RANDOM TESTIMONIALS

Grey River Argus, 16 October 1936, Page 12

RANDOM TESTIMONIALS

Often Misleading UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS. (Special to -‘‘Argus.’’) WELLINGTON, October 14. Some testimonials, like some cheques will not stand the test of a close assay but. apparently they are. often given without full consideration of the, re.sponsibiliy attached to the peirson who signs them'. This indifference to possible results has been frequently noted by the officers administering the Labour Department’s State Placement Service, and as the success of the Service depends wholly upon keeping- faith with employers, as far as is reasonably possible, testimonials and verbal claims by men enrolling are subjected to very strict inquiries before an applicant ifor private employment, is recommended to an employer. Thanks to this rigid examination of credentials there have been extremely few instances where men have failed to measure up to the claims made by themselves or on their behalf. In one ease testimonial given by a prominent business man proved to be entirely misleading. As he was well-known h'.s assurance that the ability and character of the man concerned were correctly described in the testimonial was accepted, but when the man, as the accredited' nominee of the placement: Officer, was appointed to <i. responsible position, he was found to bo quite 'unfitted for It, having neither the ability nor integrity that the testimonial alleged' he possessed. A: most unpleasant result of an act possibly well-intentioned, but extlremely unwise.

Two simila r eases are reported from a Placement Officer in a southern city. For a- trustworthy position with a big business concern ian enrolled man with extensive experience and very good testimonials was selected for recommendation conditional upon his credentials being verified. He was t.he man for the job, but when the inquiries were completed his record was found to be very unsatisfactory. In the other instance the references and statements with respect to . the man’s personal integrity and ability were described as “splendid”. He was, nioreovar, young, and there appeared to be every reason to suppose that a really satisfactory position could be found for him. There was, however, a link missing in his chain of employment, and when this was investigated in a distant city, the possibility of recommending the man for a responsible position was regarded as hopeless.

Ik will be gathered from these incidents that the price of maintaining the confidence of employelrs who rely upon the State Placement Service is eternal vigilance. Another though I that arises is I hat kindly ex-employers or friends of .men who are known to be inefficient workers, or whose integrity is not beyond reproach, do them a disservice by lauding their industhfal capacity or testifvingi t.o their personal uprightness. ' If a Placement Officer took a ehanee and such « man failed to live up to h’.s paper-created reputation, his chances of a position more suitable to his ability would be materially lessened, the employer would be dissatisfied and lose confidence in the Placement. Service and the responsible officer might coneeivablx' be officially required to explain why he had departed, from the explicit instructions concerning verification.