Refusing to give recommendation to stellar interns?

[PeppermintPatty]

Originally Posted by Colonel Smoothie

Why even bother asking for them?

I've never been asked for a reference.

Originally Posted by Loner

Because nobody wants to update the form.

This is my guess.

I've been asked to BE a reference a couple of times, although not for a long time. I won't do it unless I can say nice things about you. Once, for a non-actuarial thing, it was a complete joke -- the guy who called me basically told me what he wanted to hear, so I said that. "Yes, I would say he is honest." (Completely true, btw, but not any of the first 20 adjectives I would have come up with on my own.)

And I've only checked references when I personally knew someone the person used to work with -- basically, I've called a friend to get some background on a candidate. I've never called a stranger to get a reference.

[PeppermintPatty]

Originally Posted by extrovertedactuary

I actually do have mine PDF'd and saved, but it's more for my own review every now and then to make sure I'm progressing in my career and following up on areas of improvement in the past.

However, am I mistaken in thinking that disseminating this information could land you in trouble from the company that did the review? I am under the impression that this information is confidential and to be kept internal.

I have copies of mine, too, which is why I said I don't believe you could get the company to confirm it, not that no candidate could provide it.

I don't know whether I'd get in trouble for handing that out, but I wouldn't. And I wouldn't ask for a document that can't be confirmed.

[clarinetist]

The company starts with a C and ends with an L. I can't find the job posting now, but I think it was not actuarial.

[Westley]

Originally Posted by Fracktuary

Their interview process was so bad that I wasn't even bummed when they didn't make an offer.

That style may work for consulting firms, I just find it very abrasive and tedious.

If you think the interview was abrasive and tedious, you should see what the job's like!

Originally Posted by PeppermintPatty

"Yes, I would say he is honest." (Completely true, btw, but not any of the first 20 adjectives I would have come up with on my own.)

Can you list those 20? TIA!

[Fracktuary]

Originally Posted by Westley

If you think the interview was abrasive and tedious, you should see what the job's like!

I have friends (in their twenties) that would not consider leaving that place. There must be something about the work that makes up for the long days.

Some people thrive in that sort of environment.

[pragmatist]

Originally Posted by Quasi

As a manager at a couple of companies I was told to not give references for fear of lawsuits.

Some employers/coworkers think employment references are their opportunity to retaliate against the candidate for some unrelated or petty issue, and thus they indulge in making harmful statements knowing them to be false (or recklessly disregarding their falsity). In the American legal system, that is known as actual malice. It is that deliberate falsity what lands them in trouble.

Originally Posted by KernelMustard

You can't give a complete and honest recommendation until he or she has finished out their job/tenure. What if that manager gives the recommendation then the person quits the day after accepting an offer without notice. I think this is totally reasonable. Lol at you even bringing ethics into this, get some common sense.

I think it's pretty obvious that the recommendation (if any) refers to the portion of the internship/job/tenure that has elapsed. Therefore, OP's inquiry of ethics sounds pertinent to me, and I wouldn't ridicule him.

Common sense consists of being mindful that the manager did not have a crystal ball at the time he gave the recommendation. Thus, whether or not the candidate unexpectedly resigns has nothing to do with manager's honesty in the recommendation.

[PeppermintPatty]

But maybe it was really "I'm not allowed to recommend you because you currently work here", which is a pretty common rule.

[Westley]

Originally Posted by pragmatist

It is that deliberate falsity what lands them in trouble.

That happens for some employers, but isn't really true as a general statement. Many employers have gotten in trouble for stating something factually true, or for an opinion that was supported by some facts. Which is why they've gone to, essentially, not giving references.

BTW that policy has also gotten a company sued, one case in particular involved a company being sued under the claim that they said they would only give out dates of hire etc (the standard info) and a subsequent employer sued (and won) under a claim that they should have disclosed more.

[Colonel Smoothie]

Originally Posted by Westley

BTW that policy has also gotten a company sued, one case in particular involved a company being sued under the claim that they said they would only give out dates of hire etc (the standard info) and a subsequent employer sued (and won) under a claim that they should have disclosed more.

interesting

[Marcie]

Originally Posted by Westley

That happens for some employers, but isn't really true as a general statement. Many employers have gotten in trouble for stating something factually true, or for an opinion that was supported by some facts. Which is why they've gone to, essentially, not giving references.

BTW that policy has also gotten a company sued, one case in particular involved a company being sued under the claim that they said they would only give out dates of hire etc (the standard info) and a subsequent employer sued (and won) under a claim that they should have disclosed more.

What more were they told they should have disclosed, Farmboy?