6 ms·

There is nothing wrong with considering a shared previous employer a "plus"; the hiring manager knows the employer so if a candidate was good enough for them, t

There is nothing wrong with considering a shared previous employer a "plus"; the hiring manager knows the employer so if a candidate was good enough for them, there's some reason to think they're good enough for you. If the work environments are similar it could also mean getting them up to speed more quickly. There's nothing wrong with asking the opinions of people other than those a candidate directs you to. With both the references and the others, you need to understand what experience they're speaking from and what their motivations might be for telling you what they do. Anything that seems like gossip (not the speaker's direct experience) should be treated with suspicion, either ignored or backed up by corroboration from others who can speak independently; discussing it with the candidate themselves may be important. I'm more concerned about hearing only good things from official references or not.

learc83 8y ago
Asking people who weren't listed as references can cause all kinds of trouble. In this case the candidate said they left on good terms, but given the author's willingness to go beyond what is "considered kosher" says to me that they likely do this all the time. Even if you're not asking people at a candidate's current employer, if you start poking around asking all of your contacts about someone and it gets back to their current boss, there can be serious consequences for that candidate. The author even said that one of their contacts said he would discretely ask around about the candidate. Are all of the people the contact talked to going to keep discretely asking their coworkers as well? In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone--stop being so paranoid.
- extra88 8y ago
  > asking all of your contacts about someone That escalated quickly. Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a current manager so being "outed" by someone else isn't an issue. If I talk to a non-reference who I think is in a position to know about a candidate's performance, I would make it clear that discretion is called for; that's no guarantee but again, reference checks are the end game, they're either "the one" or maybe one of two if it's a really hard choice.
  - learc83 8y ago
    >That escalated quickly. Clearly that was hyperbole. >Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a current manager so being "outed" by someone else isn't an issue. What kind of positions are you hiring for where people are OK with this? The vast majority of managers aren't OK with employees who are actively looking for other work, despite what they may say.
    - extra88 8y ago
      Managers don't have to be OK with it, they just can't retaliate. I'm a manager and I'm totally okay with it, they're employees, not slaves. I've seen no indication from my fellow managers that anyone had a big problem with people looking. I work in higher ed. There are plenty of people with other workplace problems, mental health problems, but maybe university staff are generally more humane (our benefits are compared to the American average).
      - learc83 8y ago
        >but maybe university staff are generally more humane Yeah I would say that's probably true. In private industry this wouldn't work at all. Because most managers will retaliate. Mostly they'll just do things like giving you short term grunt work because they don't want you on anything long term. The worst managers will just flat out fire you.
  - inertiatic 8y ago
    >insist that one be their a current manager That's inviting imposters. Most regular people applying for a job wouldn't provide their current boss as a reference, but the people who would provide fake references? No problem! You can talk to my current boss, or even my boss in 5 years time, whatever you want!
    - extra88 8y ago
      Having a friend pretend to be your boss for a reference would be risky. I could look up the contact information you provide to see if it matches the manager's name, I could call a general number at the business to be connected to them. Is the friend supposed to answer the phone pretending to be someone else for an unknown period of time? There are many ways in which they could screw up their performance. This is real life, not TV. If a candidate attempted that, I would definitely look into what options there are for consequences beyond not getting the job.
