I NEED HELP! RE:Labor Laws in Colorado

[Sticks]

I need some help. Anyone really familiar with the labor laws, preferably in the Denver Colorado area? Lawyers, Litigators (sp?), or Human Resource/Labor Relations Specialists. I have been unemployed since June of ’02, and I just found out last night that one of my past employers may be crossing the line on what they are legally permitted to say when being contacted to verify employment, hence I am still looking for a job.



Please PM me if you, or someone you know, are willing to hear the details and answer a few questions for me.





Sticks

 

[Champane Flight]

Contact

Contact EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commision). Legally, all a past employer can devulge is that you worked there from a certain time to a certain time. It would be a hard case to prove if they were giving bogus info. Unless of course it could be recorded or verified by new employer.

 

[Sticks]

I'm in the process of that very thing. Hopefully a signed statement from another employer who relayed the information to me.

 

[Sticks]

I talked with an employment agency today, and informed them that I may have a past employer that is crossing the line. They said that they will do the check and keep me informed of what is happening. I don’t know that they are going to take an active approach, but I may get another verification. I have yet to get a straight answer from someone about what can and can not be said when doing the employment check. (I have only heard from one TDR member, and we have not gotten to that yet, just local people that I have talked to).



What really gets me is that there a lot of new application formats floating around now that under the micro print where you attest that all the above information is true, you are also waiving all your rights, and any liability from your past employers and the company you are applying with to divulge any and all information and comments about your work history. This means that they can ask “How good a worker was he/she? What do you think of this person?” This is not so bad if you left on good terms, but if you and your previous supervisor had a personality conflict, no matter if you were the best worker in the company, your past supervisor can tell your prospective employer that you were a worthless POS.



Still looking for help from someone.



Sticks

 

[Doc Tinker]

I'd say it's easy to prove, if you suspect that it's happening, by asking a friend in business to contact the company for a reference.



Did you get annual evaluations at the old job? If you received good evaluations, I would show those to the prospective employers.



Doc

 

[Sticks]

Doc Tinker



My last two annuals with the company were threes (out of a possible three). One of them given by the supervisor that I think is blackballing me. I have been providing this information (the reviews) at my interviews, but it is having 0 effect.



Sticks

 

[Hutchew]

You can thank current society...........

Originally posted by sticks

What really gets me is that there a lot of new application formats floating around now that under the micro print where you attest that all the above information is true, you are also waiving all your rights, and any liability from your past employers and the company you are applying with to divulge any and all information and comments about your work history. This means that they can ask “How good a worker was he/she? What do you think of this person?” This is not so bad if you left on good terms, but if you and your previous supervisor had a personality conflict, no matter if you were the best worker in the company, your past supervisor can tell your prospective employer that you were a worthless POS.

Sticks

Every organized company in the US is in the midst of "CTA" (Covering their arse), and as a business owner, I can tell you why: You apply for a job with my company, you spruce up your application, saying all sorts of great things about yourself, etc, etc, you might even supply me with a resume that looks gold-plated. There's nothing wrong with that, it's like trying to sell something, you always try to make it look as good as you can. You are selling yourself in this context. Used to, I would hire people based off that application and resume, but in the last 4-5 years, I have started doing more extensive background checks into prospective employees. It is amazing how most if not all the traffic tickets, accidents, injuries, poor job performance, absenteeism, drug problems, arrests, etc, etc, etc..... never make it onto those applications or resumes. I will rarely hire anyone without a background check, and I will not hire anyone who has one that comes back bad. It is expensive for my company to train employees and maintain them with good health care insurance, retirement, uniforms, vacation and other benefits. It is even more expensive to hire people who don't really want to work, call in late or sick all the time, are abusive to my equipment and customers, have accidents due to carelessness or indifference, etc. To be frank, I would say that 5 applicants in 20 is worth even starting a background check on, and you might get 1 out of those 5 that is hireable. Chances of him making it through our 90 day probation period- less than 50%. If you are one that makes it, I will treat you like a brother, as long as you treat me like one, too. Most applicants we get here are just putting in their government requirements so they can stay on welfare and/or unemployement. As for unemployement, in 20 years of business, I have yet to have a single illegitimate claim authorized against me. I fight them with a vengeance.

