Anyone have a job offer rescinded for bad credit?

[helpmeout]

I read the posting everyone is arguing about...here is the quote "So if a person committed a crime such as murder, theft, child molestation or whatever that shouldn't be considered in the hiring decision? After all it is in their personal life not work related." What they are referring to are crimes (felonies) for which searches are done also for employment. I take it as meaning that if employers ignore BK on records should they also ignore felonies? Both fall under searches done for employment. Sometimes it is easy to read more into a posting than what it is intended to be.

Logansdad, that was really uncalled for as to what you called the poster as it is easy to see, at least to me, that they were not making any comparison to crime and BK.

Yes, that poster most definitely was making a comparison between crime and BK.

[Flamingo]

Yes, that poster most definitely was making a comparison between crime and BK.

Please explain to me how you make that deduction...That poster also wrote..."I just knew someone would go there. The statement was that bankruptcy was a personal matter that had nothing to do with work. My point was that a felony such as child molestation or murder doesn't have anything to do with work either but should they be considered?"

Once in a previous employment discussion, I brought up the fact that background checks are run prior to being hired. Credit checks are also run. I mentioned that having a felony on one's record can prevent one from getting a job just as having a BK on your record can prevent one from getting a job. A poster got back to me stating that I was calling people who file Bk criminals. Basically, this is what occurred with this poster also. People who file bankruptcy are not criminals. People who commit the murder and other actions mentioned are criminals and if convicted have felonies on their records. Employers do background searches for both felonies and bankruptcy/bad credit. The poster himself/herself stated he/she was not making a comparison and I did not take it as making a comparison and see it for what it is. When we as posters read postings we sometimes miss the point and see way past what is actually there. The poster was trying to state that both a felony and filing bankruptcy are personal matters and not related to work; if the BK is not considered for employment then the felony should not be considered also. If a felony is not considered for employment, then you would have the rapists, murderers, molesters, etc., etc., working among everyone when no background check is in place. How someone can say that this poster is comparing BK filers to murderers and molesters is a bit beyond when I don't see it at all probably because I have seen the same comparisons in other threads in the past where people jump to quickly when seeing "felony" and "bankruptcy" in the same sentence.

Now, let's try to give this thread back to the OP and back on topic...

[logansdad]

~Take the fork out...

[DiamondsR]

DiamondsR, it wasn't you I was quoting and it wasn't you that was accused of name calling. The quote was from Helpmeout who stated that bankruptcy was in the personal life and shouldn't be considered. And Logansdad went into calling me an idiot.

You stated that as a teacher you couldn't teach with certain things in your background. Should a person be handling a company or department's budget with certain problems in his/her background?

The executives of companies that file bankruptcy suffer heavily. Many bonuses are paid in company stock and/or options. When a company files bankruptcy what happens to the stock? The executives and managers of failed companies wind up having severe difficulties finding new jobs. A stigma is attached to them.

I give... I'll bow out of this discussion. The discussion has fell to a level that no longer is productive.

Is the question rhetorical? Although you didn't answer any of my questions, I feel compelled to answer the question you posed.

If one declares bankruptcy due to medical costs, the "problem" in their background would not affect their job and has no bearing on their ability to handle a company's budget. Declaring bankruptcy due to long-term unemployment, presumably the condition which caused their financial woes would be addressed by the fact they are actually working.

As far as executives that declare bankruptcy "suffering greatly", we both could probably use antedotal evidence supporting either side.

I still stand by the fact that people who have declared bankruptcy should not support businesses that will not hire those who have exercised their legal rights as a last option (as if anyone would go through this willingly). If we're not good enough to hire, don't take our money to support your business. They can't have it both ways.

[Flamingo]

This thread has a good subject matter - having a job rescinded for bad credit. If it cannot get back on topic it will be closed. If there are further disagreements, please utilize the PM option. Thank you.

