Credit checks

No law here against it.

I won't rent to anyone unless I do a check first (they sign a consent form, of course).

Hi CruzanIron. I totally get that b/c you need to know if you are going to get your money for rent. But I'm just think it's wrong for potential employers to do so. It's not like I'm paying them for a job.

Thanks for replying though!

Some employers will do it when the position requires money handling. That's perfectly logical, particularly when hiring newcomers about whom you know nothing.

I can see potential employers doing a police background check but not a credit check.
I mean a person is applying for a job to get paid. I don't think it's an employer's business what your credit history is. A credit check would be normal for landlords to do, however.

I can see potential employers doing a police background check but not a credit check.

A standard background check includes both.

It depends upon the job whether a credit check is useful for indication of past misdeeds or not. Some employers then use them across the board for all new hires no matter the role to prevent cries of discrimination. This is when you have credit checks run on clerical staff and so on.

The company I worked for before I retired did full background checks of all job candidates who were being seriously considered for a position. That included police records, credit checks and, of course, contacting all previous employers and personal/business references and even conducting psychological and drug testing. These "tools" helped us evaluate if the candidate was, indeed, the person and had the personality they portrayed during the interview. It was senior management's belief (and they were right) that anyone can be on their best behavior during an interview. The company even went so far as to put all new hires on a 90 day probation period again on the theory that anyone can be on their best behavior for a say two weeks and it isn't until time goes by that the "reran" personality come to the forefront. All this was fully explained to each job candidate during the initial interview which the candidate had to acknowledge by signing a consent form.

By strictly following these hiring guidelines the company had a staff of very exceptional employees. In my 25 years with the company (150+ employees at the start and almost 250 now) there were only a handful of probationary employees who didn't get past the probation period and those that did were extremely hard working and loyal and were rewarded with above industry average salaries, excellent benefits, and longevity of employment. The company had extremely low turnover mostly a result of retirement, illness or death and relocation. Employees with 20+ years tenure were commonplace.

You'd be mistake if you think this policy only applied to entry level jobs. The background checks were done for all positions. The only person who didn't undergo a background check was my immediate boss, the company's owner. Another interesting point, when I retired after 25 years as Vice-Chairman about 30% of the employees who were still on the staff were active employees the day I was hired.

You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not it right or wrong for an employer to conduct a full background check but my first hand experience proves it pays off in spades, not only for the company but also for those candidates who "pass the test" and are fortunate to have a career with an exceptional company.

I can see your point.

i would expect a credit check for any position that deals with money because the chances are if you owe a ton of money you are more apt to steal money

Not true Speee1dy.

Not true Speee1dy.

Whether or not it's been statistically proven isn't relevant. The perception is relevant to the employer and the employer is within his legal right to conduct a background check on a prospective employee to see if there's a recurring negative financial pattern or a criminal history.

You can pretty much do whatever you want in the USVI. There is almost zero enforcement at every level.

You can pretty much do whatever you want in the USVI. There is almost zero enforcement at every level.

Really? What relevance does this (erroneous) generalization have to do with the OP's question?

I owe a ton of money for school loans and would never steal. Just because someone is in debt does not mean their tendencies to steal would be greater.

I owe a ton of money for school loans and would never steal. Just because someone is in debt does not mean their tendencies to steal would be greater.

See my earlier post on "perception".

"are employers of the USVI allowed to run credit checks on prospective employees? Out here in Cali it is illegal to do so.

Just answering the OP's question...is that OK?

I owe a ton of money for school loans and would never steal. Just because someone is in debt does not mean their tendencies to steal would be greater.

My experience: Do not worry about it.

I've been through plenty of checks, even when my credit score sucked because of identity theft I landed all the jobs. The background check is looking for illegal activities, DUI, embezzlement, etc. Just looking to see if you may turn out to be a troublemaker.

Many people go through the background checks and don't know (if the state allows it) that looking into your credit is part of it. A recent DUI is more likely to get you in trouble against pending school loans...

The company I worked for before I retired did full background checks of all job candidates who were being seriously considered for a position. That included police records, credit checks and, of course, contacting all previous employers and personal/business references and even conducting psychological and drug testing. These "tools" helped us evaluate if the candidate was, indeed, the person and had the personality they portrayed during the interview. It was senior management's belief (and they were right) that anyone can be on their best behavior during an interview. The company even went so far as to put all new hires on a 90 day probation period again on the theory that anyone can be on their best behavior for a say two weeks and it isn't until time goes by that the "reran" personality come to the forefront. All this was fully explained to each job candidate during the initial interview which the candidate had to acknowledge by signing a consent form.

By strictly following these hiring guidelines the company had a staff of very exceptional employees. In my 25 years with the company (150+ employees at the start and almost 250 now) there were only a handful of probationary employees who didn't get past the probation period and those that did were extremely hard working and loyal and were rewarded with above industry average salaries, excellent benefits, and longevity of employment. The company had extremely low turnover mostly a result of retirement, illness or death and relocation. Employees with 20+ years tenure were commonplace.

You'd be mistake if you think this policy only applied to entry level jobs. The background checks were done for all positions. The only person who didn't undergo a background check was my immediate boss, the company's owner. Another interesting point, when I retired after 25 years as Vice-Chairman about 30% of the employees who were still on the staff were active employees the day I was hired.

You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not it right or wrong for an employer to conduct a full background check but my first hand experience proves it pays off in spades, not only for the company but also for those candidates who "pass the test" and are fortunate to have a career with an exceptional company.

I agree with Afriend , I hire in NY, NV, and FL I do full background checks, the candidates sign a consent form. I also utilize the 90 day probationary period, and call references. I can’t speak for all businesses, however, I think most look for extreme examples of fraud, theft, and violence. I ignore all the “little stuff” nobody’s perfect 🙂

The information age has made it even more competitive for jobs. Sounds pretty standard and good to know. I agree no one is perfect.