RANDOM TESTIMONIALS

Kaikoura Star, Volume LVI, Issue 86, 2 November 1936, Page 4

RANDOM TESTIMONIALS

UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS Some testimonials, like some cheques, will not stand the test of a close assay, but apparently they are often given without full consideration of tho responsibility attached to the person who signs them. This indifference to possible results has been frequently noted by the officers administering the Labour Dopa i tm ent’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 for private employment is recommended to lan 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. Ln one case a testimonial given by a prominent business man proved to bo entirely misleading. As he was well-known, his assurance that the ability and character of the man concerned were cor-

rectly described in the testimonial was accepted, but when the man, as the accredited nominee of the placement officer, was appointed to a responsible position, he was found to be 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 extremely unwise. Two similar cases are reported from a placement officer in a southern city. For a trustworthy position with a big business concern an enrolled man with extensive experience and very good testimonials was selected for recommendation conditional upon his credentials being verified. He was the man for

the job, but when the inquiries were very unsatisfactory.

In the other instance the references and statement with respect to the man’s personal integrity and ability were described as “splendid.” He was, moreover, 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.

It will be gathered from these incidents that the price of maintaining the confidence of employers who rely upon the State placement service is eternal vigilance.

Another thought that arises is that 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 industrial capacity or testifying to their personal uprightness. If a placement officer took a chance and such a man flailed to live up to his 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 tho responsible officer might conceivably be officially required to explain why he had departed from the explicit instructions concerning verification.