Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

Most companies only verify dates of employment.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Effectronica posted:

What is being described in the OP is not a blacklist. Blacklisting is when everyone agrees not to hire someone.

They're both working through unofficial channels to prevent someone from being hired. There may be justifiable reasons for this sometimes, but it's pretty open to abuse.

Ytlaya posted:

Ultimately, I'm inclined to be against an actual organised blacklist of people who have displayed bigotry. I feel that the potential harm and backlash from such a thing would outweigh any of its possible benefits. I do, however, think that peoples' public* online (and offline) activity should be able to be used as grounds for their dismissal or rejection, provided people have the option of cheaply legally challenging this (bolding this just because I would be totally against this sort of thing if this condition isn't met). I believe the courts are more or less able to discern whether something someone said/did is significantly harmful/offensive to justify them being fired(/not hired), and if anything they would probably err on the side of thinking that most forms of speech aren't a good enough justification. I don't really see most courts saying "it's okay to fire this person because they said X" unless X is something really loving racist/whatever.

* I don't think it's okay for someone to take some private conversation and show that to someone else's employer, for example

I don't think there's any good way to stop an employer from googling a prospective employee, but I don't think it's a good thing. How easy is it to legally challenge an employer that didn't hire you? Especially if they can come up with a reasonable explanation, even if the real reason was a nasty search result.

Effectronica
May 31, 2011
Fallen Rib

Adventure Pigeon posted:

They're both working through unofficial channels to prevent someone from being hired. There may be justifiable reasons for this sometimes, but it's pretty open to abuse.


I don't think there's any good way to stop an employer from googling a prospective employee, but I don't think it's a good thing. How easy is it to legally challenge an employer that didn't hire you? Especially if they can come up with a reasonable explanation, even if the real reason was a nasty search result.

A blacklist is a ban everyone agrees to hold to. What is described is, at most, an effort to persuade someone one way or another. People are not actually 100% persuasive. The issue is if someone lies or defames or if it's because of irrelevancies.

SeaWolf
Mar 7, 2008
As someone who has personally been the victim of the kind of defamation I can tell you that it can absolutely gently caress up someone's career prospects and that it's better to err on the side of letting someone's history speak for itself rather than allow employers to talk amongst themselves and determine who's worth employing

If you're a chronic fuckup your history is going to follow you, you're going to have a lot of short employment stints and competent HR and interviewing can weed those people out most of the time.

On the other hand if you're starting out in your career, get fired illegally and don't exactly have a ton of references while your former employer harps on to anyone that calls saying ridiculous things that can absolutely destroy your prospects. Oh but it's as easy as getting a lawyer and making them stfu. Well, lawyers cost time and money, and when you don't have a lot of money and certainly don't have any money coming in that's not an easy battle to win.

So how bout we don't let employers share lists about why so and so is terrible at their job and shouldn't be employed.

reignofevil
Nov 7, 2008
I've been giving this a little thought and the idea that a single part of capitalism could be 'ethical' is impossible. Switch over to a system where you don't work to live and keep the blacklists to the specific industry that the worker hosed up in and everything will be fine.

Effectronica
May 31, 2011
Fallen Rib

SeaWolf posted:

As someone who has personally been the victim of the kind of defamation I can tell you that it can absolutely gently caress up someone's career prospects and that it's better to err on the side of letting someone's history speak for itself rather than allow employers to talk amongst themselves and determine who's worth employing

If you're a chronic fuckup your history is going to follow you, you're going to have a lot of short employment stints and competent HR and interviewing can weed those people out most of the time.

On the other hand if you're starting out in your career, get fired illegally and don't exactly have a ton of references while your former employer harps on to anyone that calls saying ridiculous things that can absolutely destroy your prospects. Oh but it's as easy as getting a lawyer and making them stfu. Well, lawyers cost time and money, and when you don't have a lot of money and certainly don't have any money coming in that's not an easy battle to win.

So how bout we don't let employers share lists about why so and so is terrible at their job and shouldn't be employed.

