5 ms·

It's simply false that companies do not validate anything beyond dates of employment. Supposedly all companies are so terrified of lawsuits they won't do anythi

by pekk 12y ago

It's simply false that companies do not validate anything beyond dates of employment. Supposedly all companies are so terrified of lawsuits they won't do anything, but actually there is no mechanism which will allow the candidate to discover what was mentioned on the back channel, and the good old boy network is very much alive. If someone wants to make sure you don't get hired, there are ways. When it comes to your own life, please don't trust this Pollyanna advice from HN which is coming from people who have not had any problems like this.

hluska 12y ago
First, 'pollyanna advice' is unnecessarily harsh. Even saying 'overly optimistic' would be a huge improvement... Second, yes there are ways that someone could keep another from getting hired, but they are supremely (as in multi-million dollar lawsuit) risky. When it comes to the back channel, it is important to remember that everybody talks all the time and favours never come free.
op00to 12y ago
"[...] there is no mechanism which will allow the candidate to discover what was mentioned on the back channel [...]" If there's a back channel for the reference, there's a back channel to find out about a shitty reference. I'm instructed by my HR team to never, ever give references, and to refer folks inquiring to our contracted company that gives only dates of employment. 'Cause we got better things to do than get sued, even if we'd likely win.
HillRat 12y ago
"Back channels" are exceptionally rare between HR departments -- I've only heard of one significant network of HR departments willing to back-channel pejorative data about possible employees, and that was a set of industrial companies that had an ongoing problem with employees getting fired for failed drug screens, then cleaning up just long enough to go to the next firm. (Meth heads playing with 2000°F furnaces is a legal and operational nightmare scenario.) Even so, it took years for the companies to start sharing anything, and even then the HR heads would do things like meet in the parking lots of rural truck stops to exchange names of problem employees. Basically, sharing pejorative employee info between companies is something that no competent HR professional is willing to do absent very good reason, executive direction, and a lot of attempts at tradecraft. Having said that, ref checks can communicate quite a lot without communicating anything in particular; pregnant pauses and careful word choice can certainly say a lot. However, this is more a concern in SMBs where the ref check might land on the manager's desk instead of HR. Now, if a company leader wants to screw you over and you're looking for employment in the SMB market, then, yeah, change cities. YPO is a freaking henhouse for gossip, and bad reputations move fast in those circles.
wpietri 12y ago
Perhaps you could share your experience? Rather than, say, implying without evidence that everybody but you is an idiot.
davismwfl 12y ago
My advice isn't Pollyanna advice. I have worked at Fortune 10 and Fortune 500 firms as well as in startups, plus I have run my own company for years now. In all those places I have held senior positions at one time or another. So my experience is real and practical. In the larger firms generally managers and above are trained to redirect all reference requests and employment verifications to HR, especially for employees who were terminated. This is a risk mitigation procedure by the companies, as lawsuits are real. And generally past employees do find out when employers try to damage them because of friends or sympathizers still at the company will reach out and let them know. You say back channels are the way and the good ole boy network still exists. I agree to a point, but practical experience again is showing me that even using people I know they are reluctant to answer questions because they fear reprisal not just from lawsuits, but for what should happen when they need a job (direct quote from someone not too long ago). Today's person you fire could be your boss shortly down the road, so I think this contributes to why generally I find experienced people reluctant to give any real details. Exceptions happen though, and in cases of theft, arrest etc I have seen more direct responses since there is generally public record, but again, that is a very low percentage of times. Also, as @HillRat said, SMB's can be more volatile since they generally lack professional HR and so that is a little more subject to the good ole boy network and off the cuff comments. Or the pregnant pause as he also mentioned. Personally in my current and past businesses, we will validate employment dates, salary if they already have the number (otherwise that is the employees personal data), job title and what the job position entailed. We generally give no indication as to why the person left or whether it was voluntary or not. In large organizations these types of calls go to an HR group or even to an outside firm that only has 4-5 pieces of data on people. Home Depot Supply at one time had an automated system that handled all verification of employment calls to prevent mishaps from happening. I have no clue if this is still the case, but it was creative. If an employee leaves on their own, or asks me personally for a reference I will make a judgement call about if I will do it, how much to say and how to handle it. But in the cases where someone was terminated they rarely list that manager as a reference so those calls come from a verification of employment perspective, where we answer the bare minimum.

