Information verification is a crucial step in understanding whether the applicant is suitable for working in a company. As York explains, applicants tend to lie about their experience in order to make an impression on the HRM specialist: “Claims made by applicants may be true, exaggerated, or entirely fictional” (York 37).
There is no need to stress the fact that companies in which a particular applicant used to work are usually very reluctant to provide the company that the person in question applies to in order to obtain a position out of fear for being sued: “employers are often reluctant to share ” (York 37).
The answer to the question regarding the means to retrieve the required information from the companies is, in fact, relatively simple. According to what York says, it is possible to use the existing labor law statements, according to which, it is unlawful to withhold the negative information on employees, since such tactics is rendered as professional negligence (York 37). The given strategy has several problems, though.
On the one hand, because of its efficacy, it seems the most trustworthy means of acquiring verified information. On the other hand, using scare techniques in order to retrieve information hardly fits the basic principles of corporate ethics and morality. Thus, the choice that a company will make hinges on the firm’s code of ethics. It should be kept in mind, though, that the candidate’s statement regarding experience and skills can be tested after completing a specific professional quiz.
Who should respond to reference inquiries about former employees? What skills, training, or experience should they have?
There is no secret that employees are far from being one hundred percent safe from injuries in the workplace, especially when it comes to considering the jobs involving labor (e.g., equipment installation, maintenance works, etc.) Therefore, a company is held accountable for employees’ possible injuries. Defining the people responsible for accidents in the workplace will help tackle the possible issues aster.
As York explains, employers are considered legally responsible for the injuries that may occur to the employees in the course of the production process: “Employers have a duty to protect their employees, customers, clients, and visitors from injury caused by employees that the employer knows” (York 37).
However, as the definition shows, there is a very thin line between the general threat that an employee may be exposed to and the threat that is recognized as such by the employer and stated in the contract. According to York, the failure to warn the future employer about the injuries that were caused by the candidate in question may be fraught with deplorable consequences for the staff.
Although York does not state explicitly what qualities the person reporting on the related injuries and accidents should have, he implies that the employer in question must be competent about the subject in question. While the people providing the referral are defined as “employers” by the author, the latter stresses that they must be aware of the key issues about the candidate’s record in order to decide whether (s)he is suitable for the job.
Works Cited
York, Kenneth M. Applied Human Resource Management: Strategic Issues and Experiential Exercises. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010. Print.