You can't stop them from talking, realistically. Doing so would create more problems than it would solve. So the question is how to prevent abuses. The long-term answer is, you know, ending the capitalist system etc.

SeaWolf
Mar 7, 2008

Effectronica posted:

You can't stop them from talking, realistically. Doing so would create more problems than it would solve. So the question is how to prevent abuses. The long-term answer is, you know, ending the capitalist system etc.

You are correct. And it is possible to prevent/limit abuses with appropriate and effective policing and monitoring which is exactly the route I had to go down.

But as was said earlier, there's a myriad of reasons why a person may be considered a fuckup by an employer and in some cases may simply come down to a bad fit with the working relationship and environment. That "fuckup" in another environment may very well be of great value and excel.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU :love::love::love: JOE BIDEN
I think the problem here is this line of reasoning:

wateroverfire posted:


3) I'm not convinced this is any more moral than running a website on which employers post gripes about past employees for prospective hiring managers to peruse, a thing which I think we could all agree would be not only extra lovely but probably illegal. Unless the site were hosted in like Cambodia, then no one could say poo poo. Hmm. Hmmmmmmm.

Anyway, I put it to you, D&D. Is blackballing people a poo poo move or the act of an enlightened concerned citizen looking out for his friends?

Creating an institution that we all know would have massive potential for abuse does not strike me as the moral equivalent of giving someone a bad job reference. The scale of the activity is relevant to how we morally judge it. For instance, there's a big difference between stealing a pen from work and stealing thousands of dollars. The fact that most of us would probably shrug off the theft of a pen doesn't mean we're committed to also shrugging off the theft of something much larger.

So if we're going to talk about the ethics of creating a website to blackball employees then that's fine but I'm not sure the starting point for that conversation should be: "How bad is it if I warn somebody that employee X drinks on the job?"

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Effectronica posted:

A blacklist is a ban everyone agrees to hold to. What is described is, at most, an effort to persuade someone one way or another. People are not actually 100% persuasive. The issue is if someone lies or defames or if it's because of irrelevancies.

Yes, it is. It's also an unofficial channel. An "effort to persuade" still has a devastating effect on someone's career prospects, especially in a competitive market.

Effectronica posted:

You can't stop them from talking, realistically. Doing so would create more problems than it would solve. So the question is how to prevent abuses. The long-term answer is, you know, ending the capitalist system etc.

At this point, preventing abuses can really only be done on a case by case basis. I don't know if there's a good way to do it beyond that, especially since policing interpersonal relationships is a murky mess at best. The best solution for the time being might be to force companies to make their hiring processes as transparent as possible and to document everything. That's mostly just me talking out of my rear end, though, since I've only been hired as opposed to having to hire someone.

SeaWolf, if you don't mind saying, what did you have to do to resolve your own situation? If you'd rather not discuss it, no worries, but it sounds like you've have the most relevant view on this discussion.

Talmonis
Jun 24, 2012
The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.
Some of ya'll keep saying "Giving someone a bad job reference". That would be if a potential employer for the target called you. In the case being described, you are the one calling around to other employers attempting to convince them that they should not hire this individual. I deemed it unethical, which led to the argument that Wateroverfire is pursuing.

SeaWolf
Mar 7, 2008

Adventure Pigeon posted:

Yes, it is. It's also an unofficial channel. An "effort to persuade" still has a devastating effect on someone's career prospects, especially in a competitive market.


At this point, preventing abuses can really only be done on a case by case basis. I don't know if there's a good way to do it beyond that, especially since policing interpersonal relationships is a murky mess at best. The best solution for the time being might be to force companies to make their hiring processes as transparent as possible and to document everything. That's mostly just me talking out of my rear end, though, since I've only been hired as opposed to having to hire someone.

SeaWolf, if you don't mind saying, what did you have to do to resolve your own situation? If you'd rather not discuss it, no worries, but it sounds like you've have the most relevant view on this discussion.

