|
In which case it won't be a World War, Shirley.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: In which case it won't be a World War, Shirley.
Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
urm, US spending like 800 billion a year on military
|
|
|
|
|
And the US is bankrupt....
Time for Europe to join with Russia and create a new defence force.
|
|
|
|
|
They're probably like the U.S., the defense is against its citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
$50 billion?? That's NOTHING in the U.S. defense budget. That gets you a couple of toilet seats and about a months supply of toilet paper.
The U.S. spends on the order of $650B plus every year on defense.
Oh, and China spends more than $50 billion, so I serisously question where you're getting your numbers from.
|
|
|
|
|
This is the easiest question to answer: YES.
We don't know when neither how, but it is coming little by little... 
|
|
|
|
|
Soon...
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Some Politician Somewhere: After speaking with military advisers... we've decided to skip the third world war and go right on into the fourth. This should save the tax payers billions.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. What was the name of the company and your title when you worked with him/her?
2. What was his / her job title?
3. In what capacity did you work with him / her?
4. How long did you know him / her?
5. How would you describe his / her character?
6. When he / she begins a task, would you say that he / she carries it through completion?
7. Did he / she ever show a propensity for violence or dishonesty in the work force?
8. What was the nature of his / her work?
9. What would you say is his / her greatest strength? Greatest weakness?
10. How does he / she get along with his / her associates?
Are any of these illegal to ask? I'm particularly curious about #7.
[edit]An associate of mine (who is one of my professional references) sent me the questions that the agency is asking him about me.  [/edit]
Marc
modified 7-Feb-14 21:51pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone expressed his/her concerns (violence) about somebody and they (HR) are trying to figure things out and do not want to confront that person without more proofs.
M.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
I would not answer any: let HR handle it.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I would not answer any: let HR handle it.
These are questions about me, being sent to my professional references. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I would say 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are going to get answers that could be very biased from the point of view of the person answering them.
I don't think 7 is very much different from 5, 6, 9 or 10 in that they all relate to the character of a person.
My understanding of UK law is that a negative reference for a job can possibly be a valid reason for legal action which is why many HR departments will only give observable facts rather than interpretive opinions that 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are aiming at.
[EDIT]I have included 6 as I think yes/no answers in this context carry a huge weight and what defines 'completion' is again so open for interpretation that it's not a very useful question when assessing a stranger.[/EDIT]
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 8-Feb-14 0:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc,
I don't know enough about "legality" in terms of contemporary labor law in the U.S. to comment on that, but I would never answer questions 5,7, and 10, on principle. For question 9, I might be willing to comment on "strength," as I experienced it, but I would not comment on "weakness."
imho, these questions have not been designed by a "brighter-bulb," and there are open-ended questions that could be asked that are far more subtle, and valuable diagnostically, that anyone with a grounding in qualitative social-science research would (hopefully) have thought of. Not to mention that the references supplied by the person to specific other individuals are going to be biased in favor of the employment-seeker (unless said seeker is dumb enough to give a reference to someone who is going to give negative feedback).
cheers, Bill
“But I don't want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.”
“How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice.
“You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.” Lewis Carroll
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: 7. Did he / she ever show a propensity for violence or dishonesty in the work force?
Are any of these illegal to ask? I'm particularly curious about #7.
Got something to hide Mark?
I don't know about what type of work the agency is evaluating you for but if it is not something I really couldn't do without I would send them an email telling them to stuff it. It doesn't sound like a place I would want to represent me.
|
|
|
|
|
This is sad because it reflects on how much employees have let themselves be screwed by HR. This kind of stuff has become the norm. This probably sounds strange to the smart phone incapacitated generation. As one nearing the end of their working life I know there was a time when no HR person would dream of this kind of intrusion.
Q How many HR people does it take to change a light bulb.
A. None but they would like to be represented at the meeting.
Peter Wasser
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
In the first place I would not answer any of them without his/her permission or knowledge and 7 would immediately end the conversation.
Also would think that 5-10 would not be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
1) *Company name*, *job title*
2) *job title*
3) Approximately 70 litres, same as now.
4) 5' 8"
5) "Spiderman" was a favorite costume of his.
6) Only if not pounded round the head repeatedly.
7) Only after being pounded round the head repeatedly.
8) Growing plants was not in his remit.
9) Heaviest thing I saw him carry was his chair. Lightest was a pen.
10) By car.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Employment laws in the UK are probably quite different to those in the US.
That said, in the UK, a potential employer may ask a previous employer questions that are relevant to provide basic factual details ...
1. Start and end dates.
2. capacity in which employed.
3. Final salary.
4. Number of days of sickness absence.
5. Whether there were any disciplinary warnings live on the file at the time of termination.
6. Whether the employee resigned or was dismissed.
7. Details of last appraisal plus an explanation of any rating system used.
However, the previous employer is not under any duty to provide a reference but no negativity should be read into a non refusal to provide a reference. This is perfectly acceptable if the previous employer does not normally provide references.
The reference does not need to be comprehensive but must reasonably care to ensure facts are true and accurate and opinions fair and reasonable. References given should not focus on negative facts which may create an unfair opinion.
modified 1-Aug-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect British defamation law may make people wary of making adverse or potentially defamatory comments. The hiring company would be complicit if it provided this information to a 3rd party. I think the same would hold true in Australia.
Peter Wasser
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
It is true that you must not be seen to defame a person by means of a reference. However, a respondent to a reference request should take reasonable care to ensure facts are true and accurate and opinions fair and reasonable.
A current employer is not duty bound to give any references at all if that is their normal policy and should confirm that fact upon request.
Problem comes if you really want to leave your present employer but your present employer doesn't want to lose you, they could give a reference with some negative connotations providing they are factual, fair and reasonable. By the same token, a current employer could give you a glowing reference because they might want to see the back of you.
https://russellhrconsulting.co.uk/the-hr-headmistress-blog/giving-references/[^]
modified 1-Aug-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard A. Abbott wrote: a current employer could give you a glowing reference because they might want to see the back of you.
I've seen a few of those in my time! Fortunately, they are mostly "over-egged" and you can weed out the morons that way.
My personal feeling is that employer references are pretty much useless, except to confirm dates of employment and possibly job title. Any comments on the employee I tend to ignore.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
