NEED QUICK RESPONSE!!! re employment verifications

How do each of you respond to the following query in an employment verification:

Would you rehire this employee?
«1

Comments

  • 35 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • I don't. It is an opinion and not a fact.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-17-05 AT 10:38AM (CST)[/font][br][br]I agree with Whatever. It's a hypothetical question which can only be answered with a hypothetical answer, which is NOT fact. I especially don't answer these types of questions in a deposition. They can only bring trouble.
  • What is your policy? Do you give out that information? Some companies only give out dates of employment. At our company we give out dates of employment and state whether or not the person is eleigible for rehire.
  • I don't as it is a loaded question. If your policy strictly bans rehires in general as some do, then it is perfectly OK to say that as a matter of policy you do not rehire former employees. Even then it can come back to haunt you so, again, I don't answer such questions.

    Gene
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-17-05 AT 08:29AM (CST)[/font][br][br]In order to stay within my company's policy, I simply write "Mr./Ms. (blank) resigned in good standing on (date)". I only do that because of the policy we have. My preferance would be to tell the truth.

    Please don't misunderstand: If it's someone who we would NOT re-hire, I would ignore the question, and supply dates of employment. If it's someone who was a good employee, I would write the statement I quoted above, which is code for yes, we would re-hire. Does that make sense?
  • I like what you offer "(blank) resigned in good standing on (date)" since this is exactly what happened in our situation. However, I had to respond quickly and ended up offering, "The employee left the company on good terms" which was an accurate statement.

    Good comments and appreciate the insight, as always.
  • We don't give out whether or not a person could be rehired, although we have a policy that says that if the person quits without notice, or is terminated involuntarily, they are not eligible for re-hire. We keep the opinions out of it.
  • If I have a signed release from the employee, I answer all questions honestly. If I don't, I verify dates of employment and job title only, and hit the document with a stamp that says "policy to verify dates of employment and position only. Additional information requires written release."
  • If I don't have a signed release, I don't answer any questions.
  • Same here. Unless we have a signed release from the former employee we give out dates of employement and position only.
    We had one x-ee recently seek employement at the county nuke plant. She called me very upset and wanted to know how they found out about her attendance problems and counselings. She said, "I thought you didn't give out any information except dates and positon." I then informed here that the nuke plant had sent me a release form that she had signed specifically stating we were free to give them any and all infomation they requested regarding her former employment. She was not a happy camper.
    Good luck.
  • "She was not a happy camper."

    Nor a very smart camper, I surmise. Too bad she didn't get the job, because it doesn't sound like working in a radioactive environment would do her intellect any harm.

    Anyway, I go the same route as most others have said: Give only job title and dates of employment unless a written release is provided, and then stay very narrowly within the parameters of the release.

    Speaking of questionable intellect, in over 20 years of doing this job, I have yet to have any reference seeker figure out that, as a governmental agency, we must produce virtually any personnel record on the basis of a request made under our state's open records act. Shhhh! Don't tell anyone.
  • Just the facts and requiring a release are good. Beyond that, I will be a bit of a contrarian. We have listened to attorneys too much and are so leary of "coming back to bite us" that we are harming each other by not providing information. This was demonstrated to me some years ago when a client called and said that the HR person at the former employer of someone she wanted to hire wouldn't give her anything except rank and serial number. She said to me "They didn't want to tell me anything so that means he was a bad employee, right?" The rest of the world isn't familiar with the reference checking dilemma like we are and employers without HR people are making wrong assumptions about good people because we don't share information.
  • G3: I have been wracking my brain for the appropriate monicker for you. Contrarian. Thank you for providing that for us. Your Mississippi friend. x:-)
  • Why would you answer it?
    Give dates of employment, that they were employed, and title. (If job title isn't a good explanation of what they did. (i.e. Administrative Assistant... may need to add their job responsibilities were ...to answer phone, greet customers, input data into an accounting software system, make appointments and plane reservations. Where with Shipping and Receiving Clerk, you probably know.)
    They may have been a wonderful employee for you and turn out to be a nightmare for them... may not be qualified for the new job.
    E Wart
  • That's just an assumption and we know what "assume" means.
  • E Wart
    I noticed your response #14 to your response #13.
    I might or might not agree with you except that I didn't quite understand what you were trying to say in #13. Could you please elucidate? 8-}
  • HHAYNAL: Yes or no depending on the facts surrounding each case. You should not worry about disclosure of information as long as you stick to the facts of the record of termination.

    One can not be attacked for responding to an inquiry as long as you do not apply personal opinion. Our form says hire or no rehire, our policy is not to rehire, when the individual has left with a negative file.

    If the supervisor/manager filled out the form and it says no rehire, that is exactly how I respond to the reference check. If the inquiry wants more information I tell them to ask the person concerned for they know why!

    Pork
  • I come down on the side of providing more information. How is the question or the answer a hypothetical??? The question is: "Would you rehire?" When an employee leaves our employ, I know the answer to that question, and it's a fact.

    I've dodged a couple of bullets over the years because I got an honest reference on a potential employee, and want to be of the same service to other employers. In many states, including Wisconsin, there's a statute protecting employers who give factual references, and I think we're hiding behind a poor excuse for not doing so.
  • When I call for a reference, I want an honest and fair accessment of the employee. Therefore, I do all in my power to provide the same service to others. Yes, there are some situations where I have to be extremely selective in my choice of words -- but that's part of my job. It's a shame that some sorry _ _ _ employees get to do it over and over again, because of our fear of litigation. Like Gillian -- we have to take a positive stand here.
  • Hunter1, the reason it is a hypothetical question is because at some point in the future when you would consider rehiring this person, his/her employment, educational, and criminal backgrounds may have changed. You, of course, don't know that nor do you know when this person may present him/herself for rehire. That's why I consider the question to be a hypothetical one.
  • You would not likely terminate someone due to his educational or employment background so those issues are not going to be relevant in a re-hire context. You might terminate someone for a variety of other reasons, none of which will ever change; so it won't be hypothetical after all, only fact based. Rehire status, if a company even recognizes such an animal is either yes, no, or upon review.
  • I'm assuming that this is an employment VERIFICATION (i.e., for mortgage or car loan purposes, or similar) and not an employment REFERENCE (i.e., a potential new employer asking about someone's prior job performance)?

    I'm not sure I see the point of the Q in an employment verification. But in the case of either employment verification or employment reference, our strict policy is to give only dates of employment, job title(s), and salary history.

    I advise caution around answering the "would you rehire" Q, unless the EE or former EE has signed a waiver holding you harmless re: sharing of such information.
  • I would never reveal salary history unless it was on a financial document, such as a loan, signed by the ee.
  • I tell them they are eligible for rehire (if they are. I would not promise anything to anyone.
  • You've had lots of interesting responses to your question.

    Without a signed authorization, we give nothing more than dates of employment and job title at termination. If the question about rehirability is asked, we will answer it with a simple response that the past employee either is or is not eligible for rehire. Unless our file is specifically documented to reflect a no-rehire status, we would say the employee is eligible for rehire. If the question isn't asked, we don't address it. With an authorization, we are willing to disclose wages and number of hours worked, but we do not disclose a reason for an unfavorable rehirability status.
  • I always say it is not Company policy to give this information.
  • I only provide date of hire, last date of employment, final position, final pay & to the question:

    "Would you rehire this employee?"

    I say: yes or no

    I don't provide any other information - as I wrote it in to our policies not too x;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.