I agree with @GreatHornedOwl.
If one person tells another "you can quit your job without notice and your employer won't be able to tell any other employer about it," saying "no, that information is wrong and harmful" is perfectly reasonable.
I mean, that is what that information—misinformation, rather—is. It's inaccurate, and would harm anyone who acted on it.
And yes, the burden of proof is with the one making the claim.
If they produce the law in question, a law saying "employers can't give bad references," then whoops! The one who disagreed was wrong, and can take their statement back. (Which wouldn't happen in this case, because employers absolutely can give bad references: just not false ones.)
Punishing the person who disagreed with the dangerous misinformation would be a very, very stupid action.
@DaringSprinter - Thank you. I think that you and @achetocuddle are the only two people here who actually understood what I've been saying. I was the one who disagreed with that misinformation, and I got a timeout for my effort. I guess that I should have disagreed more gently.
Good gravy!! If anyone comes to the CC forum looking for sound advise to base their life decisions on, then they have bigger issues than any potential harm caused by following to the letter anything one says here.
Seriously! Who is this crusade for? Why is the responsibility assumed to be that of the poster and not that of the reader? Sorry, but this entire premise rubs me wrong.
Not everywhere needs moderating, not everything needs a warning label and not everyone needs protection from their own idiocy and whatever consequences may come.
smh
@quixotic_life: Now, I'm assuming you don't mean to imply that GreatHornedOwl should have been punished for correcting misinformation, that he should have let it stand and harm whoever was fool enough to believe it and deserved a smack for trying to help. You don't mean to say that. Am I right?
@GreatHornedOwl
The concept remains unchanged. If anyone sees something on the internet regardless if it's fact or an opinion, do your due diligence. @quixotic_life I agree.
I understand this post may be connected to another; I don't know the full context of the question...
And as far as reference checks and laws...
Of course it's better to err on the side of less is more and to stick to the facts. But more important than that, is if you're asked to give one and you don't know your company's policies then don't give one at all - good or bad (because, "I didn't know" will never get one out of trouble).
The reasoning is due to a potential for a defamation suit. If one shares an unflattering bit of information about something they recall as an issue, but the former employee doesn't have anything in their file that shows documentation for said issue of concern, not only can that former employee sue the company for defamation and win, but the company can fire the person who gave the reference, and that person has no recourse (even if the former employee doesn't sue, putting the company in position for potential jeopardy can cost the reference giver their job).
So are there laws that say, it's illegal? No. But are most companies interested in covering their asses and don't want to be on the hook to pay court fees as well as settlements/judgments? Absolutely. And that's why in nearly every HR handbook, there are strict rules around who is authorized to give them, and what is/isn't permitted. And is also why it's nearly impossible to complete a reference check that goes beyond confirming a person was actually employed and from when to when. Because nobody in their right mind is going to allow for anything other than 100% verifiable facts to be confirmed.
sorry if all this was already said by someone else, but sheesh!!
@DaringSprinter ~ Should they be blammed? No. Just like anyone else @GreatHornedOwl can say whatever they like and can harp on a basic non-issue all they like. And they can chime in and give their pov until the cows all ride flying pigs home. But the fact is, none of us really knows anyone else's credentials, and if their "knowledge" or "facts" are true in all jurisdictions.
The blame lies with the one who chooses to take something here as gospel, and doesn't do their own research. Hopefully if things go south, they can learn from it. If not... well... Darwin had some points, you know?
@quixotic_life: I had hoped you didn't mean to imply what you were implying. I guess you missed all the excitement!
This isn't a hypothetical discussion.
Someone posted legal misinformation. @GreatHornedOwl objected to the posting of misinformation and pointed out that it could be harmful: it is not illegal for employers to give bad references, and assuming no one will ever hear about anything negative you did at a past job is dangerous.
Whereupon GreatHornedOwl received a timeout.
Yes, that's right: he was punished for trying to help. That is what this thread's about.
@August1 - I agree, that in an ideal world, people should act as you describe. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world.
When someone, clearly in an emotional state comes here, with his mind almost made up, just looking for confirmation, and gets total approval for what he plans to do, and even gets suggestions about what other even nastier things he might do, he will be right on the edge. Finally, telling him that there will be no consequences, that his company won't be able to give him a bad review, could very proceed with his plans.
You may think that his behavior is foolish, but I think that he doesn't deserve to suffer for the rest of his life because of it.
I hope that I phrased it in such a way that next time, she will hesitate to give any kind of advice when she doesn't know anything about the subject.
