I thought bad references were illegal?!

dandelionclock30

I think personally that where there has been issues with an employee- the old employer should just provide a neutral reference so that the person can earn a living in the future.I think the exception to this would be if an employee did something absolutley terrible like sexually assaulted someone at work or stabbed someone etc.Then I think they then should say something as its a matter of public saftey.
I think that everybody has the capacity to learn and move forwards and do well. We know that long term prisoners do go on to do well for themselves etc. However, its not in anyones interest if people are unable to earn a living, as long term unemployment and poverty cause a lot of problems for everyone.
The truth is not an absolute because often its one persons version of events against anothers and its who the employer believes. Two people could give 2 different version of events and they could both be very different-but both truthfull as people see and interpret things differently. Sometimes in life circumstances of people change they could have mental health problems or be unable to cope with their abusive relationship etc.They may get in a mess due to external factors not just due to being rubbish at their jobs or not caring about the employer and just wanting the money. From what I know people are very rarely bad- or rubbish-there is often more to it.
It helps nobody if a person cannot move on though.

SarEl

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

I think personally that where there has been issues with an employee- the old employer should just provide a neutral reference so that the person can earn a living in the future.I think the exception to this would be if an employee did something absolutley terrible like sexually assaulted someone at work or stabbed someone etc.Then I think they then should say something as its a matter of public saftey.
I think that everybody has the capacity to learn and move forwards and do well. We know that long term prisoners do go on to do well for themselves etc. However, its not in anyones interest if people are unable to earn a living, as long term unemployment and poverty cause a lot of problems for everyone.
The truth is not an absolute because often its one persons version of events against anothers and its who the employer believes. Two people could give 2 different version of events and they could both be very different-but both truthfull as people see and interpret things differently. Sometimes in life circumstances of people change they could have mental health problems or be unable to cope with their abusive relationship etc.They may get in a mess due to external factors not just due to being rubbish at their jobs or not caring about the employer and just wanting the money. From what I know people are very rarely bad- or rubbish-there is often more to it.
It helps nobody if a person cannot move on though.

Nobody is suggesting that people should not have to move on. But your argument is inconsistant - long term prisoners have to disclose their convictions which are never spent! Even shorter term prisoners have to disclose - and show that they are rehabilitated and will not offend again. "Moving on" is not the same thing as "hiding the truth". No, people are rarely "bad" - but that does not mean that they should be able to get away with doing something that warrants dismissal with impunity and that the next employer doesn't have a right to make their own mind up about whether they wish to take the risk on them.

If people have nothing to hide then they shouldn't be worried about references - and frankly, most people aren't because they have nothing to hide.

Is your interest in this subject of preventing employers from telling the truth about their employees purely technical? Because obviously, whilst this may not be at all true of you, the majority of dismissed employees seem to be the ones who most commonly seem to think that employers shouldn't be able to mention dismissal etc. But that would be a vested intetest, wouldn't it? You'd expect a dismissed employee to have such a view. Perhaps though, the potential employee who has many years of unblemished service and misses out on a job that they could, and would, have had if the reference had been truthful might have a different view.

There are always many perspectives to consider, and I hardly think that starting a new job on the basis of a lie is a good way to set out. But that is just my perosnal view too.

dandelionclock30

Sorry if I was not clear-I was highlighting the fact that even people who have done very bad crimes do manage to move on with their lives despite the considerable barriers they face.They also manage to move away from their old lifestyles. I thought that they only have to disclose if asked,obviously in a CRB checked job they would have to.
I do believe that people have the capacity to change, grow and improve but employers often will not give people with history a chance.Thats why people want to cover up dismissals etc. How can an employee be given a chance if an employer wants 2 satisfactory references and they cant provide them because one has to be from the last employer?. Like I said a HR person will not go against their own policies.
I think a fair few people have this problem because isnt there about 200,000 applications to ET every year from dismissed employees.So its not just one or two people is it?
Just because someone has an unblemished history doesnt mean to say that they are better at a job.I know lots of people who were lousy at their jobs and couldnt do the work.They are still in employment because they play the game and kiss bottom. Lots of employers also dont tell the truth about their horrible companies.

SarEl

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act specifies when and in what circumstances an ex-offender has to disclose their conviction is asked - which most employment application forms do. Getting caught lying about this has the same effect as getting caught lying about your previous employment history. You could be dismissed.

And no, you are not correct. There were approx. 200,000 claims made to the tribunal last year - only 39% of those were for unfair dismissal, unfair selection for redundancy or breach of contract, and since the three claims are not aggregated out, the numbers of claims for unfair dismissal are much lower than 39%. Of course, some of those claims will not be founded either - from time to time around here you will see people posting advising people to make spurious claims in order to try to force a settlement. That certainly goes on. And then there will be people who think they have been unfairly dismissed, when in fact they haven't. We also see that type around here from time to time as well. That is out of 29.11 million people in employment in the UK. So actually - a very small number of people.

I do not dsiagree with you one jot that people deserve a second chance whether it be that they are offenders or that they have been dismissed. What I disagree about is the terms that you think that second chance should be given under. If people do not have to deal with the consequences of their misconduct, and simply hide it, that is not a second chance, that is a lie. Dishonesty. No, just because someone has an unblemished work history doesn't mean they would be better at the job - but they may be more reliable or trustworthy. You are very keen on the rights of people who have been dismissed, but very dismissive of everyone elses rights. If someone has been dismissed for pilfering their colleagues belongings, should we just assume that they won't be pilfering their next set of colleagues belongings - totally unsuspected because it was never mentioned in the reference that they were dismissed? Or perhaps they shouldn't have been dismissed in the first place if they are better at their job than their colleagues?

There is a difference between a "poor reference" - which may be actionable if misleading or untruthful - and a truthful reference which truthfully says that someone has been dismissed. If their dismissal was unfair - and some are - then they have the right, assuming the required amount of service (which, in my personal opinion, I would reduce, not make greater) to make a claim of that to a tribunal. Only a very very small proportion of employees are dismissed, and only a small proportion of those are unfairly dismissed. Nobody should be unfairly dismissed - but that is a long way off saying that nobody should be dismissed. There are consequences to misconduct and it is not the dismissal that blights your employment prospects, it is your own actions that got you dismissed in the first place.

JonathanStewart

Torry_Quine wrote: »

A bad reference isn't illegal if it is correct actually. For instance if a reference said that someone was always late that would have to be documented rather than just an opinion.

that borders on opinion anyway IMO

JonathanStewart

Uncertain wrote: »

Correct!

A reference must be true and not deliberately misleading. As long as that is the case it can be as "bad" as he writer likes!

disagree there is something known as libel and malice which also come into play.

JonathanStewart

Andy_L wrote: »

if its truthful then, by definition, it can't be defamation

no but it could be libelous

tomjonesrules

JonathanStewart wrote: »

that borders on opinion anyway IMO

Please elaborate on how a statement that someone is always late is an opinion - time is a matter of fact, no? Also, how can a statement of fact/ truth be libellous?

dandelionclock30

Im not dismissive of everyone elces rights and people are dismissed for a variety of different reasons it doesnt have to be as severe as a theft or drug taking at work etc.Someone could have just been late a couple of times and if they were on a final written warning then that would be enough to knock them over to be dismissed. Its like with everything elce there is a wide variety in terms of severity in what people have done.
People act in certain ways for usually underlying reasons or the way they are being treated. Its rare for someone who is a happy fullfilled worker just to be dismissed for something small.There is usually more going on and there are two sides to every story.
However a new employer in my opinion will not listen to all in the inns and outs of why someone got into a mess in their old job.They will just think there not having people with history, when theres 99 other applicants who are as clean as a whistle.
I think employment should be a right not a privilidge just for the people who have never been caught for doing anything wrong in life.Its human nature to want to support yourself and your family.

JonathanStewart

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Please elaborate on how a statement that someone is always late is an opinion - time is a matter of fact, no? Also, how can a statement of fact/ truth be libellous?

the poster said that because it was written down it made it more of a 'fact' than if it wasn't written down. which seems more than a little short sighted to me.