[momisery]

So, back to the subject matter, which I thought is where I was at. My comments were that you can not compare the two. I simply disagree that you can even compare crimminal and civil. Certainly deciding that a child molester should not work with children or around them, and that a person convicted of murder should not work in a gun store makes good sense these are life threatening situations. I do not feel filing a BK puts me in t he situation where I would be a threat to someones life, do you? And futher, I think the BK shows you took the legal recourse, not the illegal one of stealing to keep your head above water. If I pulled credit and found someone with lots of debt, no job for a long time I would be wondering where they got the money to pay theirs bills, wouldn't you? Instead it appears that the true criminals here would fare much better. Good honest people are going down all around us, because of wall street, banks, deregulations etc. How many people went down in the great depression which un or under employed 25% of the population where this one is at 17%, how many of those people went on to do great things, and never stole a dime? Basing employment on credit is a business ploy, plain and simple. If someone is going to steal from you they will have a record in the past for doing that won't they? Of course not all will, but they will if they are caught. I am caught in a horrible economy, but I am not caught stealing and never will be. Sorry if some feel we stepped on toes here, but I feel the people on this board were being called names by being told that it makes sense to not hire them. That is not true. Saying it is the law, is one thing saying it is fair I disagree with, and feel I have a right to explain why.

[backtoschool]

So, back to the subject matter, which I thought is where I was at. My comments were that you can not compare the two. I simply disagree that you can even compare crimminal and civil. Certainly deciding that a child molester should not work with children or around them, and that a person convicted of murder should not work in a gun store makes good sense these are life threatening situations. I do not feel filing a BK puts me in t he situation where I would be a threat to someones life, do you? And futher, I think the BK shows you took the legal recourse, not the illegal one of stealing to keep your head above water. If I pulled credit and found someone with lots of debt, no job for a long time I would be wondering where they got the money to pay theirs bills, wouldn't you? Instead it appears that the true criminals here would fare much better. Good honest people are going down all around us, because of wall street, banks, deregulations etc. How many people went down in the great depression which un or under employed 25% of the population where this one is at 17%, how many of those people went on to do great things, and never stole a dime? Basing employment on credit is a business ploy, plain and simple. If someone is going to steal from you they will have a record in the past for doing that won't they? Of course not all will, but they will if they are caught. I am caught in a horrible economy, but I am not caught stealing and never will be. Sorry if some feel we stepped on toes here, but I feel the people on this board were being called names by being told that it makes sense to not hire them. That is not true. Saying it is the law, is one thing saying it is fair I disagree with, and feel I have a right to explain why.

Most jobs that are denied due to bankruptcy involve advising people in regards to money, working directly with money, writing company checks, etc. A bankruptcy shows that there have been money issues in your past. While that may not completely disqualify you for a job working with money, it certainly puts you at a disadvantage over someone who has does not have a visable record of money issues.

Companies discriminate for many reasons. Many companies will discriminate regarding applicants over 40 because they think that applicant will not be as motivated and will have more health problems. Many companies will also discriminate against mothers with children or pregnant women because they do not want to deal with all of the personal time they think will ensue. If there are two equally qualified applicants, the one with the least red flags will get hired. Insurance companies are notorious for discriminating for many reasons such as smoking, age, even weight. Remember they have all of those actuaries letting them know the risks of different characteristics.

That being said, like I said in an earlier post, there are many industries that will not even do a full credit check as part of a background check. Insurance and banking are not amongst those industries. Insurance and banking care about credit.

[helpmeout]

Please explain to me how you make that deduction...That poster also wrote..."I just knew someone would go there. The statement was that bankruptcy was a personal matter that had nothing to do with work. My point was that a felony such as child molestation or murder doesn't have anything to do with work either but should they be considered?"

