Employers' obligation to confirm someone's employment?

[doreen]

I’m not a business owner, but I find this very counter-intuitive. I would think that a person’s conduct and past performance would be of paramount importance - probably even more so than their objective qualifications. (My most recent career was military, where your previous supervisors’ opinions are basically the ONLY thing that matters.)

I wouldn’t say that 90% of an employee’s performance is based on their work environment , and a person who is a superstar in one environment is not likely to become a slacker in another. But I’ve seen where a superstar in one environment becomes just “satisfactory” in another, or someone who’s always willing to pitch in in one environment becomes “that’s not my job” in another. Maybe in the second environment they don’t feel appreciated, or maybe it’s the type of place where your “reward” for performing well is to have other people’s work assigned to you so that you do more work than your coworkers for the same pay

[k9bfriender]

@JB99

I guess I’m phrasing this badly, and if so I apologize. My thought is: Each individual applies this policy at their own discretion. Got it. But I’m assuming the practice did not originate spontaneously. Some employers started it, and then it spread when other employers adopted it and people in business schools started recommending it as a best practice. So the fact that people do it means employers have collectively decided that mitigating the risk of lawsuits outweigh the benefit that comes from knowing a candidate’s reputation.

I think what I mean to ask is: Does anyone in the business world make a bad hire and then think, “Wow, this policy is really stupid and I wish people would stop doing it?” Because it seems very cowardly and self-defeating to me.

Maybe it is, and we should get together at a giant conference and have a discussion about it.

Thing is, is that exposing myself to liability, no matter how slight, gets me nothing in return.

I’m not a business owner, but I find this very counter-intuitive. I would think that a person’s conduct and past performance would be of paramount importance - probably even more so than their objective qualifications. (My most recent career was military, where your previous supervisors’ opinions are basically the ONLY thing that matters.)

@doreen

I wouldn’t say that 90% of an employee’s performance is based on their work environment , and a person who is a superstar in one environment is not likely to become a slacker in another. But I’ve seen where a superstar in one environment becomes just “satisfactory” in another, or someone who’s always willing to pitch in in one environment becomes “that’s not my job” in another. Maybe in the second environment they don’t feel appreciated, or maybe it’s the type of place where your “reward” for performing well is to have other people’s work assigned to you so that you do more work than your coworkers for the same pay

I’ve worked in entry level jobs most of my life, which means that I’ve also worked with entry level workers most of my life. And sure, there is a difference in the quality of the applicant, but you can tell that in your interview. If you can’t tell that a person is a complete waste of time, then you need to improve your interviewing skills.

What someone else has to say about their work performance often has far more to do with the work environment that they provided than the employee. I have worked with the same people at different jobs, and certainly noticed massive differences in their work ethic and motivation based on the workplace. I have worked at different jobs, and certainly noticed a difference in my work ethic and motivation. There are a few employers around here who I take a poor reference as a good one, and a good one as a poor.

[md2000]

There’s an inquest underway in Ontario where they are examining how a nurse managed to go from nursing home to nursing home and murder 8 or more patients. The testimony indicates she was disciplined and eventually she was fired for significant medication mix-ups. However she grieved her dismissal and the burses’ union reached a settlement where the errors were not mentioned and her (ex)employer gave her a positive letter of recommendation… so she go on to commit more murders. Not sure when and where the lawsuits are going to come out of this, but I see the potential for a number of them…

---

The trouble with relying on an ex-Boss’s recommendation is that a boss is as likely as the employee to be a royal dick. (In a place where I worked once, I was in the security guard hut waiting for a ride… the memo posted - by the guy who owned the security company - told the employees to do the rounds properly every hour…“and if you don’t like it, do us a favour and quit. It’s time I fired a few people anyway.” That’s the personality of the person you expect to do recommendations? I’ve hear of some bosses who marked employees (in a crappy part-time job) as not eligible for rehire because they didn’t like that the person inconvenienced them by quitting, even with plenty of notice. I’ve had plenty of bad, petty, childish bosses. One of the best project managers we had was selected for layoff from the engineering department during cutbacks because he told the boss (justifiably) how stupid he was. We hired him as a consultant, last I heard he was going all over the country for the company, being paid more than his old boss.