6 ms·

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

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.
    - learc83 8y ago
      > 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. I've never done this when checking references, and I've never known anyone who does it regularly. It seems that there is a disconnect here between your sector and private industry. Your hiring practices seem a bit off to people coming from private industry, so you're seeing people here trying to come up with ways around it. >If a candidate attempted that, I would definitely look into what options there are for consequences beyond not getting the job. If you mean legally, no one is going to prosecute this even if their technically could be criminal penalties. You could sue the person to recover damages, but you don't really have any damages beyond a bit of wasted time. The person they are impersonating could sue the person for defamation, but they'd have a hard time proving damage as well. You could also try calling up their current employer, but then you're opening yourself up to defamation claims that would have a very clear damage component. Truth is a defense in defamation cases, but you're going to need to prove it and it's not going to be pleasant.
      - 8y ago
- doktrin 8y ago
  > 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 how benevolent of you
- magduf 8y ago
  Just because you've gotten the the point of checking references doesn't mean the candidate is definitely going to accept your offer. If you called my manager and got me fired from my job in an interview process, I'd most likely hire a lawyer and sue you.
  - extra88 8y ago
    > I'd most likely hire a lawyer and sue you. This is America so anyone can sue for anyone for anything but what exactly do you think the grounds would be for a suit? I won't call without your consent, I have no intent to cause you harm, if the reference calls go well you'll even likely get a job offer.
    - magduf 8y ago
      >I won't call without your consent The way you wrote it, it seemed you were going to just call the employee's current manager. I would NEVER give you consent for that. I don't know what kind of screwed-up industry that would ever be the norm in. Doing this is grounds for a lawsuit because it will most likely result in termination of the employee from his current job. >if the reference calls go well you'll even likely get a job offer. That's a big "if". The reference call almost guarantees the person will lose his current job. As for the grounds for the suit, getting someone fired from their job is pretty good grounds for a lawsuit. There's expectations of privacy that go with job-hunting, and willfully getting someone fired from their job will not sit well with a jury.
      - extra88 8y ago
        > The way you wrote it, it seemed you were going to just call the employee's current manager. I wrote, "Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a [sic] current manager". I thought that made it clear we ask the candidate for references and that one be their current manager. > The reference call almost guarantees the person will lose his current job. Not everyone is like you, I wouldn't fire someone for applying for a job. If you wouldn't fire someone for it either, why do you assume almost every manager is not like you or me and would fire them? > There's expectations of privacy that go with job-hunting But by giving me consent to call your manager, that expectation is gone. Take it with a grain of salt but this post [0] addresses "outing" a candidate. Q: can a prospective employer tip off my boss that I’m job-searching? A: It’s legal, but it’s really, really crappy. [0] http://www.askamanager.org/2013/01/can-a-prospective-employer-tip-off-my-boss-that-im-job-searching.html http://www.askamanager.org/2013/01/can-a-prospective-employe...
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.

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.
  - learc83 8y ago
    > 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. I've never done this when checking references, and I've never known anyone who does it regularly. It seems that there is a disconnect here between your sector and private industry. Your hiring practices seem a bit off to people coming from private industry, so you're seeing people here trying to come up with ways around it. >If a candidate attempted that, I would definitely look into what options there are for consequences beyond not getting the job. If you mean legally, no one is going to prosecute this even if their technically could be criminal penalties. You could sue the person to recover damages, but you don't really have any damages beyond a bit of wasted time. The person they are impersonating could sue the person for defamation, but they'd have a hard time proving damage as well. You could also try calling up their current employer, but then you're opening yourself up to defamation claims that would have a very clear damage component. Truth is a defense in defamation cases, but you're going to need to prove it and it's not going to be pleasant.
    - 8y ago
doktrin 8y ago
> 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 how benevolent of you
magduf 8y ago
Just because you've gotten the the point of checking references doesn't mean the candidate is definitely going to accept your offer. If you called my manager and got me fired from my job in an interview process, I'd most likely hire a lawyer and sue you.
- extra88 8y ago
  > I'd most likely hire a lawyer and sue you. This is America so anyone can sue for anyone for anything but what exactly do you think the grounds would be for a suit? I won't call without your consent, I have no intent to cause you harm, if the reference calls go well you'll even likely get a job offer.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >I won't call without your consent The way you wrote it, it seemed you were going to just call the employee's current manager. I would NEVER give you consent for that. I don't know what kind of screwed-up industry that would ever be the norm in. Doing this is grounds for a lawsuit because it will most likely result in termination of the employee from his current job. >if the reference calls go well you'll even likely get a job offer. That's a big "if". The reference call almost guarantees the person will lose his current job. As for the grounds for the suit, getting someone fired from their job is pretty good grounds for a lawsuit. There's expectations of privacy that go with job-hunting, and willfully getting someone fired from their job will not sit well with a jury.
    - extra88 8y ago
      > The way you wrote it, it seemed you were going to just call the employee's current manager. I wrote, "Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a [sic] current manager". I thought that made it clear we ask the candidate for references and that one be their current manager. > The reference call almost guarantees the person will lose his current job. Not everyone is like you, I wouldn't fire someone for applying for a job. If you wouldn't fire someone for it either, why do you assume almost every manager is not like you or me and would fire them? > There's expectations of privacy that go with job-hunting But by giving me consent to call your manager, that expectation is gone. Take it with a grain of salt but this post [0] addresses "outing" a candidate. Q: can a prospective employer tip off my boss that I’m job-searching? A: It’s legal, but it’s really, really crappy. [0] http://www.askamanager.org/2013/01/can-a-prospective-employer-tip-off-my-boss-that-im-job-searching.html http://www.askamanager.org/2013/01/can-a-prospective-employe...

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.