Once in a previous employment discussion, I brought up the fact that background checks are run prior to being hired. Credit checks are also run. I mentioned that having a felony on one's record can prevent one from getting a job just as having a BK on your record can prevent one from getting a job. A poster got back to me stating that I was calling people who file Bk criminals. Basically, this is what occurred with this poster also. People who file bankruptcy are not criminals. People who commit the murder and other actions mentioned are criminals and if convicted have felonies on their records. Employers do background searches for both felonies and bankruptcy/bad credit. The poster himself/herself stated he/she was not making a comparison and I did not take it as making a comparison and see it for what it is. When we as posters read postings we sometimes miss the point and see way past what is actually there. The poster was trying to state that both a felony and filing bankruptcy are personal matters and not related to work; if the BK is not considered for employment then the felony should not be considered also. If a felony is not considered for employment, then you would have the rapists, murderers, molesters, etc., etc., working among everyone when no background check is in place. How someone can say that this poster is comparing BK filers to murderers and molesters is a bit beyond when I don't see it at all probably because I have seen the same comparisons in other threads in the past where people jump to quickly when seeing "felony" and "bankruptcy" in the same sentence.

Now, let's try to give this thread back to the OP and back on topic...

The poster I responded to compared taking bankruptcy into consideration to taking a criminal conviction into consideration. And asked what the difference was. One is a legal act, the other is not.

If it went off topic it was because that poster compared the two. If she wants to discriminate because she is against bankruptcy (and the fact that she considers it when hiring tells me that she is) that is her choice. But she has to live with the fact that she is guilty of discriminating against a person because that person lawfully filed for bankruptcy. And she is part of the reason why there is a stigma attached to filing for bankruptcy.

And that stigma hurts people who should file for bankruptcy long before they did.

[Flamingo]

The poster I responded to compared taking bankruptcy into consideration to taking a criminal conviction into consideration. And asked what the difference was. One is a legal act, the other is not.

If it went off topic it was because that poster compared the two. If she wants to discriminate because she is against bankruptcy (and the fact that she considers it when hiring tells me that she is) that is her choice. But she has to live with the fact that she is guilty of discriminating against a person because that person lawfully filed for bankruptcy. And she is part of the reason why there is a stigma attached to filing for bankruptcy.

And that stigma hurts people who should file for bankruptcy long before they did.

Those of us who have filed bankruptcy and find ourselves needing to apply for another job for whatever reason will have a background check run and usually a credit check also. Fingerprinting and drug testing may also be done. While some of us may not like it, it is allowable by law and done for a reason - for the employer to "screen" applicants. Employers are very careful nowadays who they hire and seek clean records for a reason - usually because it is required by company policy or required by the company's legal department and/or for insurance purposes. These screening processes are beyond the applicants control and the only way not to be involved is to not apply for the job. All of us who have filed BK know that if there came a time down the road where we might have teo look for another job there could be issues because we may not pass the "screening" process. The "stigma" that is placed on BK filers does not come from the employer...it comes from those that have filed bankruptcy in the past either via fraud or via serial filing giving all who file BK a bad reputation because it makes people think that all who file BK cannot handle their money or are trying to beat the system by dumping debt every several years. Many companies have been burned by that class of people so it makes it hard for everybody who files because the companies are leary of hiring someone who has had or now has financial issues. You really can't blame them...so those that file BK get tossed into the same "screening" process as those who have committed felonies. Of course having bad credit is not the same as a felony but the "stigma" is basically the same and is attached for a lifetime because there is that question floating out there on many applications..."Have you EVER filed bankruptcy?"

Maybe someday credit checks will become a thing of the past but as things now stand with companies being extremely careful in who they hire, I think those of us who have filed BK will be dealing with the "stigma" issue for quite some time yet. One should never, however, let that stand in the way of applying for any job. Getting a job is about selling yourself to the company to work to make the company money and be profitable. If one fully investigates a company and their hiring practices prior to an interview and do their homework on the company, they stand a much better chance of getting their foot in the door and against the competition for the position.

You can be certain, though, that background checks for felonies will always be done and there probably will also be an increase in fingerprinting for various positions along with more drug testing.

[overthedebt]

The bottom line is that employers can really use any criteria they'd like in selecting an applicant for a job. With a pool of so many applicants, employers have every right to select whomever they deem to be the "best" candidate. I may compare almost identically to three other candidates but if I'm the only one with a tarnished credit history who do you think they're going to eliminate? It's not as if the Equal Opportunity Police are coming knocking down the door wanting to know why they turned down certain applicants. Discrimination happens everyday. It's not fair but, as we all know, the reality of life is that it is intrinsically unfair.

And even if I explained away my financial mess (alcoholic, abusive husband that left me holding the bag on our home/business expenses), would it really matter if there are already 5 other candidates with suitable qualifications who don't have to explain away anything?

I don't really blame Bell for considering bankruptcy in determining whether he is offering someone a job. Again, the reality is that there may be a candidate with the same exceptional work history as myself but without the financial/bankruptcy baggage. The sobering reality is that all of us will have uphill battles when it comes to this issue. I haven't filed yet and it's this reality that doesn't give me much hope that I will feel "relief" once I file.

[Pizza]

That being said, like I said in an earlier post, there are many industries that will not even do a full credit check as part of a background check. Insurance and banking are not amongst those industries. Insurance and banking care about credit.

Oddly enough, I'm currently working in insurance right now and worked another job last year which involved immediate access to SSN's. What you're going to run into these days really is just how many applicants want the job. Someone who has managed to make it through this recession unscathed in terms of credit are able to use that as a proof of responsibility.

Overall, I wouldn't consider bad credit to be the ball-and-chain keeping you from finding a job SOMEWHERE, especially if the job market shows some sign of recovery. Even better, as time goes by, the impact goes with it. It's a hurdle in life that can be overcome with some rebuilding.

[moses]

Here is an interesting article that I read about employers checking your credit in Washington State.

Here is the copy and pasted version.


Doing background checks on potential employees, and regularly for certain positions with significant access to personally identifiable information (PII) or managemen capabilities, has been a growing trend in recent years. Such checks are viewed as ways to help prevent putting untrustworthy and significant at-risk individuals into positions where they could perform malicious and/or criminal activities.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) establishes background check requirements for employment that all U.S. businesses must follow. The FCRA defines a background check as a consumer report. Before a company can get a consumer report they must notify the individual and obtain written authorization; allowing potential employees the opportunity to withdraw the application if there will be information that he or she does not want disclosed.

Credit reports are used by many organizations to check on potential and current employees who are in positions with access to financial assets, such as bank tellers, systems programmers responsible for financial applications, accounts payable managers, and so on.

Washington state governor Christine Gregoire signed S.B. 5827 into law on April 18.

As an effect of this new law, employers in Washington state may no longer access the credit reports of employees or job applicants unless such information is substantially related to the individual's current or potential job responsibilities.

While this new law is fairly short, it is significant. The requirements of S.B. 5827 as taken from the bill:

5 (1) A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report only 6 under the following circumstances: 7 (a) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to 8 issue the order; 9 (b) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to 10 whom it relates; or 11 (c) To a person that the agency has reason to believe: 12 (i) Intends to use the information in connection with a credit 13 transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be 14 furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or 15 collection of an account of, the consumer; 16 (ii) Intends to use the information for employment purposes; 17 (iii) Intends to use the information in connection with the 18 underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; p. 1 ESSB 5827.PL 1 (iv) Intends to use the information in connection with a 2 determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other 3 benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to 4 consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or 5 (v) Otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information in 6 connection with a business transaction involving the consumer. 7 (2)(a) Subject to (c) of this subsection, a person may not procure 8 a consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for 9 employment purposes with respect to any consumer who is not an employee 10 at the time the report is procured or caused to be procured unless: 11 (i) A clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to 12 the consumer before the report is procured or caused to be procured 13 that a consumer report may be obtained for purposes of considering the 14 consumer for employment. The disclosure may be contained in a written 15 statement contained in employment application materials; or 16 (ii) The consumer authorizes the procurement of the report. 17 (b) A person may not procure a consumer report, or cause a consumer 18 report to be procured, for employment purposes with respect to any 19 employee unless the employee has received, at any time after the person 20 became an employee, written notice that consumer reports may be used 21 for employment purposes. A written statement that consumer reports may 22 be used for employment purposes that is contained in employee 23 guidelines or manuals available to employees or included in written 24 materials provided to employees constitutes written notice for purposes 25 of this subsection. This subsection does not apply with respect to a 26 consumer report of an employee who the employer has reasonable cause to 27 believe has engaged in specific activity that constitutes a violation 28 of law. 29 (c) As applied to (a) and (b) of this subsection, a person may not 30 procure a consumer report for employment purposes where any information 31 contained in the report bears on the consumer's credit worthiness, 32 credit standing, or credit capacity, unless the information is either: 33 (i) Substantially job related and the employer's reasons for the 34 use of such information are disclosed to the consumer in writing; or 35 (ii) Required by law. 36 (d) In using a consumer report for employment purposes, before 37 taking any adverse action based in whole or part on the report, a 38 person shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) ESSB 5827.PL p. 2 1 The name, address, and telephone number of the consumer reporting 2 agency providing the report; (ii) a description of the consumer's 3 rights under this chapter pertaining to consumer reports obtained for 4 employment purposes; and (iii) a reasonable opportunity to respond to 5 any information in the report that is disputed by the consumer. This 6 subsection applies to job applicants and current employees.
It is worth noting that the new law does not apply to an employer review of the credit report of an employee "who the employer has reasonable cause to believe has engaged in specific activity that constitutes a violation of law."

Four other states (Hawaii, Pennsylvania, New York and Wisconsin) have similar restrictions on employers using credit reports.

While it is obvious the new law applies to employers based in Washington and employees and job applicants who are residents of Washington, it could also apply to a Washington employer with out-of-state job applicants or employees, an out-of-state employer with employees and applicants that live in Washington, and possibly even a business that interviews job applicants who would need to relocate to Washington to perform the job.

Talk with your legal counsel about the impacts of this law on your business. Consider doing the following, which are good to do on a periodic basis anyway:

* Identify and clearly document categories of employees and specific employees for whom credit information is related to their job responsibilities to justify why credit checks are necessary.

* Review your employment forms to ensure that they are not worded in such a way that an employee or job applicant is giving permission for a credit report review that is now prohibited by this and similar laws.

* Check with your background check vendors to ensure that they do not mistakenly provide credit report information when they shouldn't be when conducting a background check.

[meateater]

I went to what was supposed to be a final interview with the president of a company. During the interview, I realized he was looking at a public records report (probably pulled from lexis/nexis) about me. I didn't get the job. I'm not sure any new rules regarding the use of credit reports are going to have any effect when one has a bankruptcy in the public record (it might not be on a credit report, but it exists). Permission is not needed for someone to run a public records check. I'm trying to figure out how to deal with this in the future.

[backtoschool]

Here is an interesting article that I read about employers checking your credit in Washington State.

Here is the copy and pasted version.


Doing background checks on potential employees, and regularly for certain positions with significant access to personally identifiable information (PII) or managemen capabilities, has been a growing trend in recent years. Such checks are viewed as ways to help prevent putting untrustworthy and significant at-risk individuals into positions where they could perform malicious and/or criminal activities.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) establishes background check requirements for employment that all U.S. businesses must follow. The FCRA defines a background check as a consumer report. Before a company can get a consumer report they must notify the individual and obtain written authorization; allowing potential employees the opportunity to withdraw the application if there will be information that he or she does not want disclosed.

Credit reports are used by many organizations to check on potential and current employees who are in positions with access to financial assets, such as bank tellers, systems programmers responsible for financial applications, accounts payable managers, and so on.

Washington state governor Christine Gregoire signed S.B. 5827 into law on April 18.

As an effect of this new law, employers in Washington state may no longer access the credit reports of employees or job applicants unless such information is substantially related to the individual's current or potential job responsibilities.

