Is there any law or precedent that says I don't have to use the corporate mandated AMEX credit card?

[valley_man0505]

I agree that it is no big deal.  Obviously, it wouldn't be good business to go around handing out corporate cards to people without at least taking a look at what is on their credit report.

However, what if a previously reliable employee had horrible credit?  What would the company actually do in that case?

Also, for many "rebuilders" it is nicer to be able to use a personal card for business expenses if you choose (if, of course, you are at least able to qualify for a CC).  I was able to open a couple of low-limit cards a few years ago and use them for business expenses.  This allowed me to take a couple small limit cards, run up the balance, and then PIF upon receiving my reimbursement.  This allowed me to get a couple CLI's I probably never would have gotten and ultimately helped me make a nice improvement to my credit scores by increasing my available credit.  Of course, the downside of this is that this process took a LOT of work since my expenses were divided amongst a couple small cards.  I also had to learn what cards reported when each month so that I could play the game of running up the balances but still having a very low balance actual report each month--those CLI's wouldn't have done me any good if I didn't keep my reported utilization low.  It was a pain, but that is what credit rebuilding is all about.  Ultimately, I would not have gotten my credit to where it is now without this.  Now, I don't want to play that "game" anymore and I welcome the use of a corporate card.  And, of course, the employer is obviously not responsible for helping poor credit employees "rebuild"  

In my case, I won't have to even absorb an inquiry when we switch over to corporate cards soon.  I have to sign something giving the company the right to use my paycheck to pay off balances if I don't immediately use my reimbursement to pay them off like I am supposed to.  If I put any "non-business" expenses on the card (which is strictly prohibited) that I don't get reimbursed for, they simply take the money out of my next paycheck to pay them off.  With that "safety net" in place, the employer is not too concerned with employees' histoy. 

[Anonymous]

I think the OP is somewhat unreasonable.

1-We have already determined that the corporate card will in all probability not suddenly become his responsibility to pay.  If he works for IBM, Google, Eli Lilly, I am sure he will be OK. "Stans Carpet World," and reporting directly to Stan- OK I can see his concern.

2- The one inquiry on his report, well there are employers out there tha as a factor of employment and/or bonding do credit checks and that results in an inquiry- so it is again not like he is being asked to do anything wrong or atypical.

3-There is no greater or lesser probability of being held personally responsible for monies owed if the OP were to use his company card or his personal cards and cash on hand- if the company suddenly goes under or stops paying re-imbursements he will be on the hook- if the company goes BK he will be just another creditor- and unable to get his paycheck too. Either situation he will be the last to know.

4- So he asks the company for an advance for travel and the company gives him $8,000 cash for some expected expenses- Now he is responsible for the monies if they were to be confiscated or lost, or he were to lose receipts. Please fly into Miami with $8000 in cash on you and let us know how that goes.

In short, it is his choice to work for the company, if he is so upset over the requirements of his job- well  go find another.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I think the OP is somewhat unreasonable.

1-We have already determined that the corporate card will in all probability not suddenly become his responsibility to pay.  If he works for IBM, Google, Eli Lilly, I am sure he will be OK. "Stans Carpet World," and reporting directly to Stan- OK I can see his concern.

2- The one inquiry on his report, well there are employers out there tha as a factor of employment and/or bonding do credit checks and that results in an inquiry- so it is again not like he is being asked to do anything wrong or atypical.

3-There is no greater or lesser probability of being held personally responsible for monies owed if the OP were to use his company card or his personal cards and cash on hand- if the company suddenly goes under or stops paying re-imbursements he will be on the hook- if the company goes BK he will be just another creditor- and unable to get his paycheck too. Either situation he will be the last to know.

4- So he asks the company for an advance for travel and the company gives him $8,000 cash for some expected expenses- Now he is responsible for the monies if they were to be confiscated or lost, or he were to lose receipts. Please fly into Miami with $8000 in cash on you and let us know how that goes.

In short, it is his choice to work for the company, if he is so upset over the requirements of his job- well  go find another.

---

Just to clear up a few misconceptions:

1.  Eli Lilly is not very stable.  If i worked for Lilly, worrying about my job would be wise.

2.  Credit checks done by potential employers are not hard INQs.

3.  An employee is not just another creditor if the company is liquidated / bk.  Creditors, they are ... but of a higher priority than other creditors.  In any event, it is slightly safer to use your own card and get reimbursed if you fear for your company's economic future.

[Anonymous]

Some people can never get over their attitudes.

What missconceptions? 

Lilly is still sound-and was used as an example. Not a "missconception"

My bonding/employment credit checks showed a hard pull in 2009. Where this took place and what part of the organization, no idea.  ijust noticed it on my report about the time I started.

You may be a more worthy creditor then some but you are still in line at the BK not getting paid and paying personally the interest on the transaction

I