Interesting meeting with recruiters..

[DodgyAgent]

Perhaps you should have said "job ads needto start to be treated as legal documents, aka lie = breaking the legal/contractual law".

Mailman

Does that also apply to CVs?

[privateeye]

Does that also apply to CVs?

I think they can already be treated as a legal document much the same as a job ad - I think the difficulty/reluctance is the cost of doing anything about it and proving intent above mistake.

[Not So Wise]

Its the entity paying the contractor that has to prove their eligibility.
.

Actually that is incorrect (in reference to the contractor being eligible to work in the UK), the end client has to do due diligence if the contractor is working on their site, been like this since around...hmm 2000?

Normally they trust the agencies to do this for them....more fool them

Government basically got tired of the companies running a "don't ask, don't tell" policy and used a few banks in the city to set some "examples"

[Not So Wise]

Perhaps you should have said "job ads needto start to be treated as legal documents, aka lie = breaking the legal/contractual law".

Mailman

Actually would say both, if we are looking to be fair and honest (lies on CV's are probably just a widespread as lies on job ads) though thinking about job ads theoretically they actually come under the advertising authority, not that actually has much teeth

Though be interesting to see what happens if someone actually complains about a job add being false/misleading

[tim123]

But recruiters have an unequivocal legal obligation to check references before supplying contractors.

No they don't.

Assuming that you are opted in, they have a requirement (which some probably ignore)to check that you have the experience that you are claiming. This can be done by references, but there are plenty of other ways .

If you are opted out, they have to do nothing.


tim

[expat]

Yep. A candidate has to be 'suitable' for the role. How can they know that if they haven't a clue about a candidates' work history apart from candidates' own CV testimony.

I wouldn't call that exactly the same as "an unequivocal legal obligation to check references before supplying contractors". In fact I'd call it something quite different.

[Denny]

I would not, for very simple reason. Most large companys have a policy set in stone these days of "no refererences beyond a confirmation that the person worked for them between X and Y"

Rubbish. I've never had any difficulty at all getting references from authentic (honest account) and credible sources (not mates or lovers). All my references give detailed accounts of my strengths and even a weakness or two which I actually can't help agreeing with.

And there is good reason for it, a reference is basicly a recommendation, if the person gives a good one and the subject then screws/lets down the new client, the person who gave the reference can be held liable (and there have been court case's in various parts of the world over this though not aware of any in the UK)

A reference is a recommendation that the potential employer is likely to find the candidate as good as they thought they were. It is not a recommendation for a job, a prophecy that everything will turn out well. Even the most stupid of clients would know that.

And if they give a bad one? open themselves to be sued by the subject of the reference

Contractors who sign terms deeming them to be own business and not employees can't be sued for bad references which is why they're more reliable than employee ones could be. Only employees have comeback on a deliberately defamatory reference hence the reason why some employers would only testify to factual information.

So why give references, which everyone admits are of limited use for something that is highly likely to be a Lose lose situation for the one giving the reference?

Ditto above. There's no case to answer.

The only thing agencys should be doing is getting a confirmation that person did work where they say they did doing what they say they did.

Technically, they should only be contacting the recruiter who supplied the end-client from which the reference relates, not the end client themselves. If recruiters can't trust other recruiters, what chance have the rest of us got?

But because agencys have abused references so much no contractor wants to give them even that much information these days, so basiclly they screwed themselves.

There are ways around this, as I've described above.

CV's need to start being treated a legal documents, aka lie = breaking the legal/contractual law

They already are. If a CV is found to contain incorrect or misleading information then an employee can be fired for breach of contract and would not be able to claim infair dismissal even if their work was up to scratch. Same goes for contractors although in their case, the CV would be pretty benign given that they can be terminated so easily anyway.

Please get your facts straight before spouting an opinion on matters you clearly know too little about.

[Denny]

I wouldn't call that exactly the same as "an unequivocal legal obligation to check references before supplying contractors". In fact I'd call it something quite different.

I didn't call it that. I simply said that references are a clear pointer to finding out someone's suitability and are usually taken up for precisely that reason.

How else would you define 'suitability' then that comes from a third party?

[ASB]

They already are. If a CV is found to contain incorrect or misleading information then an employee can be fired for breach of contract and would not be able to claim infair dismissal even if their work was up to scratch.

It's worse than that in fact. Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception would fit the bill and is specified in the Theft Act (specificallu includes employment).

An ex chief exec of a care trust discovered these particular teeth. don't think there was any critisism of his work.

[DodgyAgent]

It's worse than that in fact. Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception would fit the bill and is specified in the Theft Act (specificallu includes employment).

An ex chief exec of a care trust discovered these particular teeth. don't think there was any critisism of his work.

I can see a lot of contractors removing the "Going out and meeting people" phrase from their lists of interests

DA in "back to my train set in the attic" mode