7 ms·

The reason this is done is that litigious ex-employees might try and sue for defamation. Even if the lawsuit is scurrilous, it will cost a company $20-30K to de

The reason this is done is that litigious ex-employees might try and sue for defamation. Even if the lawsuit is scurrilous, it will cost a company $20-30K to defend itself, so many companies have decided it’s not worth the risk.

giantg2 2y ago
I can see why HR won't provide performance references. But I'm talking about if I'm a star employee and want to leave, I ask my boss if they'll write me a recommendation letter or if I can list them as a positive reference on my apps, they aren't allowed to by the company and may even get fired for it.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  That’s what I am talking about too. Companies don’t allow any sort of references of former employees, positive or otherwise, and from any level of management. It’s too hard to police and much simpler to just not allow the practice. It’s frustrating from the employee and prospectus employer perspective, but I see why companies do this. Bad apples can be very time-consuming and expensive to deal with.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    There's no valid reason for it though. Hand me a letter of recommendation and if I don't like it, I simply won't share it with the next employer. If I'm the one who has the decision to share the recommendation, the responsibility should be on me.
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      He is explaining to you the valid reason, and you are simply not understanding it. People sue, very often, even in spots where the responsibility should have been on them. Companies stopped doing these sorts of things because companies got sued. It is very easy to bring a lawsuit, And while it is, perhaps not very easy to win it, someone still can easily have six figures in defending themselves. If you don’t like that, OK, I don’t either, it is awful. But it is a rational response to a problem that happens.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        "He is explaining to you the valid reason, and you are simply not understanding it." Oh I understand it. But do you see the big picture here? People should be sueing for them not writing the letter. The NLRB should be taking cases for this as well. This is almost as anticompetitive as non-competes. Edit: shouldn't have said for not writing the letter, just for a policy forbidding the writing of letters.
        nickff 2y ago
        What law would this policy violate? What’s the basis for the suit? That you think it might be anti-competitive because it reduces labor mobility?
        giantg2 2y ago
        Based on the article, it seems that this could be reasonable to pursue. You don't need to break a law for a lawsuit, just show damages resulting from another's actions. If you convince the NLRB or a jury that not providing references suppress your ability to get a job or increase your salary at the next job, that could be all that is needed. But this would be applicable to laws on anticompetitive behavior, but that's more of an NLRB thing.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > People should be sueing for them not writing the letter This gets awfully close to compelled speech. The only way this could be done is if we remove the right for employees to sue in respect of the content of the letter, which in turn opens up avenues for retaliation. Written recommendations are bullshit. The ban should be on requesting them.
        giantg2 2y ago
        My edit shows what I meant. I wouldn't support requiring references, just preventing companies from having policies forbidding them. I've had manager who would have gladly written me a great recommendation but policies prevented it. A ban on requesting them would also work.
    - winstonewert 2y ago
      But what if you get a bad letter of recommendation and sue about it? What if the manager refuses to write you a letter of recommendation and you sue them? The easiest solution from the company is simple: don't allow any letters of recommendation. That is what my former manager told me when I left my previous employer. He thought highly of my skills, but couldn't write me a letter due to company policy motivated by these concerns about being sued.
      - BenFranklin100 2y ago
        This is an example of how labor laws can hurt high-performing employees. Another is salary transparency requirements.
        giantg2 2y ago
        But there isn't a labor law supporting that. It's simply an anticompetitive corporate policy.
        BenFranklin100 2y ago
        ‘Established case law” or ‘Legal precedence’ to be more precise. Thank you. Ex-employees do have generous legal ground to sue for defamation. Edit: and remember, this is to file a suit, not win a defamation suit, which can be difficult. However it is very expensive for an employer to defend itself, easily tens of thousands if not six figures of dollars. How the game is played is a disgruntled ex-employee files a suit and then tries to settle for low tens of thousands of dollars, a portion of which goes to the employment attorney they hired.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        What if I sue and have the NLRB open a case against them for the unfair, anti-trust labor practice of not allowing any letters to be written?
        crazygringo 2y ago
    - dec0dedab0de 2y ago
