Yeah there are a bunch of these - ban the box, drug testing, licensing ...
Recent bans on employers using credit checks to screen job applicants seem to have considerably increased black unemployment rates https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2759560 …pic.twitter.com/3KtH5Mjd6n
-
-
-
probably the "level up" answer is some sort of Nordic flexicurity + trial-of-employment contract like they keep proposing in France leading to nationwide general strikes. Or at least unions, IDK.
-
Would unions make it worse by making it harder to fire an employee?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So what’s the mechanism here? Employers can’t use individualized data, so they fall back on their racial bias heuristic?
-
Pretty much, any time you remove a way of screening people you fall back to simple heuristics.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Is this because in the absence of discriminating by something that's (somewhat) correlated with race, they just discriminate directly by race
-
A good Economist article about this. They argue employers return to other signals that indicate employee quality, like education.https://www.economist.com/economics-brief/2016/07/23/secrets-and-agents …
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
reminds me of
@jenniferdoleac 's work on ban-the-box: https://www.nber.org/papers/w22469Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It just shows that employers are inherently racists, as they perceive coloured people less trustful than whites.
-
No it shows that employers want to avoid risks. There is additional risk in hiring a black in that if you fire him him, you can end up in a court accused of discrimination. This means you should be extra careful. If they then ban it, the results are obvious.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Unsurprising if you look at average household wealth broken down by race :-\
-
The surprising or encouraging part is employers didn't respond with other ways to discriminate, as often happens with these initiatives - it actually resulted in increased AA employment
-
No it didn’t - the ban resulted in lower AA hire rates, contrary to expectations.
-
Bans popular because most people have no idea how credit checks are used to screen hires. Employers don’t usually care about credit worthiness. They care about identity theft. If a burglar applies under a stolen identity, the credit check may screen him out.
-
He will have trouble explaining how his credit history shows current rent payments for 3 years at an address where he doesn’t live. HR will refuse to hire for furniture delivery to customer homes. Take credit checks away and racial stereotypes are more often used instead.
-
Couldn’t the law permit access to the credit file for address confirmation only, then?
-
That’s just as silly. How long does it take to update address information in a credit file? Reports have to be submitted to the CRA before the CRA posts in that section. The full credit report gives a much more complete view of an applicant’s history to compare to the resume.
-
I don’t understand what you mean?
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.