This is all nonsense: You have to give references. Simply give them the details of the agencies you worked for - you don’t need to ask the agencies at all. If the references are followed up (not that likely) they will phone the agency, who will say; “Yes LIBERTY_GUY worked for us between x and y.” that is all they have to confirm and it shows that you were not a guest of Her Maj, or out in the ME learning how to make IUDs.
The olden days when references gave details about how good or bad a person was are long gone - If a previous employer said anything bad about you, they would be breaking the law.
GasGas:
Most sensible employers will ask previous employers for confirmation of employment during the period given on the individual’s CV and a reason for leaving. These days there are CRB checks for sensitive areas of employment which are more valuable than references anyway.
The specific problem I am finding though is that agencies won’t respond to reference requests or give out any other details, either due their own company policies, data protection rules, or even just not wanting to lose people off their books? Whilst I have always been aware agencies won’t give references to other agencies (obviously), the fact that they wont give them to potential employers either has been somewhat of a surprise to me.
Interestingly enough, whilst CRB checks were actually brought out to protect vulnerable people in care environments, the local Amazon warehouse is now wanting its agency supplied temps to be disclosure checked, credit checked AND pass a drug and alcohol test. All for the grand sum of minimum wage working shifts to strict targets. It does make you wonder who the real crooks are out there eh? … Especially so as Amazon was caught out last year trying to use creative accounting to avoid its corporate tax liabilites.
Santa:
or out in the ME learning how to make IUDs.
.
Your local family planning clinic will sort you out with an IUD if you require one Santa. No need to travel to Damascus for it! Unless of course you really want your ■■■ life to go with a bang.
the maoster:
Pm me and I’ll give you my mobile number to pass on. I’ll then give you a glowing reference, in fact it’ll be that good I’ll wonder why I ever let you go! . Seriously they’ll not know the difference between a reference from an ex employer and a bloke you’ve never met.
Santa:
This is all nonsense: You have to give references. Simply give them the details of the agencies you worked for - you don’t need to ask the agencies at all. If the references are followed up (not that likely) they will phone the agency, who will say; “Yes LIBERTY_GUY worked for us between x and y.” that is all they have to confirm and it shows that you were not a guest of Her Maj, or out in the ME learning how to make IUDs.
The olden days when references gave details about how good or bad a person was are long gone - If a previous employer said anything bad about you, they would be breaking the law.
Not if they we’re telling the truth, expressed as a private statement. Slander and libel laws only apply to information the is placed in the public domain. You would be perfectly within your rights to say “We would not employ XXXXX because he was constantly late, had several accidents that appeared to be his fault, was rude to customers and ■■■■■■ a lot”. By wording it that way, you’re not actually suggesting that they shouldn’t employ XXXXX.
Santa:
This is all nonsense: You have to give references. Simply give them the details of the agencies you worked for - you don’t need to ask the agencies at all. If the references are followed up (not that likely) they will phone the agency, who will say; “Yes LIBERTY_GUY worked for us between x and y.” that is all they have to confirm and it shows that you were not a guest of Her Maj, or out in the ME learning how to make IUDs.
The olden days when references gave details about how good or bad a person was are long gone - If a previous employer said anything bad about you, they would be breaking the law.
Not if they we’re telling the truth, expressed as a private statement. Slander and libel laws only apply to information the is placed in the public domain. You would be perfectly within your rights to say “We would not employ XXXXX because he was constantly late, had several accidents that appeared to be his fault, was rude to customers and ■■■■■■ a lot”. By wording it that way, you’re not actually suggesting that they shouldn’t employ XXXXX.
Actually that is incorrect. There is a law called defamation of character, which is why most big companies have policies of not giving out a bad reference now. It was someone who works in HR for a large national company who informed me of that fact.
Santa:
This is all nonsense: You have to give references. Simply give them the details of the agencies you worked for - you don’t need to ask the agencies at all. If the references are followed up (not that likely) they will phone the agency, who will say; “Yes LIBERTY_GUY worked for us between x and y.” that is all they have to confirm and it shows that you were not a guest of Her Maj, or out in the ME learning how to make IUDs.
The olden days when references gave details about how good or bad a person was are long gone - If a previous employer said anything bad about you, they would be breaking the law.
Not if they we’re telling the truth, expressed as a private statement. Slander and libel laws only apply to information the is placed in the public domain. You would be perfectly within your rights to say “We would not employ XXXXX because he was constantly late, had several accidents that appeared to be his fault, was rude to customers and ■■■■■■ a lot”. By wording it that way, you’re not actually suggesting that they shouldn’t employ XXXXX.
Actually that is incorrect. There is a law called defamation of character, which is why most big companies have policies of not giving out a bad reference now. It was someone who works in HR for a large national company who informed me of that fact.
No, it is entirely correct. Defamation of Character is another way of saying slander, that’s all. Like libel, it only applies to FALSE statements. If what you’re saying is true, you are perfectly at liberty to say it. Read this. contactlaw.co.uk/defamation- … acter.html
Santa:
This is all nonsense: You have to give references. Simply give them the details of the agencies you worked for - you don’t need to ask the agencies at all. If the references are followed up (not that likely) they will phone the agency, who will say; “Yes LIBERTY_GUY worked for us between x and y.” that is all they have to confirm and it shows that you were not a guest of Her Maj, or out in the ME learning how to make IUDs.
The olden days when references gave details about how good or bad a person was are long gone - If a previous employer said anything bad about you, they would be breaking the law.
Not if they we’re telling the truth, expressed as a private statement. Slander and libel laws only apply to information the is placed in the public domain. You would be perfectly within your rights to say “We would not employ XXXXX because he was constantly late, had several accidents that appeared to be his fault, was rude to customers and ■■■■■■ a lot”. By wording it that way, you’re not actually suggesting that they shouldn’t employ XXXXX.