Anyway, hope this made for some interesting reading, and maybe you can understand why we put that fine print on those applications a little better now. I truly wish it didn't have to be that way, but unfortunately, the days of handshake contracts and a man being as good as his word are over. Employers have to be on their toes these days, as just simply saying the wrong thing at the wrong time can end you up in court with a disgruntled employee. Thanks, lawyers and all you bleeding heart idiots. Somedays I wonder if employers are just adult day care providers

 

[Sticks]

Hutchew



I can understand the reasoning behind that, but I would think that an employer would at least finish the background check. I keep in touch with my personal reference contacts, some of them past co-workers and supervisors, and none of them have been contacted. It would seem that the background check stops at the first negative. What kind of society would we be if we only based our decisions on something this critical on one independent persons word. I say I'm good, He says I'm bad, time for a third opinion.



Even a letter of recommendation from CEO of the business that I worked for that retired, is having no counter balance to this. Hell my father in law is a retired FBI agent, and on my list. Ever watch Meet the Parents with Robert Dinero (sp)? That was damn near what I went through with him. I figure that would be a huge bonus to any one calling to verify references.



Unfortunately the surplus of the problem children in the labor market have really botched the system for those of us who are 100% honest on our resumes and detailed skills & experience.



As far as the adult day care, I have been one of the babysitters for a staff of up to 100 for the last 9 years. I have seen my fair share of idiocy, and have often wondered how some of them have survived life in general this long.



Sticks

 

[Hutchew]

I agree, 100%.........

My company will check out every reference listed on an application before issuing a negative. We often run into exactly what you describe; one bad reference against several good. A lot of times, it will get cleared up in a pre-hire interview. Not all employers are good as gold either, in fact some are downright awfull towards their employees. Some of my best employees have recieved negative references from past employers. It seems that a good employee will get overloaded, making up for the bad ones, and usually get disgusted and quit. That employer gets ****** off because they just lost a good employee and they can't figure out why. DUH So then you get the "they weren't worth a crap", "left me in a bind", "wouldn't hire them back", "weren't loyal", "couldn't get along with management", etc.....

It is a shame that it is the way it is. I can only see things getting worse, though. The American workforce, generally speaking, is overpaid, lazy, greedy, and self-serving. The American business community, generally speaking again, is not any better. There is very little loyalty and pride between employees and employers anymore, and that is devastating our economy. Employees want to get all that they can from their employers, and vice-versa, instead of working together to strenghthen their relaitionship. A prime example, since it's the kind of business I'm involved in, is the railroads. 20 years ago, when I first started contracting for the AT&SF, those railroaders were, for the most part, proud and loyal. They enjoyed their jobs, and would work all day long for the company. Today, you would be hard pressed to find a railroader who even likes his job and will put in a full days work for the company without *****in' about it. On the other hand, we don't have railroads anymore, we have BIG business on tracks, where every employee is nothing more than an expendable asset, to be used and abused, then tossed out and replaced by someone more "economically feasible".

I am not in any way an expert on business or economic issues. I just try to be a loyal and fair employer. I would probably be rich by now if I adopted the standards of todays business ethics.

:{ :{ :{ SAD, SAD, SAD :{ :{ :{

 

[milehiscott]

Sticks,

There is no actual law that I am aware of that covers what you are talking about. However, if you can prove that an ex-employer is giving you an unreasonable review, you can sue them for "preventing your right to find employment". That is the reason that most businesses tell people to only state that a former employee did work for a time period and are either rehireable or non-rehireable.

In Denver, you might call the Norton Fricky law office. His daughter Janet runs it now, but the Fricky name carries some weight around here still.

Good luck.

Scott