- nocman 8y ago
  "In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone--stop being so paranoid." ^ uh, that is very often not the case. Well I guess it is if you are willing to live with any legal consequences that are the fallout of firing someone. I have a close relative that did a lot of hiring and a decent amount of firing (for legitimate reasons -- they were the type to give people a lot of chances, and genuinely wanted to help people better their situation). Their caution in the firing process was driven by years of experience (both theirs and other manager's experience) where some fired employees that were clearly in the wrong would try to pursue legal action against the employer (even though they had no case whatsoever). Attorney's fees aren't cheap, even if you are in the right. So it often is not true that "In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone".
  - learc83 8y ago
    >would try to pursue legal action against the employer (even though they had no case whatsoever) People can pursue legal action for anything they want. They can pursue legal action for not hiring them in the first place. This isn't something unique to firing someone, it is a normal cost of business.
    - nocman 8y ago
      Neither of those things is relevant to the point I was making. The legal costs often incurred by firing someone (and they are very real) makes it more difficult to fire them. Also, the time spent by employers dealing with legal issues is very expensive also. The fact that it isn't unique to the firing process doesn't change the fact that it often makes it more difficult to fire someone (again, even if the case goes nowhere the employer often has to deal with it anyway - costing both time and money).
      - learc83 8y ago
        >Neither of those things is relevant to the point I was making. The legal costs often incurred by firing someone (and they are very real) makes it more difficult to fire them. Here's why that's relevant. Because you're trying to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits from firing employees, you decide to be more hiring averse. You interview more people and turn many people down than you otherwise would have. Each additional person you interview but turn down, exposes you to the possibility of a frivolous lawsuit. If you turn down 50 extra people, you've now opened yourself up to 50 extra frivolous lawsuits. Hell each additional person who you accept a resume from could result in a frivolous lawsuit. >The fact that it isn't unique to the firing process doesn't change the fact that it often makes it more difficult to fire someone (again, even if the case goes nowhere the employer often has to deal with it anyway - costing both time and money). You keep using the term often. Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't common. Lawyers know they are very hard to win without a clear evidence of wrongdoing by the employer, and lawyers generally don't want to file frivolous lawsuits that they know will be almost immediately dismissed. Lawyers who are willing to file lawsuits that they know they can't win definitely don't do so on contingency, and most people who've just been fired don't have thousands of dollars lying around to pay a lawyer to file a frivolous lawsuit. Don't fire someone on FMLA, don't fire someone in retaliation for whistleblowing, don't fire someone because they're in a protected class etc... and the chances of being sued are very small. Firing someone in the US is incredibly easy compared to most of the rest of the developed world. Stop being so risk averse. If you don't do anything stupid, The chance of a lawsuit is very small, the chance of a lawsuit that makes it past an initial hearing is smaller, and the chance of losing is smaller still. The amount of extra time you spend on interviews, the additional risk exposure from interviewing additional candidates, and the lost opportunity from additional false negatives is going to far outweigh any potential risk.

