...."He was a good employee...but...."

When someone applies for a job, is there only so much a previous employer can say about you when the company you applied for the job you are interested in contacts your previous employer for a reference check?

Reason I ask, My dad works in Human Resources for a rather large retail chain. Part of his job is to contact is to contact the former employers of those who have applied for a job at his company for a reference.

He was telling me last night that he has noticed a trend as far as calling up those former employers. More and more of them are giving, as he calls it "questionable references". Not so much as far as how they did on the job and how long they were employed but rather bringing up other things which may not even involve the job itself.

The other day a man applied for a job at his store. He had over 10 years of retail experience. Even though his previous employer said he was a good worker however they went on to say "..please be advised, this man has several videos of himself half naked, flexing his muscles on You Tube". My dad was like..say what? Oh, they brought up the fact that the man in question is 28 years old and smokes cigars ( the previous employer felt that was "odd" guess they assume only "old men" smoke cigars ). What what was the purpose of bringing this up since its hardly job related?

A month ago a woman applied for another job where my dad works at. In her case, her employer brought up the fact that she had too many online personal ads and liked to hit the bars on the weekends. Again what does that have to do with the job this woman applied for?

To me, the only information a previous employer should say about you as far as a reference goes should only be job related such as the time you worked there and the quality of work you did. Not how often you hit the bars.

quote:

Originally posted by chriscubva

To me, the only information a previous employer should say about you as far as a reference goes should only be job related such as the time you worked there and the quality of work you did. Not how often you hit the bars.

You always have the option of ignoring anything you feel is extraneous. Me, I'd prefer to hear whatever it is they have to say. I am not going to ask for personal info, but if it is offered, I will take it inrto consideration. The last time I was doing hiring, which is a few years back, I found no one was willing to say anything other than the person worked there. I like the sound of this new trend!

I've been told that over the past several years employers have stopped saying anything about any former employees other than the facts about their employment -- that is, when they began working and when their employment ended. According to the attorney who told me this, the reason is that employers are concerned about being sued for giving negative information.

they are not supposed to do that. in fact, they are not supposed to offer up any information they were not asked for. and they even need to becareful on how they answer questions they are asked.

They are setting themselves up for a defamation of character suit. That's why the trend has been for past employers to simply state that the person worked there.

Former employers can say anything they want--and if the employee finds out they can get slapped with a nasty lawsuit for defamation and actual damages if the employee doesn't get the job unless they can prove every word. The smart former employers stick to basic facts: "Yes, he worked for me from ___ until ___."

quote:

Originally posted by BT

Former employers can say anything they want--and if the employee finds out they can get slapped with a nasty lawsuit for defamation and actual damages if the employee doesn't get the job unless they can prove every word. The smart former employers stick to basic facts: "Yes, he worked for me from ___ until ___."

Even telling truthful negative things can be bad for a former emploer to do. While proving a defamatory statement to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel, some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," or "convicium," involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice.
In this case, the ex-employer giving negative comments about the former employee (or employee on the way out the door)could be construed as being intended to harm out of malice.

Some jurisdictions also have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability. So, the truthful statement about having youtube videos could fall under these other types of injuries. As can the weekend warrior comments.

So, yes, yes, yes, The smart former employers stick to basic facts: "Yes, he worked for me from ___ until ___."

Actually, the recent trend is swinging away from the "Name, rank, and serial number," responses of the past several years. Too many employers have successfully sued previous employers for NOT giving information when the employee was fired or charged with a crime, for example. The new theory is that if it is true about someone, you can (and should)say it. Incidentally, many employers are checking Youtube and Myspace for tidbits about potential employees - once it's on there, it becomes public knowledge, and they can't be held liable. Many potential employees have lost jobs due to their conduct on those sites.

quote:

Originally posted by Oneiron339

Actually, the recent trend is swinging away from the "Name, rank, and serial number," responses of the past several years. Too many employers have successfully sued previous employers for NOT giving information when the employee was fired or charged with a crime, for example. The new theory is that if it is true about someone, you can (and should)say it. Incidentally, many employers are checking Youtube and Myspace for tidbits about potential employees - once it's on there, it becomes public knowledge, and they can't be held liable. Many potential employees have lost jobs due to their conduct on those sites.

there's no legal obligation to give any information other than the dates of employment. Many do not even answer a question about whether a past employee is "eligible for rehire."

