At a guess, it probably indicates that the employee is a higher than an average risk of engaging in fraud (to pay off debts), and it probably does, again on average, speak to their discipline, maturity, life skills, etc.
The trouble with that thinking is of course the multitude of reasons that someone can get into debt through no fault of their own - especially in the US with health care - the fact that people often mature faster than their credit score recovers, not to mention situations like your own where there's no credit score to begin with.
I'm glad that in my native Australia, as another poster pointed out, it's illegal to discriminate based on credit score for hiring purposes. It seems that the small amount of good businesses may get from this discrimination is way out balanced by the harm it causes society in general - though obviously I'm preaching to the choir here :)
Agreed. Also the less you're paid, and the less responsibility you have, the more you're scrutinized. Maybe because they can, maybe because at that level there are things you can physically steal, or break. Also maybe (please, I'm speculating) at that level there are likely to be more irresponsible people, and the time and expense of credit, drug and security checks becomes worthwhile.
The trouble with that thinking is of course the multitude of reasons that someone can get into debt through no fault of their own - especially in the US with health care - the fact that people often mature faster than their credit score recovers, not to mention situations like your own where there's no credit score to begin with.
I'm glad that in my native Australia, as another poster pointed out, it's illegal to discriminate based on credit score for hiring purposes. It seems that the small amount of good businesses may get from this discrimination is way out balanced by the harm it causes society in general - though obviously I'm preaching to the choir here :)