Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamalek | Hacker News Reader

> Konami will give a bad review.

In some countries this is illegal - the worst you can say about a person is "no comment."

Not sure if you are implying the US, but that is a common mistaken belief in the US. It's actually legal to give a negative review of a former employee, as long as it's 100% true. The problem is that the employee might try to sue for slander anyway (and win; that vindictive manager might have been the next one on the way out), so it's easier for employers to just have a blanket "no comment" or objective "eligible for re-hire: yes/no" policy.

how would the former employee even know? i feel like i've been the target of a previous company i worked at but i have no proof.

People sometimes do a background check on themselves to see what the employer says if they're suspicous about it. Other than that, I'd imagine the chances are pretty slim that some other prospective employer would spill the beans.

Wow, I was a manager at a swimming pool and the "HR" told us when we get calls from prospective employers we can only tell them the dates of employments and the job position. We couldn't rave about how good the employees were but we were allowed to write letters of recommendation. I always thought it was in law (california) which is why they told us that.

No reason for wow, it is clearly because they want to avoid a possible lawsuit. Play it safe.

Which would those be, out of curiosity? I know it's a widespread urban legend in the US that employers can't give negative references, but I've never heard of a country where it's actually true.

Germany, for example.

Well, at least in reference letters, former employees can be criticised quite well. Mostly by omitting certain words. I believe most employers have practice in reading between the lines.

edit: I always thought this is just culturally. I have no idea, but I don't believe there are any laws that forbid telling the truth about former employees.

Data protection laws set quite tight boundaries on chatting between former and prospective employers, without the employee's consent. Further, I think the general consensus is that such chats are thought to be subject to the same rules as formal references (since otherwise these rules would be entirely pointless).

Can you give an example of what you're talking about here by omitting certain words?

A good formal reference uses way-over-the-top wording, a bad formal reference basically just says "ok". This is due to German law not allowing for "the employee sucks", nor allows it to use "code-speak" (it was often used in the past, but a bunch of lawsuits pretty much removed it and most HR people don't even try to push for it any more).

Good: "Mr. X's technical competence is excellent. He solved difficult technical challenges quickly and correctly. His performance at our company exceeded our expectations."

Bad: "Mr. X handled assigned tasks adequately."

A long reference almost always means it is good. If it's longer than two pages, it's almost certainly excellent.

In Germany, employees can request a "simple" reference, which basically just certifies employment and does not contain any judgement. What I described above is a "qualified" reference; usually it is seen as a bad sign to produce just a "simple" reference and not a "qualified" reference.

Yeah, there are formal reference letters in Germany. According to law, you can write anything truthful, but according to court descisions, you have to do it "benevolently" and without "creating obstacles" for the employee to find a new job. There are frequently lawsuits about this.

One way to say something negative is to omit certain words, as you said. If your praise is less than exuberant, it is also a warning sign. Some years ago, employers used to mark that someone is in a union by ending their signature with a hook to the left. If you wrote someone is sociable, that was code for being alcoholic.

The funny thing is, the law states explicitly that the letter of reference must be unambiguous, and must not contain any hidden meaning.

I think this whole system is ridiculous and ripe for reform, but I don't think this will happen.

I wonder why Germany hasn't been taken to court over this yet

South Africa in my case.

You can give them, but it's so worrisome to HR that they usually just outright forbid it. It isn't worth the legal hassle if someone tries to sue them over it, no matter how 'right' they are.

We're talking about an ex-employee here. It's not like giving negative feedback will really help the company. It can only hurt them.

Fortunately, lack of good information strongly implies negative information that is being withheld, so it's all fine.

Yeah, you don't want to hire a dud.

In my case, my manager was particularly fearful about losing me. When I told him that I was entertaining other gigs he plainly told me that "I will black mark you across the industry if you leave." I was young, naive and scared, so I took it seriously (luckily things have improved vastly since). I now know that I would not put him on my CV; instead the myriads of other employees who have interacted with me. This is why those laws are in-place: preventing hostage situations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com