No problems talking about it. It was my first real big boy job and even though I knew it was a bad employer it was still experience which I badly needed. I was fired for being hospitalized with swine flu on new years eve and being unable to respond to an emergency from one of our clients. When I recovered and was able to look for new jobs I was unable to get any interviews. I found out that when he was called regarding me he would lash out with stories of me being perpetually high at work, stealing company property and just being a generally unreliable employee. It's not like I could not have that job on my resume though, it was the ONLY job I'd had in my field at that point. And it was for 3 years too, future employers are going to want to know what happened.
I had to get a lawyer and sue and I did find out that as someone mentioned above, at least in New York State, it's illegal to say anything negative about a former employee, only whether or not you would hire them again given the opportunity. That was on top of all the other illegal stuff he did as an employer which is another story.

But part of the settlement was that he had to write me a glowing recommendation because I truly was an integral and indispensable part of that company for the better part of 3 years. And to enforce the order for him to shut his vengeful mouth my lawyer had me get friends and family to call him every so often posing as potential employers asking for a reference while recording the conversation. Anything that wasn't a simple yes/no answer would have opened him up to a fresh lawsuit. Lo and behold once that stopped I was able to find a new job.

Disinterested
Jun 29, 2011

You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?
The problem with bad references is not just that they're a way to gently caress you after you leave but the risk of them is a way to gently caress you on the job and make you not want to risk leaving as well. Blackballing is going to happen more and more in the internet age though without aggressive regulation.

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

Adventure Pigeon posted:

I don't think there's any good way to stop an employer from googling a prospective employee, but I don't think it's a good thing. How easy is it to legally challenge an employer that didn't hire you? Especially if they can come up with a reasonable explanation, even if the real reason was a nasty search result.

Unfortunately I imagine it isn't easy to legally challenge an employer that didn't hire you (or fired you), so it's probably really difficult, if not impossible, to meet that condition I gave of giving people the ability to cheaply/easily challenge hiring/firing decisions.

So I guess that even though I'm not morally against people being fired/not hired due to bigoted/harmful things they say online in theory, in practice I'm probably against it due to the fact that it's likely impossible to enforce the transparency necessary to give people the ability to legally challenge an employer's decision.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.
It seems the concerns are not the process itself but the reasons.

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

It seems the concerns are not the process itself but the reasons.

The problem is that the reasons will vary from case to case and may not necessarily be scrutable. Is it better, therefore, to regulate the process such that a bad employee will be prevented from being employed or risk good or at least innocent employees being victimized?

7c Nickel
Apr 27, 2008
I don't think they should be financially ruined, but that's more of an argument for stronger safety nets than protecting terrible fuckups from consequences. Somehow I've managed to go my whole life without running up to a female reporter and shouting sexist abuse at her.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Adventure Pigeon posted:

Is it better, therefore, to regulate the process such that a bad employee will be prevented from being employed or risk good or at least innocent employees being victimized?

the first one

this isn't a zero sum argument and the chances are considerably more likely to prevent bad hires than it is to blacklist innocent people

Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 10, 2015

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

the first one

this isn't a zero sum argument and the chances are considerably more likely to prevent bad hires than it is to blacklist innocent people

Unfortunately, vengeful former co-workers and employers are a thing that exists. I agree that it's not a zero sum game, and I don't think assholes and idiots should be protected from the consequences of their actions. That being said, I'd rather an rear end in a top hat or idiot get away occasionally, than an innocent be put in a horrible situation. It's a lot less serious for an rear end in a top hat to occasionally find employment, especially given the state of workers' rights in the country, than it is for a good employee to be kicked out of a field entirely.

Finally, there're ways a company can indicate that an employee wouldn't make a good hire through official channels, for instance, by simply saying they wouldn't hire them again in SeaWolf's example, that the unofficial channels seem to be unnecessary and dangerous. If everything that goes into a hiring process, including the statements of the referees, is recorded and made available, I'd think that would make them less open to abuse.

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.
What evidence do you have this is even a problem? Where are the innocent workers being rumored and psuedo-blacklisted into poverty in a way not already covered by harassment or defamation laws?

