While I understand the basic premise or 'good intentions' behind the credit check for employment, which by way of theory would indicate trustworthiness, stability, and good work ethic in a potential candidate; I would like to make you aware that it seems to create a catch-22-type situation.Most people in this economy have found themselves having to take on new financial responsibility, such as taking on the living expenses of close relatives, making a longer commute to work, higher costs of living, etc. Within that percentage of the general population, there are a number of people who are unable to take on these economic burdens and then consequently fall into what we in the financial industry call "charge-off" or "delinquent" statuses.
As you probably know; or should know, at least, Not everyone who is behind or delinquent on payments is a delinquent, but it would seem to be the default assumption when a company won't give someone employment due to a pre-employment credit check.
Never mind that they have been employed previously for years with another company, have had a strong working background, shown dedication and trustworthiness on the job, and have not ever taken (or stolen, by corporate standards) anything from the firm. They have posted for a position with your firm, knowing that they are leaving their previous company in good standing.
All of the previously mentioned attributes of what one would think is an outstanding employee/candidate are seemingly disregarded when there are blotches on the candidate's credit report. It's worrying that we would hit the eject button as soon as an automated system throws up a red flag on a report, without any consideration behind what the circumstances could have been.
But back to the argument about this situation being a catch-22. A person has debt. This person needs to pay that debt, and we know money pays debt. So naturally, the person has to earn money at a job to pay the debt. So this person applies for a job at XYZ Corporation, with the intent to earn money to pay on what is owed. But now, we have XYZ Corp saying that this person can't work for them because of what has been showed to them on a credit report.
Do you understand the point I am making?
In this cycle, at worst, the person would have to resort to minimum (non-living) wages, and continue carrying the burden of debt/delinquency. There is honestly no bettering the person's situation, if a company cannot look at the candidate as a whole; judging the potential by previous experience, their standing in previous employment, and so forth.
There is a huge number of GOOD people that have been unfortunately written off by these companies for employment due to a credit standing; but had there also been a 'careful review' of their background, experience, responsibilities and trustworthiness that was earned in their previous positions, maybe they would have been seen differently. I am pretty convinced that they would have been efficient, hard-working, and trustworthy employees, had they gotten the chance to prove themselves.
Sincerely,
The Son of Quetzal