Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=TracySam;4391814]My issue with nebulous is that she is mixing up due process in a court of law, and due process in a wokrplace.
If I say "I fired nebulous because I caught her harming a patient" then I am stating it as a fact. It is then up to me to prove whether this is a true fact or a lie. If I say "I fired nebulous because in my opinion she was not reliable" or "In my opinon she was a poor performer" or "In my opinion she was negligent in her work," then this is stated as an opinion, not as a fact. She could sue me for slander, but if it got to court, the jury would be instructed that they must find that my statements must meet all the criteria of slander for it to be slander. And my statements could not constitute slander if stated as opinions.
You'd do better not to make things personal or use anyone on the forum, like me, as an example. It is considered flaming. People can agree to disagree. It's just more...professional.
Exactly Sierra!!That is what my point was also!! Employers do not want lawsuits on their hands....All of our HR Directors, administrators want to stay as neutral as possible!!! Some people here think it is up to the employer if they want to say negative things about a former employee. But in reality most do not bad mouth them for fear of a lawsuit!
I bet they talk under the table though about employees. You know, the old "don't tell anyone I said this".
Nebulous, Please! I used your name in my hypothetical because you were the person who disagreed with me. I was not saying you were a poor performer or negligent on your work. I wouldn't know. I didn't realize someone could be so touchy about having their screen name used in a hypothetical, but I do realize you're been through a lot, so maybe that makes you more sensitive, and I can understand that. So in that case, I'm sorry I didn't just say "Jane Doe."
But I maintain my support of my points I made.
Nebulous, Please! I used your name in my hypothetical because you were the person who disagreed with me. I was not saying you were a poor performer or negligent on your work. I wouldn't know. I didn't realize someone could be so touchy about having their screen name used in a hypothetical, but I do realize you're been through a lot, so maybe that makes you more sensitive, and I can understand that. So in that case, I'm sorry I didn't just say "Jane Doe."
But I maintain my support of my points I made.
We can agree to disagree on this one Tracy...because in my years as an HR recruiter and assistant we were NEVER EVER to badmouth anyone that called for references...We automatically gave them a fax number and would verify dates of empl. and position ONLY. I would NOT want to work for you LOL>>>>>>>>
Well technically tracey sam is right. Legally an employer is allowed to give a accurate reference regarding an individual's performance, however if it prevents someone from getting a job they had better be prepared to defend that POV from scrutiny if it ever becomes an issue. And between possible audits from the DOL, the EEOC & potential legal arbitration, it really isn't worth it unless the person did something nefarious & you feel the need to protect other people's safety. For example, if the person was let go simply because of subjective reasoning & it really turns out that the manager has personality issues & HR decides to give a bad reference the company could wind up with a problem. So legally, technically the company is allowed to tell the truth - but it better be verifiable & without the appearance of impropriety. Given that, it is smarter to simply verify dates of employment, salary, title. However some companies don't operate as prudently as others.
Now I will also say that the odds are much greater that a company will get away with giving a bad reference, even improperly, then an individual would be likely to get one over. The real world doesn't work like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by njsocks
We can agree to disagree on this one Tracy...because in my years as an HR recruiter and assistant we were NEVER EVER to badmouth anyone that called for references...We automatically gave them a fax number and would verify dates of empl. and position ONLY. I would NOT want to work for you LOL>>>>>>>>
Well technically tracey sam is right. Legally an employer is allowed to give a accurate reference regarding an individual's performance, however if it prevents someone from getting a job they had better be prepared to defend that POV from scrutiny if it ever becomes an issue. And between possible audits from the DOL, the EEOC & potential legal arbitration, it really isn't worth it unless the person did something nefarious & you feel the need to protect other people's safety. For example, if the person was let go simply because of subjective reasoning & it really turns out that the manager has personality issues & HR decides to give a bad reference the company could wind up with a problem. So legally, technically the company is allowed to tell the truth - but it better be verifiable & without the appearance of impropriety. Given that, it is smarter to simply verify dates of employment, salary, title. However some companies don't operate as prudently as others.
Now I will also say that the odds are much greater that a company will get away with giving a bad reference, even improperly, then an individual would be likely to get one over. The real world doesn't work like that.
I understand what you are saying....If it was a case where the person stole or was let go for a SERIOUS reason, I would let a future employer know...like you said..if it was causing harm to employees,etc...
We can agree to disagree on this one Tracy...because in my years as an HR recruiter and assistant we were NEVER EVER to badmouth anyone that called for references...We automatically gave them a fax number and would verify dates of empl. and position ONLY. I would NOT want to work for you LOL>>>>>>>>
I was thinking the same thing...it sounds like a power issue. No matter what someone said about another employee, it would be hard to prove, and really bad employees are rather obvious. Politics is usually a dirty game.
My husband lost his new job due to a really stupid reason but as a new hire he had a three year probation (that is really stupid!) so they could basically fire anyone for any reason within 3 years. Anyway, the union negociated an agreement with them that they were to only give neutral information such as position and dates of employment to any prospective employer. Still, when he went to apply for unemployment it took 6 weeks to get it because his empoyer who was supposed to say he was discharged for "administrative considerations" instead told unemployment everything. We were hopping mad and called the union rep who called the school HR person who said she was "badgered" into telling the unemployement guy everything. So, agreements don't hold much water either. The sad thing is, my husband came from a job of seven years with excellent references and now, 10 months later and a so many interviews we have lost count, he has still not found a job. Me thinks something stinks in Wisconsin! Otherwise known as, don't trust the Wisconsin Technical College system, it is knee deep in corrupt people!
I understand what you are saying....If it was a case where the person stole or was let go for a SERIOUS reason, I would let a future employer know...like you said..if it was causing harm to employees,etc...
What about embezzlement? I worked at a place where after a girl was fired, the owner found some checks missing way in the middle of the check book. Turns out she had done that at a previous employment but when the owner had called to verify references, the previous employer was afraid to say anything. The truth should have been told in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No matter what someone said about another employee, it would be hard to prove, and really bad employees are rather obvious. Politics is usually a dirty game.
