Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Kathleen wrote:
>
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:41:01 -0700, Dan Abel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Frankly, garnishment doesn't work very well. The first
>>>> response of an employer is often to fire the employee.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why would that happen? It doesn't seem legal!
>>
>> Because people with serious issues in their financial lives
>> frequently also have issues as employees. Transportation,
>> attendance, attitude...
>
>
>
> Nope, numerous studies have shown that this simply is not
> true...their is no correlation between indebtiness and employee
> performance.
>
> But that's the "mantra" the "powers-that-be" want the public to
> believe, this issue has been in the news lately because of the
> increased use of credit reports as a criteria for hiring, etc...
>
>

Bullshit. Having processed payroll myself, and later supervised it, I
can tell you that the "mantra" is true.

When you're broke, your car gets repo-ed or you can't afford to fix it
when it breaks. And the baby-sitter quits because she hasn't been paid
in three weeks (some people are just unreasonable that way). And then
somebody gets sick and you have to spend half a day waiting for care
because you're using the ER as your primary provider.

And then you're a half hour late for your shift twice a week because
your ride or your daycare didn't show up...

And THEN your employer gets strapped with a wad of extra administrative
paperwork that has to be dealt with on a semi-weekly basis.

Guess who's just run out another foot of his or her nearly non-existent
slack?

I'm not saying it's fair or that I like it, it's just how it is.