If you’re one of the thousands of laid-off workers lucky enough to have a job interview, chances are you’ll be asked for a few references. But when that prospective employer calls, don’t expect your old employer to say much.
While employers are eager to get information on job candidates, they’re not so willing to return the favor for their exiting employees.
And those that do give references often reveal little more than titles, dates of employment and salary history.
Fearing lawsuits from disgruntled employees, employers have clammed up, resorting to name, rank and serial number policies that could hurt good workers trying to move ahead and companies trying to prevent hiring bad apples, legal and employment experts say.
In fact, the employees who stand to benefit most from this trend often have the most to hide, said Wendy Bliss, an attorney, human resources consultant and author of “Legal, Effective References: How to Give and Get Them” (SHRM, $19.95).
“Certainly companies need to take steps to make sure they’re giving information that will not put them in legal hot water,” she said.
“But the name, rank and serial number policy has a lot of downsides to it. The `do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is really not being served at all.”
A reference-checking survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management found that most organizations provide only basic information about former employees.
More Top Picks Best Blue Light Glasses For Men
Ninety-eight percent of respondents said they regularly provide information on dates of employment, while 42 percent comment on their former employees’ eligibility for rehire. Forty-one percent said they provide salary histories.
Information that could shed some light on a job candidate’s personality and work habits is typically not provided, according to the 1998 survey.
The silence on the part of some employers makes for a frustrating hiring process, said one activities director of a senior living community.
“Because employers are so scared that they’ll be sued if they say something negative, I have to risk ending up with a dud employee,” said the director, who asked to remain anonymous.
Employers are cautious for a reason, said Markita D. Cooper, a professor at San Francisco’s Golden Gate University School of Law. Since the mid-1980s, several workers have sued their former companies, saying the employer provided incorrect, incomplete or misleading information about them.
Some employers also have been sued for not disclosing information that could have raised red flags about an employee’s misbehavior or propensity for violence.
But lawsuits aren’t as prevalent as workplace conventional wisdom would have employers believe.
Only 1 percent of respondents to the reference-checking survey said their organizations had defamation claims brought against them as a result of providing information about former employees.
Cooper says reference policies will change only when companies become aware that the benefits of providing references far outweigh the risk of being sued.
“I think we need to change people’s perceptions about what the dilemma is,” she said. “I think the risk is small enough that it’s OK to run that risk.”