It is generally understood that candidates must consent to have their references checked.
In what part of the application process did the candidate consent to you letting anyone you choose know they are looking for a job?
In what part of the application process did the candidate consent to you letting anyone you choose know they are looking for a job?
afaik, a backdoor reference is specifically _not_ a reference that was (intentionally) supplied.
That's rubbish. It's generally understood that all parties are expected to perform due diligence. What do you think people do with the connection graph linkedin displays?
I've interviewed people who were clear that they didn't want their current employer to know that they were looking - that's fine, and easy to respect. But the article describes a former job on a resume; there's no risk you're going to interfere with their current employment by reaching out to mutual contacts.
Personally, I hope people look me up through the social network... hell, that's how I find all of my employment.
2. Passive diligence (looking someone up online) is very different than active diligence where you disclose to another party the candidate’s status and potentially receive defamatory information.
3. You say you’d “respect” a candidates desire for you to not contact a current employer, but it also doesn’t sound as if you think that is explicitly out of bounds.
4. Just out of curiousity were a candidate to lose their current job (for example), due to word getting back to their current employer due to your Backdoor Checks - what level of responsibility are you prepared to personally undertake? Seems to me that people should be exceedingly cautious that their actions don’t result in someone losing their livelihood due to a gossipy former colleague....
Seeing as how there is some debate in this thread, I'd argue that that is not generally understood very well.