Law question

[Brentastic]

Does anyone know what a prospective employer is entitled to regarding previous/current salary? I would think they are not entitled to that information, it should be private. Also, similarly, is your previous employee allowed to give that info or can you inform your previous employer to not release that info?

 

It doesn't make sense that you should give that advantage to a prospective employer.

[matt770]

Shouldn't be any of their business, but an employer could probably get this information if they wanted it badly enough. They sure dig into everything else, including even your credit rating and social networking sites nowadays.

[twiley]

It'll basically come down to what kind of policy your old company has. My policy is - "It's company policy to only acknowledge that yes, this person worked for said company and that they are no longer employed here." As far as any outside info - they can get whatever they want.

[bpwallace49]

Companies are the most important sector of our lives and deserve any and all support we can give them.

 

Free Market!

[wildcat2334]

as a recruiter it is better to be honest as possible about prior salary - i would say damn near 100% of candidates are up front to me about it, and we pass that along to our clients in most cases...........it is not like it is top secret info anyway - innerwebs and stuff

 

 

the thing is, in most cases you are absolutely entitled to a raise, but they aren't going to extremely over-pay for you, especially in today"s economy. In my experience most candidates are within 10-15% of the potential salary offer at most.

 

ETA - no prior employers should not give it out- but at the same time I have NEVER had a prospective employer contact a previous one for salary info, it just doesn't happen in my experience, not really sure why it ever would

Edited April 1, 2010 by wildcat2334

[Furd]

What do you mean by "entitled to?"

 

An employer is pretty much free to disclose to a third party any truthful information about a former employee. Medical/health information is an exception to this. State laws may prohibit the disclosure of certain other information. Disclosing private information, such as a social security numbers, is a bad idea.

 

Most employers chose not to give out much information, likely based on imaginary laws and irrational fears about liability .

[geeteebee]

They may not be entitled to it, but if they ask you and you decline to tell them, then they may decide you are not entitled to a job offer. Worse yet, if they ask you, you lie to them, they hire you and then they find out about it, then they have a very valid reason to terminate your employment.

[Duchess Jack]

the only thing a company is legally allowed to ask for is your prior position and how long you were in that position - at least that was the case when I had to check on folks referances. they cannot ask about the quality of your work or your pay - I guess they can ask - but if the company answers, they can be held liable for giving that info

[Azazello1313]

as others have no doubt intimated, they aren't "legally entitled" to that info unless you want to give it to them. you don't even have to fill out your name on a job application if you don't want to.

[keggerz]

as others have no doubt intimated, they aren't "legally entitled" to that info unless you want to give it to them. you don't even have to fill out your name on a job application if you don't want to.

I always hate how there isn't a place to put my astrological sign...it is illegal for an employer to ask your age so they have no way to know what month I was born in so they can figure out my sign.

[Beaumont]

What do you mean by "entitled to?"

 

An employer is pretty much free to disclose to a third party any truthful information about a former employee. Medical/health information is an exception to this. State laws may prohibit the disclosure of certain other information. Disclosing private information, such as a social security numbers, is a bad idea.

 

Most employers chose not to give out much information, likely based on imaginary laws and irrational fears about liability .

 

This is 100% true.

[DMD]

It'll basically come down to what kind of policy your old company has. My policy is - "It's company policy to only acknowledge that yes, this person worked for said company and that they are no longer employed here." .

 

When I was a Operations Manager, this is exactly what we said and we were not to say anything else good or bad. It is all about liability saying anything else.

[Furd]

Here's something for some of you:

 

Potential employer calling Furd about Furd's former employee: We're interviewing David for a clerk's position. He tells us he worked for your firm for 6 months. What can you tell me about him.

 

Furd: Well, he was terrible. Lazy. Smelled bad. Frequently late. His work product was awful. Dressed poorly. We caught him smoking pot out behind the building. We fired him. In fact, we should have fired him months sooner. I wouldn't hire him again.

 

Now, assuming what I said was true and my opinions are honest, what is my "liability"? To whom? For what? Through what mechanism?

[Caveman_Nick]

Here's something for some of you:

 

Potential employer calling Furd about Furd's former employee: We're interviewing David for a clerk's position. He tells us he worked for your firm for 6 months. What can you tell me about him.