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

What evidence do you have this is even a problem? Where are the innocent workers being rumored and psuedo-blacklisted into poverty in a way not already covered by harassment or defamation laws?

SeaWolf gave a good example. He was covered by harassment and defamation laws, but he was unable to find employment for a period of time and had to hire a lawyer to resolve his issue.

The whole reason all those harassment and defamation laws exist in the first place is because of blacklisting practices. I doubt the unofficial channels we've been discussing are legal, or at least, they're in a grey area, but it's clear that in a lot of cases they're not tightly regualted.

Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Jul 10, 2015

Falstaff Infection
Oct 1, 2014
Like, I admire everybody who's discussing this in good faith, but I'm fairly certain that this whole thing is meant to be a *cunning trap* that leads into a post by Mr. Fascist-Avatar where he goes "OK so you think it's okay to blackball people for talking union! Got you now, commie libs!"

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Adventure Pigeon posted:

SeaWolf gave a good example. He was covered by harassment and defamation laws, but he was unable to find employment for a period of time and had to hire a lawyer to resolve his issue.

A single anecdote from an anonymous poster is not evidence.

If you want to assert a that great social wrong needs to be addressed you need to give some meaningful evidence it exists in any level to be worth the effort to prevent it.

Falstaff Infection posted:

Like, I admire everybody who's discussing this in good faith, but I'm fairly certain that this whole thing is meant to be a *cunning trap* that leads into a post by Mr. Fascist-Avatar where he goes "OK so you think it's okay to blackball people for talking union! Got you now, commie libs!"

I am kind of cheating here because I already know what the gotcha is and am just waiting for it to come out

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

A single anecdote from an anonymous poster is not evidence.

If you want to assert a that great social wrong needs to be addressed you need to give some meaningful evidence it exists in any level to be worth the effort to prevent it.

I think you have it the wrong way. The laws already exist which prevent it. My argument is they should be strengthened to better cover unofficial channels. Your argument seems to be that they should be removed to better allow companies to get the word out about bad employees?

That being said, I don't know how or if it's even possible to cover unofficial channels. How do you regulate someone calling a company they suspect a former co-worker is applying to, talking to colleagues in the industry, or anything else like that.

Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jul 10, 2015

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Adventure Pigeon posted:

I think you have it the wrong way. The laws already exist which prevent it. My argument is they should be strengthened to better cover unofficial channels. Your argument seems to be that they should be removed to better allow companies to get the word out about bad employees?

No my argument is that nothing needs to be done at all because there is no meaningful issue to address

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Mel Mudkiper posted:

No my argument is that nothing needs to be done at all because there is no meaningful issue to address

From what I saw, the opening post was basically "Should employers have options out side of references and official channels to determine whether they should hire someone or not?" Yeah, it was carrying on something from another thread, so maybe it was an attempt to cut at somebody without continuing a derail, but I've been trying to discuss it in good faith. My opinion is "No, employers should be forced to act through official channels, unofficial channels could be open to abuse." Is your opinion that unofficial channels don't exist or that they're not being abused?

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"
Yeah, that's still not a blacklist. One person isn't a list.


There aren't such things as 'official channels'. The laws covering how employers can make hiring decisions are restrictive of what they can't use--the protected statuses--not what they can use. They can use whatever they want. People have a weird fantasy of hiring practices.

People talk about people they work with and this is fine. In this particular case, the guy aggressively screwed over other people, attempting to get other people fired for his mistake, which is supremely lovely behavior and I warned people I knew who he was likely to apply to. I have no problem with this decision and would do so again. if you call up everyone to tell them that Mark is often late to meetings, people are going to think you're weird and have an axe to grind. If you warn them that Mark screwed something up massively and then tried to blame someone else for it, that's really different. You're only going to be believed if people know you and find you trustable.

You don't need an overarching policy, it's okay to make decisions on stuff on a case-by-case basis. Like, if you know someone is cheating on someone else, maybe you keep your mouth shut because it's not really your business. If you know he's cheating with an HIV-positive Hep-C ex-con with jealousy problems, then you should probably tell that person.

