[georgespencer]

> That sounds unbelievably risky for the people giving the references to have long, nuanced conversations about someone's potential weaknesses in a new job.

I don't think I said anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong) that we're asking anything to do with their ability in the new job. We're asking about how they performed in their previous job.

> the people providing the references are at the mercy of your interpretations and how their statements are later represented.

I think this is a major reason why people don't reference. I'm always honest with my references. A competitor hired away a disastrous hire I made a few years ago. I met the CEO a few months later, after the guy had been let go from there, and said "Why didn't you just call!" -- he'd have saved a bunch of time and money.

> Even if you don't hire the person for entirely different reasons they could end of being held liable for loss of earnings if it's decided that some of the information was untruthful, unsubstantiated or illegal.

If you're an adult about it then there's not a lot which can put you off a hire at the referencing stage. You just have to recognise that not everyone gets along, and everyone has different sensibilities and cultural pros and cons. The point of our referencing is that we want to work with this person, so we want to be prepared to help them excel and hit the ground running.

[rz2k]

I do agree with what you're saying, but also know of instances in finance where people have been fired for theft, then fired for the same thing again, because people were too wary of giving any information other than period of employment. Similar stories also occur among managers that move from one small town government to the next.

The laws that these people are benefiting from are meant to protect people like whistleblowers, those who fought back against discrimination, or just personality conflicts from following people the rest of their careers, but there can be a risk even when this extra background information is above board.

[user5994461]

These laws also protect you against the manager who didn't like you, the terrible boss, or simply the co-worker who had different business goals than you.

There characters are far more common than cases of thefts. Don't want them to have lasting implications on your career.

[rz2k]

Do I think people in tech should be subject to the type of popularity contests that domestic workers in Imperial Britain experienced? No.

My point was that there is enough caution around these sorts of conversations with references, that companies already avoid them, even though it might expose them to other dangers.

I think it was a potentially harmful suggestion, because if it were a more widespread practice, people's career prospects would increasingly change for non-meritocratic reasons, and therefore the productivity within the industry as a whole would suffer. However, it's simply easier to talk about the potential legal jeopardy it puts people in in the near term.