Previous employer sabotaging search

[jack_522]

Is it possible for a previous employer to be sabotaging my job search? I really would like to know this. I've had six interviews in the past two months, which all seemed friendly and went well; but when I follow up a few days later I get the ice treatment and I wonder why I bother. Could one of my employers from a past job be saying something?

[Randy]

Well, I'm certain it never, ever happens "officially," nod nod grin grin wink wink.

But I've been going through the same thing now for over eight years and it always traces back to the same employer.

Or put this way: If I leave that employer completely unmentioned and off resumes and applications, well, I've gotten each job I've applied for. With the mention of "that place," it goes nowhere. They, of course, deny it and yes, I've confronted them.

So it's purely anecdotal but put it this way:

Don't you think if former and ex-employees bad-mouth former employers that they don't do the same?

And please everyone, I need no reminders of what "the law" may or may not be. There's "the" law and there's the real world and the two need not ever come close to each other.

[l_steele]

If a previous employer is sabotaging your job search, they're doing it very quietly and probably illegally. Most employers don't want to get into possible legal trouble by badmouthing former employees.

[timmy_28]

Agreed, most employers today will just give the basic facts – yes you worked there and you worked for this long at this job. A lot of them won't even mention if you got fired or quit unless asked.

[bilbo_30]

If an employer is asked if they would hire you again, that might be a problem. Anything but a ‘'yes'' would cause a second guess from someone looking at you.

[Randy]

You know, this really is one of those fascinating discussions simply because of the possibilities involved. If, as so many suggest, it's either blatantly "illegal" or simply a matter of "routine business practice" that former employers verify only dates of employments, along with perhaps a "yes" or "no" regarding the question of whether or not they would rehire the person, you're left struggling with the answer to the most obvious of questions:

Why then are job candidates expected and required to state the reason(s) for leaving a previous employer?

IF it's illegal, than why ask since the answer can NOT be verified without breaking the law?

The answer, of course, is to be found when people finally get around to figuring out how silly, stupid, and self-contradictory it is for an employer who, bound by law to NOT ask your age, nonetheless is legally allowed to ask the dates you attended high-school/college. It's really simply math to work backwards, don't you think?

Oh well....

[jack_522]

What if I find someone is causing problems? Can I do anything?

[Randy]

"Can" do? Possibly, indeed probably, there's much you can do.

But I am absoutely the wrong person to even think about addressing such matters. I come from a different age and my sensibilities--for as long as I can remember remembering--have always been such that there are many battles, if not most, that aren't worth the trouble. What I mean is this: If you must invest considerable time and money to fight this type of battle, and assuming you win, will it all have been worth it?

In this case, the employer gets a big "Bad boy. Don't do that again!" He pays a fine and gets on with his life.

What about you?

All that time and money spent--could it have been put to better use?

Now I'm the first to admit that such an attitude sounds as if I'm in favor of letting the rat-bastards of the world get away with anything. I'm not. I simply prefer to fight them tooth and nail from the very beginning and accept that it's not over until *I* say it over.

It's that razor's edge at work here, the difference between doing the "right" thing--in a legalistic sense--and the right thing in terms of your own life.

So yes, you might win, might teach them a lesson, and in so doing might help you find better employer, or maybe just different. It could also cost you just about everything that really matters--friends, family, sanity.

Yes, I'm speaking from personal experience.

It's the oldest of sayings: Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig. Regrettablly, the world really is set up in favor of the wealthy, the powerful, and the peckerheads.

I do know this, as well. Employers have in their arsenal two magiic words: Employee Misconduct. That can, in keeping with the philosophy of Humpty Dumpty, mean anything they want it to mean and at that point it's you standing against a company that "creates job" and whose president and ceo and managers have all done a bang-up job at selling themsleves as "pillars of the community," "good men" who "attend church regularly" and blah blah blah.

You, however, will be relegated to just one more "disgruntled" employee.

Yes, Hollywood does a great job of reminding us that occassionaly the "underdog" wins.

I'll sum it up this way: If it's a battle you're willing to take on because of how you, personally, have been treated. Then let loose the hounds of hell and take no prisoners.

But if there's even the slightest thought of doing it so "they never treat anyone else" the same way? Well, play martyr if you must, but because of my own experience, that's one road I'll never travel again.

Nothing but the best.

[jb]

Perhaps a cease and desist letter could be of use. You can pay a lawyer to write one or you can get a template off the internet or a program like quicken lawyer. Send them a legal sounding letter indicating that if this continues you will sue. Hopefully, that will either scare them or make them decide it is not worth it to continue slandering you.

[bluebabygirl]

You would have to prove the previous employer is sabotaging your search. That's about as hard as proving an employer didn't hire you because of age, race or sex much of the time. I know there are laws against discrimination, and slander, but proving it is a whole other issue.

[PaulLubic]

Unless you had a bad experience at your previous job and are certain that they're sabotaging you, I'd consider your interview performance too. After all those interviews, it's worth taking a look at your interviewing skills and how you're presenting yourself to the interviewers. You could be coming off as someone who may not fit in the their organization or team by your demeanor, attitude, appearance, etc. You may not be answering their questions well, but that shouldn't happen in that many interviews because they don't all ask the same questions. If you give a consistently negative answer to why you left your last position, that's a turn off, and a possible reason. I know you said the interviews were all friendly, however, interviewers don't usually give negative feedback during the interview. My advice is to get a book on effective interviewing techniques and preferably one with suggested answers to tough questions.

