Potential Employer wants to speak to current employer

[mickeyfan2]

So if a potential employer calls and asks about an applicant's attitude, lateness, job performance, etc. there is no law in D.C. barring you from discussing whatever you wish about your former employee?

I beleive the law is that a previous employer cannot do anything that would prevent the employee from obtaining work.

 

[salmoneous]

1) Every big company I know of has the "we give no references and only very employment" rule. It's not necessarily a legal issue - but covering their butts. It keeps them from getting sued if they give a good reference and the guy is a dud, or if a guy doesn't get a job due to a bad reference.

2) The though of talking to your current employer to break a tie is totally insane. I've never heard anything like it. Just them suggesting it would make we wary of working for them.

 

[eclectics]

I beleive the law is that a previous employer cannot do anything that would prevent the employee from obtaining work.

But the mere fact of saying anything about that applicant's employment might be construed as "preventing the employee from obtaining work". It's too confusing! No wonder the previous employer is usually reluctant (even if it's just policy, not law) to say anything more than the dates involved, especially in this litigious society.

 

[Wishing on a star]

OK, so I have gone thru 2 interviews and a computer test, and it is down to me and one other person.....Now the Interviewer wants to talk to my current employer to break the "tie"...Didn't want to go down this road.....

You are right... You might want to realize right now that this prospective employer might be a road that you do not want to take. They are really pushing the limits, being very demanding, and seem AR to me. If this is going on before you are even offered employment, you might not want to subject yourself to the demands and scrutiny that you might experience on the job.

The only thing they (HR) will do is verify my employment. So, I called potential back, and gave him the phone number...He didn't sound like he believed me, so I think I may have just lost out on that postion..... Oh well.....

My guess is that if one does have a supervisor who is willing to provide a positive reference, then this should be given as a personal reference, separately from the Employment History information.

If you have asked a supervisor if they would do this for you, with your request/permission verified in writing, then it would probably be acceptable.

The bottom line is that your resume should speak for itself. For example, the dates should show that you were with this company for a certain length of time. That says a lot. Your resume can also show that your salary increased from $$$ to $$$$. That says a lot. Your resume can also mention accomplishments achieved. ex. while in this position, sales (productivity, or whatever) increased XX percent. Or, for example, successfully added new products/services... etc.... Or, for example, exceeded our annual goals by XX percent. Or, for example, recieved the district four star award for.... etc...

Hopefully one can show that they were successful at their previous position and not rely on the good-will of a former supervisor.

 

[LukenDC]

So if a potential employer calls and asks about an applicant's attitude, lateness, job performance, etc. there is no law in D.C. barring you from discussing whatever you wish about your former employee?

Nope. However, just to be extra cautious, I never give negative references (positive references for good employees and neutral references for bad employees) and I require a signed release from the employee before I will divulge detailed information or any information that is not publicly available. This reference checking procedure has been thoroughly vetted by legal counsel, who by the way said that negative references are perfectly acceptable and legal as long as all information is truthful. Given that someone can sue for anything these days, I prefer my cautious approach.

Today I checked three professional references on an employee that I intend to hire. All three references were detailed and glowing. No one asked for a copy of the release that the applicant signed.

 

[maddiel]

The bottom line is that your resume should speak for itself. For example, the dates should show that you were with this company for a certain length of time. That says a lot. Your resume can also show that your salary increased from $$$ to $$$$. That says a lot. Your resume can also mention accomplishments achieved. ex. while in this position, sales (productivity, or whatever) increased XX percent. Or, for example, successfully added new products/services... etc.... Or, for example, exceeded our annual goals by XX percent. Or, for example, recieved the district four star award for.... etc...

Hopefully one can show that they were successful at their previous position and not rely on the good-will of a former supervisor.

The only problem with that is that a resume does not come with a guarantee of truthfulness - of truthiness, maybe! An employer would be a fool to accept everything on a potential employee's resume at face value without verification.

M.

 

[DebbieB]

I work for a major insurance company and our policy is employees are not allowed to give references. They will verify dates of employment only.

 

[Arielle22]

I am an HR Mgr. There is no federal or state law (in any state) which limits what can be said. I have fired many people for theft. If I wanted to I could tell prospective employers that this person was fired for theft.

I belong to some HR groups and no one (including several labor lawyers) in those groups knows of any succesful lawsuit based on a poor recommendation.

To succeed in a lawsuit you would have to prove that the employer said something, that what was said was a lie (a lie that the employer deliberately told) and that you would have had the job if not for what was said. So you would have to get someone from the company that would not hire you to admit that the reason you didn't get the position was the reference. Also an employee can say what they believed whether or not it was true. If I said I thought someone was sleeping on the job but was I personally never caught the person asleep, that would be ok. Lastly, you would have to prove how much $$ you lost by not being hired. This amount would be offset from the salary of the job you do get. So if you get a job at a similar salary you aren't out any money.

My company has a policy that only the HR dept (me) can do any reference checks. No personal references are allowed.I will only confirm dates and position. If a former employee signs an authorization I can go into further details.


Keep in mind that a good reference isn't always a good thing. Some companies give good references to get a former employee off their unemployment or as part of an agreement for the employee to leave their former company.

 

[Wishing on a star]

The only problem with that is that a resume does not come with a guarantee of truthfulness - of truthiness, maybe! An employer would be a fool to accept everything on a potential employee's resume at face value without verification.

M.

Many of these types of things are very easily verified without having to ask, and take the word of, a previous supervisor/employer.

Truthfulness is a two way street. Who is to say that the person on the line giving the negative review is being truthful. The whole issue here is that a previous employer who has an ax to grind could give a negative review, without valid reason. And, the things that they would say are things that would NOT be verifiable!!! If you were employed with a company for a given amount of time, earned pay increases, earned awards (which, if smart, you would keep), etc. etc. Then, basicly, these things should speak for itself. If you get fired because they hire a supervisor who has some real chips on their shoulder and who is a complete personality conflict and who decides that their nephew deserves the job more than you do. Then, which do you trust more. The facts and figures, or the unfounded negative comments of a stranger??????

 

[pigletliz]

The only problem with that is that a resume does not come with a guarantee of truthfulness - of truthiness, maybe! An employer would be a fool to accept everything on a potential employee's resume at face value without verification.

M.

This is true, especially with the level of security/confidentiality needed in many positions. We background check everyone and still find people who have lied or seriously stretched the truth on their applications

 

[ClarabelleCowFan]

I worked as a Supervisor over about 200 employees for a large company in Nashville. When someone would call for a reference I was only allowed (by company policy) to give the dates of employment AND to tell whether or not I would hire that employee again if given the opportunity.

It always floored me that people that I FIRED would use me as a reference! Did they really expect me to give them a GOOD recommendation??

 

[Disney Doll]

It is my understanding that most of the companies in this area only confirm dates of employment.

 

[KimAshton]

Where I work we do both a criminal background check and 2 references. But you can only give out the position and dates.

 

[golfgal]

Sometimes it is all in HOW you ask the questions. DH got a call about an employee he fired a few years previously. The caller asked for a reference and DH told her company policy only allowed him to verify employment. She then asked "if he was a GOOD employee could you tell me anything". DH said "I sure could". She thanked him and said that was all she needed to know.