Actually that is incorrect. There is a law called defamation of character, which is why most big companies have policies of not giving out a bad reference now. It was someone who works in HR for a large national company who informed me of that fact.
No, it is entirely correct. Defamation of Character is another way of saying slander, that’s all. Like libel, it only applies to FALSE statements. If what you’re saying is true, you are perfectly at liberty to say it. Read this. contactlaw.co.uk/defamation- … acter.html
Yeah but if you take your example above you can’t accuse someone of being constantly late in a negative way, without knowing for certain why they were late. For example we moved premises once and one guy starting being constantly late because he couldn’t drive so had to use public transport, whereas he walked to the previous premises. It wasn’t him being late but the crap public transport he then had to rely on. In situations like that, the company actually created the lateness problem by moving to another location. Likewise implying several accidents that the ‘appeared’ to be the fault of the applicant without a clear independent decision on every single incident is in itself slanderous as you are portraying someone in clearly biased way, that is defaming their character and affecting their chances of employment. Something they can take you to court for and claim substantial damages.
A lawyer would have a field day in your above example by simply asking one question. “If the applicant was that awful, why did you continue to employ them?”
Santa:
This is all nonsense: You have to give references. Simply give them the details of the agencies you worked for - you don’t need to ask the agencies at all. If the references are followed up (not that likely) they will phone the agency, who will say; “Yes LIBERTY_GUY worked for us between x and y.” that is all they have to confirm and it shows that you were not a guest of Her Maj, or out in the ME learning how to make IUDs.
The olden days when references gave details about how good or bad a person was are long gone - If a previous employer said anything bad about you, they would be breaking the law.
Not if they we’re telling the truth, expressed as a private statement. Slander and libel laws only apply to information the is placed in the public domain. You would be perfectly within your rights to say “We would not employ XXXXX because he was constantly late, had several accidents that appeared to be his fault, was rude to customers and ■■■■■■ a lot”. By wording it that way, you’re not actually suggesting that they shouldn’t employ XXXXX.
Actually that is incorrect. There is a law called defamation of character, which is why most big companies have policies of not giving out a bad reference now. It was someone who works in HR for a large national company who informed me of that fact.
No, it is entirely correct. Defamation of Character is another way of saying slander, that’s all. Like libel, it only applies to FALSE statements. If what you’re saying is true, you are perfectly at liberty to say it. Read this. contactlaw.co.uk/defamation- … acter.html
Yeah but if you take your example above you can’t accuse someone of being constantly late in a negative way, without knowing for certain why they were late. For example we moved premises once and one guy starting being constantly late because he couldn’t drive so had to use public transport, whereas he walked to the previous premises. It wasn’t him being late but the crap public transport he then had to rely on. In situations like that, the company actually created the lateness problem by moving to another location. Likewise implying several accidents that the ‘appeared’ to be the fault of the applicant without a clear independent decision on every single incident is in itself slanderous as you are portraying someone in clearly biased way, that is defaming their character and affecting their chances of employment. Something they can take you to court for and claim substantial damages.
A lawyer would have a field day in your above example by simply asking one question. “If the applicant was that awful, why did you continue to employ them?”
It’s not an accusation. If the employee was late, he was late - the reasons why don’t matter, it is a simple statement of fact. If the employer moved premises, the responsibility to turn up on time remains with the employee. In the case of an accident, you could only say conclusively that the employee was responsible if it had been proven in court. So “appeared to be” would be the correct way to express your remarks, and the employee would have to prove otherwise. The court would then rely on insurance judgements, and you wouldn’t make the “appeared to be responsible” unless you knew those judgements to be in your favour. Remember, this would be a civil case, the burden of proof is on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.
And the other lawyer would have a field day himself, by replying “we didn’t, that’s why he’s looking for a job” or “we were giving him a chance to improve” or even “we were planning to start disciplinary procedures soon”
Sayersy, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, other than to say I can see why companies no longer give out bad references. There is an element of the UK’s recently introduced workforce that will try to screw businesses at every opportunity given half a chance, which is why we all have to endure this constant H&S bullsheet and have detailed procedures and assessment of everything that moves (or doesn’t). Businesses spend more time covering their own butts nowadays for good reason.
Funnily enough, we agree entirely here. Personally, I would never say anything in a reference other than “he worked her for ? years, and these were his duties”. In society nowadays, everything is someone else’s fault. There was a wonderful case in the USA about a rich guy that would place $1000 in an envelope and hide it, then post clues on the net like a treasure hunt. Some fella tried and failed to find it, so he sued the rich guy for “pain and humiliation”, because he wasn’t smart enough to figure out the clues! People can’t accept that sometimes things just don’t go your way.
I worked at one place ten years ago, where they gave everyone a nice Christmas hamper. Unbelievably one of the women that worked there claimed she had sprained her wrist carrying it to her car and tried to claim against the company. We all thought it was a real sheety stunt she was trying to pull - talk about ungrateful ■■■■■!!
Following Christmas all the managers had to carry the hampers to people’s cars.
Winseer:
I’m surprised the firm didn’t go “we’ve scrapped all perk bonuses like hampers because of Mrs Thingies Claim last year. Blame her. You all lose because of her. Let the backbiting begin.”
Have not Tescos done something similar regarding staff getting to buy unsold food about to be thrown away as “out of date”?
Some idiot sued for it being indedible (chance you take I would have thought - for pennies in the pound!) and the firm now throws everything away en masse. What a waste!
UPDATE:… Surprisingly the guy offering me a job came back to me on Friday morning and said the whole reference thing didn’t matter any more, as he needed a driver for Monday. Unfortunately my plans had changed by then so couldn’t take him up on it…
Double post 
