Interesting meeting with recruiters..

[privateeye]

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

and agents would have to remove phrases such as "working in the best interests of the applicant and client" and change them to we will make sure as much money reaches our bank accounts as soon as possible. which if you have read the Recruiter magazine this week is what the S3 Group Chairman has said.

[Not So Wise]

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.

Imaterial what the client should know, what matters is what the the courts decide, and there have been cases in the US (and i beleive in the UK/Europe) where the person gave a good reference about someone who totally let down/screwed up on the new client (the information on the ref was untrue)

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.

What a load of crap. Is your reading comprehension that bad? I said the one giveing the reference can be sued, not the contractor but rather BY the contractor or the new client

And yes it would be by the contractor/new client because i have yet to EVER see a contractors reference that says "XXX LTD did a good/bad job" it is always "Joe Blogs did a good/bad job", if you did get one naming the company i highly doubt any agency would accept it (except maybe to get sales leads).

Thus they leave themselves open to be sued for giving a bad one

And finally, lets just say the whole world had turned on it's head and you were right and those writeing references cannot be held accountable for them , then whats there point?

I could get someone (credible) within the hour to give me one saying that I was a wiz kid Forex trader that doubled his portfolios value every month for the last two years while i worked under him...if he knew that nothing could happen to him for it that is...

References are totally, utterly completely pointless.

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

This coming from the guy who says all agencys have a unequivocal legal obligation to check all references? ROFLMAO

[expat]

I didn't call it that.

You did call it exactly that. In post 3 you said "unequivocal legal obligation" etc; in post 4 IT Contract Agent replied laconically, "nope!"; and in post 5 you replied directly to that by quoting it and saying "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."

Now what you say about how they can know may (or may not) be true, and I'm not suggesting that you're wrong there, but that is not the same as an unequivocal legal obligation.

[Denny]

What a load of crap. Is your reading comprehension that bad? I said the one giveing the reference can be sued, not the contractor but rather BY the contractor or the new client

Are you totally thick? I said that recruiters have an unequivocal legal obligation to ensure the suitability of contractors. That was my main point. Why don't you read the Agency Standards legislation from which my point was derived? How can they do that if they don't take up references? The two amount to the same thing. Otherwise they are completely relying on CV testimony and their own or cleint facing impressions if they happen to meet a candidate. I don't see how you can separate the two out. Why do you think recruiters check references at all then if they too can't separate the two out as you are trying to do? When recruiters don't check references they are, by default, not checking all avenues to ensure the suitability of candidates. Of course, no method is foolproof because references can be falsified and non-predictive but I've already said that. But not checking them at all is even more foolhardy.

By the way, if you were needing to hire a nanny for your child (supposing your wife or partner was working) would you say to the recruiter that references were a complete waste of time and wouldn't bother? I doubt it. I expect your instincts would overcome any irrationality you've demonstrated here and you sure as hell would check out what impression the parents of their former charges thought about them.

In fact it is a legal obligation for nanny agencies or those charged with vulnerable people to check references too and criminal checks (which is a kind of reference). I just hope your kid (if you have one) isn't being taught by a paedophile.

It's also mandatory for some government departments to carry out security checks on contractors which, again, is a reference for suitability. I suppose you think that's a waste of time as well.

Whether we're dealing with personal referals, fact finding missions, security checks or criminal record checks - they are all prone to error but to do nothing is plain daft from a contractor's point of view.