Slashdot Mirror
Google Maps No Longer Lets You Post Negative Reviews About Your Crappy Job (gizmodo.com.au)
From a report: Google has updated its Maps policies to ban certain business reviews left by former employees. In a new section of the Google Maps "User Contributed Content Policy," Google now labels reviews "about a current or former employment experience" as a "conflict of interest." Originally, only current employees were barred under the policy. The new rules, quoted below, went into effect on December 14.
Just to give a window into what it's like from the other side, when I was managing a company with 60 employees, we had to fire one of them. He was head of his department and we were pretty sure he was embezzling (his replacement eventually confirmed this when he went through a half year of purchase orders and compared to what was in inventory). About a month later I got a phone call from the company he'd applied for a job at - he had given me as a reference.
I wasn't sure what I was allowed to say so gave the excuse that I was way too busy and could they please call back the next day. We had unlimited phone access to employment lawyers as part of our employment liability insurance, so I called them up and explained the situation. They told me flat out that unless we had rock-solid proof he was embezzling, under no circumstances should I state that as the reason we had let him go. I couldn't mention any of our suspicions or circumstantial evidence either. We couldn't (or shouldn't) mention any negatives in his reference unless we had documentation on file to back it up (like signed formal reprimands - I had always wondered why we had to have 2 other people in the room with the employee when we gave a reprimand, and why the employee was required to sign them).
The next day when they called back I had to water down our experience with him as "he didn't fit well with the company." I stammered and hesitated while saying it, and I think I succeeded in getting the message across that there was a lot more to it than that but I wasn't legally allowed to say it. I understand now why there's an art to double entendres and backhanded compliments when it comes to job references.
So the distinguishing factor isn't low-level vs high-level employee. It's "differences" when it's on the record and the company doesn't have rock-solid proof (i.e. they could be sued for libel or slander). It's "burning bridges" when it's off the record or the company has rock-solid proof. High-level employees just get the "differences" explanation more often because they're better at covering their butts than low-level employees.
My favorite reference seeking question is "would you hire them back?" When the answer is "no", how it is said does speak volumes.
No need for any more details than that. Although I will say that while many companies do take the tight lipped approach there are also many that will talk your ear off for an hour if you let them.