The cases where a new employer won a legal suit over a past employer was when the past employer gave a positive reference. If the employer sticks to simply the dates they were there and refuses to give positive or negative comments, they cannot be successfully sued.

California has eased it's laws to allow current/past employers to give more information, but most attornies will still tell you to stick to employment dates.

Employers can do all the research they want to find info on you. Public records, public forums such as youtube, myspace and the like. They can even hire private investigators and do extensive backround checks (mostly which verify information). But employers should still be leary about giving that information to possible future employers -whether it's public record or not.




*edited so that I can be quoted without my unedited sentences making me look like a numbnut.

quote:

Originally posted by chriscubva
please be advised, this man has several videos of himself half naked, flexing his muscles on You Tube". My dad was like..say what? Oh, they brought up the fact that the man in question is 28 years old and smokes cigars ( the previous employer felt that was "odd" guess they assume only "old men" smoke cigars ). What what was the purpose of bringing this up since its hardly job related?

A month ago a woman applied for another job where my dad works at. In her case, her employer brought up the fact that she had too many online personal ads and liked to hit the bars on the weekends.

Does your dad work in the Bible Belt?

"The cases was where a new employer won a legal suit over a past employer was when the past employer gave a positive reference."

Especially when the past employer wants to get rid of someone and thinks this is the easy way out. At the last Labor Law seminar I attended they called that "taking out the trash".

We require every applicant to sign a waiver allowing us to conduct a background check, if that is OK we then send them for a drug test. Sad to say that many, many, fail. Cover your butt, date of hire and date of departure.

I've been retired for 8 years. Served as a CEO for about 20 years. Watched the progression of this topic, "references from former employers", deteriorate to almost becoming worthless. Our HR people were instructed to verify dates of employment ONLY when called. Also, we spent little time checking references provided by applicants. How dumb does an individual have to be to list a reference who might give a less than flattering report concerning their previous employment? Also,how dumb does a previous employer have to be to make less than complimentary comments about a former employee, considering our litigious environment? As previously mentioned, there are far better and more dependale and sophisticated and objective methods to check out the value of a potential employee.
Most importantly, folks making the hiring decisions need good interviewing skills.
Ole Rouxdog

I see both sides in this.

If I were in the position of checking references of possible future employees and if the reason why this person was fired ( or forced to quit ) was due to an illegal act such as stealing for example,
then that is information I should know about.

On the flip side, if that person's last employer wanted me to know that so and so was reported to have attended at sex party in Indianapolis last year or has a daughter or son who posed nude on some website or magazine, then unless you dealing with a line of work such as education, politics, or broadcasting where such things can and will come back to get you in trouble later on, then that bit of info should stay private and shouldn't even be brought up. To mention such information to a future employer ( or even bring it at one's current place of employment ) the only thing that will happen as a result will be drama in the workplace.

quote:

Originally posted by cathyftr

I see both sides in this.

If I were in the position of checking references of possible future employees and if the reason why this person was fired ( or forced to quit ) was due to an illegal act such as stealing for example,
then that is information I should know about.

That goes without saying, but it is simply not in the interest of a former employer to give it to you. If he says anything about the employee that inappropriately positive, you might be able to sue him and if he says anything inappropriately negative, the employee may. Better to say nothing except dates of employment. After all, the former employee is no longer his problem and he shouldn't want to create a problem where none exists.

quote:

Originally posted by rouxdog
How dumb does an individual have to be to list a reference who might give a less than flattering report concerning their previous employment? Also,how dumb does a previous employer have to be to make less than complimentary comments about a former employee, considering our litigious environment?

Pretty dumb but sometimes they may have no choice. I used to be on my condo Homeowners' Association Board. I resigned 5 years ago after serving 2 terms. At the time I came on the Board we had a pretty terrible manager for the building. I considered it one the main achievement of my tenure to have found a great replacement for him when he unexpectedly (and after a very short time on the job) quit for what he thought was a better job (working for his brother-in-law, I'm told).

