In addition, maybe I should make something clearer than shines through
in my previous e-mail. Because we've never been in contact before.

I assert that I have never before heard even one official word from
Tommy Hilfiger about why they would either not want to work with me or
have an opinion that I would not be suitable for any kind of work.
Next to that, _also unofficially_ I have never perceived any tension or
spoilt relation with any colleague inside Tommy Hilfiger, ever. I have
worked productively and positively until the morning I was told by my
recruiter not to come into TH offices and not contact TH anymore. Which
is a right my recruiter had.

So if someone actively decided to terminate the work relationship with
me, I do not know who, on what level, even in which organisation, did
this - and what the dynamics were in that decision.
(My recruiter is not exactly held in high regard in this business, which
is something I discovered later.)

That's just for your information.
I realise that I need to live in a world where I am not told things,
because we all have our own professional role. But from my side I'd
rather make the picture clear.

Kind regards,
Roderik Muit.

Roderik Muit wrote, on 05/11/10 17:01:
> Dear Liz
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> Allow me to submit that (despite my personal sending of the e-mail
> possibly indicating otherwise) this process is out of my hands. You may
> be contacted by recruiters who re-request this standard form asserting
> 'absence of doubt of insuitability' for working in the financial industry.
>
> In my professional career I have always tried to be professional and
> accomodating to any client, and I've done so with Tommy Hilfiger both in
> my work and in the ending of my work. I've never bothered TH when they
> didn't want to be -- as indicated by the recruitment agency. I wouldn't
> bother anyone on a professional level, if I had the choice not to.
>
> And I'll still be as accomodating through this process, as lies within
> my ability. In case anyone needs me for anything, I can be reached.
>
> Kind regards,
> Roderik Muit
>
>
>
>
> Liz Mayhew wrote, on 05/11/10 15:02:
>> Dear Roderick
>>
>> Your email has been passed to me by Diana for response, in line with
>> company practice.
>>
>> I would like to advise you that Tommy Hilfiger will not provide you with
>> reference information.
>>
>> Yours sincerely
>>
>> Liz Mayhew
>> VP Human Resources
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diana Plevko
>> Sent: 11 May 2010 14:35
>> To: Liz Mayhew
>> Subject: FW: Request for feedback on my reliability
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roderik Muit [mailto:rm@wyz.biz]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:29 PM
>> To: Diana Plevko
>> Subject: Request for feedback on my reliability
>>
>> Hi Diana,
>>
>> Thanks for doing this.
>>
>> Summary: I'm going to work for ING. They have a boatload of standard
>> procedures and documents to sign; among them are these forms, which I
>> send to my employers in the past 5 years.
>>
>> It's a request letter from the recruitment agency (Yoozz) to you,
>> requesting to state (in the bottom box) you "do not know of anything to
>> make me unreliable for working in the financial sector". Sorry it's in
>> Dutch.
>> The 2nd document is an attachment for your info (no need for returning
>> it): I state that the recruiter is allowed to request any information
>> about me from you.
>>
>> They put me in charge of collecting this info about myself. Officially
>> that is a bit weird. If you have any questions or information which
>> you'd rather handle with the recruiter, you can call Freek Marchandisse
>> at Corso Informatica (0344 63 06 00) / mail info@corso.nl attn Freek. He
>> is the one who called you yesterday.
>>
>>
>> I'd be much obliged if you could scan& mail the documents back, or drop
>> me/Freek a little note about the status if you need time / would rather
>> send them by postal mail. ING Bank hired me last friday and are on my
>> neck to handle 10 kilos of paperwork in 2 days so they can have me start
>> tomorrow Which is their problem, but still...
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Roderik.