Almost anything can be abused; that's not a reason to not have things.

Sundae
Dec 1, 2005

euphronius posted:

Most companies only verify dates of employment.

This is highly dependent on the industry. I'd avoid the blanket statement on this.

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Obdicut posted:

Yeah, that's still not a blacklist. One person isn't a list.


There aren't such things as 'official channels'. The laws covering how employers can make hiring decisions are restrictive of what they can't use--the protected statuses--not what they can use. They can use whatever they want. People have a weird fantasy of hiring practices.

People talk about people they work with and this is fine. In this particular case, the guy aggressively screwed over other people, attempting to get other people fired for his mistake, which is supremely lovely behavior and I warned people I knew who he was likely to apply to. I have no problem with this decision and would do so again. if you call up everyone to tell them that Mark is often late to meetings, people are going to think you're weird and have an axe to grind. If you warn them that Mark screwed something up massively and then tried to blame someone else for it, that's really different. You're only going to be believed if people know you and find you trustable.

I'm not really interested in the argument between you and the OP, since I suspect that's what this was really about. And no, one person can be blacklisted. While they don't advertise it, the HRs of companies do share information about employees and even interviewees. States do have laws about what can and cannot be said by former employers about an employee. Most of them cover supremely lovely behavior. Were you operating in a state that didn't offer information immunity?

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

Adventure Pigeon posted:

I'm not really interested in the argument between you and the OP, since I suspect that's what this was really about. And no, one person can be blacklisted. While they don't advertise it, the HRs of companies do share information about employees and even interviewees. States do have laws about what can and cannot be said by former employers about an employee. Most of them cover supremely lovely behavior. Were you operating in a state that didn't offer information immunity?

One person can't be blacklisted, because a 'list' has more than one item on it. What happened was in no way a blacklisting: I called only people I knew, which wasn't everyone in the industry, I did so about one person, and it wasn't about politics or personal issues but an actual job performance issue.

Name the laws that prevent a previous employer from saying stuff about an employee. Edit: If you're talking about untruthful things, then that's covered under defamation, as already said. I assume you're talking about opinions or truthful things.
Also, I wasn't an employer, I was a fellow employee.

Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 10, 2015

Mel Mudkiper
Jan 19, 2012

At this point, Mudman abruptly ends the conversation. He usually insists on the last word.

Adventure Pigeon posted:

Is your opinion that unofficial channels don't exist or that they're not being abused?

My opinion is that it cannot be shown to happen enough to be worth even calling it abuse or trying to prevent it

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Obdicut posted:

One person can't be blacklisted, because a 'list' has more than one item on it. What happened was in no way a blacklisting: I called only people I knew, which wasn't everyone in the industry, I did so about one person, and it wasn't about politics or personal issues but an actual job performance issue.

Name the laws that prevent a previous employer from saying stuff about an employee.
Also, I wasn't an employer, I was a fellow employee.

One person can be blacklisted. It's refers to being added to a list of people a company won't hire. These lists often are shared within an industry, and depending on the state/country and the nature of the list can be illegal.

Laws vary from state to state. Here's a partial list of what an employer can and cannot say. Feel free to peruse.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter9-6.html

I'm curious why your company didn't provide a bad reference if this guy was a lovely employee, hence why I asked if your state provides information immunity. That's my only interest with regards to what you've said. I don't care about your motivations or fight with the op otherwise.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

Adventure Pigeon posted:

One person can be blacklisted. It's refers to being added to a list of people a company won't hire. These lists often are shared within an industry, and depending on the state/country and the nature of the list can be illegal.

If they are added to a list, it's not one person, is it? And a blacklist is not particular to a company, it has to have effects outside that company, because every company has a list of people they are going to not hire.

quote:

Laws vary from state to state. Here's a partial list of what an employer can and cannot say. Feel free to peruse.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...chapter9-6.html

Notice how all of those say 'job performance' or 'reason for termination'?

quote:

I'm curious why your company didn't provide a bad reference if this guy was a lovely employee, hence why I asked if your state provides information immunity. That's my only interest with regards to what you've said. I don't care about your motivations or fight with the op otherwise.

