Page 1 of 3
Do twáts deserve another chance? - Doubt
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:49 pmby Sabre
Well I'm in a situation I haven't been before. There was a job-partner that used to cause some trouble at my work. He was one of those who wanted to ascend quickly no matter who had to brush aside to do it, no matter the methods. He was ready to leave you in a bad position in order he got the credit. (1)
Thus the people at work didn't like him. He eventually left because he was offered a better job, but apparently was sacked twice after that.
Now a an enterprise has called us to ask for him and I have to give an answer. I haven't done such a thing before and I have doubts. Should I be honest and tell to the enterprise not to sign up that worker? Should I just be "ambiguous and neutral"?
After all he won't cause troubles at my work again, and perhaps he did learn a couple of lessons (he's 30, still young).
That's the question, a twát can change? or a twát is a twát forever?
Sabre
(1) How do you call this people in english?
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:56 pmby Woollyback
in english we would call him "a cunt" 
etiquette here is you give a very neutral reference, don't say anything positive - just give facts eg. attendance was satisfactory, conduct was satisfactory etc etc
employers here get the message easy enough that he was a w@nker purely because you haven't said "he was great, a really good worker and would recommend him to any other employer". in other words the important thing is what you DON'T say rather than what you do say. and the plus point? he can't blame you if he doesn't get the job because the reference doesn't say anything explicitly bad about him 
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:00 pmby Sabre
Hmmm, that seems a good advice... thanks 
I'm supposed to know about computers and networks, not this things. That helped.
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:11 pmby JBG
I've heard that if an employer provides a reference and doesn't refer to the person's honesty, it's code that the employer believes the person is dishonest and he is warning people not to touch the applicant with a barge pole.
Posted:
Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:58 pmby metalhead
Sabre wrote:Well I'm in a situation I haven't been before. There was a job-partner that used to cause some trouble at my work. He was one of those who wanted to ascend quickly no matter who had to brush aside to do it, no matter the methods. He was ready to leave you in a bad position in order he got the credit. (1)
Thus the people at work didn't like him. He eventually left because he was offered a better job, but apparently was sacked twice after that.
Now a an enterprise has called us to ask for him and I have to give an answer. I haven't done such a thing before and I have doubts. Should I be honest and tell to the enterprise not to sign up that worker? Should I just be "ambiguous and neutral"?
After all he won't cause troubles at my work again, and perhaps he did learn a couple of lessons (he's 30, still young).
That's the question, a twát can change? or a twát is a twát forever?
Sabre
(1) How do you call this people in english?
just do what lebanese do all the time... take the mick out of him
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:20 amby Lando_Griffin
I'd call him a two-faced, back-stabbing b*stard, personally.
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:25 amby Stu.Murph
I don't know... Do I?
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:01 amby 112-1077774096
well sabre you are a tw@t, ask yourself if you deserve a chance
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 7:47 amby Years Of Decay
peewee wrote:well sabre you are a tw@t, ask yourself if you deserve a chance
Roberts comes to mind....
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:46 amby woof woof !
Sabre, Topic: Do twáts deserve another chance?,
If you use your experience in this forum as a template then the answer is obviously yes .
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:50 amby babu
actually what he did to his co-workers is irrelevant, IMO. Only thing that matters is from the employers perspective: ie does he get the job done? and is he good for business. Whether or not he screwed his work mates to get up ladder, shouldn't matter to an employer.
In fact i would value that kind of amibition (provided of course he knows the limits)
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:12 amby bigxchris
3/6 Month Trial period usually works well with people like this, review what they are doing once a month to make sure they are on the right track, if they are not you can give them the boot with a week's notice.
Thats what I do when I take on new people.
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:36 pmby Sabre
babu wrote:actually what he did to his co-workers is irrelevant, IMO. Only thing that matters is from the employers perspective: ie does he get the job done? and is he good for business. Whether or not he screwed his work mates to get up ladder, shouldn't matter to an employer.
In fact i would value that kind of amibition (provided of course he knows the limits)
That's a valid point. I have never been an employer and never thought about these things...
But, where are in your opinion those known limits? I've been told in my work that the idea of team is important. Where must be set those limits?
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:42 pmby Leonmc0708
Thought this thread was about peewee and banning/reinstating him for a second.
**Mops Brow**
"Phew"
Posted:
Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:47 pmby 66-1120597113
Leonmc0708 wrote:Thought this thread was about peewee and banning/reinstating him for a second.
**Mops Brow**
"Phew"
It was a synonym for that in an internet way!