There Law in the US ensures that the currenly unemployed may never again be employed.

“employers already had the right to perform background credit checks on job applicants before anything in Title 15 was passed.” The above quote was that which my opponent attempted to support with his pointing out the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In 2000, the year in question, he claimed employers had the right ect. First, employers have no rights under the law, rights are reserved for the individual. He speaks of “background” checks. If calling a reference is a background check, he is correct. A brief review of his terminology particularly the term Background checks. I agree that there was a civil rights act of 1964. I also agree that in 1802 there was no income tax. The point, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy used by my opponent. Inasmuch as my opponent accepts by his silence the rest of my statements I shall offer a practical hypothetical which will show the effect of the ICR provision. "Investigative consumer reports are a special type of consumer report in which information about a consumer's character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living is obtained through personal interviews. Consumers who are the subjects of such reports are given special rights under the FCRA. If a user intends to obtain an investigative consumer report, Section 606 of the FCRA requires the following: The user must disclose to the consumer that an investigative consumer report may be obtained. This must be done... Section 609 of the FCRA. … Upon the written request of a consumer made within a reasonable period of time after the disclosures required above, the user must make a complete disclosure of the nature and scope of the investigation that was requested. This must be made in a written statement that is mailed, or otherwise delivered, to the consumer no later than five days after the date on which the request was received from the consumer or the report was first requested, whichever is later in time." (ftc.gov) John Smith has been laid off from his job of 15 years where he was a Screw Machine Machinist. John has always lived within his means, he has no credit cards because he only buys what he can afford. He purchased his home after saving the money and has had it for almost 20 years. He begins the process of seeking employment and is confronted with the above referenced disclosure, as well as a waiver of his rights under various federal employment Laws. He refuses to sign the waiver as it clearly states he is not required to sign. He is contacted by no one, not even for the dish washer job. John seeks advice from friends and the internet and finds that his paying cash his entire life means he has no credit information on file, no record with the three main credit reporting agencies. In fact one insurance agent tells him, “It’s like you don’t exist.” He asks an attorney his options. “Can you prove that is the reason you did not get hired?” John joins the ranks of long term unemployed through government interference. No one in the above hypothetical violated any Law. No one is arguing that an employer has to hire every applicant. In this case the Law creates more problems than it solves. The above hypothetical is just as apt if the unemployed falls behind on his bills, or worse still upsets his neighbor so much that an accountant deems him of bad character. (see abvove) The very real effect of the ICR is that there is now a class of people who, should the Law not change, may never work again. The United State Marine Corps taught us all that the first rule of leadership was to Do The Right Thing. It’s being legal does not make it Right. The law is clear, should an employer have difficulty with my mode of living, reputation among those with whom an investigator spoke, or personal “characteristics” he may then refuse employment, terminate employment, refuse promotion, demote or cut pay. Skills and ability to do the job are conspicuous by their absence. Conformity and sameness seem to be the goal.