Work colleagues

[hk blues]

2 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

In the long term a company that denies the truth and tries to harm people will shoot themselves in the foot.
A high turnover of staff should prompt hr or senior management to step in but usually they do the opposite. Bury their heads and blame the people leaving.
An honest truthful exit interview does more good for everyone in the long run. No point lying or being scared they will give you a bad reference. If they talk off record then it shows them up to be untrustworthy and devious. What are they trying to hide? Would you want to work for a company that works in this underhand way?

An honest exit interview is an oxymoron.  

As for talking off the record, it doesn't mean they are untrustworthy or devious, rather that the law pretty much makes written references pointless so, it's a way to get a better and clearer idea of a person's actual skills and ability.  What's the problem with that?  

[Mark Connolly]

1 hour ago, mathematics said:

I left a financial institution after almost a year. Got a bottle of whisky, a tie with motorbikes on it, and a box of hot chocolate (all things related to me and shit I do). Was very thoughtful.

i then proceeded to tell them, in my leaving presentation, that the last year had been the worst year of my life and I couldn’t wait to go. No point in lying to them.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

36 minutes ago, hk blues said:

An honest exit interview is an oxymoron.  

As for talking off the record, it doesn't mean they are untrustworthy or devious, rather that the law pretty much makes written references pointless so, it's a way to get a better and clearer idea of a person's actual skills and ability.  What's the problem with that?  

I think it's against the law to give informal reference info.

[D.A.F.C]

An honest exit interview is an oxymoron.  

As for talking off the record, it doesn't mean they are untrustworthy or devious, rather that the law pretty much makes written references pointless so, it's a way to get a better and clearer idea of a person's actual skills and ability.  What's the problem with that?  

It allows employers to blackball employees unfairly behind their back without a chance of them defending themselves. It's a terrible idea. It also means that the new employer cant select candidates or interview them correctly. It's a lazy shitty way to do things.

 

[Crroma]

Nah, he doesn't give a f***, either.

 

Omg that's so funny, best post on the internet today, can we reward you with a, brands new Mercedes, preferably driven straight at you. c**t.

 

[trainspotter]

One of my colleagues left recently, we had a collection for a leaving gift which he seemed to appreciate. In return, he left us a couple of boxes of Krispy Kreme and a "Sorry for your loss" sympathy card.

Very decent guy imo.

 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

3 minutes ago, Crroma said:

18 hours ago, Jacksgranda said:

Nah, he doesn't give a f***, either.
 

 a steak knife through the eyeball to help?

Preferable to reading your posts tbf

[hk blues]

10 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I think it's against the law to give informal reference info.

Perhaps, but I though it depended on how the reference request letter was worded 

[hk blues]

12 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

It allows employers to blackball employees unfairly behind their back without a chance of them defending themselves. It's a terrible idea. It also means that the new employer cant select candidates or interview them correctly. It's a lazy shitty way to do things.

 

You're making an assumption that the employer is dishonest - most are not.  I'd argue that it allows potential employers to select candidates for interview based on a wider range of information than they would otherwise have, again surely that's a good thing?  Also, most employers seek references at the final stage before making an offer rather than pre-interview so it's not necessarily a decision maker, rather part of the overall process.  

[D.A.F.C]

You're making an assumption that the employer is dishonest - most are not.  I'd argue that it allows potential employers to select candidates for interview based on a wider range of information than they would otherwise have, again surely that's a good thing?  Also, most employers seek references at the final stage before making an offer rather than pre-interview so it's not necessarily a decision maker, rather part of the overall process.  

Sorry dont agree. Their selection and interview process should do all of this. You phone up HR wtf are they going to know? They are usually in a different building. The boss or manager could have a grudge or be tired. Most HR and senior managers are sneaky horrible two faced people. Why not ask for appraisals just trust the fact that the cv plus the fact they held a job for years and did it well. Suddenly the people doing the appraisals are lying? What's the real agenda?

 

[hk blues]

Just now, D.A.F.C said:

16 minutes ago, hk blues said:

You're making an assumption that the employer is dishonest - most are not.  I'd argue that it allows potential employers to select candidates for interview based on a wider range of information than they would otherwise have, again surely that's a good thing?  Also, most employers seek references at the final stage before making an offer rather than pre-interview so it's not necessarily a decision maker, rather part of the overall process.  

Sorry dont agree. Their selection and interview process should do all of this. You phone up HR wtf are they going to know? They are usually in a different building. The boss or manager could have a grudge or be tired. Most HR and senior managers are sneaky horrible two faced rat fucks.

I can see from your final sentence that you obviously have an axe to grind against management in general so not up for reasoned debate 

[Shandon Par]

Div should run courses on acceptable language for c***s that use derogatory or offensive language. 

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, D.A.F.C said:

Sorry dont agree. Their selection and interview process should do all of this. You phone up HR wtf are they going to know? They are usually in a different building. The boss or manager could have a grudge or be tired. Most HR and senior managers are sneaky horrible two faced rat fucks.

I never worked for a firm that was so big they needed more than one floor*, never mind more than one building.

ETA: *(Now that I've thought about it, that's not actually true, a number of firms I worked for were located in former family houses turned into offices, so occupied 2/3 floors depending on number of storeys/employees.)

Edited August 16, 2019 by Jacksgranda
Update & sllepnig

[Aubrey Maturin]

33 minutes ago, Crroma said:

Lots of retards on here.

You can go.

Warned 30 mins ago for same thing and keeps doing it.  

Edited August 16, 2019 by Tynierose

[Jacksgranda]

[trainspotter]

40 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

Div should run courses on acceptable language for c***s that use derogatory or offensive language. 

Diversity awareness training to replace the naughty step. Sounds promising.

[Shandon Par]

34 minutes ago, Tynierose said:

You can go.

Warned 30 mins ago for same thing and keeps doing it.  

The p&b equivalent of death by cop. A bit like MozzaMozza (rip) who kept pushing. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I never worked for a firm that was so big they needed more than one floor, never mind more than one building.

I work in East Yorkshire. Our HR function is in an office block in South Wales. Works like a fucking dream.



(The above post may contain sarcasm)

[Rugster]

2 hours ago, hk blues said:

I can see from your final sentence that you obviously have an axe to grind against management in general so not up for reasoned debate 

The majority of his posts on this thread are whining about management or being unfairly treated. 

[Scary Bear]

 
Omg that's so funny, best post on the internet today, can we reward you with a, brands new Mercedes, preferably driven straight at you. c**t.
 

I can’t believe this guy doesn’t drink.