by pekk 12y ago

hluska 12y ago

First, 'pollyanna advice' is unnecessarily harsh. Even saying 'overly optimistic' would be a huge improvement... Second, yes there are ways that someone could keep another from getting hired, but they are supremely (as in multi-million dollar lawsuit) risky. When it comes to the back channel, it is important to remember that everybody talks all the time and favours never come free.

op00to 12y ago

"[...] there is no mechanism which will allow the candidate to discover what was mentioned on the back channel [...]" If there's a back channel for the reference, there's a back channel to find out about a shitty reference. I'm instructed by my HR team to never, ever give references, and to refer folks inquiring to our contracted company that gives only dates of employment. 'Cause we got better things to do than get sued, even if we'd likely win.

HillRat 12y ago

"Back channels" are exceptionally rare between HR departments -- I've only heard of one significant network of HR departments willing to back-channel pejorative data about possible employees, and that was a set of industrial companies that had an ongoing problem with employees getting fired for failed drug screens, then cleaning up just long enough to go to the next firm. (Meth heads playing with 2000°F furnaces is a legal and operational nightmare scenario.) Even so, it took years for the companies to start sharing anything, and even then the HR heads would do things like meet in the parking lots of rural truck stops to exchange names of problem employees. Basically, sharing pejorative employee info between companies is something that no competent HR professional is willing to do absent very good reason, executive direction, and a lot of attempts at tradecraft. Having said that, ref checks can communicate quite a lot without communicating anything in particular; pregnant pauses and careful word choice can certainly say a lot. However, this is more a concern in SMBs where the ref check might land on the manager's desk instead of HR. Now, if a company leader wants to screw you over and you're looking for employment in the SMB market, then, yeah, change cities. YPO is a freaking henhouse for gossip, and bad reputations move fast in those circles.

wpietri 12y ago

Perhaps you could share your experience? Rather than, say, implying without evidence that everybody but you is an idiot.

davismwfl 12y ago

My advice isn't Pollyanna advice. I have worked at Fortune 10 and Fortune 500 firms as well as in startups, plus I have run my own company for years now. In all those places I have held senior positions at one time or another. So my experience is real and practical. In the larger firms generally managers and above are trained to redirect all reference requests and employment verifications to HR, especially for employees who were terminated. This is a risk mitigation procedure by the companies, as lawsuits are real. And generally past employees do find out when employers try to damage them because of friends or sympathizers still at the company will reach out and let them know. You say back channels are the way and the good ole boy network still exists. I agree to a point, but practical experience again is showing me that even using people I know they are reluctant to answer questions because they fear reprisal not just from lawsuits, but for what should happen when they need a job (direct quote from someone not too long ago). Today's person you fire could be your boss shortly down the road, so I think this contributes to why generally I find experienced people reluctant to give any real details. Exceptions happen though, and in cases of theft, arrest etc I have seen more direct responses since there is generally public record, but again, that is a very low percentage of times. Also, as @HillRat said, SMB's can be more volatile since they generally lack professional HR and so that is a little more subject to the good ole boy network and off the cuff comments. Or the pregnant pause as he also mentioned. Personally in my current and past businesses, we will validate employment dates, salary if they already have the number (otherwise that is the employees personal data), job title and what the job position entailed. We generally give no indication as to why the person left or whether it was voluntary or not. In large organizations these types of calls go to an HR group or even to an outside firm that only has 4-5 pieces of data on people. Home Depot Supply at one time had an automated system that handled all verification of employment calls to prevent mishaps from happening. I have no clue if this is still the case, but it was creative. If an employee leaves on their own, or asks me personally for a reference I will make a judgement call about if I will do it, how much to say and how to handle it. But in the cases where someone was terminated they rarely list that manager as a reference so those calls come from a verification of employment perspective, where we answer the bare minimum.