Don't have a job? California bill would keep employers from screening you out

What the hell?

Don't have a job? California bill would keep employers from screening you out - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

Quotes:

"The message in some job advertisements these days is pretty blunt: Don't bother sending a résumé if you're not bringing home a paycheck already."

"College graduates, military personnel and women returning to the workforce are among groups of people affected by a blanket exclusion, Allen said."

Read more here: Don't have a job? California bill would keep employers from screening you out - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

Simply bizzare.

Abner :evil:

 

Unfortunately, it won't fix the problem. Good luck proving anything. All it will do is add bureaucracy, and in this economy, employers have a large dose of plausible deniability.

 

This is true. However, having said that. How much lee way do we give employers? They can screen out job seekers for having credit problems via a credit check? Any reasonable person would surmize that an unemployed person surviving on UI would have credit problems. UI was not designed to continue a previous lifestyle. It was only designed to maybe put some food in someone's stomach. That's about all.

Abner

 

This seems like a pretty crappy thing to do. But, it's not there aren't other ways to keep people out of jobs. Someone already mentioned credit checks. You can do drug testing too. In my area of the pacific northwest employers used to make the most mundane administrative jobs require BA degrees even though the job could easily be completed by someone with only a HS diploma.

 

Drug checks seem legit. I have taken some myself. Credit checks and other checks? I don't know. How are the unemployed (a large percentage of vets) supposed to gain employment? Once again, the employer pretty much has free will over hiring, or chosing not to hire. How can you prove what is in someone's head? But to actively post in an annoucement? This would be like saying "only men need apply".

Either way, this is a sad state of affairs. What happend to our country? Doesn't someone deserve a chance?

Enough ranting. I will add one thing. This is not the America I remember.

Abner

 

A complete waste of time IMO … more self-serving, political-move and legislative /bureaucratic nonsense; another politician (Michael Allen) looking to garner additional votes via the electorate (e.g., the unemployed)…

 

Now, credit checks are another matter. You CAN stop that because there is a paper trail. It's hard to prove discrimination based on employment status, but it is very easy to tell if an employer is running credit checks.

I do not believe employers should be permitted to require or to request credit checks for prospective or continuing employees as a matter of course. There should be specific justification required. I could see that employees in sensitive financial positions might need to be vetted in this area, but most employees can perform their duties independent of their credit status.

 

I'm not even sold on random drug testing unless the position is hazardous or health-related. I can understand why you would want to test a nurse or a forklift operator, but otherwise why should an employer be able to force someone to submit their bodily fluids or their hair as a condition of employment? Drug testing based on cause is another matter. I think if you show up to work apparently under the influence, then it is reasonable to request that you be tested or to resign.

 

Credit checks should not be used to make employment decisions period, perhaps except in some cases where a top level government security clearance is required and even then it is of very limited value. For example, my wife and I decided years ago to go 100% cash, we paid off all our credit cards, cars, etc. The only debts we have currently are our house and my student loans, thus we have no credit...or at least do not have a high credit score because we simply don't use it. That has actually hurt me somewhat on insurance rates too until I called in and raised all hell about it...and then changed companys but I'm certain it's still doing me no favors. It's like trying to use an IQ test to determine if an applicant would make a good employee.

 

.

I've applied to dozens of jobs that required credit checks, customer service stuff, and silly stuff like selling flowers.

 

You can't prove what is in someones head. As a hiring manager I look for the most qualified "person". The main goal is to minimize risk to the company when making a hiring decision. Who will last, who will do a good job?

As far as a credit check, I think it is important if you are working with money or finance but really, do you think a great white collar criminal will have bad credit? I have a credit freeze on my accounts so I don't think anyone could even see my scores. I was not able to get a cell phone without knowing my 15 digit random access code!

 

When you factor in the cost of hiring and training an employee, doesn’t it make sense for the employer to try to get the best person available? Is this potential new law unduly handicapping employers and forcing the hiring of high turnover employees….unless it’s for a very unskilled job?