[tptacek]

Demanding, using "strong negotiation", a positive reference from somebody to whom you lied about your criminal status seems like a good way to get a billboard erected with your face and a URL to your LinkedIn profile on 101.

This isn't the first HN comment you've left where you suggested playing hardball to get positive references from employers. You have an idiosyncratic view of the dynamics of employee references. I find it disquieting, but that obviously doesn't make it intrinsically wrong. I do feel safe saying that it is out of step with the way most employers view the same dynamics.

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007550 - "For me, it's really about references. I don't need a severance, but if you don't agree on a good reference I will do everything in my power to fuck up your reputation.")

[michaelochurch]

If there's no severance, then I'd expect a solid-gold reference, yes. With appropriate severance, the neutral name-and-dates is fine.

A bad reference is an existential battle. You do everything you can to fight that. However, pushing neutral to good is generally a waste of time. Dust yourself off, get clean, and move on.

[tptacek]

I am no kind of authority, so please don't take this comment any further than the actual words in the comment box. In particular, I have never worked with you, or anyone who has worked with you; I don't even know what you do (I'm sure it's something interesting and challenging). You're an abstraction to me. I cannot possibly have any opinion about the advisability of employing you and am only sharing my opinion about the ideas you are expressing.

What I have to say about your perspective on references is that I will never, under any circumstances, work with, for, or over someone who believes what I think you're saying you believe about references. "Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty.

Negotiating over the quality of your reference is to me a bit squicky, but it's on the right side of the line, just a couple steps past coaching your references (which is also white-lie dishonest]). Using aggressive negotiation tactics to ensure good references from people who don't believe your work merits a good reference is on the wrong side of the line. You think it's a concession you're extracting from your former employer, but it is really a concession you are surreptitiously taking from your future employer.

[michaelochurch]

"Bad reference => war", to me, is essentially an endorsement of professional dishonesty.

This whole subthread is about 3-sigma outlier cases that (may) require dishonesty.

I am not ashamed to say that, in a 3-sigma bad situation, I would rather lie (especially, being an immensely capable person who would be a good hire, which means the lied-to party would benefit) than starve.

Honestly is a luxury of the 99% of us (including you and me) who aren't "cosmetically challenged" in some severe, career-damaging way.

[tptacek]

Why have interviews at all? You're an immensely capable person who clearly knows what's best for your prospective employer. Just hire yourself for them!

[clicks]

Way to miss the point, very impressive indeed!

michaelochurch brings up a great point that having even the most minor slip in your records will too often result in a disproportionately, unreasonably unfair reception in the job market:

    I don't know the details and I'm not a felon, but I think
    it is pretty fucked up how any felony leads to long-term
    economic disenfranchisement, so I sincerely hope this
    advice helps.

There is something wrong in the system that things are that way, and really I don't see anything abjectly wrong in one doing what he suggested, when you're in a position where the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against you and you've still got to somehow provide for your family.

[tptacek]

He is incorrect about the job market for former felons in our field, but that is orthogonal to the subsubthread we find ourselves on now.