International Schools Review
Teachers Keeping Each Other Informed

Lying former director - shut out of Search

Re: Lying former director - shut out of Search

Postby expatscot » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:19 am

@psyguy - under DPA it's up to the data holder to prove something doesn't exist rather than the person requesting it to prove that it does. The Information Commissioner in the UK actually has pretty wide ranging powers and can force companies to open up their data through inspections (you think OFSTED are bad, this lot are worse!)
expatscot
 
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:26 am

Reply

Postby PsyGuy » Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:40 am

@expatscot

You cant prove a negative. The presence of any evidence that something doesnt exist is in effect proof it does. The DPS can say prove you have no other databases or lists and SA says sorry we have nothing more to not show you, and theres nothing anyone can do, unless some outside witness or evidence can show that Cope has a notebook with names on it or anything else. Anything else regardless of its technical or legal authority simply cant produce something from nothing. You dont know what you dont know.
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Lying former director - shut out of Search

Postby reisgio » Tue Mar 28, 2017 1:11 pm

Aren't all former directors liars? Most current ones too.
reisgio
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:17 am

Re: Lying former director - shut out of Search

Postby Justhefacts » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:38 am

Here is what SA can do. What are repercussions? For me broken trust. For SA? Probably nothing. What can I do about it? Whine and complain about what useless pimples they are.
Michael Williams is a worthless twit. Stay away from him and his successors.
Tried to activate account thinking my previous payment for their ‘services’ would be adequate. Then to receive the following was an absolute mind-blower. If my records have been removed due to’ inactivation’, what is the basis for not representing me? caveat emptor!!
“INACCESSIBLE ACCOUNT, We are sorry but your account is no longer accessible due to inactivity. Please contact Senior Associate, XXXXX to see if your account can be re-enabled on searchassociates.com. Thank you.”
“From our candidate agreement:
Registration Fee: The Candidate Registration Fee is USD $225.00. This registration fee is good for three years or until you find a position in an international school, either through Search Associates, or any other means, whichever occurs first.
When you accepted your most recent position, your previous registration fee expired.
As for receiving notification from Search regarding termination of your contract, our contractual obligation to you was fulfilled once you accepted the last job. For a candidate file to be reactivated and a new contract entered into, the file must be updated by the candidate, reviewed and approved by the Associate, and another registration fee paid. In your case, based on a thorough review of your file, I have chosen to not represent you in your current search.”
Justhefacts
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:21 am

Discussion

Postby PsyGuy » Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:52 am

@expatscot

I didnt think any agency was worse than Ofsted, well maybe the CPS.

@Justhefacts

"What is the basis for not representing me?"; your associate reached out to your previous ISs leadership and they didnt say nice things about you. The rest is your associates contractual position that they dont owe you any further consideration to rep you.
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Re: Lying former director - shut out of Search

Postby wrldtrvlr123 » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:44 pm

Justhefacts wrote:
> Here is what SA can do. What are repercussions? For me broken trust. For
> SA? Probably nothing. What can I do about it? Whine and complain about
> what useless pimples they are.
> Michael Williams is a worthless twit. Stay away from him and his
> successors.
> Tried to activate account thinking my previous payment for their
> ‘services’ would be adequate. Then to receive the following was an
> absolute mind-blower. If my records have been removed due to’
> inactivation’, what is the basis for not representing me? caveat emptor!!
> “INACCESSIBLE ACCOUNT, We are sorry but your account is no longer
> accessible due to inactivity. Please contact Senior Associate, XXXXX to see
> if your account can be re-enabled on searchassociates.com. Thank you.”
> “From our candidate agreement:
> Registration Fee: The Candidate Registration Fee is USD $225.00. This
> registration fee is good for three years or until you find a position in an
> international school, either through Search Associates, or any other means,
> whichever occurs first.
> When you accepted your most recent position, your previous registration fee
> expired.
> As for receiving notification from Search regarding termination of your
> contract, our contractual obligation to you was fulfilled once you accepted
> the last job. For a candidate file to be reactivated and a new contract
> entered into, the file must be updated by the candidate, reviewed and
> approved by the Associate, and another registration fee paid. In your case,
> based on a thorough review of your file, I have chosen to not represent you
> in your current search.”
====================
The demanding new fees is to be expected (although I always thought their policy of ending their services as soon as you accept a job, any job, even if they had nought to do with it was ridiculous).

The choosing "to not represent you in your current search" is pretty much a dick move. Apparently yes, your former director said some pretty nasty things about you, beyond being a crap teacher. I don't have much advise for you but for your own peace of mind, you might try to fight it. Write every associate and anyone in charge that you can find. Ask that they produce what passes for proof/documentation of the disqualifying behavior (and produce any evidence to the contrary).

In the end, it probably won't do any good and you will be left with leaving off that school, trying to use another reference from that school and hoping that they never contact the person who caused the "blacklist", or being honest with prospective employers and hope that the former supervisor in questions' reputation as a lying scumbag proceeds them.

Good luck!
wrldtrvlr123
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:59 am
Location: Japan

Response

Postby PsyGuy » Mon Dec 04, 2017 7:51 am

I agree with @WT123 that while it seems unfair the length of membership is what was contracted.

I strongly disagree with @WT123s advice to fight it. It will do nothing for you. No one at SA will do anything and all the demands you have will just end of in their emails bin and maybe even result in you being blocked. You arent going to get a meaningful response from your associate. the better advice is to preserve what you have without antagonizing SA. After your next contract you can approach another associate and have a better chance of them seeing whatever happened as an abnormality.

If SA refused to rep you then the HOS probably doent have the negative reputation that you would need. You are better off ghosting the experience.
PsyGuy
 
Posts: 9222
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:51 am
Location: Northern Europe

Previous

Return to Forum 2. Ask Recruiting Questions, Share Information. What's on Your Mind?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron