Facing the Facts

[+ Charlie]

My grandma Clairee used to say, "If you haven't got anything nice to say, come sit next to me..." Or was that me?

 

That quote has often been attributed to Alice Roosevelt Longworth.

[+ deej]

But, it depends on the company too. If y'all worked at a homophobic place like Hobby Lobby or Chikfila, then I doubt HR would've cared.

 

Very much depends on the company. A recent client was EXTREMELY paranoid about lawsuits (having suffered a few). They hired a new HR director who claimed a specialty in preventing lawsuits. They would let people go on the perception that they might incur some liability.

[LivingnLA]

Very much depends on the company. A recent client was EXTREMELY paranoid about lawsuits (having suffered a few). They hired a new HR director who claimed a specialty in preventing lawsuits. They would let people go on the perception that they might incur some liability.

 

Yes, in some industries and on some topics, companies are getting very paranoid.

[+ SundayZip]

Hey PK, You have no obligation to write a reference for this person. People typically write references for someone that they feel comfortable supporting and for whom they feel some affinity. If it makes you feel uncomfortable promoting this person (and writing a reference is actively promoting someone), then don't do it. You don't have to make excuses. Writing a reference is something that you can reserve for people who you truly want to promote and support.

[BgMstr4u]

Circumstances vary, of course, but is it paranoia to make a assessment of the possibility of a lawsuit in regard to an employee? I am asking this as a real, not rhetorical, question. When do caution and prudence acting in the face of a reasonable possibility of litigation cross over into discrimination? Say for example an employee or potential hire Is discovered to have sued an employer in the past. What are some "best practices" in these cases?

[+ RyanDean]

In my industry, letters matter. And so the decision to write for someone is not a decision to be taken lightly.

 

Even so, I have (on occasion, usually under some duress) provided letters for folks about whom I held deep reservations. Usually I approached it with a "damning with faint praise" wand, rather than my usual "go team!" cheerleader approach. I do my best to stay absolutely honest in everything I say but, basically, all the verbs and descriptive words become much less emphatic & much less enthusiastic. If the letters get read, that can communicate a lot.

 

I have seen letters that get a little sneaky ("Josie Schmoe holds a number of controversial beliefs, which she does a generally good job of keeping out of the workplace"). This definitely plants a red flag, but can create its own problems, as the committee is left to speculate whether Josie or the letter-writer is the crackpot.

[+ deej]

Circumstances vary, of course, but is it paranoia to make a assessment of the possibility of a lawsuit in regard to an employee? I am asking this as a real, not rhetorical, question. When do caution and prudence acting in the face of a reasonable possibility of litigation cross over into discrimination? Say for example an employee or potential hire Is discovered to have sued an employer in the past. What are some "best practices" in these cases?

 

You'd have to ask a lawyer, and I suspect the answer would vary from state to state. However an employer is not obligated to hire you when you apply for a job, and has wide latitude in the criteria they use for evaluation. The HR director I mentioned previously was so paranoid about litigation she actually made it difficult to fill vacancies.

 

That said, if you've sued a previous employer I'd expect some bumps in the road whenever you apply for a job. I might expect some blunt questions if I got as far as an interview.

[+ purplekow]

If you simply didn't write any evaluation, would she even know it? Does her whole future employment hang on your word?

While I doubt that my word is the tipping point to her hire, I have written her a very solid recommendation in the past and sent her a copy.

Just avoiding the decision, is a decision, but it does not change the dynamic.

After thinking about this situation, I have opted to contact her and to inform her that I will write a letter. I will also tell her the previous letter will be used as a template, but the letter will be edited and as a result not as strongly positive in the past. Hateful speech is abhorrent whether it is heard on the job, in the playground, at a political rally or on Facebook and I think using it in a public forum subjects you to the consequences of that speech.

If asked, I will tell her that the manner in which she has expressed herself on Facebook, has led me to question her compassion and judgment. Using racial epithets and condoning violence in the graphic manner she has on Facebook, has shown me an unfamiliar and ugly side of her.

While I disagree with her views, her manner of expressing them is over the top and disrespectful.

I also will "unfriend".

[Kenny]

Not at all. A properly worded professional recommendation is just that, a professional recommendation. Not accurately portraying her professional conduct would be unfair and a disservice to a former loyal employee. The reader of the recommendation would not have any definitive knowledge that the writer knows of her personal views.

The employer would be correct to think that you must have been a.) sympathetic to her bigotry; b.) a clueless manager, since your "stellar" employee was publicly posting trash and you knew nothing of it. Neither is a good outcome, since both reflect badly on you.

[mattr]

I hereby invite everyone to enjoy a minute of piece and solitude because after this post you will see Kenny's head explode and spew his classic brand of vitriol...deep breath... ahhhh

 

Speaking of clueless Kenny, perhaps you should get one...

A stellar manager does not stalk his/her employees on social media, a stellar manager does not hold an employees beliefs against him or her, and a stellar manager is not the thought police and therefore does not pass punish his/her employees for their personal beliefs. A stellar manager does create an environment of mutual respect where his/her colleagues can excel, a stellar manager does know where to draw the line between professional and personal relationships, a stellar manager does show gratitude for a job well done, and a stellar manager coaches employees who do not act appropriately in the workplace. As long as this women did not break the law and kept her personal beliefs out of the office, her Facebook posts are none of her employers business or concern.

[instudiocity]

What did Voltaire write 250 years ago?

 

'Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.' Essay on Tolerance

 

'Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.' letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770

He deserves to be remembered.

