[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.