One of the residual effects of America’s tanking economy is that millions of Americans are dealing with damaged credit. Inevitably, bills will go unpaid once one loses their source of income, resulting in dings (or even dents) on their credit reports. In fact, some households who once depended on that single source of income find themselves on the brink of bankruptcy, & even two income households must now prioritize which bills to pay in order to survive. Adding insult to injury, those searching for another job are finding that they are turned down because of bad credit. Is it justified to screen out an otherwise qualified candidate for employment because of poor credit? We’ll take a look at this issue from both the employer’s & employee’s perspective.
Employers cite several reasons for performing credit checks. Some maintain that a negative credit history translates to irresponsible behavior & would reflect badly on the company’s image. Still others say that it is an indication of possible theft or embezzlement, which could affect a company’s bottom line. If the job description requires that a candidate handle or control other people’s funds, then this rationale seems logical. However, where is the actual proof that one’s financial situation would automatically make them a corrupt or unscrupulous employee?To date, there aren’t any studies to even suggest this is true. Consider: Jerry K. Palmer, a psychology professor at Kentucky State University, performed several studies aimed at finding a correlation between weak credit & employee fraud or job performance. He found none. Without this proof, it would seem that a company’s policy to routinely require credit checks as part of the screening process results in unfairly discriminating against individuals who have been affected by factors beyond their control. Predictably, this issue has managed to get the government’s attention.Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6436195