To me, I see that as punitive intent. As she called it,
as if deliberate and to put me in my place
It could have been handled with a lot more tact. I'd bet dollars to donuts this is the root of your time-out. It's not that you were correcting misinformation, it was that you were trying to punish someone. All you have to do is refute the point. You don't have to twist the knife.
@zerocantaloupe: Is it punishment, to say something hoping it will make someone think twice before doing something ill-advised?
I've been corrected that way before, and though my pride was hurt, nothing else was (and if I weren't so prideful, not even that would've twinged). Perhaps this is a culture thing, but I don't see saying "don't do that, it's bad and you could hurt someone" as a punishment.
Ah. @DaringSprinter and @GreatHornedOwl correct. I'd missed that a timeout had been issued.
And yep, it's 100% true if you do a bad, they can disclose the bad. So if doing a bad, you better do it good (don't get caught, don't sign anything, etc). Or, just do a 'better' and take a couple sick days to look for other work opportunities ~ Because whatever temporary gains there are from, "sticking it to them" they aren't likely to be worth the potential long-term BS that could follow.
@DaringSprinter It wasn't "don't do that, it's bad and you could hurt someone", it was basically "you have no idea what you're talking about and you should feel bad" followed by a post indicating why he said it that way: to emotionally sear this experience into her brain so as to change her behavior in the future.
@quixotic_life - While most of what you've said is quite true, but is also completely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is how severely someone should be reprimanded for stating that all states and the federal government have laws that prohibit companies from giving a bad reference.
What you say about the policies of companies to adopt a defensive policy of prohibiting giving out references, I know from personal experience, that many companies have no such policy.
While not exactly directly related, you just reminded me of a very funny, but true story, that I had almost forgotten about. I was working for a manufacturer of medical devices, as the Director of Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs. After over 10 years, the company was sold to a much larger company, who decided to move the entire operation to Mexico. I was looking for new job. At one point, I received a call from a recruiter who had been checking my references. He asked if I knew what the (now ex) president says about me. It turned out that Mr. xxx was telling people that "Joel is a complete pain in the ass to work with, but if not for him, the company might not have continued to exist." I never quite decided if that was a bad reference, of a good reference.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.
That is an opinion in itself. Science has something to say about that:
@zerocantaloupe: It was literally "It's best not to give out legal advice when you don't know what you're talking about. You can cause problems for people who might believe you, and then act on that belief."
And then, "I hope that I phrased it in such a way that next time, she will hesitate to give any kind of advice when she doesn't know anything about the subject."
That looks completely fair to me! Embarrassing, but not overly harsh.
@DaringSprinter Let's not forget "I defy you to quote a law in any state that makes the act of giving out bad references illegal" and "If you bother to do even a little bit of research, ..."
All hostile and not necessary to convey the point. It is not the role of anyone but the administrators of the forum to punish.
I am not so sure about that. There is a member named @DirtyHarry. I am sure he can enforce the point.
@FunCartel Dirty Harry had a badge. Maybe Batman?
@zerocantaloupe - I completely agree with you that I could have been considerably more diplomatic. However, after I came to understand that she actually believed what she said was true, I apologized to her. None the less, I am adamant in my opinion that people who know little or nothing about a subject should refrain from making such absolute statements of fact.
I have learned that I should be more diplomatic.
My problem, is that nobody who knows anything about employment law could possibly have made such a mistake, especially one with such possibly serious consequences. Had I merely said "There are no such laws," why would anybody have believed me? By challenging her to cite the law that she claimed existed, her assertion became much less believable.
Interesting, @GreatHornedOwl ~ We're clearly speaking from very different experiences of workplace culture over the last 30 years (not to mention all of google's "HR-101' type of returns I found).
But I don't doubt there are still plenty of companies getting in their own way out there.
Could be that the bulk of my lived experience with all this has been through a small company I was with for 11 years, and the remainder being in .gov and .org sectors. Or that I'm in a fairly progressive city where finding advisors on such things is commonplace/ easy.
Anyway... agreed that round one could have been handled better, and agreed that informing one of known misinformation is a worthy endeavor.
@zerocantaloupe: So the phrasing with which he asked for proof of her claim and pointed out her lack of evidence wasn't gentle enough—is that punishment?
If I announced that Bigfoot is real, without any evidence, I wouldn't consider "I defy you to produce any evidence of Bigfoot's existence" and "did you even hit up Google once?" to be punishment. I'd call those perfectly reasonable reactions. "I'm being punished for saying Bigfoot is real!" is not a thing I would say.
Ooh, I'm hearing words that hurt my pride because they point out that I did a dumb. I'm not being penalized in any way: my account is untouched, I can still post in the forum, nobody in a position of power on the site has said anything about my mess-up to me... I've been punished!
