Hiring Pitfalls article

HRCalico

I just read the Hiring Pitfalls article which mentions "The U.S. Bankruptcy Code may keep you from discriminating against applicants solely because of debtor or bankruptcy status" but there is some question as to whether it covers applicants or just employees.

A consultant told our president that some companies will allow employees a set (small) number of garnishments on their wage and if they have a pattern of always getting sued or owing money, they terminate. Does anyone else have any experience with this?

Thankfully this is not something we will implement. I'm just curious.

Don D

I think it is true that you cannot terminate an employee for one garnishment, but can for multiple ones. How would you have this information on an applicant?

Shadowfax

Character/credit report? Federal law not withstanding, it is illegal in Mi to discriminate no matter how many garnishments. I'll bet there are other states as well.

HRCalico

Shadowfox, are you talking employees or applicants or both? Don D, couldn't you take their social (if you have it) and run a credit check? Not sure if garnishments show up on that or not.

Shadowfax

I took the garnishment question to relate only to ees, and was making a distinction between the Fed law which Don referenced, and state law, which, in Mi, prohibits action on an ee no mater how many garnishments. My questin marks was meant to question whether you might not get the info on an applicant on a credit check - I really don't know - I've never seen it, but it's possible.

LarryC

Here in Minnesota, the Land of 10,000 ways to Complicate a Simple Employment Law, there is a distinction between support garnishments and "other than support" garnishments. We cannot discharge or discipline an employee or refuse to hire an applicant based on a support garnishment. For "other than support" garnishments, the employee is still protected, but the applicant is not.

Well, at least the Twins won.

HRCalico

Good Morning, LarryC -

You may not know that I am Nebraska's biggest Twins fan, so there is celebration here!

"Support" means child support or like alimony? That makes sense - employees frequently don't have much control over those.

Don D

Sure they do! They can pay their damned child support on time!

And it is illegal under FCRA to run a credit check without signed permission from the person you're running it on.

Are there teams other than St. Louis out there?

HRCalico

No disagreement here - I'm lucky enough to have very little experience with child support. I was under the impression, though, that it is sometimes set up as a garnishment AKA "automatic deduction" from the get-go.

It's been a while since I've filled out an app and it isn't on ours, but I think sometimes apps state that signing gives permission for credit and/or background checks.

Nebraska is a state all unto its own - we all love the Huskers, but we're split for everything else. In the west, where I grew up, the home teams are the Rockies and the Broncos. In the east, it's the Royals and the Chefs. I mean Chiefs. I bet a pop on the '87 series (I was a middle school babe then) and have been hooked on the Twinkies ever since. I cried the day they had Puck's retirement ceremony because I'd never seen him play, then later I cried because he's, well, shall we say made some bad decisions.

LarryC

HRCalico, you should see the Puck NOW. He looks like Cartman. He doesn't miss many meals.

DB

In IL, many child support and alimony payments are set up as a support garnishment. Has nothing to do with paying or not paying - it serves as a record of payment for both parties and is coordinated with the State.

LarryC

Here in the Land of 10,000 Child Support Agencies, it is mandatorily run through such an agency......thereby keeping the MN bureaucracy in fine form.....after form after form after form to fill out.

Don D

You mention thinking that an acknowledgement on an application form is sufficient for a credit check. The FCRA specifically states that 'To comply with the amended FCRA, an employer may not simply disclose its intent to obtain a consumer report in a job application or employee handbook. The disclosure must be "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure"'. Therefore, it is a violation of federal law to obtain a 'consumer report' on an applicant or employee without first having this acknowledgement/authorization form signed and, additionally, prior to any adverse action being taken, they must be given a copy of the report.

Let's not overlook the fact that New Orleans won a game Sunday!

HRCalico

God bless the government. And forumites who know what the government is up to! Thanks for the clarification, Don. I'm sure glad we aren't doing this.