Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » And you have no interest in why? No concern that the reason the other employer has for not employing someone actually did employ for 15 years is petty? No way to run a business, mate. In any case I don’t see why we’ve moved onto references since the op has a job. Her next job will reference this one.
Glass fused light wrote: » Very likely. I know someone, took a year to get rid of the employee, as in they gave the employee a choice to leave with a you worked here x to y ref only or be sacked. 3 years later the manager gets a call for a personal character reference from a potential employer at the behest of the ex-employee.
road_high wrote: » Naivety on the side of that employee. Wouldn't dream of putting down an employer I had a poor relationship with. I don't think most people would be that stupid but there's always exceptions I guess.
davo10 wrote: » If you have worked in a job for 15 years, how do you avoid the new employer from asking for a contact?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » She can just give the last job, or someone else at the company. I mean this employer is out of business soon. May well not be contactable.
road_high wrote: » And the employee owes her what exactly?
road_high wrote: » Threatening a solicitor on staff is beyond ridiculous and is all the confirmation the OP needs in my opinion that it's time to move on.
road_high wrote: » Blaming the collapse of your business on one employee is even more absurd.
road_high wrote: » Only thing that I would wonder about is staying to reap some redundancy once this sinking ship folds.
davo10 wrote: » Last job but one, 15+ years ago, seriously? Everyone is contactable, Google, LinkedIn etc
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Nobody cares. As an small time employer you want to frighten the peons. But nobody cares. Small time business owners aren’t the only people who hire. In corporate environments I have hired people based on skill sets and some soft skills as deduced by HR. References were a formality. If somebody ever got a bad reference from one employer and has a reasonable explanation it just wouldn’t matter. The last reference is the most important one. The op is in no danger whatsoever. Not that she shouldn’t see put her notice but it doesn’t matter.
davo10 wrote: » What a stupid post. Of course employers care. Most jobs have multiple applications, employers require references, if you don't have one or the phone call is negative, another applicant who has a good one is more appealing, it doesn't matter if you are a small employer or a MN. "Small employers" are most employers.
my3cents wrote: » Nah, once employers have made up their minds who they want to employ most are like a lot of us here they are deaf to any arguments to the contrary.
davo10 wrote: » You advertise a job, you decide on minimum requirements, you get 20 suitable applicants, after interview you narrow it down to 5 and make a few calls, 3 have positive feedback, 2 don't, who do you consider?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Nobody cares. As an small time employer you want to frighten the peons. But nobody cares. Small time business owners aren’t the only people who hire. In corporate environments I have hired people based on skill sets and some soft skills as deduced by HR. References were a formality. If somebody ever got a bad reference from one employer and has a reasonable explanation it just wouldn’t matter. The last reference is the most important one.
wonski wrote: » As I said most if not all would call the referee at the final stage. It's not like one man can stop the other to get the job because his ex boss said so.
my3cents wrote: » I've never had any references checked until after I'd been offered a job. You are assuming that employers are as perfect as own good self.
Glass fused light wrote: » Just curious, what is the average cost (ball park will do) to your organisation to recruiting a new employee. Costing from when the other employee hands in their notice to when they are sitting at a desk fully set up ready to work. (ignoring training costs) How many departments are involved.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » That's a very naive view. I can tell you that the there are countless people who have lost jobs and gotten very little of anything after years of service. There's no such thing as employer loyalty Ever heard of a place called clerys?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Glass fused light wrote: » Just curious, what is the average cost (ball park will do) to your organisation to recruiting a new employee. Costing from when the other employee hands in their notice to when they are sitting at a desk fully set up ready to work. (ignoring training costs) How many departments are involved. No idea. It’s all pretty much sunk costs anyway as the recruiter and HR get paid regardless. I know HR pretty well
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » and I doubt they would just stop a hire based on a “no” without explanation from one previous employer.
dennyk wrote: » Regardless of the whole references thing and the company winding up, why should an employee not be expected to abide by the terms of their contract absent extenuating circumstances, of course)? I'm sure the OP's partner would expect her employer to follow those terms and would probably be rightly upset if they, say, made her redundant with zero notice and no pay in lieu. If her contract says four weeks (or one month or whatever), that's the amount of notice she should be giving, and she really shouldn't be shocked that her boss would be upset about her violating her contract by giving less. Her new company will surely understand that she is obliged to give a reasonable amount of notice at her current job, and one month is pretty standard; after all, they surely have some notice period specified in their own contracts and no doubt expect their own employees to follow it. If they are the sort of employer to go all "rules for thee, not for me" about such things, they're likely going to be a poor company to work for in any case. Her best move to smooth things over is probably going to be to advise her new company that she does have a one month notice period with her old employer and see if they can push back her starting date, and then say to her current boss "Sorry, boss, I had forgotten that the terms of my contract required a month's notice, so I'll be leaving the company on X date instead..." If her boss continues to act irrationally about it or bullies her about leaving in any case, though, it may be time to consider other options for an earlier departure.
dennyk wrote: » Regardless of the whole references thing and the company winding up, why should an employee not be expected to abide by the terms of their contract (absent extenuating circumstances, of course)? I'm sure the OP's partner would expect her employer to follow those terms and would probably be rightly upset if they, say, made her redundant with zero notice and no pay in lieu. If her contract says four weeks (or one month or whatever), that's the amount of notice she should be giving, and she really shouldn't be shocked that her boss would be upset about her violating her contract by giving less. Her new company will surely understand that she is obliged to give a reasonable amount of notice at her current job, and one month is pretty standard; after all, they surely have some notice period specified in their own contracts and no doubt expect their own employees to follow it. If they are the sort of employer to go all "rules for thee, not for me" about such things, they're likely going to be a poor company to work for in any case. Her best move to smooth things over is probably going to be to advise her new company that she does have a one month notice period with her old employer and see if they can push back her starting date, and then say to her current boss "Sorry, boss, I had forgotten that the terms of my contract required a month's notice, so I'll be leaving the company on X date instead..." If her boss continues to act irrationally about it or bullies her about leaving in any case, though, it may be time to consider other options for an earlier departure.
evolving_doors wrote: » Well that clears up reference-gate :pac: Anyway the question remains. How would legal proceedings play out when a business is going under (or after!).
Liquidation Liquidation involves the dissolution of a company, where its affairs are tidied up and assets realised and distributed to the owed parties. A company can be wound up by: resolution of the members following the making of a declaration of solvency (Members Voluntary Winding Up); resolution of the members ratified by the creditors (Creditors Voluntary Winding Up) an order of the Court. (Court Winding Up - Involuntary Winding Up).