But, again, maybe this is cultural.
@quixotic_life I've worked for two very large companies, and several smaller ones. My experience has been that it is the large companies (with large legal staffs) that prohibit giving out references.
@GreatHornedOwl I think we somewhat agree. I don't know the whole context of your question as I only look at threads that look interesting to me. If you deemed something as 'misinformation' then you should be able to say that without censorship.
@DaringSprinter Posting right after saying that you hoped you phrased it such that they’d be discouraged from making a mistake like that again makes the intent pretty clear.
This entire thread gives me serious DARVO vibes. Instead of considering the verbally abusive way OP was talking, it was reframed as woe-is-me, I got censored for speaking the truth.
This may just be me overreacting as an abuse survivor, but given I didn’t hand out the time-out, I think I’m not being totally irrational here.
@zerocantaloupe - When a person cites 50 laws (federal and all 50 states), when no such laws exist, there are two possible causes. Either she is deliberately lying, or she is ignorant of the subject. She later stated that she thought that she had read it on the internet. Lets give her the benefit of the doubt, ans assume that it was not a case of deliberate lying.
This leaves only one other possibility. That she posted completely false information, is proof positive that she knows little or nothing about the subject of employment law. There just doesn't appear to be any other possibility. It appears that you are accusing me of being abusive by telling her that she knows nothing about the subject, when there is no doubt that she knows nothing about the subject.,
Would it have been less abusive to tell her that she was lying? I think not. Considering that leaving that false information unchallenged, was potentially dangerous (to some readers), can you suggest any other options?
The fact that I got a time out, doesn't prove anything. Our administrators are no more infallible than are any other group of people.
Consider a hypothetical situation. here are the facts:
In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield published a paper in _Lancet, _that "proved" that autism was caused by the measels vaccine.It created quite a uproar.
In 2005, an investigative reporter alerted The Lancet's editors that Wakefield's study had been flawed by severe research misconduct, conflict of interests, and probably falsehood. After investigating the matter, the Lancet retracted the article, and the British Medical Association took disciplinary actions against Wakefield.
There have been no other realistic reports of the vaccine causing autism. but there have been many measles outbreaks around the country, involving numerous deaths. It seems that there some people who believe Wakefield's fake data, and that belief is clearly dangerous
Now, suppose that I open a new thread, ant tell people not to vaccinate their kids, because the vaccine causes autism. Would you be justified in telling me that I didn't know what I' talking about? If not, what you be justified in doing?
@GreatHornedOwl In the specific case of the employment law thing, here's how it could have gone:
"(at)Meyous: Interesting...I've never heard of a law prohibiting employers from giving bad references. Can you show me an example?"
This achieves several ends: 1. Demonstrates the proper burden of proof. 2. Encourages a nice dialogue. 3. Gives Meyous a way to save face by looking for it, failing, and then saying oh, I guess this is something I thought I read somewhere, my bad. 4. Doesn't assume malice or incompetence right off the bat.
I know it's a bit touchy-feely and seems unnecessary in the face of the urgency of preventing misinformation from spreading, but there are living breathing people on the other side of the screen.
You seem to think that I was (or should have been) writing for her protection. I wasn't. Saying that "I've never heard of a law prohibiting employers from giving bad references" is very weak. It would have convinced nobody that those laws don't exist. People who post completely untruthful information don't deserve to be coddled. Bear in mind that had we spent 2 or 3 days going back and forth, who knows what any of the readers, especially the OP would have thought. My telling her that she didn't know anything about the subject wasn't actually directed to her. Rather, it was intended to prevent the OP from doing something stupid.
You accuse me of assuming malice "right off the bat," or5 at all. That is completely untrue, and had you read my last post without preconceived beliefs, you would know that. I specifically said that I didn't believe that she acted with malice.
When I first read her assertion that those laws exist, I reasonably certain that she was wrong, but my knowledge of employment law is old. Before I would even consider challenging her, I went to the internet. Only after finding several reliable sources, did I tell her that those laws didn't exist. Before posting her false information, she should have checked it out. Unfortunately, she didn't bother. I refrained from calling her lazy, despite my belief that she is, or at least was.
I agree- I think false posts are not good. Or like @Mike403 Maybe the person can just state that it's an opinion so people don't go off of it thinking that it's true.
You seem to think that I was (or should have been) writing for her protection. I wasn't.
Worse. You wrote in a way to humiliate her into changing her behavior. By your own admission.
People who post completely untruthful information don't deserve to be coddled.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. This is such a fundamental philosophical difference between us that we're just not going to get anywhere.
I refrained from calling her lazy, despite my belief that she is, or at least was.
sigh