Reply With Quote
And I hope there are more States that follow.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...cks-in-hiring/
SAN FRANCISCO (KCBS) – New restrictions in the hiring process will take effect in the new year, and now California will be one of seven states that will restrict the use of credit checks for employment.
Similar bills were vetoed three times by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but this year the regulations were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. Assemblyman Tony Mendoza said that the bill prevents employers from routinely using credit checks.
“A credit check will not determine a person’s trustworthiness or their work ethic. It has nothing to do with them,” said Mendoza. “A lot of people might not even have credit. And a lot of people coming out of college have really bad credit because they’re in a lot of debt.”
Mendoza said that he heard from a number of people who said they were denied jobs because of their credit.
“The problem with the new California law is that the categories that were created are a little bit ambiguous and it’s unclear who falls into what category,” said Les Rosen, CEO of Employment Screening Resources in Novato. “We argued that the law should have simply stated that the lawyer has to state a good reason to run a check.”
The law exempts certain jobs – including law enforcement, government and a number of financial positions.
~~I won't lie and say I can't see why employers would want to check one's credit but it should NOT deter one from being considered for employment, IMHO.
And I hope there are more States that follow.
credit checks negatively affect minorities and females disproportionately in a tough job market
So what you are saying is....or the data....is that minorities and females pretty much have ty credit? There are plenty, millions of good, honest, hard working people who just have bad credit. Let them work damnit.
Yes, but even if they pay their bills on time. Credit is based in large part on earning capacity and life expectancy. Minorities/women are deficient in both catagories versus a white male.
So even if I am a minority and making say..20K a year and have no debts other than mortgage and utilies I would/could still be considered a credit risk?
Take the 20K as it is, minus off 14,400 for housing expenses, not including food or gas...that's less than 5K for house bills (like groceries), insurance, and random that comes up. It's not easy, credit checks for employment are bull .
I wish they would pass this law in Texas. A person's credit rating has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they would be a good employee. It's just another way of legally discriminating against people looking for a job.
I concur.
the only check they should only be doing is a criminal checkup thats about it
and any medical/drug checkup during employment if there is one and agreed to...
Companies can and do use foreclosures and arrest records to evaluate candidates.
For-profit insurers certainly don't like older new hires (sicker, esp smokers and porkers) and diseased new hires since their insurance risk goes up and the employer's premiums go up. I think there is no law barring discrimination against diseased candidates or employees.
And of course, long-term unemployed are blatantly discriminated against (some ads even say (long term) unemployed need not apply).
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-04-2012 at 09:47 AM.
Well, I've been looking for a PT job to help with my kids college expenses but seems nobody wants to hire my old ass.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
