4

My employer is a state-level (Ohio, United States of America) government contractor with a couple dozen employees. We have extremely rigorous standards that are defined by the state and our performance is reviewed regularly. Any deviation from standards is taken pretty seriously, but the owner-contractor is an individual person who handles all H.R. matters themselves. The job has a problem with retention due to our duties being absurdly micromanaged by government overseers. (About 80% of new hires either quit or are fired within two weeks.)

I've spoken to former employees who found out the owner either (1) won't confirm employment, or (2) claims the former employees are not re-hirable while repeatedly offering the same staff their jobs back.

I am in the middle of looking for a new job and can ask my employer not be contacted, but am worried how this will go next time I switch jobs. Advice on dealing with this is appreciated.

8
  • 2
    Where is this happening? What constitutes proof of employment? Won't a pay slip be sufficient?
    – L.Dutch
    May 5, 2022 at 4:21
  • 5
    Please add a country and state if applicable. In many countries giving a proof of employment is mandatory, while in my country, stating whether someone would be eligable for re-hire or not would probably be illegal.
    – nvoigt
    May 5, 2022 at 5:09
  • @nvoigt Illegal? As in some government entity will take you to court? Or you just leave yourself open to be sued? May 5, 2022 at 6:26
  • @GregoryCurrie Illegal as in against the law. There is an explicit law against it. I mean there is no DA going round to ask everybody what is in their reference letters, you will have to take it to court yourself if you see it.
    – nvoigt
    May 5, 2022 at 6:28
  • 2
    @GregoryCurrie Indeed. You can probably find a lot about it right here if you look for "Arbeitszeugnis". I'm not saying that is the case here, I would just like a location, because as you see it varies wildly between locations and one locations "good advice" might be the exact opposite in another.
    – nvoigt
    May 5, 2022 at 6:45

3 Answers 3

6

One particular comment from your question is concerning:

The job has a problem with retention due to our duties being absurdly micromanaged by government overseers. (About 80% of new hires either quit or are fired within two weeks.)

That means either the company isn't sending quality employees, or the government customers is not a good customer. Either way the situation can't continue for long. The management of the customer will soon notice the poor performance of the contract and will investigate. That could bring the contract to an end. It could also end the company if that contract is most of their business.

The rumored misinformation given to people performing background checks can be an issue. Many large companies outsource the task of confirming dates of employment for former employees. That service just provides dates of employment, maybe job title, and very little else.

But because "The owner is an individual person who handles all H.R. matters themselves." you can run into an issue where they see no problem either providing inaccurate information, or no information at all.

Leaving this company shouldn't be a problem, because most companies realize that your current boss has a vested interest in either embellishing their praise or minimizing their praise. You are correct the next transition will be harder, because the newest employer has no reason to doubt the comments from the company.

My advice would not to be overly concerned about it. Document what your can about your performance. Document your starting end ending dates from company supplied documents: the offer letter, the welcome packet, any exit documents. Pay stubs and tax forms are also helpful.

The background checks that I have participated in have always allowed potential employees to explain/prove missing information. A company that won't confirm dates is easy to overcome. Claiming you wouldn't be rehired implies either extremely bad performance or committing a fireable offense. You documentation should also be able to overcome that.

1
  • Only thing I would add is to warn companies that you've heard this might happen when you reach the reference stage of an application. May 6, 2022 at 14:46
4

but am worried how this will go next time I switch jobs.

Don't worry about it until you have to. There is nothing easy you can do to force the owner to do anything, but interviewers take your history as a whole, not hinge everything on one disgruntled employer. In the same vein as they take glowing references with a grain of salt in many locales.

So best policy is cross the bridge when you must and usually it turns out to be just a quick step.

1

...claims the former employees are not re-hirable while repeatedly offering the same staff their jobs back.

If you can get him to do that in writing, that's your solution to the problem.

In the meantime, you'll want to save your own proof you worked there (like paystubs as suggested by L.Dutch) and, if possible, proof you were doing a good job: performance reviews, praise from the government entities you're working with, references from your co-workers, etc.

Because you'll have at least one job between this potential incorrect reference and your next job search, hopefully you won't even need this. But I think having some kind of proof that you were a good employee would be helpful just in case you discover you actually are having trouble getting past background checks.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .