Why the heck can't potential employees ask potential employers for references? (job application, interviewer)

[macroy]

Originally Posted by mash potato

That is kind of my point. Employees hand employers that magic list containing past companies worked for, names, address, phone number. I want the same list! Handed to me! On a silver platter! Engraved! Delivered to my front door! Just as employees provide to employers!

I'm proposing a new way. The 'Lists are traded' way. Save the prospective employee some time. After all, the employee will be providing the employer with a service and spending a lot of time with the employer. It's an equal trade-off. Therefore, there should be an equal trade-off of information, without one party having to work for the list of contacts.

What your proposing brings no real value to the other party from their point of view. So the likelihood of it being accepted is slim.

What you want, and what's realistic are two different things. We all want the cake and eat it. But guess what, the bottom line is that in a negotiation process, the party with more leverage has the ability to set the rules. And in MOST hiring situations... the employer has that leverage.

In a situation where you are a well known expert and every employer in the industry is fighting for you to work for them... I'm sure you can propose whatever you want. But that's not a situation that many of us are in.

[lovetheduns]

Originally Posted by hnsq

You are trying to work for THEM. They don't owe you a thing. It shouldn't be an equal tradeoff. An employer needs you more than you need them, so you have to work harder. If you don't like it, start your own company.

Exactly.

Whereas you are "interviewing" a new employer yourself-- it is not equivalent to what the employer is doing.

The employer is going to be paying the new hire money, taking the risk in training, etc. The employee seeks to reap money and benefits in return for their work.

Understand no one in their right mind gives out references that are less than positive. Now granted, I did have a guy years ago who gave out references whom he had never asked if they could be his reference and made them sound professional when really one was a CEO who he happened to coach the CEO's daughter part time in tennis and even the CEO was perplexed why he had been contacted to give a reference for the applicant's data technician experience.

But MOST people vet their references, ask and alert them to the use of their name, etc.

Companies do the EXACT same thing even when they are offering references to another company who is deciding to use their business. It is called-- "referenceable client." You don't pick a client or customer who hates your service and product and then give that name to your sales group to serve as a reference.

I am attending an executive MBA program in the Spring and the school provides "ambassadors" to speak to about the program. Due to privacy issues I am sure that the school approached the happy graduates and then had them sign a waiver to release their information to other students. When I wanted to know the REAL deal, I asked other people in the class during my onsite interview to provide their emails to ask questions. I asked students whom the school did not set me up with for my orientation and interview day.

So even privacy issues aside of dealing with individuals-- because let's be frank a company can not release personal information about current or past employees without a waiver from that person (same way you can't just call up and ask what does Sally Sue make in XYZ position unless Sally Sue pre-authorized you to receive that information). Granted, some federal jobs and state public jobs-- you can find this information, but I am talking about private employers.

So with all of that said, even if the employer was okay with giving you a list of past employee names-- you can rest assured those past employees would be very happy and pro-employer because the employer would not go through the hassle of getting unhappy employees waiver's to hand out to job applicants.

And I can tell you-- I would not allow my number to be given out to every potential interviewee-- I don't have the time to speak to someone who may or may not even get the job. Now if someone were to approach me through my network, I would give them my honest feedback because they used our network to get to me-- and that in of itself shows professionalism, dedication, and a consideration for my time.

[mash potato]

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

If you are being head hunted by them, you have every right to expect that they will provide you with references. If your hunting them, they have every right to expect that you will provide references. So who is doing the hunting?

Both actually, because when employers post ads they always include the word 'seeking', as in, seeking chief, cook and bottlewasher. When employees are looking, they are called jobhunters.

Originally Posted by STT Resident

Well, you certainly have your work cut out for you in changing an accepted employment practice which has been in effect for at least 100 years and probably more.

If the Israelites made it out of Egypt, so can we. They were there a little longer than 100 years!

Originally Posted by hnsq

You are trying to work for THEM.

And they are trying to hire ME!

Originally Posted by hnsq

It shouldn't be an equal tradeoff.

It surely is a tradeoff. My time, skills and talent for their money.

Originally Posted by hnsq

An employer needs you more than you need them,

Didn't you mean to say the reverse?

Originally Posted by macroy

What your proposing brings no real value to the other party from their point of view.