Anyway, a couple weeks ago out of the blue I got a letter from him asking if he could use me as a reference. I believe the only reason he would do that is because he has no other choice. He must know everybody here feels like he shafted us. Anyway, I said he could but I couldn't say much--my memory of those years is dim (a bit of a fib but my way of telling him I don't plan to say anything but "Yes, he was our manager from ___ to ___.")

"How dumb does an individual have to be to list a reference who might give a less than flattering report concerning their previous employment?"

I am constantly amazed at how dumb some people are. We had one guys report come back with many arrests and convictions, a number of them felonies, when I asked why he bothered after being told about the background check he floored me with his answer; “I just paid a guy $3,000.00 to clean my record”. I would not want to be that guy as the applicant was a member of a gang called the Latin Kings, bad guys.

quote:

Originally posted by Oneiron339

Actually, the recent trend is swinging away from the "Name, rank, and serial number," responses of the past several years. Too many employers have successfully sued previous employers for NOT giving information when the employee was fired or charged with a crime, for example. The new theory is that if it is true about someone, you can (and should)say it. Incidentally, many employers are checking Youtube and Myspace for tidbits about potential employees - once it's on there, it becomes public knowledge, and they can't be held liable. Many potential employees have lost jobs due to their conduct on those sites.

Even if sites like My Space or You Tube didn't exist, the way the internet is, it would still be quite easy for an employer to find out some dirt on their employees. It really is amazing at how much information one can find out about someone.

Case in point, until last month I worked in radio. In a market not far from mine last year, a radio disc jockey made a comment to either his boss ( maybe it was another co-worker ) that he was going to spend the weekend in Columbus, Ohio. When asked if he was going to visit friends or family, he admitted that he didn't know a soul in that city but just wanted to check out the action there. That raised some red flags. Anyway to make a long story short, management there did a google search on things that were happening in Columbus that weekend and thanks to a website found out some big wild party was going on that weekend at some hotel. His employer even called up the hotel to see if he had reservations ( he did ) and when they checked out the website from the people who are having the party and discovered that one of the events was a naked hot tub party at a local Columbus bathhouse, well that was too much. Fearing that this "trip" could cause a problem (such as businesses pulling their ads if they knew ), management forced the disc jockey to not only cancel his trip but to stay away from Columbus, Ohio for that weekend.

They found all of this information just by doing a simple search online and making one phone call.

If I don't know the person or company calling about an ex-employee, I have my people just give the dates of employment.

If it is someone I know and trust, I will tell them "off the record" what I think of an ex-employee, both good and bad. I know the favor has been returned to me and has prevented me from hiring some potential bad apples.

There are services that jobseekers can use to find out what their references are really saying about them, so it's wise to be careful. The organization I work for will only give dates of employment but will answer the question, "Is he/she eligible to be rehired?", however, no details will be given beyond "yes" or "no".

"How dumb does an individual have to be to list a reference who might give a less than flattering report concerning their previous employment?"

I was amazed that an employee that I had reprimanded (not once, but twice) repeatedly gave me as a reference. Out of human decency, I called him and told him to stop using me as a reference. He eventually found a job, but I didn't give him the reference.

Past employers should only give dates of employment...NOTHING more. Good, bad or pissed in the lobby is nothing you should reveal.

quote:

Originally posted by John A

"How dumb does an individual have to be to list a reference who might give a less than flattering report concerning their previous employment?"

I am constantly amazed at how dumb some people are. We had one guys report come back with many arrests and convictions, a number of them felonies, when I asked why he bothered after being told about the background check he floored me with his answer; “I just paid a guy $3,000.00 to clean my record”. I would not want to be that guy as the applicant was a member of a gang called the Latin Kings, bad guys.

Ohh ohh ohh...I know the answer to that one....ME!

In reality I have not filled out anything in years.
Mostly I work for myself but the reality of that is; that means I work for lots of people. Just not the same one day in and day out.

There are lots of occasions that I get requests for references while trying to get the gig.
My answer is the same as when I applied for "a job".
"Do you want the contacts that will heap praise and glory upon me and my capabilities. Or would you prefer those who would soil any good reputation I may think I have? I can do both."

My old resume' just read "References upon request".
Then hence my reply.
I'd much rather give bad references...they tell much more entertaining stories!