zlacker

>>jrs235+(OP)
I disagree with his point about references. They tell you nothing and are a hundred percent of the time only going to tell you positive things about the employee, regardless of reality. No one with half a brain would ever give a reference out that wasn't going to be positive. Even if you don't have one positive reference, asking a friend to pretend to be one is easy and I don't doubt it happens even when people have qualified references. I'd much rather interview a potential employee than have to use references. The mere thought of references making any difference whatsoever in a hiring decision is rather angering in its stupidity.

>>joesmo+U7
The article specifically says to check references other than the ones given by the candidate. I wish Reid would expand on that. If I interview at LinkedIn, is he going to blab to my boss and the world that I'm looking for a new job?

I've been cold-called to give references on people I found weak. Frankly, I'm not going to blurt out a lot of negative data to a stranger. It's either a legal or ethical liability, and what's in it for me to trash a colleague?

>>sgusta+Ga
I've also gotten those calls, and I don't think it's nearly the legal minefield that people claim. I'll make my point clear enough if it's warranted.

I've also gotten a reference call for someone I terminated and gave them a positive reference, conditioned on the fact that the new company wanted someone with exactly the skills my ex-employee had. I was very clear about why it didn't work out with us, but thought that that it was a very good fit for the new place, given how they described the role and responsibilities. Ex-employee was hired and is (as far as I know) doing very well and happy there.

I think the "I'm only allowed to confirm dates of employment" is a terrible drain on the mobility of good employees and allows higher mobility than should be the case of poor employees, so I don't participate.