To be honest in my reference letter?

[IamAporcupine]

I have been asked to provide a reference letter for an employee who recently left my team. She has already been offered a new job in a completely different field. This is fortunate as her performance in her previous role was very poor; we lost time and money thanks to her lack of skills.

The form has a "would you re-employ this person?" I want to be honest and just say "No". I can explain that I believe this field of work was not for her, and that she will very likely perform well in her new job.

AIBU?

Good HTs DO find out about staff before recruitment, but they do it in a phone call rather than written references. It gets around the legal hurdle due to plausible deniability.

Yes! I’ve done it myself, in both directions. I thought of writing this, but decided I didn’t want an attack from the "you’re putting yourself at risk of being sued" brigade. However, not all HTs are willing to give the relevant information, because they want to get rid of the teacher in question, and it’s hard to blame them.

Did you lie about your abilities and experience before taking that job?

Did you show disinterest when others tried to train you how to perform your role?

I find it a bizarre claim that the OP is "seeking vengeance" for some reason - the ones you put forward to ridicule her as petty or whatever - when what she is torn about is her moral conscience in having to lie about a nightmare worker.

You can leave it blank. It will be read as a no. The assumption is that if someone has something positive to say, they will say it. If they don't, they will avoid answering it.
As someone responding to a reference request, you do not have to fill in their form. Simply respond by email saying someone along the lines of 'In line with company policy, we do not provide references. I can confirm that x worked here between date 1 and date 2.'

Would mixing up patient samples during tests be enough for you to maybe consider I might have a ground?

And no, I'm not seeking vengeance, let alone in a power trip. Having said that, the thought of myself receiving 100s of reference requests and meticulously ticking the NO box with an evil laugh, is quite amusing.

Jokes aside, I did think of ADHD too. And that's why I was extremely patient. But she was not just unattentive, she was out of her depth and lacked motivation.

Re. losing 'company money', I don't expect you or anyone to know or understand this, but in my field the money that paid her salary and her work came from funding that I had to personally secure. I won't get it again, even less now that we could not deliver what we 'promise'. I hope you can understand how frustrating that is

You're replying to a poster who said "who are you to determine whether she'd be right for the role?" who then immediately started telling you to lie and say that she would be right for the role.

The mindset that thinks an internet stranger is well placed to determine this person's fitness for the job, and the colleague and referee is not, is perhaps not worth engaging with.

I think you should be honest.

BUT I don't think saying "no" is necessarily honest.

You wouldn't employ her again in that role because she wasn't suited to it... But you would employ her again in a totally different role that she was more suited to? If you happened to be the person recruiting for that role?

So.... Surely an honest answer is "yes"??

There's no need to write an extra line or anything. Just answer yes, if you would employ her again, not if you would employ her again in that role. That's not what they're asking you really, is it?

Update!

I've had a chat with the person responsible for contracts and personnel in my workplace. She is not from HR but is the closest I could get at short notice.

She confirmed we are not only allowed but also expected to provide reference letters, both for students and employees.

She confirmed that HR would refuse to do this, and that if pushed, would only confirm role and dates of employment

She agreed it was a difficult situation because "we are always told not to lie"

Her first suggestion (unprompted) was to tick 'no' and explain why.

She recalled how pissed off she was that a colleague from another department did not warn her about a bad employee

We talked a bit more about how different her new rol is, whether I thought she would perform well, and speculated if some of her bad 'traits' might be carried over to the new position.

I made clear I did not intent to jeopardise her new job, and

We finally agreed on ticking Yes to avoid any problems, but also adding a "provided the role was suitable" or similar

We also said the wording of the form should just be "is the candidate employable?" (Instead of would YOU re-employ them)

At a philosophical level: obviously about 50% of people are of above average capability and 50% of people are of below average capability. Excluding people whose capacity for work is so low due to disability that they shouldn't be expected to, let's say that 10% of people are going to be of such low capability that they are going to be pretty much crap at every job they do - but yet not quite so incapable that we as a society want to categorise them as not suitable for any employment.

It strikes me that one of these things needs to happen:

1. we widen the criteria for benefits to enable more people who are just not very capable of efficient and effective work and are difficult to employ to simply live off benefits.
2. these people spend their entire working lives in a cycle of periods of unemployment, eventual employment, then failing probation or being managed out due to not meeting job requirements, causing enormous expense to employers and distress to the individuals for every time there is a failure
3. it becomes an expectation for all employers over a certain size (say 100 employees) that they are expected to employ a certain minimum number of people that just aren't very capable, efficient or effective and aren't great to employ.

Not every employer can only employ people of above-average capability, efficiency and effectiveness, unless we want to define 50% of the population to be defined as unemployable and given appropriate financial support on that basis.

Yes, you are absolutely right

I am aware this is AIBU but some of the replies are truly 😱
I've been told:

I'm vindictive
I'm spiteful
I'm on a power trip
I'm a nasty piece of work
I micromanage
I don't provide enough training or support
I wasn't the right employer (?)
I'm going to ruin this persons life
I'm going to end up in court

I’ve had on a form to an agency completed by my then boss that they thought I was dishonest! This was after 6 years working there and surviving 2 rounds of redundancies. I had to speak to my other boss and then an employment lawyer (something else happened) as there was an issue with the original boss. I was told to just give dates and times worked. I think she was told to refill in the form to reflect honesty too. I’m the most honest person in the world and would hold my hand up to being dishonest if I were.

So in this case I’d leave it blank.

New update

Well, as it happens, the form does not allow to add any comments after the "Would you re-employ this person"? yes/no question

So I've left it blank.

I've also written in the main text that she was well-liked and that this new role seems a very good fit for her new career path etc etc

Remember it was you that hired her. The fault is yours for not knowing she would be out of her depth. Maybe tighten up your interviewing skills and check qualifications and experiences listed in their CV.

I understand your frustration but you need to now just be pleased she’s gone and put this down as a very expensive lesson to improve.

Please could you give an example of an interviewing technique that would have revealed that the applicant would mix up samples? Which specific skills would you recommend?

I would find that incredibly useful - thanks in advance.

check qualifications and experiences listed in their CV.

A part of this involves speaking to previous employers, who are expected to lie or not respond. How would you navigate a situation like this in a hiring role, to ensure you were getting true information?

Ask ChatGPT.

Learn from this guru, OP!

hi OP

I think you need advice that is specific to academia where there are different norms. Next time, come over to the board called “university staff common room” and we will help.

if you aren’t sure, directly email the professor who will be hiring and offer a phone call. Verbal references mean a lot in academia.

It is not spiteful. That suggests a personal untruthful motive. This employee cost their current employer time and money. That is incompetence at best. The repetitive use on this thread of the word spiteful is extraordinary. Quite clearly none of you work in professional jobs. It also feels misogynist - i am not sure a man posting this scenario would be called spiteful.

Un-fucking-believable.

You have to be trolling now

Out of curiosity, over the Relationship board, do you also tell women they should have realised their partner would be an abuser?

So you think it is OK to lie on your CV and it is up to the employer to find that out during an interview.

I have answered a similar question for many references for international teaching.
Normally it gives degrees of enthusiasm about rehiring the person.

Ofcourse not. They are usually hidden in plain sight!