 

Kow, if as you said, "I have done so in the past and it was a good but not great evaluation." Why not write her another good but not great evaluation and let truth prevail, especially if she's so stupid as to post publicly on Facebook.

[Okliehomo]

Then "Steel Magnolias" stole it from her because I stole it from them.... Clairee, specifically.

[+ nycman]

I'm in the camp that work lives and private lives should remain separate.

 

You happen to know something about her private life....that is abhorrent to you.

 

I don't see how that should have an impact on your evaluation of her professional life.

 

Just remember, not so long ago...that your lifestyle would have been considered "abhorrent" to the vast majority of America.

How would you have felt if you supervisor downgraded your recommendation based of his/her knowledge of your private life?

[+ Truereview]

(Whistling quietly & patiently here...fully expecting for this thread to become yet another politics, religion or war content piece)

[+ SundayZip]

A stellar manager does not stalk his/her employees on social media, a stellar manager does not hold an employees beliefs against him or her, and a stellar manager is not the thought police and therefore does not pass punish his/her employees for their personal beliefs. A stellar manager does create an environment of mutual respect where his/her colleagues can excel, a stellar manager does know where to draw the line between professional and personal relationships, a stellar manager does show gratitude for a job well done, and a stellar manager coaches employees who do not act appropriately in the workplace. As long as this women did not break the law and kept her personal beliefs out of the office, her Facebook posts are none of her employers business or concern.

 

Much of what you say is true if PK were still this person's manager. But in his post he states that she "used to" work for him. PK no longer has any managerial obligations to this person once she leaves his employ. And as a facebook "friend", PK is not stalking her when he reads her posts. If PK wants to write a reference, albeit not as strong as the last one, more power to him. But to say that he has any obligation to write a reference of any sort, is simply not true.

[mattr]

Much of what you say is true if PK were still this person's manager. But in his post he states that she "used to" work for him. PK no longer has any managerial obligations to this person once she leaves his employ. And as a facebook "friend", PK is not stalking her when he reads her posts. If PK wants to write a reference, albeit not as strong as the last one, more power to him. But to say that he has any obligation to write a reference of any sort, is simply not true.

 

Agreed.... my post was mainly in response to Kenny's post in that a "stellar manager" would/should be aware of someones Facebook postings and they could reflect badly on the manager which I don't believe to be true.

[Guy Fawkes]

I have learned to separate online behavior from offline behavior. The internet seems to strip the filters away from a person.

 

I would give her the recommendation based on your offline perceptions and I'd "unfriend" her if her online behavior is too over the top for you.

 

 

A woman who used to work for me has asked me to write a letter of recommendation for her. I have done so in the past and it was a good but not great evaluation. However, new information has come to my attention

 

About a year ago, we became "Friends" on Facebook and her postings there, mostly of a political nature, are disturbing to me. She has strongly supported many of Donald Trump's anti-Moslem tenets, and in a way which is more radical and distressing. She is quite good at her job, but the beliefs she publicly spews on Facebook, have made me consider not writing a recommendation. I feel that she has shown a lack of judgment in posting what some might consider vile bigotry. I had never heard her espouse this during work hours and if I had, I would not have tolerated it in a workplace.

So, should I separate the good employee I know personally from the hate spouting bigot I am considering "unfriending" on Facebook? Should I write a professional evaluation or should I be influenced in deciding to write or not, by this information which is new to me?

[Kenny]

I'm in the camp that work lives and private lives should remain separate.

 

You happen to know something about her private life....that is abhorrent to you.

 

I don't see how that should have an impact on your evaluation of her professional life.

 

Just remember, not so long ago...that your lifestyle would have been considered "abhorrent" to the vast majority of America.

How would you have felt if you supervisor downgraded your recommendation based of his/her knowledge of your private life?

How is publicly posting on Facebook "private life"?

[Kenny]

Agreed.... my post was mainly in response to Kenny's post in that a "stellar manager" would/should be aware of someones Facebook postings and they could reflect badly on the manager which I don't believe to be true.

SundayZip holds the same position as the one I offered. So agreeing with him and disagreeing with me suggests that personal animus is your guiding principle in this, uh, mattr. So much for the rules of stellar management.

[mattr]

SundayZip holds the same position as the one I offered. So agreeing with him and disagreeing with me suggests that personal animus is your guiding principle in this, uh, mattr. So much for the rules of stellar management.

 

Not quite but if that is your impression, then cool.

[Kenny]

Not quite but if that is your impression, then cool.

It is nice when we agree.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

My grandfather"s approach in these situations (he was a graduate school professor at a Ive League school) was to keep it short.

 

Dear Sir

 

Jane is smart.

 

Sincerely

 

Dr. Fitzpatrick

 

He figured that if someone with his reputation only had one sentence to write, it spoke thousands of words.

[LivingnLA]

Great comments so far. For me, it all depends on the industry this person was or is in for assessing the importance of her bigoted post on Facebook. Some industries and companies have quite strict social media requirements. If she was at an organization with clear social media rules and protections for LGBT employees, then it would've appropriate not only to withhold the reference but to also notify HR of the violations of corporation policy.

 

It's all still quite subjective, but make no mistake that online life that is public or public enough is indeed relevant in our growing knowledge economy. Millennials spend substantial amounts of their lives online and they expect it to be every bit as valued and valid as life spent "offline" because to them there is no distinction.

[+ nycman]

How is publicly posting on Facebook "private life"?

 

How is a posting made on your own free time..."professional"...touche mon ami

[Kenny]

How is a posting made on your own free time..."professional"...touche mon ami

Question dodging???

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging