3 ms·
For landlords and banks that's clearly a feature, not a bug. A person with a "safety net" is a lower default risk. For employers the situation is more complic
by ihateperl 13y ago
For landlords and banks that's clearly a feature, not a bug. A person with a "safety net" is a lower default risk.
For employers the situation is more complicated, and legal considerations rule the day. Companies can and do get sued for discriminating against individuals who exhibit low-class behaviors or appearances. Credit scores are a clean, legal, objective way of weeding out a lot of the same people.
Also, if an employee with a troubled history (especially a criminal record) messes up in a way that results in litigation, the employer can face accusations of negligence for putting him in a position where he can do harm. Proper screening helps the employer make a case that all necessary due diligence was performed.
- jiggy2011 13y ago> For landlords and banks that's clearly a feature, not a bug. A person with a "safety net" is a lower default risk. I remember reading sometime ago that credit card companies would often actually offer better terms and larger credit limits to people receiving benefits (welfare) than those who were employed when the total amount of income was the same. An unemployed person losing their benefit was judged to be a lower risk than an employed person losing their job.
- eli_gottlieb 13y agoThat says something really sickening about job security where you live.
- lawnchair_larry 13y agoThis is an offensive lie justifying reprehensible behavior. Don't ever say it again please. The criminal record part is true and reasonable, but when it comes to credit history, what you say has no basis with the exception of very narrow job titles where it is directly applicable. There has never been a case where an employer faced any legal action because they hired someone with bad credit for a job that did not have fiduciary duty.