This would benefit employers because they would learn the true stories of a candidate's previous employment which would free up a lot of the good candidates that are currently being passed over, thereby providing the employer with stellar talent for their money. I might add that if endangered animal species can be protected, why can't innocent employees?

Originally Posted by macroy

What you want, and what's realistic are two different things.

That's right, and for too long employers have gotten away with not providing their history. That's the reality, but it doesn't have to stay that way. If Rosa Parks sat in the back of the bus, Obama wouldn't be president today. Sometimes existing rules and standard practices need to be changed.

Originally Posted by macroy

the bottom line is that in a negotiation process, the party with more leverage has the ability to set the rules. And in MOST hiring situations... the employer has that leverage.

That doesn't make it right. And that's why there needs to be regulation in this area. You say the the employer has the leverage. And I say the employer / employer relationship is similar to innocent children who are at the mercy of adults. Adults have the leverage there. They don't always do the right thing, such as the story we've been hearing in the news about Penn State and other countless horror stories. That's why there needs to be regulation. Employers are taking advantage of the loop hole they have enjoyed for so long and that they hope no one does anything about: no accountability, no oversight and no regulation exists.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

The employer is going to be paying the new hire money

In exchange for a commodity. The employer is purchasing something. The employer is not giving the employee a gift when they pay the employee. Yet I think the employer does feel this way sometimes.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

taking the risk in training, etc.

And do you know why the employer feels comfortable taking that risk? They were able to call the candidates past employers and get the story. They were secure in that knowledge.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

The employee seeks to reap money and benefits in return for their work.

Service for money, yes. And a major part of the employees life is spent there, too. That deserves a paycheck and doesn't entitle the employer to any more honor than the employee.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

Understand no one in their right mind gives out references that are less than positive.

I wrote the word 'references' in the title, but that was the wrong word (I mentioned this somewhere else in this thread, too.) I did get it right, however, in the sentence that followed in the first post. So, references aren't part of this.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

When I wanted to know the REAL deal, I asked other people in the class during my onsite interview to provide their emails to ask questions.

There's a difference there, though, that's a great idea. Those students were still there! This is the same as asking a current employee who's still there about the business. It is entirely different than asking someone who used to work there and the difference is, of course, if you're still working there, you have to be careful for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

a company can not release personal information about current or past employees without a waiver from that person

This is what needs to change. I know many employees would gladly sign a waiver to be given the chance to tell what happened to them while working for this person. An employee's past employers don't need to sign a waiver to talk about a previous employee. Privacy issues exist for both parties. The candidate doesn't have less privacy rights than anybody else. Access is needed to the employer's side of the story, which the Department of Labor has, in many cases. Even without finding out what may or may not have happened at a particular place of employment, the numbers speak for themselves. They know the turnover rate at each business. Potential employees need to know this.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

(same way you can't just call up and ask what does Sally Sue make in XYZ position unless Sally Sue pre-authorized you to receive that information)

Yep, but it wasn't always so. These things develop into standard procedure over time. And do you know what else is becoming standard procedure these days? Drug tests, blood test, physicals, background checks and credit checks. These things weren't standard procedure. Someone put them in place. Whats next, for the love of Pete? Cavity search?! Nobody fights back and this is the direction we're going.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

So with all of that said, even if the employer was okay with giving you a list of past employee names-- you can rest assured those past employees would be very happy and pro-employer because the employer would not go through the hassle of getting unhappy employees waiver's to hand out to job applicants.

Ah, but that is exactly (exactly!) what I'm talking about! Employees don't just list the jobs on their resume that will give glowing reviews. If you have experience working somewhere and you want to use that experience to apply somewhere else, you will list that experience to show you have that experience. That employer may have made you cry everyday. Finally, when it was no longer humanly possible to continue to take the abuse, and the employee changes something just a little in order to try to survive it, what do you know, the employee is out the door. Well, that experience is still going on that employee's resume, isn't it? That employer will be called by any potential employer, won't they?

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

And I can tell you-- I would not allow my number to be given out to every potential interviewee

It wouldn't work that way. Only the one applicant who is about to be hired would get the list.

Originally Posted by lovetheduns

Now if someone were to approach me through my network, I would give them my honest feedback because they used our network to get to me.

There's just one thing about that, though, that's not the same as speaking to someone. It's done through a computer. Do potential employers email the candidate's past employers? No! They call!

