references

[helsi]

does anyone know if a new employer writes to the old employer before or after the person has started working for them in the new job?

anyone?

IME generally before as they like to know what they're taking on.

think the usual point is when the new employer has decided they definitely want the person - so at that point the new employer will offer the job "subject to references" - job offer is confirmed once references have checked out.

It would be unusual for the work start date to be before the references had been checked.

Are you employer or employee?

as bink says

but if you are applying for a job you can request refs not taken up until formal offer of employment is made if you don't want your current boss finding out.

pardon me if this not relevant!

my husband is due to start a new job on Monday. the letter came offering the job subject to references telliong him to be there for 7.30 on Monday. Nothing else heard yet but he has just told me that today he has had a to do with his current employers about some commission he is owed and hopes they are not shafting him. they did say they would give good references so we are just hoping all is ok. Would hate for him to leave tomorrow then get a letter on saturday from new employer revoking the offer!

you can sue them if they do that!

honestly it isn't done to give a bad reference. if you can't think of anything positive to say you decline to provide one. and if your dh has been a good employee he souldn't worrry. they're probably just sorry to see him go.

The point about suing is .. she says rustily, learned about this a long time ago .. is that a bad reference can be libel if it's untrue. So employers don't generally want the risk of being sued (even if they would in fact probably win because it was all true, if you see what I mean). Too much hassle. Hence the form of reference that says "I can confirm that X worked here from [date] to [date]. His duties were Y and Z." That is nowadays taken as a "bad" reference but doesn't raise risk of libel.

Anyway, if this is the first barney your dh has had with his current employer it is very very improbable they will make anything of it in the reference - and, of course, if they did give a spiteful bad reference because of that alone then your dh definitely could sue!

i was assuming that helsi's dh was a model employee.....

maybe they have his refs already?

yes, I was assuming that too (hence the last bit) - I just wanted to make clear that one can't automatically sue on a bad reference (it's a misunderstanding I see quite a lot)

mostly on the nannyjob website ...

I am often asked for a reference for some of my ex-students AFTER they have started their job. They have often emailed me to tell me they have the job and then weeks later I am asked for a reference. I always wondered what would happen if I gave them a really bad reference!! Having said that, the feeling here (university) is that references aren't worth the paper they are written on these days since the person being referred can always ask to see the reference and so you normally only write something very basic and certainly nothing that could be used against you!

There is no universal rule about whether references are taken up before or after starting work. In larger organisations it will be policy to take up references, but mainly to check you were not lying about job dates, title, or salary. In smaller companies, the reference can be more important. I have known companies where the MD always rings up for a verbal reference, since he knows the formal paper reference is unlikely to day anything negative.