Reply to: Interesting meeting with recruiters..

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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"

[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.

[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?

[Mailman]

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

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

Mailman