The company fired people for lovely reasons as well as good reasons, and everyone knew that, so no one would consider getting fired from them or a bad reference from them a significant warning sign.

Neurolimal
Nov 3, 2012
It seems like the consensus seems to be that it depends on the reason for going out of ones way to tell others "don't hire this person". And that If someone is prevented from finding work due to a lie then they are capable of suing for defamation.

If, for example, the person in question was prevented from being hired due to obscenely unprofessional behaviour in a way that might not be entirely evident in a bad references, then it seems like next to noone in this thread would have a problem with that.

I don't think this was the conclusion the OP wanted though. Perhaps if he provided additional examples then we could make a better judgement call?

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Obdicut posted:

If they are added to a list, it's not one person, is it? And a blacklist is not particular to a company, it has to have effects outside that company, because every company has a list of people they are going to not hire.

Ok. You're being tedious, so I'll try to be clear for you. I have not once implied that a blacklist consists of a single person. I've said that a single person can be blacklisted, or added to a blacklist. A company having a list of people they won't hire is normal. The problem is when these lists are shared between companies.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/03/police-blacklist-link-construction-workers

When a single person's name is passed around and added to multiple company's blacklists, it could probably be referred to as blacklisting as well. Or added to a blacklist. Or whatever your favorite combination of words are.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703389004575033583145567138

quote:

Notice how all of those say 'job performance' or 'reason for termination'?

The company fired people for lovely reasons as well as good reasons, and everyone knew that, so no one would consider getting fired from them or a bad reference from them a significant warning sign.

Yes, job performance or reason for termination are both things that I think are fine to pass on to other companies. The problem is when there's no way for someone to defend themselves against it, or even find out where the accusations are coming from. Hence why I think formality is important.


Neurolimal posted:

It seems like the consensus seems to be that it depends on the reason for going out of ones way to tell others "don't hire this person". And that If someone is prevented from finding work due to a lie then they are capable of suing for defamation.

If, for example, the person in question was prevented from being hired due to obscenely unprofessional behaviour in a way that might not be entirely evident in a bad references, then it seems like next to noone in this thread would have a problem with that.

This is about my extent of opinion on the matter, with the addition that regulations should ensure a person is able to find out why they're not being hired. How to actually institute those regulations or what they should be when many companies are happy to break the existing ones, I have no idea.

Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 10, 2015

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

Adventure Pigeon posted:

Ok. You're being tedious, so I'll try to be clear for you. I have not once implied that a blacklist consists of a single person. I've said that a single person can be blacklisted, or added to a blacklist. A company having a list of people they won't hire is normal. The problem is when these lists are shared between companies.


Okay, I"m sorry I didn't understand that you were saying that because it's just a truism. Of course a person can be added to a list. My point is that is not what was being talked about in my case. Nothing in what I did amounted to the creation of a blacklist. Nor was 'bullshit' involved.

quote:

Yes, job performance or reason for termination are both things that I think are fine to pass on to other companies. The problem is when there's no way for someone to defend themselves against it, or even find out where the accusations are coming from. Hence why I think formality is important.

What 'formality' are you referring to? If you're talking about the 'disclosure' bit, I was fine with the guy knowing it was me saying that he was a lovely, unethical fuckup. That is, in fact, what happened--a guy I warned about him told him at the interview what I'd said, he talked his way past it, and then proceeded to gently caress up and gently caress over his new employer and fellow employees a few months down the road. C'est la vie.

Again, it seems like you are saying because this can be abused, it shouldn't happen. That is not a good argument. That's like saying you shouldn't ever complain about a coworker to other people either, because that could also be abused.

