Comment by preg_match
2 days ago
The big issue is that a lot of companies don’t allow asking their employees for references. Many even require references for their own hiring process (!!!)
2 days ago
The big issue is that a lot of companies don’t allow asking their employees for references. Many even require references for their own hiring process (!!!)
Can you elaborate?
Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role. That's in many cases a sufficient to serve as a reference.
E.g. In my company we have a very strict policy for this, but are still allowed to answer "yes, Bob was employed as problem manager team lead from 2023 to 2025". Conversely as a hiring manager, I'll take that as a minimally sufficient data point in confirming resume entry.
It's always worth considering whether you have people who will give you genuine glowing references.
I've only ever once been at a place where there was a policy saying "all you are allowed to say during reference checks is "yes, they worked here as [job title], from {month/year} to {month/year}". And even with that policy/restriction I still found ways to be much much more positive about the people who were genuinely great.
One great way around that kind of policy - at least if you far enough into your career for it - is to provided references for people who are also no longer at the company they're being a referee for. There are 3 or 4 people from that job I mentioned that didn't allow me to elaborate, where I've subsequently provided reference including something like "Ratica? Yeah - she is great! She lead my QA team and worked magic! You might want to warn the company she's applying to that as soon as I get a role and budget that suits her QA skills, I'll 100% be trying to headhunt her away from them."
Congratulations, you cost her the job because the company didn't want to deal with an increased risk of her being poached. She's suing, by the way.
1 reply →
My understanding is that the "were they employed" thing is covered by background checks. I know equifax (experian? I always get them confused) have a product where they will reveal your past titles AND your salaries. It's a little wild and I don't like that, but the point is that I don't think you gain much info from "yes they worked here" from HR.
A reference is really intended as a statement of character IMO. "They worked here" from HR, who doesn't know you, is not that.
> Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role.
WDYM by "allowed"? In my jurisdiction, a company is required to confirm (or deny, as the case may be) the dates and roles of employment when asked.
A reply along the lines of "we can not confirm $PERSON's employment as a $ROLE between $DATE1 and $DATE2" when $PERSON has salary slips for those dates is a slam-dunk winning lawsuit!
In my company we have a very strict policy for this
My company is so strict about it that it farms out reference checks to a third company so that nobody inside the company knows that references were checked. Seems a little extreme to me.
> a third company so that nobody inside the company knows that references were checked
That’s actually really interesting. If you are actively looking that prevents anyone in the company from knowing you are looking, even if they did a reference check. That might be because of some previous lawsuits around terminating someone while getting a reference check before actually getting a new job/leaving.