      there is no way to verify that’s real though. Anyone could have a friend write a letter for them and say it’s from an old boss. when you have current employees talking about former employees on behalf of the company, that is the same thing as the company talking about them.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        You could call to confirm it, have it notarized, etc. But that's not really an issue since this practice used to be common and is sill common in many forms of employment today - some government jobs, academia, etc. I don't see it as the same as the company speaking. Things like concerted efforts by the workers to make conditions better are protected and not considered company speech. I guess it's only because they're managers that they don't qualify.
    - sbuttgereit 2y ago
      Also consider this case. A manager writes a couple of glowing letters of recommendations for a couple of former employees that did great on the job. Wonderful. Now a poor performer asks and the manager doesn't feel comfortable writing a recommendation at all: either they'd risk having to be candid or there's simply no basis for "recommendation" and so the manager refuses. Well, now even the omission/refusal to write such a letter might get you sued. A policy that says our managers just don't write such letters is absolutely the safest. 1) the company and its managers don't identify in any way their thoughts on performance in a way that might be found prejudicial; 2) they avoid the risk of a poorly worded recommendation that could be called prejudicial; 3) they avoid having to monitor the standards and risks of such statements across possibly many managers that might write such letters absent such a rule.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        You forgot the biggest benefits to the company - increased retention rates and salary suppression.
        BenFranklin100 2y ago
        You forgot the biggest drawback to employers: not being able to get honest feedback about the prospective employee from the previous employer.
        supertrope 2y ago
        It's a noisy signal. Some employers still answer a binary question "Eligible to re-hire? Yes/no" and that tells a lot in one bit of information. Of course some employers are vindictive and they just say no out of spite. Others will not answer anything except confirm dates of employment. Or they provide a good reference on a bad employee just so they leave without having to fire them.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    I've provided references from former co-workers, clients, etc. Never from an actual manager. Also no idea if references have ever been checked or not--especially given I knew a lot of folks at the hiring company.
- nickff 2y ago
  Someone might sue because (they think) a letter wasn’t effusive enough to get them a job they wanted, or because someone else got a letter and they didn’t.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    And why can't I sue for this being an unfair labor practice? There should be more risk on this side of it than the other.
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      It is not an unfair labor practice, nobody owes you a letter of recommendation. Corporations that have this policy always tell you that when you check on a prospective employee. “ Our policy is only to give dates of employment and X worked here from…” It is not a negative when you check on somebody and hear that. I’ve heard it many times. I can hardly take it as a sign of a bad employee when their company simply has a policy not to give references
      - AdrianB1 2y ago
        > nobody owes you a letter of recommendation It some countries they do. A friend sued his former employer because the letter of recommendation he got was not good enough. Strange thing is they agreed and also contacted him to come back working for them. But it depends on the country, in some countries letters of recommendation are very rare, I wrote a couple in more than 20 years, basically every time someone that worked for or with me asked for one.
        ghaff 2y ago
        In the US, my sense is that letters of recommendation are pretty rare (at least past school admissions where they're pretty worthless). Oh, there's a ton of informal networking but very little official you should hire this person (or especially) run away now. I'd never do the latter. Companies at least used to ask for references on resumes in the US but I'm not sure how common that is at this point and it was usually co-workers/clients/etc, and not sure how often it was even checked.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Most companies will only verify dates of employment, and possibly whether the employee is eligible for rehire (yes/no, without getting into reasons). Writing a letter of reference is more and more a risky thing and even in non-employment situations, more people are reluctant to do it.
  - ska 2y ago
    That’s what HR will do. Most companies don’t constrain an individual employee from providing a recommendation. People might not want to do it, but that’s a different issue.
- pjc50 2y ago
  So .. have they stopped asking for them? Or it this a "We'll defect in prisoner's dilemma with no consequences to us" move?
segmondy 2y ago
Can you provide an example article or case law when this happened?
lowbloodsugar 2y ago
Again, that sounds like a good reason, but it’s not the reason, and it would be easy to solve. The reason is wage suppression.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

giantg2 2y ago

I can see why HR won't provide performance references. But I'm talking about if I'm a star employee and want to leave, I ask my boss if they'll write me a recommendation letter or if I can list them as a positive reference on my apps, they aren't allowed to by the company and may even get fired for it.