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Obdicut posted:

Okay, I"m sorry I didn't understand that you were saying that because it's just a truism. Of course a person can be added to a list. My point is that is not what was being talked about in my case. Nothing in what I did amounted to the creation of a blacklist. Nor was 'bullshit' involved.

My point is that I wasn't discussing your case. As I said, that seems to be between you and the OP, which is where I'm happy to leave it. I'm only really interested in hiring policy in general.

quote:

What 'formality' are you referring to? If you're talking about the 'disclosure' bit, I was fine with the guy knowing it was me saying that he was a lovely, unethical fuckup. That is, in fact, what happened--a guy I warned about him told him at the interview what I'd said, he talked his way past it, and then proceeded to gently caress up and gently caress over his new employer and fellow employees a few months down the road. C'est la vie.

Again, it seems like you are saying because this can be abused, it shouldn't happen. That is not a good argument. That's like saying you shouldn't ever complain about a coworker to other people either, because that could also be abused.

Formalities, or regulations, or laws, or whatever you prefer to ensure there is disclosure. If he knew what you said and was able to contest it, great, that's what I think is important. It's when there's no disclosure about who's passing the information around or what it even is that there's a problem, because that is open to abuse. Having to come clean about what's being said and who's saying it at least gives the target access to recourse and discourages abuse to begin with. My only concern is with the process.

Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jul 10, 2015

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

Adventure Pigeon posted:

My point is that I wasn't discussing your case. As I said, that seems to be between you and the OP, which is where I'm happy to leave it. I'm only really interested in hiring policy in general.

Hiring policy in general is never going to exclude information the people doing the hiring have that came through 'unofficial' channels, and it shouldn't, either. In a thread that starts out as a kind of creepy callout of me, I appreciate you trying to move away from the particular situation described, but if OP had actually wanted to start a general thread there was no reason to include my post, and the particulars are significant. In my case, this is the only time I've ever called up people and warned them about someone because he was such an egregious shithead. It was exceptional and out of the norm, because the guy was such a raging rear end in a top hat but, critically, did not seem like one, he interviewed very, very well.

quote:

Formalities, or regulations, or laws, or whatever you prefer to ensure there is disclosure.

There is a huge difference between each of those. And not every state has laws that mandate disclosure, and I don't agree disclosure is automatically a good thing, either, especially not in gagging fellow employees in talking vs. the actual employer's official HR position.

quote:

If he knew what you said and was able to contest it, great, that's what I think is important. It's when there's no disclosure about who's passing the information around or what it even is that there's a problem because that is open to abuse.

Again, that something is open to abuse is not actually an argument. If you think this is true, then explain why me complaining about that guy in a bar to other people in the industry isn't also some bad thing to do.

quote:

Having to come clean about what's being said and who's saying it at least gives the target access to recourse and discourages abuse to begin with. My only concern is with the process.

I think you have a misguided and Quixotic view of the 'process'. I think that requiring disclosure also leaves people open to harassment from someone who they are (rightly) giving a bad recommendation of.

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Obdicut posted:

Hiring policy in general is never going to exclude information the people doing the hiring have that came through 'unofficial' channels, and it shouldn't, either. In a thread that starts out as a kind of creepy callout of me, I appreciate you trying to move away from the particular situation described, but if OP had actually wanted to start a general thread there was no reason to include my post, and the particulars are significant. In my case, this is the only time I've ever called up people and warned them about someone because he was such an egregious shithead. It was exceptional and out of the norm, because the guy was such a raging rear end in a top hat but, critically, did not seem like one, he interviewed very, very well.

Yes, it was weird he included your post and it makes me think this was mostly about arguing with your decision to out the guy. I'm not really interested in that. Do yourself a favor and bring it up with him.

quote:

I think you have a misguided and Quixotic view of the 'process'. I think that requiring disclosure also leaves people open to harassment from someone who they are (rightly) giving a bad recommendation of.

