Do people follow references much?

I don't think anyone has ever contacted my previous employers, despite me having supplied their contact details as a reference numerous times over the years.

Companies are discouraged from saying anything more than the facts of employment ("We can confirm that Bob was employed as a software developer between these dates...") these days, so there's not much value in the new employer bothering as far as I understand.

I've had previous employers contacted more than once, but it was always by a third party background check agency. I doubt "we fired him for cause" would have mattered.

At this point in the US most companies will refuse to say anything about you other than confirming that you worked there and what your title was. To do anything more is a potential litigation minefield.

Laws are getting tighter too. It’s now illegal in many parts of the US to ask you how much you made in your previous job when that used to be a fairly common question.

> Laws are getting tighter too. It’s now illegal in many parts of the US to ask you how much you made in your previous job when that used to be a fairly common question.

Sadly, many companies report your salary to the credit reporting agencies (or a tangential agency).

In German speaking countries this is a thing. It's bizarre, but there's a kind of unofficial meaning given to certain phrases in the reference letter.

Not sure anyone with a brain actually cares about it, but they do ask about it if you apply for a job.

Is that common? In the US old job never give references either good or bad. Just state dates of employment. I guess they just don’t want to deal with the can of worms of dealing with former employees disagreeing with whatever they say and possibly going to litigation.

I never understood this. There's nothing preventing a previous employer from giving someone a bad reference if they were to voluntarily leave either.

Sure, but if a company fires people for cause, its future references might well state that (even more so if its just terminated several people 'for cause' to save severance money and is having to create the appearance of actual performance reviews to try to make its breach of employment law less obvious). If staff 'voluntarily' leave and save the company severance money, there's no incentive for them to make any claims about termination due to underperformance or say anything else unpleasant. In theory, they might even deliver on promises of 'really nice letters of recommendation' to avoid disgruntled ex-employees talking to employment lawyers.

On the other hand, many jurisdictions have laws which make it pretty difficult to fire people for cause without clear evidence of misconduct or performance improvement plans and probationary periods for underperformance, so there's a good chance the termination threat is just a bluff to see who will resign...

Employment lawyers would salivate at a case like this