As the article points out, the credit check is supposed to be one metric among many, and not taken as some overpowering data point. But for anyone to say that o

As the article points out, the credit check is supposed to be one metric among many, and not taken as some overpowering data point. But for anyone to say that one's credit score does not proxy dependability is, I think, naive. I think the notion that credit score is something invasive while work history, criminal record, GPA, determining how one got along with previous bosses, etc. is commonplace and goes unnoticed is somewhat odd. It should be obvious that employers have no interest in one's actual affairs, and instead are attempting to gauge dependability through proxies. GPA, how many times you've left jobs recently, insane rants on the internet -- these are all fair play and raise no eyebrows whatsoever, so why is a credit score any different? This is a simple matter of being averse to things you're not used to and comfortable with those you are. Credit score bad! But pulling and evaluating your GPA, stalking your online footprint, looking into your criminal record, talking to your old bosses -- that's all fine. Sure, that will remain true until it becomes commonplace. At that point, just as with all these other things that most find completely unobjectionable, this won't bother anyone either. This is especially true when it's not even being considered as any sort of overriding decision point. Great candidates can have poor credit scores. Poor candidates can have high ones. Everyone knows this. But that can be said for all the other metrics gathered in an interview process as well. And then there's the argument that credit score clearly can be asked for in certain jobs, e.g. financial services, but not others. This is highly curious. Why is it that one asks for credit scores when a position involves working with money? It's not a work competence question, to be sure -- it's a dependability metric: plain and simple. So I ask you: what is the difference between counting money somewhere and handling vulnerability data for the internal networks of Fortune 50 companies? Very little. If the objection is that you don't like someone getting your credit score, then sure: I don't either. But I don't like the 10 other invasive activities that happen during any modern interview. It's all somewhat uncomfortable, which should be expected since the entire process reduces to evaluating your past and present to predict worthiness and fit for a given position. Complain about that if you wish, i.e. make the argument that interviews are too invasive to begin with, and perhaps I'll agree with you. That's a much better premise than taking one metric among others and claiming it alone is a problem.