6 ms·

They do - I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources they use but I've seen that their data on high income households is the best in the busin

They do - I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources they use but I've seen that their data on high income households is the best in the business and shockingly accurate. However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. If they get a full report, it could contain information about disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, religion, and enough information to construct knowledge about sexual orientation. However, all that information is pretty worthless for most decisions. Aside from it being illegal to use that information for hiring decisions (in most situations), the equifax stuff isn't super accurate. I've looked myself up and it gets a lot of information wrong, most other people I know who have looked themselves up in have also found major inaccuracies.

dsgfhasgjklas 9y ago
> However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. Employment credit checks are perfectly legal.
- icantdrive55 9y ago
  Not in CA.
burger_moon 9y ago
"... disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, religion, and enough information to construct knowledge about sexual orientation." Don't employers already get most of that from doing in person interviews? Even through phone screens you can gather most of that information.
- throwanem 9y ago
  In the US, those are protected categories about which a prospective employer may not inquire. This point was explicitly called out and repeatedly reiterated in the training I received a few years back about how to participate in an interview from that side of the table. Some of that information can be obvious, as in the case of visible disability and occasionally ethnicity. But it's not permissible to inquire in any case. And speaking from the side of the interviewee, such questions would immediately bring the interview to a not overly friendly close, both because the answers are none of any prospective employer's business, and because no company so insensate to liability concerns is likely destined to end up anywhere I care to go.
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    They can ask, legally. Maybe it would be used as evidence they wanted to discriminate but it's not a violation of the law simply to ask.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      Unless the protected characteristic is in some material way relevant to the role, asking such questions is likely to contravene the law or laws establishing the protection. It's not a criminal act, but it is unlawful; to do so, without a very clear and compelling argument for why it's relevant to the candidate's ability to perform the job, places the organization at the mercy of any candidate who cares to file a claim.
      - astura 9y ago
        This is false, it is generally not illegal to ask about protected characteristics, it's only illegal to use them in hiring decisions. The distinction is important. The reason people avoid asking (and tell others to avoid the same) is to avoid accusations or the appearance of using that sort of information in their hiring decision. You really have no defense if you ask about ethnicity and then decide not to hire that person, it's logical that you were asking about ethnicity because you wanted to use that information in your decision. "Don't ask don't tell" is a good policy. Once you actually have the job it's STILL just as illegal to use this information in promotions/firing decisions. However, it comes up in casual conversation all the time. People don't fret about asking a subordinate where they were born in casual conversation.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        It's more unwise than unlawful.
        throwanem 9y ago
        Fair. I sort of assumed from "don't even think about doing this unless you have signoff from general counsel in writing" that it was the latter, but on further research, I am indeed finding the former is more accurate to fact.
- numismatex 9y ago
  You have to understand that this exact information is also in political databases, so whether or not you give it to them, a very big employer likely has it already.
CobrastanJorji 9y ago
This makes me wonder. My employer has some customer data. We're very careful about not just letting any random employee access it without careful permission, auditing, logging, etc. Customer privacy is important to us. At Equifax, though, information about random people isn't customer data. It's the product. They give it to anyone who asks for money. Do they have any motivation to say J random employee can't just look up everybody's data? Why? Letting you have free access to what they charge everyone else for would just be a perk, right?
- et-al 9y ago
  Given that NSA employees in the past have abused that power, I wouldn't put it past current Equifax employees to do the same. https://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-stalking/ https://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-stalking/
- wahern 9y ago
  I believe it's quid pro quo. Equifax sells analytics services to corporations, and presumably you get a nice discount if you enter into an agreement to give them your information. Likewise for credit scores--why else would a lender report data to Equifax if Equifax wasn't purchasing that data, either directly or as part of a larger contractual arrangement.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  > Do they have any motivation to say J random employee can't just look up everybody's data? It violates FCRA at the very least.
astura 9y ago
>what data sources they use Usually the data is reported by the employer themselves. You can query the employment data without querying the full Equifax report.
refurb 9y ago
I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources Ever filled out a credit card application? Most of them ask for your current salary. This is before the credit check is done. My guess is the credit card companies are passing that information back. Of course, any time I put my salary in one of those applications it's correct in a range of $50K+. If they have those numbers, they are really inaccurate.
gehwartzen 9y ago
They (The work Number/Equifax) don't license it at all. Company's pay for the privilege in fact. It's sold as outsourcing the "costly" HR task of providing salary data themselves. Other companys or individuals then pay Equifax $35 to make a single enquiry or subscribe at a monthly rate. Users include 82% of all F500 companies and they have 225 employment records. My company uses it :( http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16762661-exclusive-your-employer-may-share-your-salary-and-equifax-might-sell-that-data?lite http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16762661-exclusi... This is a pretty shocking news article regarding the last time Eqifax was in the news about this a few years ago. At that time (like now) they were selling the data to all kinds of companies.
- psergeant 9y ago
  Shameless plug for something I wrote today, in case you’re wondering what companies use it for and what you can do about that “Developer employee cheatsheet: WTF is Salary Benchmarking?“ https://codeformore.com/developer-employee-cheatsheet-wtf-salary-benchmarking/ https://codeformore.com/developer-employee-cheatsheet-wtf-sa...
  - le-mark 9y ago
    Interesting read, thanks. How does one go from "senior engineer" to "architect"? Any tips?
    - otakucode 9y ago
      Stop writing code and start writing documents. Use lots of buzzwords and emerging technologies.
    - odbol_ 9y ago
      Well the first step is to design some architectures for large systems. Poof, you're an architect.
- timthelion 9y ago
  Can I use it to find out what my co-workers make and negotiate a better salary,
icantdrive55 9y ago
HR shouldn't be pulling credit reports for 99% of the applicants. It's against the law to look at credit ratings in California in a hiring situation.
pc86 9y ago
There is nothing wrong with HR having that information. It's only illegal to base hiring/firing decisions on protected information, it's not illegal to have it. Obviously it gets really tricky to prove someone did or did not use protected information in their hiring/firing decision, so it's clearly safest for HR to avoid having any of that.
- whathaschanged 9y ago
  Why would a resource department need information from payroll? They aren't the bosses of the employees so it's not like they are making the ultimate hiring decisions.
  - pc86 9y ago
    In your company that may be the case. Some (many, especially public) companies use HR as the initial resume filter. They are supposed to make sure the resume is accurate, the applicant didn't lie about job titles, dates of employment, education, etc, and sometimes the dreaded keyword scanning. Some places they'll also do the initial phone screen to make sure the applicant can form more-or-less coherent sentences. Then they give the person hiring a stack of screened resumes, and that person then does the interviews for the actual position in question. And I have worked at places where HR could unilaterally veto a given employee based on certain criteria (education, background check, etc).

dsgfhasgjklas 9y ago

> However, I can't imagine the compliance nightmare that would exist around a process that lets HR people look up people's equifax information. Employment credit checks are perfectly legal.

icantdrive55 9y ago
Not in CA.

burger_moon 9y ago

"... disabilities, national origin, ethnicity, religion, and enough information to construct knowledge about sexual orientation." Don't employers already get most of that from doing in person interviews? Even through phone screens you can gather most of that information.

throwanem 9y ago
In the US, those are protected categories about which a prospective employer may not inquire. This point was explicitly called out and repeatedly reiterated in the training I received a few years back about how to participate in an interview from that side of the table. Some of that information can be obvious, as in the case of visible disability and occasionally ethnicity. But it's not permissible to inquire in any case. And speaking from the side of the interviewee, such questions would immediately bring the interview to a not overly friendly close, both because the answers are none of any prospective employer's business, and because no company so insensate to liability concerns is likely destined to end up anywhere I care to go.
- SamReidHughes 9y ago
  They can ask, legally. Maybe it would be used as evidence they wanted to discriminate but it's not a violation of the law simply to ask.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Unless the protected characteristic is in some material way relevant to the role, asking such questions is likely to contravene the law or laws establishing the protection. It's not a criminal act, but it is unlawful; to do so, without a very clear and compelling argument for why it's relevant to the candidate's ability to perform the job, places the organization at the mercy of any candidate who cares to file a claim.
    - astura 9y ago
      This is false, it is generally not illegal to ask about protected characteristics, it's only illegal to use them in hiring decisions. The distinction is important. The reason people avoid asking (and tell others to avoid the same) is to avoid accusations or the appearance of using that sort of information in their hiring decision. You really have no defense if you ask about ethnicity and then decide not to hire that person, it's logical that you were asking about ethnicity because you wanted to use that information in your decision. "Don't ask don't tell" is a good policy. Once you actually have the job it's STILL just as illegal to use this information in promotions/firing decisions. However, it comes up in casual conversation all the time. People don't fret about asking a subordinate where they were born in casual conversation.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      It's more unwise than unlawful.
      - throwanem 9y ago
        Fair. I sort of assumed from "don't even think about doing this unless you have signoff from general counsel in writing" that it was the latter, but on further research, I am indeed finding the former is more accurate to fact.
numismatex 9y ago
You have to understand that this exact information is also in political databases, so whether or not you give it to them, a very big employer likely has it already.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago

This makes me wonder. My employer has some customer data. We're very careful about not just letting any random employee access it without careful permission, auditing, logging, etc. Customer privacy is important to us. At Equifax, though, information about random people isn't customer data. It's the product. They give it to anyone who asks for money. Do they have any motivation to say J random employee can't just look up everybody's data? Why? Letting you have free access to what they charge everyone else for would just be a perk, right?

et-al 9y ago
Given that NSA employees in the past have abused that power, I wouldn't put it past current Equifax employees to do the same. https://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-stalking/ https://www.wired.com/2013/09/nsa-stalking/
wahern 9y ago
I believe it's quid pro quo. Equifax sells analytics services to corporations, and presumably you get a nice discount if you enter into an agreement to give them your information. Likewise for credit scores--why else would a lender report data to Equifax if Equifax wasn't purchasing that data, either directly or as part of a larger contractual arrangement.
jstarfish 9y ago
> Do they have any motivation to say J random employee can't just look up everybody's data? It violates FCRA at the very least.

astura 9y ago

>what data sources they use Usually the data is reported by the employer themselves. You can query the employment data without querying the full Equifax report.

refurb 9y ago

I'm not sure how they licence it though or what data sources Ever filled out a credit card application? Most of them ask for your current salary. This is before the credit check is done. My guess is the credit card companies are passing that information back. Of course, any time I put my salary in one of those applications it's correct in a range of $50K+. If they have those numbers, they are really inaccurate.

gehwartzen 9y ago

They (The work Number/Equifax) don't license it at all. Company's pay for the privilege in fact. It's sold as outsourcing the "costly" HR task of providing salary data themselves. Other companys or individuals then pay Equifax $35 to make a single enquiry or subscribe at a monthly rate. Users include 82% of all F500 companies and they have 225 employment records. My company uses it :( http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16762661-exclusive-your-employer-may-share-your-salary-and-equifax-might-sell-that-data?lite http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16762661-exclusi... This is a pretty shocking news article regarding the last time Eqifax was in the news about this a few years ago. At that time (like now) they were selling the data to all kinds of companies.

psergeant 9y ago
Shameless plug for something I wrote today, in case you’re wondering what companies use it for and what you can do about that “Developer employee cheatsheet: WTF is Salary Benchmarking?“ https://codeformore.com/developer-employee-cheatsheet-wtf-salary-benchmarking/ https://codeformore.com/developer-employee-cheatsheet-wtf-sa...
- le-mark 9y ago
  Interesting read, thanks. How does one go from "senior engineer" to "architect"? Any tips?
  - otakucode 9y ago
    Stop writing code and start writing documents. Use lots of buzzwords and emerging technologies.
  - odbol_ 9y ago
    Well the first step is to design some architectures for large systems. Poof, you're an architect.
timthelion 9y ago
Can I use it to find out what my co-workers make and negotiate a better salary,

icantdrive55 9y ago

HR shouldn't be pulling credit reports for 99% of the applicants. It's against the law to look at credit ratings in California in a hiring situation.

pc86 9y ago

There is nothing wrong with HR having that information. It's only illegal to base hiring/firing decisions on protected information, it's not illegal to have it. Obviously it gets really tricky to prove someone did or did not use protected information in their hiring/firing decision, so it's clearly safest for HR to avoid having any of that.

whathaschanged 9y ago
Why would a resource department need information from payroll? They aren't the bosses of the employees so it's not like they are making the ultimate hiring decisions.
- pc86 9y ago
  In your company that may be the case. Some (many, especially public) companies use HR as the initial resume filter. They are supposed to make sure the resume is accurate, the applicant didn't lie about job titles, dates of employment, education, etc, and sometimes the dreaded keyword scanning. Some places they'll also do the initial phone screen to make sure the applicant can form more-or-less coherent sentences. Then they give the person hiring a stack of screened resumes, and that person then does the interviews for the actual position in question. And I have worked at places where HR could unilaterally veto a given employee based on certain criteria (education, background check, etc).