While this new law is fairly short, it is significant. The requirements of S.B. 5827 as taken from the bill:

5 (1) A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report only 6 under the following circumstances: 7 (a) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to 8 issue the order; 9 (b) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to 10 whom it relates; or 11 (c) To a person that the agency has reason to believe: 12 (i) Intends to use the information in connection with a credit 13 transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be 14 furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or 15 collection of an account of, the consumer; 16 (ii) Intends to use the information for employment purposes; 17 (iii) Intends to use the information in connection with the 18 underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; p. 1 ESSB 5827.PL 1 (iv) Intends to use the information in connection with a 2 determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other 3 benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to 4 consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or 5 (v) Otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information in 6 connection with a business transaction involving the consumer. 7 (2)(a) Subject to (c) of this subsection, a person may not procure 8 a consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for 9 employment purposes with respect to any consumer who is not an employee 10 at the time the report is procured or caused to be procured unless: 11 (i) A clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to 12 the consumer before the report is procured or caused to be procured 13 that a consumer report may be obtained for purposes of considering the 14 consumer for employment. The disclosure may be contained in a written 15 statement contained in employment application materials; or 16 (ii) The consumer authorizes the procurement of the report. 17 (b) A person may not procure a consumer report, or cause a consumer 18 report to be procured, for employment purposes with respect to any 19 employee unless the employee has received, at any time after the person 20 became an employee, written notice that consumer reports may be used 21 for employment purposes. A written statement that consumer reports may 22 be used for employment purposes that is contained in employee 23 guidelines or manuals available to employees or included in written 24 materials provided to employees constitutes written notice for purposes 25 of this subsection. This subsection does not apply with respect to a 26 consumer report of an employee who the employer has reasonable cause to 27 believe has engaged in specific activity that constitutes a violation 28 of law. 29 (c) As applied to (a) and (b) of this subsection, a person may not 30 procure a consumer report for employment purposes where any information 31 contained in the report bears on the consumer's credit worthiness, 32 credit standing, or credit capacity, unless the information is either: 33 (i) Substantially job related and the employer's reasons for the 34 use of such information are disclosed to the consumer in writing; or 35 (ii) Required by law. 36 (d) In using a consumer report for employment purposes, before 37 taking any adverse action based in whole or part on the report, a 38 person shall provide to the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) ESSB 5827.PL p. 2 1 The name, address, and telephone number of the consumer reporting 2 agency providing the report; (ii) a description of the consumer's 3 rights under this chapter pertaining to consumer reports obtained for 4 employment purposes; and (iii) a reasonable opportunity to respond to 5 any information in the report that is disputed by the consumer. This 6 subsection applies to job applicants and current employees.
It is worth noting that the new law does not apply to an employer review of the credit report of an employee "who the employer has reasonable cause to believe has engaged in specific activity that constitutes a violation of law."

Four other states (Hawaii, Pennsylvania, New York and Wisconsin) have similar restrictions on employers using credit reports.

While it is obvious the new law applies to employers based in Washington and employees and job applicants who are residents of Washington, it could also apply to a Washington employer with out-of-state job applicants or employees, an out-of-state employer with employees and applicants that live in Washington, and possibly even a business that interviews job applicants who would need to relocate to Washington to perform the job.

Talk with your legal counsel about the impacts of this law on your business. Consider doing the following, which are good to do on a periodic basis anyway:

* Identify and clearly document categories of employees and specific employees for whom credit information is related to their job responsibilities to justify why credit checks are necessary.

* Review your employment forms to ensure that they are not worded in such a way that an employee or job applicant is giving permission for a credit report review that is now prohibited by this and similar laws.

* Check with your background check vendors to ensure that they do not mistakenly provide credit report information when they shouldn't be when conducting a background check.

There are the types of jobs where credit is being checked now anyway. It will be very easy to come up with a justification under this law for why a credit check is necessary. Basically anyone in a financial firm, insurance company, would come under the definition in the law, and these are the types of jobs that are bankruptcy and bad-credit unfriendly now anyway.

[momisery]

Like one poster said, BK is LEGAL... this should have no impact upon your abiltiy to be hired for a job. If they can prove your BK because you committed fraud you will have a criminal report that they can access. It makes no sense, and some group needs to take this up and start fighting it. Right now many of us will not be able to find jobs if we lose the ones we have in our field no matter how good you are. Big business sticks together in pressuring people to pay bills that they can not afford and they could care less if you starve doing it. That is what the bill was really all about, was to collect no matter what. I hope this issue is taken up in Washington at some point, but I doubt they will have time. Right now they are busy trying to keep a nation from going into BK because of greed.