learc83 8y ago

Asking people who weren't listed as references can cause all kinds of trouble. In this case the candidate said they left on good terms, but given the author's willingness to go beyond what is "considered kosher" says to me that they likely do this all the time. Even if you're not asking people at a candidate's current employer, if you start poking around asking all of your contacts about someone and it gets back to their current boss, there can be serious consequences for that candidate. The author even said that one of their contacts said he would discretely ask around about the candidate. Are all of the people the contact talked to going to keep discretely asking their coworkers as well? In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone--stop being so paranoid.

extra88 8y ago
> asking all of your contacts about someone That escalated quickly. Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a current manager so being "outed" by someone else isn't an issue. If I talk to a non-reference who I think is in a position to know about a candidate's performance, I would make it clear that discretion is called for; that's no guarantee but again, reference checks are the end game, they're either "the one" or maybe one of two if it's a really hard choice.
- learc83 8y ago
  >That escalated quickly. Clearly that was hyperbole. >Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a current manager so being "outed" by someone else isn't an issue. What kind of positions are you hiring for where people are OK with this? The vast majority of managers aren't OK with employees who are actively looking for other work, despite what they may say.
  - extra88 8y ago
    Managers don't have to be OK with it, they just can't retaliate. I'm a manager and I'm totally okay with it, they're employees, not slaves. I've seen no indication from my fellow managers that anyone had a big problem with people looking. I work in higher ed. There are plenty of people with other workplace problems, mental health problems, but maybe university staff are generally more humane (our benefits are compared to the American average).
    - learc83 8y ago
      >but maybe university staff are generally more humane Yeah I would say that's probably true. In private industry this wouldn't work at all. Because most managers will retaliate. Mostly they'll just do things like giving you short term grunt work because they don't want you on anything long term. The worst managers will just flat out fire you.
- inertiatic 8y ago
  >insist that one be their a current manager That's inviting imposters. Most regular people applying for a job wouldn't provide their current boss as a reference, but the people who would provide fake references? No problem! You can talk to my current boss, or even my boss in 5 years time, whatever you want!
  - extra88 8y ago
    Having a friend pretend to be your boss for a reference would be risky. I could look up the contact information you provide to see if it matches the manager's name, I could call a general number at the business to be connected to them. Is the friend supposed to answer the phone pretending to be someone else for an unknown period of time? There are many ways in which they could screw up their performance. This is real life, not TV. If a candidate attempted that, I would definitely look into what options there are for consequences beyond not getting the job.
nocman 8y ago
"In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone--stop being so paranoid." ^ uh, that is very often not the case. Well I guess it is if you are willing to live with any legal consequences that are the fallout of firing someone. I have a close relative that did a lot of hiring and a decent amount of firing (for legitimate reasons -- they were the type to give people a lot of chances, and genuinely wanted to help people better their situation). Their caution in the firing process was driven by years of experience (both theirs and other manager's experience) where some fired employees that were clearly in the wrong would try to pursue legal action against the employer (even though they had no case whatsoever). Attorney's fees aren't cheap, even if you are in the right. So it often is not true that "In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone".
- learc83 8y ago
  >would try to pursue legal action against the employer (even though they had no case whatsoever) People can pursue legal action for anything they want. They can pursue legal action for not hiring them in the first place. This isn't something unique to firing someone, it is a normal cost of business.
  - nocman 8y ago
    Neither of those things is relevant to the point I was making. The legal costs often incurred by firing someone (and they are very real) makes it more difficult to fire them. Also, the time spent by employers dealing with legal issues is very expensive also. The fact that it isn't unique to the firing process doesn't change the fact that it often makes it more difficult to fire someone (again, even if the case goes nowhere the employer often has to deal with it anyway - costing both time and money).
    - learc83 8y ago
      >Neither of those things is relevant to the point I was making. The legal costs often incurred by firing someone (and they are very real) makes it more difficult to fire them. Here's why that's relevant. Because you're trying to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits from firing employees, you decide to be more hiring averse. You interview more people and turn many people down than you otherwise would have. Each additional person you interview but turn down, exposes you to the possibility of a frivolous lawsuit. If you turn down 50 extra people, you've now opened yourself up to 50 extra frivolous lawsuits. Hell each additional person who you accept a resume from could result in a frivolous lawsuit. >The fact that it isn't unique to the firing process doesn't change the fact that it often makes it more difficult to fire someone (again, even if the case goes nowhere the employer often has to deal with it anyway - costing both time and money). You keep using the term often. Wrongful termination lawsuits aren't common. Lawyers know they are very hard to win without a clear evidence of wrongdoing by the employer, and lawyers generally don't want to file frivolous lawsuits that they know will be almost immediately dismissed. Lawyers who are willing to file lawsuits that they know they can't win definitely don't do so on contingency, and most people who've just been fired don't have thousands of dollars lying around to pay a lawyer to file a frivolous lawsuit. Don't fire someone on FMLA, don't fire someone in retaliation for whistleblowing, don't fire someone because they're in a protected class etc... and the chances of being sued are very small. Firing someone in the US is incredibly easy compared to most of the rest of the developed world. Stop being so risk averse. If you don't do anything stupid, The chance of a lawsuit is very small, the chance of a lawsuit that makes it past an initial hearing is smaller, and the chance of losing is smaller still. The amount of extra time you spend on interviews, the additional risk exposure from interviewing additional candidates, and the lost opportunity from additional false negatives is going to far outweigh any potential risk.