61–70 of 408 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article says that they don’t know if any contractors were terminated; they only know about employees. They could terminate them if they could show that the contractors were faking the hours.
To what extent can you demand hours from a contractor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I once missed a $10 payment on my credit card and lost 100 points on my credit score. I swear on my life. Is it an option to not use CC in your life? I don't but I understand people in the city may have a different experience.
Rental car companies will sometimes not rent to you unless you use a credit card specifically (not a debit card).
First thoughts after reading this: 1. Is this legal in all jurisdictions an employee could conceivably be based in? 2. When will Equifax monetize this as a service to other companies (because you know they will).
It's already a service. "The Work Number" is their employment verification service available to anyone https://theworknumber.com
1. Does this have any external accountability or oversight?
Closest I see is being able view your report but first thing it asks for is an employer instead of asking for information for identifying an individual: https://employees.theworknumber.com/employment-data-report
Somewhere out there is an unemployed person being rejected from jobs or not getting interviews because this service is providing an incomplete or erroneous employment history. It’s critical that services like this have a means of both easily identifying and rectifying errors.
2. Equifax offers the option to delete or freeze your data but what does that mean for future employers looking to validate your employment?
Employers that lean too heavily on this are going to reject candidates that deleted or froze their data.
Employment history verification is something the government is in a good position to provide.
Kind of a shame that many company runners feel entitled to control the lives of their workers outside the scope of their duties. It's a thing
If you believe the article, the employees were fired because they weren't doing the "scope of their duties".
Which is an interesting admission on Equifax's part. An investigation of over 1000, including interviews and the like, literally thousands of man hours...to find 24 people who had jobs on the side, but whose performance wasn't poor enough to warrant being let go in and of itself.
Tells you something about Equifax's priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe them. If they had low performers, Equifax could have let them go without the non-consentual financial rectal exam on the way out. The number of jobs is irrelevant, only performance should matter. This is a political / marketing move, as they could have also done the inspection without publicizing it.
I was in car sales. Top performers were caught borrowing used cars for nights out, secretly loaning cars to favorite customers for long period of time, buying tradeins secretly off the books, crashing cars while basically driving recklessly while transporting company cars to customers or off-site facilities, and not fired. Low performers were fired because they answered incoming calls poorly twice in a week. So it IS…
This is an excuse. But, interestingly, it was an excuse for 2% of the people they investigated.
So apparently being a poor performer at Equifax, but NOT moonlighting, is not a fireable offense, since the other 98% weren't let go. Or they were, and this is just a propaganda piece in service to corporations (it is Business Insider after all). Either way, I feel, not exactly a great look for Equifax (like they have ever looked good), since either way it's still a waste of man hours spent to justify firing people they wanted to fire anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rental car companies will sometimes not rent to you unless you use a credit card specifically (not a debit card).
That is a good example, thank you. Have you ever overcome this limitation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already a service. "The Work Number" is their employment verification service available to anyone https://theworknumber.com
There are at least 2 big problems with this. 1. Does this have any external accountability or oversight? Closest I see is being able view your report but first thing it asks for is an employer instead of asking for information for identifying an individual: https://employees.theworknumber.com/employment-data-report Somewhere out there is an unemployed person being rejected from jobs or not getting interviews because…
Relax, you can give them any employer you ever had, not just your current one. To get my record I put in a previous employer who doesn't even exist as a company anymore.
Of course that is not applicable to 'boards' and 'CxO'. Quick search suggest some of them sitting at at least 2 'boards' or also 'partners' or something. So yeah, rules for thee but not for me.
The difference here is that as an employee you commit to provide 40 hours of service to your employer. From the stories I’ve heard of these double jobs, this isn’t a weekend job working at the local coffee shop for an extra few bucks which doesn’t impact your primary responsibilities. Instead it’s a professional job with overlapping hours. Which means an employer isn’t getting what they paid for and these people are deceiving them.
> Executives, especially in the tech industry, have said they're worried that some remote employees are distracted. “Distracted” like the time that Equifax leaked hundreds of millions of pieces of personal data. Maybe instead of blaming the workforce they should worry about making the company a place that people want to work exclusively. Equifax does not matter at all as an organization.
Sounds to me like the execs just have control issues. "WE get to fly around in the private jets and strike business deals on the golf course, not you!"