Should Employers Deny People Jobs Because of Bad Credit?

Obviously a question that shouldn’t even be has become a problem. The argument in favour of the employers could be that by not employing debtors they are reducing the national debt and at the same time encouraging people to pay their bills on time.

Can a debtor be an accounting or a cashier? Does the job specification of the employee have anything to do with whether it is performed by an employee with debt or one without? Is the employer more at risk by having their monies stole by an employee with debt or one without?

The only time the employer is at risk is when the employee who is in debt had a prior conviction for stealing money, other than that the employee’s debt should not be use to disqualified him or her.

The debtor is no more tempted than the employee who has no debt if the one without the debt doesn’t value his job. The chances that the debtor will steal depend on whether or not that employee values their jobs over their debt.

The employee who is the debtor is more in fear of losing his job if he is too far behind on his bills. Therefore, he is more likely to conduct his work in a satisfactory manner, and push for productivity in return for more money.

In that sense, we can say that the fear of the debtor losing his job is relatively proportional to the possibility of him succeeding. This can also be evaluated by observing the work performance of the debtors as they continue to reduce on their debt.

If as he reduce on his debt his work performance dropped than we can conclude that debtors are not a disadvantage to employers but rather an advantage that is tied in with productivity. At the same time that study would not have proved that the debt free employee is a disadvantage.

If a man makes three babies and own two car notes on the same salary as the one who has none of the above, the one who has nothing is not necessarily less likely to show good work performance. All that indicates is that those two men have different priorities.

Some can conclude that the reason why the national deficit is so high is partly a concern of citizens not paying their bills on time. Well, there is that too, but it is not the whole picture.

Since those of us who are knowledgeable enough to know the reason for the national deficit regard this provision as race related, a sort of option directed to target poor blacks and whites.

How can you have an unemployment rate of 15.9 percent for black, 12.6 Hispanic and 8.8 percent white and expect blacks and Hispanics to be debt free.

The very reason why they need a job is to be out of debt. In that respect, if they are not given a chance to a good job than the total unemployment for blacks and Hispanic can only increase as the national debt continues to increase.

As a result the probable outcome would have been a greater percentage of white employees doing lower wage jobs as the Blacks and Hispanics unemployment rate continues to increase with the national debt.

For that particular instant, you would have had the least paying jobs that were being performed by blacks taking over by whites. And the reverse would have also occurred whenever the economy improves.

An increase in job creation would have made it available for the poor blacks, and Hispanics to get their jobs back, because now whites would have climbed the ladder of success before the blacks were given a chance.

This is why people like Tim Wise and Dr. West confessed that the policies that are in placed in this country have not been written to benefit the poor. In essence, these policies are insensitive to the black and brown struggle.

This is not a ridiculous view; it is the current view on the ground. You don’t have to believe any of this, take a look for yourself. There are a lots of work places where the poor use to be found an abundance that are now being taken over by poor whites. Time reference (2011)

When a society allows employers to set those types of rules what do we expect to happen? The employers can’t say no blacks need apply, but they can tell them that their credits isn't good.

Let’s be clear, this is not the practice of every employer, but if the option of credit score affecting employment isn't remove employers might apply it as they see fit. Where one company may not apply it at the low level jobs,ianother company may use it for their high level paying jobs.

Also while this situation has remained irresponsive to some employers, for others they have found it in their interest to hire a debtor instead of a debt free employee.

Some have concluded that the debtor is more reliable, afraid of losing his job, and always willing to work overtime. As you can see, this is not an all inclusive case, some employers sees it the other way around.

Although we have employers who see this situation in the reverse order, we should not assume that by allowing the option of credit check for employment to be in affect as a way to sort out good employees that some employers will not use it for prejudices.

A link has been provided to you so that you can see for yourself that the situation exists and that it has affected many families who could have been out of debt had they given a chance to work.