5 ms·

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. I

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.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Maybe a law shifting liability for references from the employer to the person providing it is the fix.
- 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.

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.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Maybe a law shifting liability for references from the employer to the person providing it is the fix.
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.