Employer discussing why I was let go

[cbg]

Pinkie, most employer's DON'T give out bad references unless there's a very real reason to do so. They're far more likely to give out neutral, or even good, references when they should be giving out a bad one, than they are to give bad ones unnecessarily.

There's always the odd ball, but employers are far more concerned about being sued over a bad reference than they really need to be, IMO. The sad fact is that most people who believe they're not getting jobs because of a bad reference, are not getting jobs because their resume is not standing out, or because they're applying for jobs they're not qualified for, or because there were 300 applications and 290 of them didn't get called for interviews.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

<---------Oddball

This will probably be an unpopular opinion. Unless the employee stole from the employer or committed some other egregious act, why give a bad reference to a potential employer? Why not just verify the employee worked there, and only give out their position and dates of employment?

It just seems spiteful to me to try to sabotage a former employee's ability to find another job to support themself, by giving a negative reference over say, the previous job just not being a good fit for the employee, or the employee and boss just having clashing personalities.

Let me explain. Company A calls Company B for a reference. Company B doesn't give any reference or a neutered one. Guess what happens down the road when Company B calls Company A for a reference. It doesn't take too much imagination.

 

[Pinkie39]

<---------Oddball





Let me explain. Company A calls Company B for a reference. Company B doesn't give any reference or a neutered one. Guess what happens down the road when Company B calls Company A for a reference. It doesn't take too much imagination.

Fair enough. Good points

Pinkie, most employer's DON'T give out bad references unless there's a very real reason to do so. They're far more likely to give out neutral, or even good, references when they should be giving out a bad one, than they are to give bad ones unnecessarily.

There's always the odd ball, but employers are far more concerned about being sued over a bad reference than they really need to be, IMO. The sad fact is that most people who believe they're not getting jobs because of a bad reference, are not getting jobs because their resume is not standing out, or because they're applying for jobs they're not qualified for, or because there were 300 applications and 290 of them didn't get called for interviews.

Fair points, both of you.

My husband actually found out once that a former employer (smallish family owned company) told at least one potential employer that he never worked for the company at all. He worked for them for 5 years. He had applied for a (better paying, higher level) job through a temp agency. The agency rep called him in the process of checking references, and told him former employer claims he never worked for them. He had pay stubs and W2s proving he did, but it was too late once the temp agency rep decided he was dishonest.

Former employer had done other illegal or borderline illegal things to him and other employees during their employment as well, like cheating them out of earned overtime pay.

So, yes, I get why some people have reason to think they're not getting hired because a former employer is giving out bad references on them.

 

[cbg]

Oh, I get why they think it. It's just that in most cases, it isn't true. I'm sorry to hear that your husband was among the few where it was true - I'm fine with giving out a bad reference when it's earned, but employer's like your husband's give the rest a bad name. I hope he's in a better position now.