2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

It seems to me that the companies checking potential employees' credit ratings are doing themselves a huge disservice by doing so.  Your guest in opposition to the bill said that she believes that employers would not spend their time and money checking these credit scores unless they believed that they were of some value in the hiring process.  That certainly seems evident.  On the other hand it's common practice in some countries to weigh factors such as handwriting analysis in the employment application process.  Wanting information is not necessarily the same thing as knowing what is actually valuable.  The credit rating bureaus have clear records of innacuracies in their reporting processes.  The reports themselves are often interpreted by HR employees -- people who are not truly qualified to understand the reports.  How this helps companies make valuable hires is beyond me.

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context