Comments on: Referral hid employee’s drug use: 5 mil verdict

By: Mark Simon

Mark Simon — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:33:43 +0000

We have taken a firm policy of never releasing information about past or present employees…NEVER. We will only verify what is asked of us, and then only with the current or former employee’s written consent. This causes problems for loan applications as the lender always wants us to GIVE information. We contend that in all cases, if someone needs to know something aout a past or current employee, they already really do know. Put it in writing and we will verify YES or NO, it IS correct or it is NOT correct. Unfortunately, this is the best way to handle these circumstances to keep out of trouble.

By: TN

TN — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:40:06 +0000

As a matter of public safety, motor carriers must provide drivers’ drug test information to prospective employers. It would be in the public’s interest for a similar provision to be applied to the medical community as well.

By: K. Hamm

K. Hamm — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:23:04 +0000

We’re considering having new hires sign off on a release at hire holding us harmless for information released when they leave. We may do this in the exit interview process instead or in addition to that. I realize that such a sign-off may not hold up in court, but… When I give out references, I do it only based on documentation of actions, not opinions or verbals from other staff or supervisors. And I am the ONLY one at my organization who can give references.

By: Jim Rittgers

Jim Rittgers — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:50:59 +0000

I’m glad I don’t work in New Jersey, if James’ description of the law related to references is accurate. I’m glad I’m in WI, where a law was passed 12 years ago, protecting employers who give accurate information when providing references. I think several of the responses are indicative of why the reference checking process is often a waste of time or significantly lacking in value. Why should HR search to find something good to say about someone who didn’t value their job enough to perform up to expectations. I realize there are exceptions, e.g., individuals who tried their best but couldn’t meet a position’s requirements. I beleiev that HR is not helping (the vast majority of) terminared employees when it is not honest/accurate with the reference information it provides to prospective new employers. I believe being honest/accurate with references can lead terminated employees to face the reality of why they were terminateed, and accept that they need to make changes in order to have a successful employment relationship. Being less-than-accurate with references does not help people accept reality and decide to make changes.

By: James

James — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:44:14 +0000

Lib, your story goes to show there are many shades of gray. I’d recommend staying neutral in this case by keeping to the standard giving of dates, salary and position title, etc. Sounds like this employee may be someone who would file a complaint. If you did decide to disclose the reason for termination or the unemployment issue to a third company, it would be wise to be prepared to support this with strong documentation. I’d ask myself if I was prepared to put the time and effort (and possibly the time and effort of other staff) into defending my negative reference if it became in issue. Let’s see what others may say about your situation. I’m very interested to hear other opinions!

By: Lib

Lib — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:58:46 +0000

I am puzzled. I have an employee who was quite a valuable asset for 4 years. If asked, I would like to give her a good reference because as James says, I would hate to know that I was prohibiting actions that would potentially interfere with former employees chances of getting another position. I do have a heart, but she abandoned her job just after she verbally abused a co-worker then applied for unemployment compensation with a lie! This was an unacceptable action, but she did a good job while employed. What should I say (in Tennessee)?

By: James

James — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:01:35 +0000

I guess this is something important to consider if the work history referral deals with a position that could potentially cause harm to another person, as in the case of a medical practitioner. Without a consideration such as that, I agree more with the State of New Jersey’s law prohibiting actions that would potentially interfere with former employees chances of getting another position. Although I wouldn’t give a great referral to someone with poor habits across the board, there are usually good things you can say about someone who was terminated for not showing up one day. I think this is one area HR can have a heart when it comes to the overall well being of a person. I’d be more fearful of a complaint from an former employee than I would be from another company.

By: Edward Dunn

Edward Dunn — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:20:10 +0000

What about the agreements between the firm and an employee just fired that no disclosure will be made concerning his firing! Another example of giving lawyers a fixed income!