RE: The OTHER Test

Subject: RE: The OTHER Test
From: Mark Baker <MBaker -at- TIMELINE -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:08:29 -0700

On credit checks, FWIW: I worked for awhile in a credit card transaction
processing company. Everyone being considered for a management-level
position or above, and all employees in certain departments (those who could
actually _move_ funds electronically), were required to submit to credit
checks. The stated reason: To identify anyone with a history of (or a
tendency toward? or a reason for?) fraud, embezzlement and the like. I
didn't like the policy, but I understood the reasons for it. If you were
giving someone the power to send, with a few keystrokes, millions of dollars
to the account of his or her choice, wouldn't you want to make sure said
person was not last seen on "America's Most Wanted?"


Mark Baker
Timeline, Inc.
Bellevue, WA

-----Original Message-----
From: Christi Carew [mailto:ccarew -at- rangestar -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: The OTHER Test

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giordano, Connie [mailto:Connie -dot- Giordano -at- FMR -dot- COM]
> Subject: RE: The OTHER Test

> I find
> it no more, or
> less, offensive than running a credit check or pulling my college
> transcripts (good god, how relevant is a degree from 1982?).

Like drug tests, I think running a credit check isn't their business either.
Perhaps someone has some good reason why employers should run credit checks,
but I haven't heard one.

Christi Carew
ccarew -at- rangestar -dot- com

RangeStar Wireless

Previous by Author: Re: Are we just secretaries?
Next by Author: RE: Hiring Criteria, Writing Tests, and Drug Tests
Previous by Thread: the OTHER test
Next by Thread: RE: the OTHER test

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads