Defamation of character

Uncertain

FATBALLZ wrote: »

You do know what average means right? It means that 50% of the population have less honesty/integrity than you. I can see why it maybe doesn't look great on a reference, but you aren't going to get anywhere claiming it is defamatory, as that would imply it is insulting to 50% of the population.

Although I very much doubt this reference is defamatory I don't agree with your reasoning.

Suppose somebody was widely acclaimed as the leading expert or virtuoso in their field. Calling them "average" could well be defamatory in some circumstances.

LannieDuck

lol, almost by definition a large proportion of the population is average!

denla

I do think some employers will reject you after seeing a reference like that, but technically it doesn't count as defamation. This is an example of an employer giving a bad reference legally.

makeyourdaddyproud

The problem the OP has got is that in a competitive economy, where jobs are thin and candidates are plentiful, that reference most certainly will put into question the OP's character when in comparison to another reference that was explicit in its adulation of the employee.

I would almost certainly take offence to the wording, as, like some posters have said, has a negative undertone. What can you do? Best of all is to still present the reference, but annote it perhaps with an example of why it was so.

Even worse would be to say "I'm not sure how it came about", or words to that effect. Give an example of why you think it was stated as such.

Personally, I don't think references should be given at all, as it is subjective (possibly just to one individual), and has the potential to damage the economic circumstances of the jobseeker. References like that, in my opinion, is akin to a trial without a jury, because it can be so dangerous.

Who has the right to decide on someones future financial wellbeing in a tone of letter, when it is subjective?

denla

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

but annote it perhaps with an example of why it was so.

Even worse would be to say "I'm not sure how it came about", or words to that effect. Give an example of why you think it was stated as such.

Personally, I don't think references should be given at all, as it is subjective (possibly just to one individual), and has the potential to damage the economic circumstances of the jobseeker. References like that, in my opinion, is akin to a trial without a jury, because it can be so dangerous.

Who has the right to decide on someones future financial wellbeing in a tone of letter, when it is subjective?

Employers aren't likely to take OP's words when the words of the employer are like that. Why risk giving the job to a questionable applicant who argues what their reference is saying, when every other applicant has a good reference...?

Subjective references should be given. Otherwise the future employer can be hiring people with bad character, poor time management skills, or simply incompetent.

makeyourdaddyproud

Employers aren't likely to take OP's words when the words of the employer are
like that. Why risk giving the job to a questionable applicant who argues what
their reference is saying, when every other applicant has a good
reference...?

Exactly. This is why references must be sanitised, it is simply not good enough to rely on a subjective reference. Period.

Employers know their risks when they go into business and want people to work for them. Yes sure, they can hire someone incompetent. Isn't that what happens all the time?

In any case, a reference is no guarantee of a competent employee let alone a reliable one. Written references are tantamount to libel, good or bad, since telling a future employer an jobseeker is good when they are not is also dangerous, don't you think?

A better system would be for a reference bureau, which would monitor written references, and offer a 3-strike system of bad ones where, at least the jobseeker has a chance to put right a wrong which may not even be wrong due to a personality conflict. Need I remind you that such conflict exist in the workplace everywhere. Should 3 "bad" references be recieved in succession then that jobseekers "banked" references are discarded and they are removed from the system.

What if the boss is a racist?
What if the individual writing the reference exhibits subsequent bad character?
What if the employee is simply disliked perhaps due to ageism or culture etc?

Simply allowing references to be written based on competence (without regard to proper measurement and comparison), is ridiculous.

makeyourdaddyproud

You are selling a house. Your potential buyer calls at my door for a "reference".

If I simply didn't like you or your family? What would you want me to tell them? Roll the dice and take your chances...

blossomhill_2

I think the issue of being said to be average is a case of "damning with faint praise" and suspect that the writer knows it

A) Person X is honest and shows integrity in their actions
Person Y is average in terms of honesty and integrity

Person X sounds the more honest

makeyourdaddyproud

Employer asks me for reference.

I tell them i've duly filed it with the Reference Bureau.

Problem solved. See #35