[STT Resident]

I have to tell you, girl, you're missing your calling as a stand-up comedienne. Your analogies are bloody hilarious. You kind of remind me of the ditzy daughter-in-law on "All In The Family" - ah, "Gloria" I think her name was. Probably way before your time but I can't think of anything current to compare off the top of my head. Well done! Explore the talent and use the talent - you are SO wasted on these forums!

[lostinca]

My first thought is with your refrences you only provide companies with people that would give you a glowing refrence right? In all honesty I would expect companies to do the same, just give you happy previous companies.
I agree with the others Glassdoor and Google help you.

[macroy]

Originally Posted by mash potato

......That's right, and for too long employers have gotten away with not providing their history. That's the reality, but it doesn't have to stay that way. If Rosa Parks sat in the back of the bus, Obama wouldn't be president today. Sometimes existing rules and standard practices need to be changed.

......That doesn't make it right. And that's why there needs to be regulation in this area. You say the the employer has the leverage. And I say the employer / employer relationship is similar to innocent children who are at the mercy of adults. Adults have the leverage there. They don't always do the right thing, such as the story we've been hearing in the news about Penn State and other countless horror stories. That's why there needs to be regulation. Employers are taking advantage of the loop hole they have enjoyed for so long and that they hope no one does anything about: no accountability, no oversight and no regulation exists.

......

Wow - so let me just clarify this. I want to make sure I'm understanding you. You're basically saying that because it's generally accepted that potential employers are not asked to provide references (and keep in mind that there are a ton of intel out there for those that want to get it);

job seekers are victims on the same level as those that had to endure racial bigotry, rape, and child abuse????

[mash potato]

Originally Posted by STT Resident

you're missing your calling as a stand-up comedienne.

What was funny?

Originally Posted by STT Resident

Your analogies

which ones?

Originally Posted by STT Resident

You kind of remind me of the ditzy

aren't personal attacks against the rules?

Originally Posted by lostinca

My first thought is with your refrences.......Glassdoor and Google help you.

I agree, glassdoor and google are good, but when I wrote the word 'references' in the title, that was the wrong word (I mentioned this somewhere else in this thread, too.) I did get it right, however, in the sentence that followed in the first post. So, references aren't part of this.

Originally Posted by macroy

Wow - I want to make sure I'm understanding you. You're basically saying that because it's generally accepted that potential employers are not asked to provide references

not references, but a list of their previous employees, similar to the list employees provide to employers (list of past employers).

Originally Posted by macroy

job seekers

employees

Originally Posted by macroy

are victims

I didn't use that word.

Originally Posted by macroy

on the same level as those that had to endure racial bigotry, rape, and child abuse????

I am making a parallel comparison to the inhumane uses of leverage. Children are at the mercy of adults. Workers are at the mercy of employers, it seems, because so many of them are afraid of getting fired. I mentioned Rosa Parks because she was able to change an old archaic system, just like the old archaic system we have now of not calling employers' past employees. It would stop a lot of abuse.

[313Weather]

It's because you need them, they don't need you (in this economy).

You can ask, but it's no bones off their back if they can't fulfill your request or hire you.

That said, someone should create a website/forum where people can anonymously blast (or praise) employers all they want. That way it does allow an potential prospect ot get an idea of what that employer is truly about.

[mash potato]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

It's because you need them, they don't need you (in this economy).

I'd like to see the employer list of past employees become a requirement regardless of who needs who! There's a lot of requirements in existence right now, what's one more badly needed one?

Originally Posted by 313Weather

That said, someone should create a website/forum where people can anonymously blast (or praise) employers all they want.

Then someone should also create a website where employers can post about their previous employees! One little problem with this is that it all becomes public. Whereas a phone call is private. I appreciate the idea though.

[STT Resident]

OP, since you're obviously so focused on this issue, have you considered how to implement such a plan? It's all very well to say that someone "should" do this or that but many times you have to follow through on things yourself to make them happen and create change.

On the "street" level you could certainly create a website such as you mentioned in your last post and with enough exposure it could take off. Taking it to the government level would of course entail much more work.

I imagine the first step might be to put all your thoughts into a presentable format (like a formal Business Plan) and then feel out your state labor representatives to win their support. The next step I suppose would be to enlist the support of your state Senator in order to bring it to the House.

Good luck in your quest.