If you can't get three people to vouch for you, honestly or otherwise, then that's a pretty big red flag.
While I don't love providing references, given they are such a standard part of the employment process (at least here in Australia), I can't see how a company could disallow providing character references. That would be a big red flag if I discovered that after starting to work somewhere.
It was a legal liability issue. I’m told it’s pretty much de rigueur, these days.
One of the nice things, after leaving, was finally being able to give good references for former employees, for whom I really wanted to give glowing references.
That's what you give if captured as a prisoner of war.
Sorry about that, Chief (also a figure of speech, but a bit more obscure).
Many companies don't allow details, but are allowed to confirm a person was employed in a specific role. That's in many cases a sufficient to serve as a reference.
E.g. In my company we have a very strict policy for this, but are still allowed to answer "yes, Bob was employed as problem manager team lead from 2023 to 2025". Conversely as a hiring manager, I'll take that as a minimally sufficient data point in confirming resume entry.
My company is so strict about it that it farms out reference checks to a third company so that nobody inside the company knows that references were checked. Seems a little extreme to me.
That’s actually really interesting. If you are actively looking that prevents anyone in the company from knowing you are looking, even if they did a reference check. That might be because of some previous lawsuits around terminating someone while getting a reference check before actually getting a new job/leaving.
I've only ever once been at a place where there was a policy saying "all you are allowed to say during reference checks is "yes, they worked here as [job title], from {month/year} to {month/year}". And even with that policy/restriction I still found ways to be much much more positive about the people who were genuinely great.
One great way around that kind of policy - at least if you far enough into your career for it - is to provided references for people who are also no longer at the company they're being a referee for. There are 3 or 4 people from that job I mentioned that didn't allow me to elaborate, where I've subsequently provided reference including something like "Ratica? Yeah - she is great! She lead my QA team and worked magic! You might want to warn the company she's applying to that as soon as I get a role and budget that suits her QA skills, I'll 100% be trying to headhunt her away from them."
(We still catch up for coffee every 6 or 12 months.)
WDYM by "allowed"? In my jurisdiction, a company is required to confirm (or deny, as the case may be) the dates and roles of employment when asked.
A reply along the lines of "we can not confirm $PERSON's employment as a $ROLE between $DATE1 and $DATE2" when $PERSON has salary slips for those dates is a slam-dunk winning lawsuit!
A reference is really intended as a statement of character IMO. "They worked here" from HR, who doesn't know you, is not that.
References have many levels of usefulness, but the bar starts low - did this person actually perform the job / hold the role they claim in a resume.
Next, and the one I'll agree you don't get as much in modern environment, is how much did they burn bridges / how competent they were. The team boss might be allowed to say "Bob?!? He drove well but god dammit the guy never showed up on time for his shift!". Or they might not.