3 ms·

It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. In what part of the application process did the candidate consent to

by cascom 8y ago

It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. In what part of the application process did the candidate consent to you letting anyone you choose know they are looking for a job?

RightMillennial 8y ago
Pardon me if this is a naïve question. Isn't the point of references that they can be checked and verified? Why would you need to obtain explicit consent to contact the contacts when they've been provided? Isn't the consent implicit by virtue of them being supplied?
- abiox 8y ago
  > by virtue of them being supplied afaik, a backdoor reference is specifically _not_ a reference that was (intentionally) supplied.
- cascom 8y ago
  Yes - and most times candidates will sign some form of blanket consent allowing companies to go beyond the the supplied references, and potentially run a background credit check/investigation. Which I’m by no means saying not to do. But key is getting the candidate’s consent and doing those checks at the appropriate time in the process, so you don’t potentially damage the candidate through your actions
cwkoss 8y ago
> It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. Seeing as how there is some debate in this thread, I'd argue that that is not generally understood very well.
stickfigure 8y ago
It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. That's rubbish. It's generally understood that all parties are expected to perform due diligence. What do you think people do with the connection graph linkedin displays? I've interviewed people who were clear that they didn't want their current employer to know that they were looking - that's fine, and easy to respect. But the article describes a former job on a resume; there's no risk you're going to interfere with their current employment by reaching out to mutual contacts. Personally, I hope people look me up through the social network... hell, that's how I find all of my employment.
- dx034 8y ago
  I'd expect any company to get my consent before requesting references from current or past employers. First of all because I can direct them to relevant people but most importantly because it's not public information. I had cases in the past where I asked them to hold off with checks until I have signed a contract and quit the other job (under the condition that the contract would be void if the check fails). That way they could confirm that my story was correct without telling my employer that I plan to quit.
- cascom 8y ago
  1. If you work in th US I’d suggest a conversation with HR about your current practices - this issue is frought with legal issues and liability (as the reference giver as well). 2. Passive diligence (looking someone up online) is very different than active diligence where you disclose to another party the candidate’s status and potentially receive defamatory information. 3. You say you’d “respect” a candidates desire for you to not contact a current employer, but it also doesn’t sound as if you think that is explicitly out of bounds. 4. Just out of curiousity were a candidate to lose their current job (for example), due to word getting back to their current employer due to your Backdoor Checks - what level of responsibility are you prepared to personally undertake? Seems to me that people should be exceedingly cautious that their actions don’t result in someone losing their livelihood due to a gossipy former colleague....

by cascom 8y ago

RightMillennial 8y ago

Pardon me if this is a naïve question. Isn't the point of references that they can be checked and verified? Why would you need to obtain explicit consent to contact the contacts when they've been provided? Isn't the consent implicit by virtue of them being supplied?

abiox 8y ago
> by virtue of them being supplied afaik, a backdoor reference is specifically _not_ a reference that was (intentionally) supplied.
cascom 8y ago
Yes - and most times candidates will sign some form of blanket consent allowing companies to go beyond the the supplied references, and potentially run a background credit check/investigation. Which I’m by no means saying not to do. But key is getting the candidate’s consent and doing those checks at the appropriate time in the process, so you don’t potentially damage the candidate through your actions

cwkoss 8y ago

> It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. Seeing as how there is some debate in this thread, I'd argue that that is not generally understood very well.

stickfigure 8y ago

It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked. That's rubbish. It's generally understood that all parties are expected to perform due diligence. What do you think people do with the connection graph linkedin displays? I've interviewed people who were clear that they didn't want their current employer to know that they were looking - that's fine, and easy to respect. But the article describes a former job on a resume; there's no risk you're going to interfere with their current employment by reaching out to mutual contacts. Personally, I hope people look me up through the social network... hell, that's how I find all of my employment.

dx034 8y ago
I'd expect any company to get my consent before requesting references from current or past employers. First of all because I can direct them to relevant people but most importantly because it's not public information. I had cases in the past where I asked them to hold off with checks until I have signed a contract and quit the other job (under the condition that the contract would be void if the check fails). That way they could confirm that my story was correct without telling my employer that I plan to quit.
cascom 8y ago
1. If you work in th US I’d suggest a conversation with HR about your current practices - this issue is frought with legal issues and liability (as the reference giver as well). 2. Passive diligence (looking someone up online) is very different than active diligence where you disclose to another party the candidate’s status and potentially receive defamatory information. 3. You say you’d “respect” a candidates desire for you to not contact a current employer, but it also doesn’t sound as if you think that is explicitly out of bounds. 4. Just out of curiousity were a candidate to lose their current job (for example), due to word getting back to their current employer due to your Backdoor Checks - what level of responsibility are you prepared to personally undertake? Seems to me that people should be exceedingly cautious that their actions don’t result in someone losing their livelihood due to a gossipy former colleague....