Misguided. No, I don't think it's misguided. I do agree requiring disclosure could leave people open to harassment, which is why it's probably best to arrange things to be done through the company so that HR can say person X is a shithead. Alternatively, leave the source anonymous but leave them able to respond to the criticism itself. Being able to call someone a shithead without giving them a chance to respond leaves them open to abuse. Calling someone a shithead and letting them know who you are leaves you open to abuse. Neither situation is desirable, but fortunately this isn't zero sum.

Regarding Quixotic...

Adventure Pigeon posted:

How to actually institute those regulations or what they should be when many companies are happy to break the existing ones, I have no idea.

Yeah, already said I don't know any way to actually deal with it. That doesn't mean I think it's right.

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think anything realistically can be done to fix the abuses in the system. The most you can hope for is that it doesn't happen to you, and if it does you have the money for a lawyer and can figure out where it's coming from.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

Adventure Pigeon posted:

Yes, it was weird he included your post and it makes me think this was mostly about arguing with your decision to out the guy. I'm not really interested in that. Do yourself a favor and bring it up with him.


I don't really want to, like I said, it was pretty creepy.


quote:

Misguided. No, I don't think it's misguided. I do agree requiring disclosure could leave people open to harassment, which is why it's probably best to arrange things to be done through the company so that HR can say person X is a shithead. Alternatively, leave the source anonymous but leave them able to respond to the criticism itself. Being able to call someone a shithead without giving them a chance to respond leaves them open to abuse. Calling someone a shithead and letting them know who you are leaves you open to abuse. Neither situation is desirable, but fortunately this isn't zero sum.

Again, saying that something is open to abuse is not an argument. Nearly everything is open to abuse. That is not sufficient to say that something shouldn't be done. A face-to-face interview as part of the hiring process is also open to abuse. So is having a resume where people put down their activities and interests. Anonymity would not help: If it was a real complaint, that would allow you to figure out who it was. If it was fictional, it wouldn't allow you to fight it.

quote:

Yeah, already said I don't know any way to actually deal with it. That doesn't mean I think it's right.

As much as I hate to say it, I don't think anything realistically can be done to fix the abuses in the system. The most you can hope for is that it doesn't happen to you, and if it does you have the money for a lawyer and can figure out where it's coming from.

Do you think that people talking to each other informally at bars about other people in their industry is a problem, or not?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Adventure Pigeon
Nov 8, 2005

I am a master storyteller.

Obdicut posted:

Again, saying that something is open to abuse is not an argument. Nearly everything is open to abuse. That is not sufficient to say that something shouldn't be done.

I'm not sure you meant to say it this way. I'm assuming you mean that's not sufficient to say something should be done. On the other hand, because everything is open to abuse doesn't mean that some things aren't worse than others. I've already provided a few examples of people getting hosed over without even being aware of it by informal company-to-company networks. I'm not sure what else I can provide. If your position is "everything is bad so do nothing", we can stop right here.

quote:

A face-to-face interview as part of the hiring process is also open to abuse. So is having a resume where people put down their activities and interests. Anonymity would not help: If it was a real complaint, that would allow you to figure out who it was. If it was fictional, it wouldn't allow you to fight it.

If a person was an absolutely lovely employee, they'd have plenty of people to disagree with. If it was fictional, they could speak with HR. In the end, in your case, the person was hired anyways and then fired for being, surprisingly, a lovely employee. Sometimes letting things go is preferable to being a vigilante, and it works out anyways.

quote:

Do you think that people talking to each other informally at bars about other people in their industry is a problem, or not?

Yes, if it prevents someone from being hired. We're not going to agree on that, so lets drop it here.

I work in the biological sciences, and I see the formal and the informal getting blurred all the time. The people you're on papers with, who you've worked under, who you've collaborated with, can all affect your chances of getting hired, getting grants, and keeping your job.In my own case, I was rejected from a fellowship because one of the minor people on the grant application had a grudge between him and someone on the grant committee. I found out about a year after the fact. I've heard and seen plenty of other stories about how those informal relationships can gently caress people who don't deserve it over. Maybe it comes from being in a more unpleasant field, but I take a dimmer view on those bar conversations.

  • Locked thread