Since I spend about 30 hours a week devouring the news, I pondered over how to apply all that news consumption toward the blog. I like the news. I like reading the news. I like writing about the news. But, I don't want to do what others are paying me to do. It's best that I save those task for those who are paying me to do those things. As I said previously, I don't want to just do what everyone else is doing. I don't think that helps anyone, and some behaviors don't need to be replicated. I finally came up with that new, awesome, fun idea. It's based on the idea of "I Statements", where you express how you feel in the form of "I think" or "I feel" versus saying "You do this" or "You say this". I would apply this to various news events, explaining "I hate..." or "I like..." or "I accept..." to the correlating news story. This is a tactic no one else is doing, and I like that this method isn't necessarily constrained by what everyone else is talking about. Although, I could always pull the "I don't care about..." or "I'm annoyed by..." for those types of stories. Anyway, here's an example of what I'm talking about:
I Support: a Bill to Prohibit Employers From Using Credit Checks During the Hiring Process
Earlier this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) introduced a bill that would do just that, citing that the practice disproportionately hurts poor people. The article highlights how this practice could hurt poor people more often, since it says they are used to disqualify people of color and that women are typically hit harder with divorces and given sub prime loans. Specific statistics or anecdotes aren't shown in the article, but this isn't why I support this bill.
I support this bill because credit reports are a horrible factor to use in the hiring process. First, there's no evidence to show that a credit report or score is correlated to a person's employability, or more importantly, on-the-job success. Yes, the research does show that those with higher credit scores also do well with "task performance", meaning that they tend to complete their tasks on time and do them well. But, a good hire is much more than someone who completes their tasks on time and does them well. A good hire is also someone who fits in well with company culture, who is an engaged employee (someone who loves the job as well as the company), who shows initiative and is willing to improve their skills. Finding someone who can do the job doesn't ensure that they'll be a good hire, and they'll be the person who sticks with your company beyond the first few months.
Second, credit reports can have mistakes on them. Credit checks are legal, and under Fair Credit Reporting Act, job hunters are allowed three to five days to fix mistakes. However, when 40 million Americans have mistakes on their credit reports and correcting those errors often takes a lot longer than five days. Of course, job hunters get those extra days to fix errors if the employer gives them a chance. Most don't, simply saying that they aren't going to hire you. Employers may be able to weed out a bad hire, but it's also possible they're rejecting a really good hire based on faulty information. Employers may want someone with a good credit score, but they ought to want someone who will succeed in the position. If that person who will succeed doesn't have the best credit score, then the employer is only hurting themselves by not hiring them.
I support this bill. I will talk to my representatives about this bill when the time comes.