BenFranklin100 2y ago
That’s what I am talking about too. Companies don’t allow any sort of references of former employees, positive or otherwise, and from any level of management. It’s too hard to police and much simpler to just not allow the practice. It’s frustrating from the employee and prospectus employer perspective, but I see why companies do this. Bad apples can be very time-consuming and expensive to deal with.
- giantg2 2y ago
  There's no valid reason for it though. Hand me a letter of recommendation and if I don't like it, I simply won't share it with the next employer. If I'm the one who has the decision to share the recommendation, the responsibility should be on me.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    He is explaining to you the valid reason, and you are simply not understanding it. People sue, very often, even in spots where the responsibility should have been on them. Companies stopped doing these sorts of things because companies got sued. It is very easy to bring a lawsuit, And while it is, perhaps not very easy to win it, someone still can easily have six figures in defending themselves. If you don’t like that, OK, I don’t either, it is awful. But it is a rational response to a problem that happens.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      "He is explaining to you the valid reason, and you are simply not understanding it." Oh I understand it. But do you see the big picture here? People should be sueing for them not writing the letter. The NLRB should be taking cases for this as well. This is almost as anticompetitive as non-competes. Edit: shouldn't have said for not writing the letter, just for a policy forbidding the writing of letters.
      - nickff 2y ago
        What law would this policy violate? What’s the basis for the suit? That you think it might be anti-competitive because it reduces labor mobility?
        giantg2 2y ago
        Based on the article, it seems that this could be reasonable to pursue. You don't need to break a law for a lawsuit, just show damages resulting from another's actions. If you convince the NLRB or a jury that not providing references suppress your ability to get a job or increase your salary at the next job, that could be all that is needed. But this would be applicable to laws on anticompetitive behavior, but that's more of an NLRB thing.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > People should be sueing for them not writing the letter This gets awfully close to compelled speech. The only way this could be done is if we remove the right for employees to sue in respect of the content of the letter, which in turn opens up avenues for retaliation. Written recommendations are bullshit. The ban should be on requesting them.
        giantg2 2y ago
        My edit shows what I meant. I wouldn't support requiring references, just preventing companies from having policies forbidding them. I've had manager who would have gladly written me a great recommendation but policies prevented it. A ban on requesting them would also work.
  - winstonewert 2y ago
    But what if you get a bad letter of recommendation and sue about it? What if the manager refuses to write you a letter of recommendation and you sue them? The easiest solution from the company is simple: don't allow any letters of recommendation. That is what my former manager told me when I left my previous employer. He thought highly of my skills, but couldn't write me a letter due to company policy motivated by these concerns about being sued.
    - BenFranklin100 2y ago
      This is an example of how labor laws can hurt high-performing employees. Another is salary transparency requirements.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        But there isn't a labor law supporting that. It's simply an anticompetitive corporate policy.
        BenFranklin100 2y ago
        ‘Established case law” or ‘Legal precedence’ to be more precise. Thank you. Ex-employees do have generous legal ground to sue for defamation. Edit: and remember, this is to file a suit, not win a defamation suit, which can be difficult. However it is very expensive for an employer to defend itself, easily tens of thousands if not six figures of dollars. How the game is played is a disgruntled ex-employee files a suit and then tries to settle for low tens of thousands of dollars, a portion of which goes to the employment attorney they hired.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      What if I sue and have the NLRB open a case against them for the unfair, anti-trust labor practice of not allowing any letters to be written?
      - crazygringo 2y ago
  - dec0dedab0de 2y ago
    there is no way to verify that’s real though. Anyone could have a friend write a letter for them and say it’s from an old boss. when you have current employees talking about former employees on behalf of the company, that is the same thing as the company talking about them.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      You could call to confirm it, have it notarized, etc. But that's not really an issue since this practice used to be common and is sill common in many forms of employment today - some government jobs, academia, etc. I don't see it as the same as the company speaking. Things like concerted efforts by the workers to make conditions better are protected and not considered company speech. I guess it's only because they're managers that they don't qualify.
  - sbuttgereit 2y ago
    Also consider this case. A manager writes a couple of glowing letters of recommendations for a couple of former employees that did great on the job. Wonderful. Now a poor performer asks and the manager doesn't feel comfortable writing a recommendation at all: either they'd risk having to be candid or there's simply no basis for "recommendation" and so the manager refuses. Well, now even the omission/refusal to write such a letter might get you sued. A policy that says our managers just don't write such letters is absolutely the safest. 1) the company and its managers don't identify in any way their thoughts on performance in a way that might be found prejudicial; 2) they avoid the risk of a poorly worded recommendation that could be called prejudicial; 3) they avoid having to monitor the standards and risks of such statements across possibly many managers that might write such letters absent such a rule.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      You forgot the biggest benefits to the company - increased retention rates and salary suppression.
      - BenFranklin100 2y ago
        You forgot the biggest drawback to employers: not being able to get honest feedback about the prospective employee from the previous employer.
        supertrope 2y ago
        It's a noisy signal. Some employers still answer a binary question "Eligible to re-hire? Yes/no" and that tells a lot in one bit of information. Of course some employers are vindictive and they just say no out of spite. Others will not answer anything except confirm dates of employment. Or they provide a good reference on a bad employee just so they leave without having to fire them.
- ghaff 2y ago
  I've provided references from former co-workers, clients, etc. Never from an actual manager. Also no idea if references have ever been checked or not--especially given I knew a lot of folks at the hiring company.
nickff 2y ago
Someone might sue because (they think) a letter wasn’t effusive enough to get them a job they wanted, or because someone else got a letter and they didn’t.
- giantg2 2y ago
  And why can't I sue for this being an unfair labor practice? There should be more risk on this side of it than the other.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    It is not an unfair labor practice, nobody owes you a letter of recommendation. Corporations that have this policy always tell you that when you check on a prospective employee. “ Our policy is only to give dates of employment and X worked here from…” It is not a negative when you check on somebody and hear that. I’ve heard it many times. I can hardly take it as a sign of a bad employee when their company simply has a policy not to give references
    - AdrianB1 2y ago
      > nobody owes you a letter of recommendation It some countries they do. A friend sued his former employer because the letter of recommendation he got was not good enough. Strange thing is they agreed and also contacted him to come back working for them. But it depends on the country, in some countries letters of recommendation are very rare, I wrote a couple in more than 20 years, basically every time someone that worked for or with me asked for one.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        In the US, my sense is that letters of recommendation are pretty rare (at least past school admissions where they're pretty worthless). Oh, there's a ton of informal networking but very little official you should hire this person (or especially) run away now. I'd never do the latter. Companies at least used to ask for references on resumes in the US but I'm not sure how common that is at this point and it was usually co-workers/clients/etc, and not sure how often it was even checked.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Most companies will only verify dates of employment, and possibly whether the employee is eligible for rehire (yes/no, without getting into reasons). Writing a letter of reference is more and more a risky thing and even in non-employment situations, more people are reluctant to do it.
- ska 2y ago
  That’s what HR will do. Most companies don’t constrain an individual employee from providing a recommendation. People might not want to do it, but that’s a different issue.
pjc50 2y ago
So .. have they stopped asking for them? Or it this a "We'll defect in prisoner's dilemma with no consequences to us" move?

segmondy 2y ago

Can you provide an example article or case law when this happened?

lowbloodsugar 2y ago

Again, that sounds like a good reason, but it’s not the reason, and it would be easy to solve. The reason is wage suppression.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]