[brandall10]

Had this happen at the beginning of the pandemic. Did well on the full loop. The Friday of that week the recruiter reaches out to get references. A week goes by, I hear nothing. I contact one of my references, they heard nothing.

A month later another recruiter from the company reaches out and explains the recruiter I was talking to was let go that day. Told me in the system that I was approved to hire, but unfortunately along with the layoff came a 6 month hiring freeze for engineering.

[sccvcxv]

It should be illegal to ask for references - the purpose of the interview is to understand your capabilities and abilities. If they couldn't suss all about you in that process then they have a shitty interview process.

[NikolaNovak]

It's a data point, not a final or primary determinant.

Vast majority of corporate team members or leads are not allowed to say anything bad or much other than whether that person was employed or not.

Nevertheless :

1. If a person has a comprehensive long resume but cannot provide meaningful references, that poses a significant question as to why

2. A person will not typically say anything bad about their ex colleague or team members due to legal and policy constraints. Nevertheless if they stick to the "this person was employed here" and don't give even a perfunctory "oh Bob? Yeah he was a good guy. He was employed here from 2023 to 2025" even after some soft prompting, again, a data point.

Depends what you're looking for in an employee or colleague. If "history of not completely burning bridges to the ground " is relevant to you, references are "a" data point.

[voidnap]

It kinda sucks though if you end up being a bad culture fit a couple times in a row. You end up being rejected on that basis alone. Forever. And there is nothing you can do about it, even of you are qualified for the jobs you apply for.

[BigTTYGothGF]

If you can't get three people to vouch for you, honestly or otherwise, then that's a pretty big red flag.

[ipaddr]

It's usually last manager and co-workers where the company has a policy of not allowing references. Plus who wants to bother other people asking for a reference after you've been working for 25 years.

[chrysoprace]

I have never heard of not allowing references. Is that a US thing?

While I don't love providing references, given they are such a standard part of the employment process (at least here in Australia), I can't see how a company could disallow providing character references. That would be a big red flag if I discovered that after starting to work somewhere.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

In the company I worked for, we were strictly prohibited from saying anything other than “name, rank, and serial number” (date of arrival, date of departure, position).

It was a legal liability issue. I’m told it’s pretty much de rigueur, these days.

One of the nice things, after leaving, was finally being able to give good references for former employees, for whom I really wanted to give glowing references.

[paulddraper]

> “name, rank, and serial number”

That's what you give if captured as a prisoner of war.

[close04]

Happens in Europe too. I think it’s a liability issue, not allowing the employee to speak in the name of the company. So the guidance is “tell the reference seeker to contact the HR department” and they’ll eventually reply that “this person worked here as <job title> between <time period>”.

[chrysoprace]

That makes more sense. That's still a reference I guess. I was more confused about straight up denying somebody a reference, that would immediately make tenure at a company worth less.

[preg_match]

The big issue is that a lot of companies don’t allow asking their employees for references. Many even require references for their own hiring process (!!!)

[NikolaNovak]

Can you elaborate?

Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role. That's in many cases a sufficient to serve as a reference.

E.g. In my company we have a very strict policy for this, but are still allowed to answer "yes, Bob was employed as problem manager team lead from 2023 to 2025". Conversely as a hiring manager, I'll take that as a minimally sufficient data point in confirming resume entry.

[bigiain]

It's always worth considering whether you have people who will give you genuine glowing references.

I've only ever once been at a place where there was a policy saying "all you are allowed to say during reference checks is "yes, they worked here as [job title], from {month/year} to {month/year}". And even with that policy/restriction I still found ways to be much much more positive about the people who were genuinely great.

One great way around that kind of policy - at least if you far enough into your career for it - is to provided references for people who are also no longer at the company they're being a referee for. There are 3 or 4 people from that job I mentioned that didn't allow me to elaborate, where I've subsequently provided reference including something like "Ratica? Yeah - she is great! She lead my QA team and worked magic! You might want to warn the company she's applying to that as soon as I get a role and budget that suits her QA skills, I'll 100% be trying to headhunt her away from them."

[skypivot]

Congratulations, you cost her the job because the company didn't want to deal with an increased risk of her being poached. She's suing, by the way.

[preg_match]

My understanding is that the "were they employed" thing is covered by background checks. I know equifax (experian? I always get them confused) have a product where they will reveal your past titles AND your salaries. It's a little wild and I don't like that, but the point is that I don't think you gain much info from "yes they worked here" from HR.

A reference is really intended as a statement of character IMO. "They worked here" from HR, who doesn't know you, is not that.

[lelanthran]

> Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role.

WDYM by "allowed"? In my jurisdiction, a company is required to confirm (or deny, as the case may be) the dates and roles of employment when asked.

A reply along the lines of "we can not confirm $PERSON's employment as a $ROLE between $DATE1 and $DATE2" when $PERSON has salary slips for those dates is a slam-dunk winning lawsuit!

[reaperducer]

In my company we have a very strict policy for this

My company is so strict about it that it farms out reference checks to a third company so that nobody inside the company knows that references were checked. Seems a little extreme to me.

[gabeio]

> a third company so that nobody inside the company knows that references were checked

That’s actually really interesting. If you are actively looking that prevents anyone in the company from knowing you are looking, even if they did a reference check. That might be because of some previous lawsuits around terminating someone while getting a reference check before actually getting a new job/leaving.

[globalnode]

I big red flag for what? your social habits? lol - i guess if you have to work in a team then yeah, that would be important. but some jobs you just need to get in the truck and drive or w/e, but recruiters still stuck in the time old habit of asking for 3 references. its weak.

[NikolaNovak]

I imagine even in such a job, your shift lead, team boss, or warehouse manager or whatever, would be able to confirm "yes, Bob worked here in truck driving capacity from 2022 to 2024".

References have many levels of usefulness, but the bar starts low - did this person actually perform the job / hold the role they claim in a resume.

Next, and the one I'll agree you don't get as much in modern environment, is how much did they burn bridges / how competent they were. The team boss might be allowed to say "Bob?!? He drove well but god dammit the guy never showed up on time for his shift!". Or they might not.

[globalnode]

Thanks for the perspective, I like the low bar usefulness, without that people can claim anything on their resume I guess. But I really dislike the opinions on peoples usefulness aspect. Much better to start someone off on a 3 or 6 month trial and if you think theyre not worth the money let them go. Heck, even keep the 6 mo review going forever if you want.

[BigTTYGothGF]

A truck driver has to deal with a lot of people at the two ends of the trip and needs to work in a team.

[paulddraper]

> purpose of the interview is to understand your capabilities and abilities

And the purpose of the reference is to understand your actual performance.

If you’re lazy or cruel to coworkers, they won’t want to hire you.

[johnnyanmac]

Mixed. I disagree because you can't get culture fit out of a few hours of interviews, so having people who worked with you can help a lot.

I primarily agree because some companies get way too haughty and try to ask for references in the job app. There's no way I'm giving contact info of my leadership to you to bother them (2 of which very carefully avoid posting their contact info on the internet) unless I'm dead sure I'm in consideration for a role. Certainly not before I can talk to a human.

[sampli]

You sound like someone that is frequently calling in sick!