[justiceseeker93]

With respect to the Senate Democrats' proposed legislation, it's completely unnecessary (as are most of their bigger government initiatives), and "Fauxcahontas" Elizabeth Warren's using the "women and minorities" mantra tells us that they are just pandering dishonestly as usual to their base.

Note also the WaPo writer's use of the medical practice as the convenient "whipping boy" employer in the scenario. That's no surprise, either.

From a logical and libertarian perspective, if an applicant for employment at a private entity is in debt to an unrelated party or parties, why should the potential employer need to know about it unless the potential employer intends to assume a creditor relationship with the prospective employee?

The guy who could have been denied a job because of a bad credit rating should have denied consent to the prospective employer to research his credit history, and told the prospective employer that it's irrelevant to his capability of performing the job for which he was applying.

The previous credit problems between the prospective employee and his creditors could and should be resolved outside the prospective employer-employee relationship, and without any government meddling beside civil court proceedings if necessary.

[CityCenter]

Just to be clear, I did not mean to say I support anything Elizabeth Warren proposes.

[Venturer]

I don’t agree. People with bad credit are usually irresponsible IMO.

I wouldn’t hire an irresponsible person.

Another thing you may not have thought of. People who don’t pay their bills often have their salaries Garnisheed, meaning that the bookkeeper of your firm has more work to do. I might add that many who come to work and have their salary garnisheed often times just quit.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks justiceseeker93.