting financial obligations. The same survey estimated that American companies lost $994 billion to workplace fraud in 2008. Aitken said someone who cannot pay his bills on time may not be more likely to steal but might not have the sense of responsibility to handle a job like processing payroll checks.
While it might be tough to argue against statistics- not impossible, but tough – those statistics do not account for issues like race discrimination. It is a known fact that racial minorities, especially African Americans, tend to have more credit problems than their white counterparts as a result of higher rates of unemployment. And what about CEO’s who commit acts of dishonesty and leave the company with a golden parachute amounting to millions of dollars? Just this past Friday CEO Russell Wasendorf, SR. of PFGBest, one of the industries 10 largest brokerage firms, tried to commit suicide after leaving a note confessing to 20 years of fraud and forgery. The MSNBC.com article stated:
“In the dramatic conclusion to a week-long saga that has shaken trader confidence in the trillion-dollar U.S. futures markets, authorities released parts of a detailed statement in which one of the industry's best-known veterans explained how he used little more than a rented P.O. Box, Photoshop and inkjet printers to dupe regulators in a more than $100 million scheme.”
I wonder what Mr. Wassendorf’s FICO score is? I do not doubt that there are others out there like him who tout amazing FICO scores, have a great credit rating, and are getting away with similar acts of fraud and dishonesty. This is proof positive that a FICO score is no real indication of the content of a person’s character. And as for Mr. Aitken’s assertion regarding workplace fraud, just ask yourself: how many people do I know who live beyond their means, and have some trouble meeting their financial obligations? The honest answer is almost everyone. Not because they are irresponsible, but more because the cost of living has out-paced the average living –wage position. So does that mean almost everyone is dishonest or would commit fraud? Certainly not. I am not saying that financial pressures cannot cause a person to commit workplace fraud, but I am saying that the decision will more often come down to that person’s sense of morality no matter how intense the pressure. If committing an act of fraud was simply a function of a person’s financial condition and no other factors were relevant, our prison’s would not be able to hold all of the criminals that would be sent there. Yet, when a person applies to a job for which they are qualified, sometimes the only other relevant factor upon which they are hired or not, is their credit rating. I have personally experienced this occurrence myself so I know it’s true.
No comments:
Post a Comment