Employers need to screen out alcoholics. A credit check, while imperfect, is one way that can protect them–and help the addict to his or her bottom.
Public Policy Recommendation of the Month
A bill that would prohibit credit checks for most California job applicants is on the governor’s desk. Many think a credit check uncovering poor credit is unfair to honest hard-working people who have had a streak of bad luck. Many prospects, who might be perfectly decent employees, find it more difficult to get a job. Pulling credit reports discriminates against the young and immigrants who haven’t yet built any credit. Divorce and identity theft can contribute to a low credit score, which can make getting a job more difficult.
However, the damages from errant employees far outweigh these concerns. Destructive employees are usually alcohol and other-drug addicts. Employers already have very little protection against them and, after they are hired, they can be difficult to fire without risking a lawsuit.
Supporters of the legislation suggest that work history should be the main factor in deciding whether or not to hire. While that should be considered in hiring a new employee, the problem is getting such a history, when many if not most employers are afraid of saying anything negative about a former employee over fear of being sued for defamation of character.
Before I grasped the idea of alcoholism, I suffered with two alcoholic employees. They both turned into employees from hell. I have no doubt that had I looked at their credit reports, I would never have hired at least one of them. After she unsuccessfully tried to collect unemployment benefits on my account, I never heard from her again. The other had a prospective employer in a distant city call me long after she left. Due to concern over lawsuits, I learned I could answer only one question: “Would you hire her again?” After I suggested the question to the employer I responded, “Not in a million years.” Since I learned about alcoholism, I have not suffered with any alcoholic employees except for a recovering one, who lasted five weeks. I think she relapsed and I quickly found a way to terminate her without risking a lawsuit.
However, most employers don’t have the benefit of understanding alcoholism. One of the few things they can do is run a credit check. While not every instance of poor credit is due to direct alcoholism, many cases are. Often, while the prospect isn’t alcoholic, a close person is. I’ve detected alcoholism in a spouse on a number of occasions in which an employer was having difficulties with an employee. Recall from some of the stories in Drunks, Drugs & Debits that the non-alcoholic spouse can act as badly or bizarrely as the addicted one. I’ve found this to be especially true in employment. Think about Sarah Palin quitting her job as Governor of Alaska in the middle of her term with no rational explanation.
From this libertarian’s perspective, prohibiting credit checks is yet another infringement on the employer’s right and the right of contract (two adults should be allowed to agree to whatever they want so long as it doesn’t step on the rights of others), and will likely further chill hiring in a state that doesn’t need any further chilling. As the California Chamber of Commerce points out, a credit report can be an excellent clue to “an applicant’s personal responsibility and organizational skills.” While applicants who would have access to “large” (however defined) amounts of cash, valuables or confidential information would be exempt from this prohibition, as would be those applying for managerial and law enforcement positions, others would not be, which is on its face discriminatory in favor of some employers. Worse, it will have the unintended consequence of protecting many alcoholics who might otherwise be outed, further enabling them. It will reduce the odds that the addict will experience pain from consequences, which is essential to inspire in the addict a need to get clean and sober. Bills such as this, however well-intentioned they may be, should never become law.