You can't mention that there are pros and cons and not mention that the cons vastly outweigh the pros, with any credibility.

I already don't like what I hear about standard American credit scores (but I don't live in the US anyway.)

This seems mostly like more of the same.

There are pros for employers, they can hire based on whether a candidate has been punished by other employers before and keep punishing them based on an objective social credit system. And there are cons.

Except in the credit report they only list your lenders and how much money you owe, and your payment history, and it's technically possible to not get any credit and have no information, or at least no recent information, in your credit report. In The Work Number, they not only list your employers, but also all your paychecks, and it's hardly possible to opt out.

Only fair if they also tell the candidate what the company pays other workers in similar roles. Transparency shouldn't go only one way.

I think in the US workers' rights to talk about salaries is already protected by law.

Many credit reports contain work history.

Out of my 3 big tech employers, only one reported just a fact of my employment with them to the credit report, but all three reported everything to The Work Number.