kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
God I always wanted to make a difference. I dont have 100% proof that my call DID make that difference but I would love to think so. I called 2x a week to my Reps for 2 months to get this Bill introduced. Not sure I even made a difference there.
Either way I am overjoyed. I am sitting on a cloud...... tonight.
What inspired me to call yesterday? http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-should-companies-able-check-your-credit.html
Geeez.... I freakin' love this forum!!!! :2grouphug
:boohoo: If you say so. I am so sad. :boohoo:
:rofl
.
Sad ... indeed!
Big business tyranny is coming to an end.
You're a white collar criminal and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Bad credit is a risk factor to an employer. People with bad credit are statistically more prone to theft of material goods, or deceptive character. It is not to say that everyone that has bad credit will steal, nor is it to suggest that people with bad credit are always deceptive, but it does correlate statistically.
Tim-
Aren't these hiring arguments a little bit non-applicable considering that no one is hiring?
Yess! Lets begin the era of Theft and Mayhem!!! WOOO!!!!
:roll:
It's an extremely poor indicator. There are a myriad of reasons for a low credit score and financial mismanagement is only one.It is a very good indicator.
Should banks or mortgage companies not be able to check credit before loaning money? I would never want to hire someone that was not worthy of a loan.
.
I have never seen or heard anyone contradict themselves so thoroughly in two sentences as you have just done. Congrats! You're a winner!
Bad credit is a risk factor to an employer. People with bad credit are statistically more prone to theft of material goods, or deceptive character. It is not to say that everyone that has bad credit will steal, nor is it to suggest that people with bad credit are always deceptive, but it does correlate statistically.
So if someone got behind on their cable bill or student loans that means they are going to go steal? I guess by this logic, if someone owns a rifle chances are they killed a deer so chances are they are going to go on a shooting rampage at work if they get angry with their boss right, so lets make sure we check to see if people own guns before we hire them.
I've known completely irresponsible assholes that got a job that required credit checks. I fail to see how one jumps from "this guy got a little behind on his bills" to "this guy could steal from us". One is just something that happens to most people at one point or another in their life, the other is a felony. I'm going to give the majority of people the benefit of the doubt and say they know the major differences between both of them.
We are. Our company has more than doubled the number of employees over the past two years. :2wave:Aren't these hiring arguments a little bit non-applicable considering that no one is hiring?
Except you have yet to SHOW a valid statistical correlation.Go ahead, shine for me..
Tim-
Except you have yet to SHOW a valid statistical correlation.
Well isn't this a giant contradiction of yourself.
In one case you acknowledge that even someone you yourself consider a completely irresponsible asshole was still able to pass this portion of the hiring process.
Then you turn around and get all melodramatic and make the claim that someone getting "a little behind on their cable bill" will keep them from getting a job.
Which is it brother man?
The credit check is to check on something much much worse than being a little behind on your cable bill.
I had some credit issues when I first applied at the department due to being deployed and unknowingly oweing an online university some money while I was deployed in the Army and couldn't pay, or even recieve notice that I was required to pay something.
As long as you can explain to your employers what a particular problem is and what you are doing to fix it, as long as its not owing 200k or some other great sum of money, I think you can move past it.
I gave you the problems with the study you posted. Can you address them or not?Oh, that's right, a "valid" one, eh? Please.. You're not debating a child, Hoplite, I know what I posted was not only valid, it was extremely comprhensive in scope.
Now, if you want to try your little debate tactic with me, you're going to have a hard time. See, you're going to need to show me what's wrong with it; saying it is wrong is not nearly enough, and I will ignore you.
I gave you the problems with the study you posted. Can you address them or not?
I already outlined this previously. Now, one last time, are you going to answer the issues I pointed out or not?There are problems with any sample studies. Pointing out problems isn't exactly a new thing, pal. Pointing out why these problems impact the analysis, and conclusion is wherein the skill lies. You, apparantly lack it?
I already outlined this previously. Now, one last time, are you going to answer the issues I pointed out or not?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...mployment-credit-checks-3.html#post1058911340Sure give me the link to your post..
Tim-
I am a hirer, not a hiree.
We do full background checks, including credit, on all employees before hire and periodically thereafter. If you don't like it, don't apply for a job with us.
.
I dont think you can look at an ill-defined concept of loss from that and determine that those with lower credit scores are more likely to steal from you. There are many more studies to suggest that employees who feel unappreciated and mistreated are more likely to steal from an employer than those with low credit.
I object to credit checks because I see it as a form of economic discrimination and the check is usually out of context.
We are very upfront about our employment requirements. Anyone that inquires about a position is told they will have to pass a background check, credit check, and drug tests, including tobacco. If they cannot pass them or do not want us to do them, they should not apply.What's the name of your business? Just want to be certain that everyone who prefers not to let you invade their privacy knows who you are.
Just tryin' ta help.
The basic point is that you are asking for personal information that you will see un-explained and out-of-context as a basis for judging if you can trust them when in reality there are much bigger influences that determine if an employee is going to make good choices or steal or whatever that dont involve personal and out-of-context information. Furthermore, you're making a decision about someone's character without having all the facts of why their situation is as it is AND they aren't there to defend themselves or their situation.Is this what you're referring to?
I'm not seeing any "point" I need to address? There are a lot of studies, of various types that weigh risk. A low credit score is one of them?
Does that about sum it up?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?