That's a huge invasion of privacy (except in national-security cases, wherein people know to expect an intensive background check) and of questionable legality, but yes, it happens.
This is why it's a good idea to speak with someone after you're called for a reference. If their prospective employer is calling shadow references (e.g. references they didn't volunteer) they have a right to know that it's going on.
ETA: If you're worried about shadow references, the best thing you can do is fake an offer with an "exploding" date to get a decision shortly after you interview. If they only have 2 days to make a decision, they'll stick to the references you provide and not nose around in your past where they don't belong. One can question the ethics of faking an offer, but it's no worse than calling shadow references, so do what you will.
I disagree with you that shadow references are a huge invasion of privacy. You are not normally entitled to a private work history.
For whatever it's worth: in almost 8 years as an employer, I've never rejected a candidate over their references. For my part, I've been rejected both from jobs and by investors as a result of shadow references. I've come to the following conclusion: I don't coach any references. Like everyone else, I have flaws that can at times make me a bitch to work with. I'd like to think deliberate dishonesty isn't one of them.
I disagree with you that shadow references are a huge invasion of privacy. You are not normally entitled to a private work history.
Would you allow a complete stranger in your house, for no other reason than a desire to know what's there? Let's assume he has no intention of damaging or stealing anything. He just wants to see what you have in your house. Would you be okay with this? I don't know you, but I'm guessing that the answer is, "no". Additionally, you have the right not to be unlawfully searched. This is considered to be a fundamental privacy protecting your domicile.
When you volunteer a reference, you're giving permission for this person to be involved in your career. It's like inviting someone to be in your house; he's allowed to be there because you invited him in. Shadow references are a different story. The employer is, without your consent or even your knowledge, inviting people into your (metaphorical) house, and that's wrong.
For my part, I've been rejected both from jobs and by investors as a result of shadow references.
I hope you inflicted some Nordic Indignation on the fuckers. They effectively committed theft against you. It's a pain in the ass to chase bad guys down, but someone needs to do it to keep society from going to hell.
Asking someone who has worked with Michael O. Church in the past about their experiences with him is not comparable to breaking into Michael O. Church's house.
Fine, but let's say that a relative stranger started investigating your past in all sorts of ways you didn't know about, compiling information with no regard for whether it was valuable or true. You'd be a bit creeped out, wouldn't you?
If you check a person's volunteered references, you get a good sense of how that person was to work with, but if you start doing shadow references, you don't know what you're getting. It could be pure falsehood and you'd have no clue. You're just snooping where you don't belong in the life of someone who didn't give you permission.
That is (a) also not a situation analogous to a potential future employer asking questions of people who have worked with you in the past and (b) a dramatically different assertion from "effectively committing theft" and "dragging society to hell".
What on earth makes you think that other people's experiences interacting with you in the workplace are private? There is no such thing as "employee-employee privilege".
Additionally, concern over false references is a bit strange from the guy who just finished telling us it's a good reference for him, "or war". The reality is, whether you get your shiny reference from the candidate or a gossipy one from a former coworker, you still have to use your brain to evaluate the data.
[A] dramatically different assertion from "effectively committing theft" and "dragging society to hell".
I disagree. The shadow reference who shot you down with the investor cost may have cost you millions of dollars. How can you not be mad about this? If someone said something that cost me millions, I'd be livid.
Additionally, concern over false references is a bit strange from the guy who just finished telling us it's a good reference for him, "or war".
If someone fires me and won't agree on a good reference, then it's on. If you're cash-strapped and absolutely can't afford a severance, fine. I'll bounce. If you decide to fuck with my career later on or interfere with future relationships, then war has been started and for me to fight back is appropriate.
In normal circumstances I don't "coach" references and trust them to give a decent account, but we were talking, in this thread, about getting fired. When someone is fired, he has a right to reach an understanding on what kind of reference will be provided.
You sound like a crazy person. Nobody "cost me millions of dollars". It wasn't my money. People are entitled to make decisions based on the information they're able to obtain from conversations. I am not entitled to a private career history, and neither are you.
You, of course, have the right to compromise your privacy as you wish-- I blog and post under my real name, which is a compromise of privacy I choose to make-- but not the right to make that decision for other people.
A conversation about you with someone else is not an invasion of your privacy.
It depends what is in that conversation. If someone is rooting around our past in a way you didn't give permission for, that's an invasion.
People's thoughts about you do not belong to you.
No, but those thoughts may not be legitimate. Many people are useless idiots and their opinions are valueless.
If I've offered someone as a person whose opinion I trust, and that person says that I'm an idiot, that's a good sign that I'm doing something wrong. On the other hand, the opinion of some random person doesn't have much legitimacy.