[Randy]

Hey, Paul...

I am not--NOT--disagreeing w/ you re:

...I'd consider your interview performance too. After all those interviews, it's worth taking a look at your interviewing skills and how you're presenting yourself to the interviewers.

But am I the only one who accepts this for what it is, that the person who gets hired isn't necessarily the best person for the job--the one with the requisite skills, training, perhaps even education--but rather that the "ideal candidate" is simply that man or woman who is the best at impressing the interviewer during the interview?

And that, too, is reduced even further to the person who is best at "selling" themselves. In turn, even that is reduced to the person who is best at telling not the truth, but rather at "spinning" anything and everything into what must--by the "rules of the game"--be presented as a so-called positive and never a negative. And that when all is said and done, it's no more complicated than who is the best at telling the interviewer what he/she wants to hear.

All this quite naturally results in what we hear so often, that most decisions to hire are made within the first five minutes of the interview! And that it all comes down to that "first impression".

And this is why I so often sound so angry, bitter, and thoroughly cynical regarding that whole "hiring process". If all this "conventional wisdom" and "expert advice" is correct, then employers do NOT want honest and truthful answers to their questions, they want someone who is really, really good at--and to put into the words of blue-collar people who really do "work" for a living--they want pure bullshit.

You see, what annoys the "average" person with this "expert advice" is that we have neither the time nor the desire to play this silly, childish games. And it plays out the same each and every time: Employers hire that proverbial "ideal candidate" based upon this game they've created and later, they inevitably complain about the poor quality, dependence, reliability, and competence of their "lousy employees" and wonder why they--the employers--have such appalling turnover rates.

IF there's any "advice" to be given, and accepted, AND put into practice, it should be directed toward the employers and it SHOULD be this:

"Stop 'interviewing' people and talk to them. That's right: Just talk them. As it stands, job interviews these days are, in reality, nothing more than an interrogation, one in which everything the applicant says, or doesn't say, can and IS used against them."

It's clear employers do NOT look for reasons to hire someone, but rather they scrutinize and dig deeply, looking for any reason--real or imaginary--why NOT to hire someone!

It stands to reason, therefore, that playing by these rules, the person most likely to get hired is one who has no character and no integrity at all, but rather that person who is nothing more than a lump of clay, one easily molded into whatever is necessary at the time in order to accomplish nothing more complicated than appeasing and validity the person sitting on the other side of the desk.

So again, I do agree with you, but it has to be admitted that all this really is one pathetic and silly game that's of no benefit to anyone involved, employers or people looking for employment.

[camp_man]

You would have to have more than one person tell you that the previous employer said something and the gist of what they said. That would be the only way to possibly have any claim against them at all.

[PaulLubic]

Randy,
I understand your level of frustration at the interviewing "game". However, right now it's the only game in town and we should use it to our advantage so the "right" people get the jobs. I've hired a few people who "gave the best interviews" but didn't work out to be the best employees myself. That's why organizations have a probationary period, in case someone wasn't the employee they said they were.The interviewing process is nothing more than the opportunity for the employer to get some comfort about the employee being able to perform the work and be able to be part of the organization's team. My best advice to those in the interviewing process right now is to recognize the "game" for what it is and then take full advantage of it's rules: appearance, attitude, company knowledge, how to answer questions, etc. to get the job.

[Randy]

PaulLubic:

Randy,
I understand your level of frustration at the interviewing "game"....

You've now idea (and possibly don't even care) how much respect I have for you because of your answer. You're one of, oh, about two or three such true "professionals" who will admit that, at least for now, what we have might indeed by "the best of all possible worlds".

I think then you'll enjoy this as well:

Parked and doing my paperwork--just yesterday--a local radio-chap with tidbits of general interest (just to fill in the time, of course), said new studies and surveys show that those dastardly "human resource managers" have now changed their minds--again--and the words they advise to absolutely AVOID putting in a resume are such words as "expert," "experienced," "professional," "seasonal," etc.

I've a resume buried somewhere in my computer that was prepared, oh, seven years ago or so, by a professional "career counseling" outfit. I took all those Briggs/Myers tests and on and on until I thought I would die. That resume, as I'm sure you've already guess, uses exactly THOSE words that now I am to understand are a turn-off.

The resume that has always given me the best results in one I just throw together, trying to look at if from the viewpoint of an admittedly very busy person. After that, yes, it's no surprise I ignore all such advice.

And clearly I'm the first to admit that in an interview, I am indeed my own worst enemy simply because I can't conceal what is, as you noticed and were gracious enough to set aside, a rather nasty attitude about this whole mess.

It's really no more complicated than I came in on what was proving to be the death of that now infamous "work ethic" passed down by my parents' generation for the depression/WWII era. A high-school education, honesty of charater, integrity, hard work, and loyalty were indeed the sum total of that "secret" to making it in the "real world".

But it began to change, dramatically, when MY generation--those lousy baby-boomers--started moving into positions of so-called power and authority. And from there the insanity grew exponentially until we are where we are right now!

As with all things, the pendulum will swing back and forth. I just had both the chance, and curse, to catch it as it ended and was starting a new direction.

Many thanks for kindness not really deserved.