Sickness record

sangie595

stclair wrote: »

Well working in recruitment myself factual references are very common. Even more so now with the implemention of GDPR.

Factual is not the same thing as limited. The amount of time someone has had off sick is a fact. Working across a wide range of sectors with employers from most industries, I know that employers are very largely focused on sickness absence. The amount of time that someone has off sick is not remotely relevant to GDPR - they are recorded facts, no thediffer from length of service or, in fact, the reason that someone left their job, should the employer wish to state that.

stclair

sangie595 wrote: »

That is a myth that keeps being peddled. Some employers may only provide this type of very basic reference. Not most. And many employers won't accept a reference of that nature and require another reference if they get one. These days, sickness absence is commonly a part of the information employers ask for. Sickness absence has taken on a huge importance to many employers, and many want to know that they won't be taking on a liability from day 1 by employing people who spend a lot of time off sick.

All employers will be interested in sickness. Whether they get told or not is a different matter. A factual reference sticks to the specifics, and includes your name, dates of employment, and job title. Sometimes, the reason for the end of your employment can be included, whether you moved on to another job or if you were dismissed.

I see references from all sorts of industries and a majority of the time the information is very limited/factual and wont include such information even when requested companies are too scared of legal challenges. Plus companies are under no obligation to provide a reference anyway unless they are regulated by the FCA.

The GDPR element is more with regards to the consent. For example, an employee may give explicit consent to the provision of a reference, they may not consent to their absence record being disclosed.

stclair

Thomas_Holding wrote: »

I don't really want to go into too many details as I wouldn't want them to identified.
I do work with them and I have seen it happen in meetings, fortunately we have different bosses.

It might be worth speaking to your HR dept and just asking them what there policy is on referencing.

sangie595

stclair wrote: »

All employers will be interested in sickness. Whether they get told or not is a different matter. A factual reference sticks to the specifics, and includes your name, dates of employment, and job title. Sometimes, the reason for the end of your employment can be included, whether you moved on to another job or if you were dismissed.

I see references from all sorts of industries and a majority of the time the information is very limited/factual and wont include such information even when requested companies are too scared of legal challenges. Plus companies are under no obligation to provide a reference anyway unless they are regulated by the FCA.

The GDPR element is more with regards to the consent. For example, an employee may give explicit consent to the provision of a reference, they may not consent to their absence record being disclosed.

And there, you see, is the problem of drawing general general conclusions from limited experience. The obligation to provide a reference is not limited to FCA regulated bodies. No, unless otherwise dictated by regulation or law, an employer doesn't have to provide a reference; but your also know as well as I do that if they fail to do so that is viewed with extreme prejudice by potential employers; just as is the failure to disclose requested information. The amount of time off sick is factual information anyway, not opinion.

It is also very common practice for potential employers to ask people anyway. A refusal to disclose will ensure that you don't get the job; and a lie is often found out and can lead to dismissal.

Yes, it is possible to get away with it. But it is far from certain, and it is irresponsible to assert that most of a majority of employers will not ask when, in fact, considering attendance is such a critical element of recruitment for a great many employers.

JReacher1

stclair wrote: »

You will find most employers will only provide limited information now on references. Normally limited to the persons name, job title and the dates they worked there.

Agreed. Yes most companies now only provide a very basic reference.

JReacher1

sangie595 wrote: »

And many employers won't accept a reference of that nature and require another reference if they get one. .

I am curious how you believe this would work?

So a company provides just a basic reference for a previous employee and you are saying that many new employer will not accept this. How do they get a more detailed reference from a company that refuses to provide one?

stclair

sangie595 wrote: »

And there, you see, is the problem of drawing general general conclusions from limited experience. The obligation to provide a reference is not limited to FCA regulated bodies. No, unless otherwise dictated by regulation or law, an employer doesn't have to provide a reference; but your also know as well as I do that if they fail to do so that is viewed with extreme prejudice by potential employers; just as is the failure to disclose requested information. The amount of time off sick is factual information anyway, not opinion.

It is also very common practice for potential employers to ask people anyway. A refusal to disclose will ensure that you don't get the job; and a lie is often found out and can lead to dismissal.

Yes, it is possible to get away with it. But it is far from certain, and it is irresponsible to assert that most of a majority of employers will not ask when, in fact, considering attendance is such a critical element of recruitment for a great many employers.

I should have said a regulated company the FCA was an example.

Sickness can be factual but if a company provides a factual reference it’s limited to the information as previously mentioned. In the recruitment world a factual reference is just that.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

JReacher1 wrote: »

I am curious how you believe this would work?

So a company provides just a basic reference for a previous employee and you are saying that many new employer will not accept this. How do they get a more detailed reference from a company that refuses to provide one?

Not another reference from the same company. Another reference from a different company. I don't know whether or not anyone does this but I thought the meaning was clear.

stclair

JReacher1 wrote: »

I am curious how you believe this would work?

So a company provides just a basic reference for a previous employee and you are saying that many new employer will not accept this. How do they get a more detailed reference from a company that refuses to provide one?

Here’s a few tips should that situation ever arise.

https://www.myworldofwork.co.uk/getting-job/cv-job-reference-advice

JReacher1

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Not another reference from the same company. Another reference from a different company. I don't know whether or not anyone does this but I thought the meaning was clear.

But that is still not always achievable, and even if your previous employer of say ten years ago is happy to provide a reference that tells you ten years ago the candidate had two weeks off sick. Why is that helpful?

It sounds like you two both believe that companies will reject candidates if the references provided by their previous employer are just basic references. This seems incredibly unfair.