 

Furd: Well, he was terrible. Lazy. Smelled bad. Frequently late. His work product was awful. Dressed poorly. We caught him smoking pot out behind the building. We fired him. In fact, we should have fired him months sooner. I wouldn't hire him again.

 

Now, assuming what I said was true and my opinions are honest, what is my "liability"? To whom? For what? Through what mechanism?

 

I tend to spare the details. It's just:

 

Yes, that person was employed here for X time. They would be eligible to be rehired (or) They would not be eligible for rehire.

[BillyBalata]

Here's something for some of you:

 

Potential employer calling Furd about Furd's former employee: We're interviewing David for a clerk's position. He tells us he worked for your firm for 6 months. What can you tell me about him.

 

Furd: Well, he was terrible. Lazy. Smelled bad. Frequently late. His work product was awful. Dressed poorly. We caught him smoking pot out behind the building. We fired him. In fact, we should have fired him months sooner. I wouldn't hire him again.

 

Now, assuming what I said was true and my opinions are honest, what is my "liability"? To whom? For what? Through what mechanism?

 

 

So...lets say all thats true about Furds former employee.....you think that stops Dave from trying to file some claim?

 

If Furd has to go to court to support his statements about Dave, is all that at no cost to him? I'm sure Furd's business is so successful it can afford to miss Furd while he spends time in court defending his statements about Dave. And I'm sure Furd is so brilliant he doesn't need to hire a lawyer to represent him, so that's at no cost to him either.

 

If Furd was smart, he'd know better and just say, yea, Dave worked for me then, but other then that, i'm a little bit concerned some sleaze bag lawyer will try and sue me, so other then admitting that Dave worked for me during that period, thats all i got.

Edited April 3, 2010 by BillyBalata

[bpwallace49]

Here's something for some of you:

 

Potential employer calling Furd about Furd's former employee: We're interviewing David for a clerk's position. He tells us he worked for your firm for 6 months. What can you tell me about him.

 

Furd: Well, he was terrible. Lazy. Smelled bad. Frequently late. His work product was awful. Dressed poorly. We caught him smoking pot out behind the building. We fired him. In fact, we should have fired him months sooner. I wouldn't hire him again.

 

Now, assuming what I said was true and my opinions are honest, what is my "liability"? To whom? For what? Through what mechanism?

 

 

Some of the stuff you said is purely subjective and personal. Just stick to the facts on work performance. In fact, depending on clearly established goals and performance reviews that are fully documented, you can insulate yourself against a frivelous case.

 

But the best rule is just stick to dates of employmnet and whether or not you would hire them again,

[keggerz]

Some of the stuff you said is purely subjective and personal. Just stick to the facts on work performance. In fact, depending on clearly established goals and performance reviews that are fully documented, you can insulate yourself against a frivelous case.

 

But the best rule is just stick to dates of employmnet and whether or not you would hire them again,

and verifying pay rate

Edited April 4, 2010 by keggerz

[Furd]

Some of you guys are missing the point of my exaggered scenario.

 

Unless you have some state law (which is pretty unlikjely) that mandates what a former employer can say about a former employee, a former employer really has no exposure for providing commetary about a former employee. Really.

 

What is the theory of liability? What are the damages? Somebody explain to me why they think that a lawyer would take a case with no damages, setting aside a nonexistant theory of liability. Somebody explain to me the potsmokers damages?

 

Like I said, exaggerated fears of liability due to imaginary laws. Its silly.

[Azazello1313]

ok, it's an old article, but I doubt the laws have changed much:

 

The number of defamation suits filed by terminated employees against their former employers and supervisors is growing. The awards to successful plaintiffs can be huge. In 1993, an ex-employee won a $15.5 million judgment against his ex-employer when he successfully argued that his ex-employer was responsible for destroying his reputation and causing him to be turned down for the 100 jobs he subsequently sought. With the employment market as tight as it is, people who lose their jobs are "more apt than ever before to sue their employers for everything and anything a creative plaintiff's lawyer can think of," says Richard Reibstein, an attorney with the New York law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery.

 

seems prudent for employers to just keep their mouths shut as a general rule. a victory for schitty former employees everywhere -- thanks, lawyers!

[wildcat2334]

and verifying pay rate

 

 

uh, negative