Interesting meeting with recruiters..

[privateeye]

Had a meeting with 2 recruiters this morning who are on the same team in a project I'm involved in. We got talking about references and they both confirmed that in most cases references are pointless - as a lot of clients will no longer give them so do not ask for them. The only info that they give is to confirm that you worked there. They both agreed that American companies especially will not give any info out about anyone. Everyone's frightened of getting sued.

[Blunderer]

Exactly right.

I am co-owner of a recruitment consultancy and used to be a Director of one of the plcs. In 12 years I can't think of a candidate losing an offer because of bad references. Also, I have given lots of references on employees and see very little point in giving a bad one. You can "damn with faint praise" but in reality, employees who did badly give someone else as a referee.

[Denny]

Had a meeting with 2 recruiters this morning who are on the same team in a project I'm involved in. We got talking about references and they both confirmed that in most cases references are pointless - as a lot of clients will no longer give them so do not ask for them. The only info that they give is to confirm that you worked there. They both agreed that American companies especially will not give any info out about anyone. Everyone's frightened of getting sued.

But recruiters have an unequivocal legal obligation to check references before supplying contractors. Pointless or not, even opted out contractors should be referenced too even if they don't carry out any of the statutory ID compliance ones required for contractors remaining opted in. I'm not saying that references are always true and accurate - they're not but a good testimony that is acceptable to both agent and client are a useful safeguard for contractors if they are taken up.

Plus the law clearly states that employment businesses check the suitability of the candidate before being represented and the candidate must be willing to undertake the role being offered before going on site.

Personally, I would definitely recommend that the recruiter takes up references. This is for your own protection because if they don't khow 'well you've done on past projects' how can they possibly back you based on another's testimony should an end-client try to screw for underperformance without notice. That's why I don't recommend just giving them to the client who may then choose to ignore them or pretend they took them up a week or so after you've started but decided your face didn't fit so tells the agent they want to terminate because the refs weren't good enough. Before I take up any role I also ensure that the recruiter e-mails me to confirm that they not only received my written references but that they also followed them up with verbal testimonies if they needed these too and were happy with them. This document trail also prevents agency and client from taking up other covert references you haven't authorised from your CV or inventing any 'bad ones' you never authorised just to lose you the gig if a cheaper candidate comes along or to back a client who wants to screw you for underperformance.

[IT contract agent]

But recruiters have an unequivocal legal obligation to check references before supplying contractors.

nope!

[Denny]

nope!

Yep. A candidate has to be 'suitable' for the role. How can they know that if they haven't a clue about a candidates' work history apart from candidates' own CV testimony.

I know that some don't bother though. I've been to plenty of gigs where they haven't been checked by the agent or just by the client. Most of the time there is no problem, but I was stung once for false claims of underperformance when they weren't taken up because the agency had no way of taking my word against the clients.' Plus not taking them up is an open invitation for contractors to invent gigs they haven't really done or completed properly or well.

[Not So Wise]

Personally, I would definitely recommend that the recruiter takes up references.

I would not, for very simple reason. Most large companys have a policy set in stone these days of "no refererences beyond a confirmation that the person worked for them between X and Y"

And there is good reason for it, a reference is basicly a recommendation, if the person gives a good one and the subject then screws/lets down the new client, the person who gave the reference can be held liable (and there have been court case's in various parts of the world over this though not aware of any in the UK)

And if they give a bad one? open themselves to be sued by the subject of the reference

So why give references, which everyone admits are of limited use for something that is highly likely to be a Lose lose situation for the one giving the reference?

The only thing agencys should be doing is getting a confirmation that person did work where they say they did doing what they say they did.

But because agencys have abused references so much no contractor wants to give them even that much information these days, so basiclly they screwed themselves.

A candidate has to be 'suitable' for the role. How can they know that if they haven't a clue about a candidates' work history apart from candidates' own CV testimony.

CV's need to start being treated a legal documents, aka lie = breaking the legal/contractual law

[privateeye]

I believe only the client has to obtain sufficient reference about citizen/visa status - nothing else is required. If it is then it would be contractual between recruiter and client I believe.

I believe it is sensible to take up references - but as I was told this morning that so many clients won't give proper references then it is pointless and this is leading to more clients not taking references. They will have to decide at interview if someone is suitable or not. This is a situation that is a combination of clients bringing it on themselves and the fact that it is legally not safe to give a reference that might jeopordise someones chance of work.

I think in your case Denny they were just looking for an excuse, and it seems a pretty feable one at that. Sod'em and move on to better things.

[boredsenseless]

I believe only the client has to obtain sufficient reference about citizen/visa status - nothing else is required. If it is then it would be contractual between recruiter and client I believe.

Its the entity paying the contractor that has to prove their eligibility.

Therefore in the first instance its the client, however they will have delegated this contractually to the agent, by agreeing in writing that the agent will only supply eligible resources. Therefore the agent needs to see your proof of entitlement to take up work in the UK.

Your limited company could also agree contractually with the agent that it will take on the process of ensuring any resources its supplies meet the regs but in practice most agents won't do this as it leaves them open to a degree of uncertainty.

[malvolio]

So what we want is a guaranteed third party assurance that the work history on your CV is valid and accurate. Isn't it??

Then contractors and agents could get on with their real job rather than pointless paper chases.

[Mailman]

CV's need to start being treated a legal documents, aka lie = breaking the legal/contractual law

Perhaps you should have said "job ads needto start to be treated as legal documents, aka lie = breaking the legal/contractual law".

Mailman