Originally Posted by
Yoda2
And whoever said employers were saints; there should be a form for the applicant to hand them as well! Have you ever been arrested?Have you ever done anything illegal? Have you ever dispatched an aircraft or flight crew with known deficiencies? Have you ever encouraged or persuaded a flight crew to fly over gross or in unsuitable weather? Do you believe your training program is comprehensive and at least sufficient? Do you fudge duty times to permit or allow completion of a flight, Etc., Etc.
The prospective applicant new-hire isn't employing the operator. He isn't insuring the operator, either.
In an interview, one needs to be honest and forthright. One should also take the time and trouble to interview the employer. Ask the questions that need to be asked.
When it comes to violating regulations such as duty and rest times, that's not in the purview of the employer. That's all on the employee. If as a pilot you're exceeding rest intervals or cutting them short, it's your certificate on the line, and it's you that says no. As a fairly new FO I was in a foreign country when the dispatch called. The captain was told that our crew was to be given a reduced rest and turned around, and that the Director of Operations had provided a letter authorizing it. The captain simply handed the phone to me.
I'd like to see the letter, I said. Not the one from the DO making the authorization, but the one from the union, authorizing the DO to violate the contract, and another one from the Administrator authorizing the DO to violate the regulation. Fax that to me, will you. I'll be waiting. Better yet, send it to my phone. I'll stand by. What's that? You don't have it? Have the DO send it. He does have it, doesn't he?
Didn't think so. As steward, I'm sure I'd have seen something like that, so...what's that? You don't have such a letter, but you're saying that we can voluntarily cut our time short and plan on overextending our duty tomorrow? It's okay, you say, so long as we do it on our own volition? That's an interesting concept, but why would we do that? No, I think we'll take our rest. If you plan on interrupting it with one phone call, make it a good one.
I do a background check on the company; I show up for an interview having researched the firm. I know their history, I know their good and their bad. I know what they pay, what to expect. I know what they do in an interview, what they ask, and even the nature and format of the sim ride, if applicable. We all should; it's basic, and intrinsic to seeking and accepting an interview.
No surprise that after screening a resume and calling us in for a chat, the company wants to know more about us.
Originally Posted by
Cubdriver
A mugger can ask you where your bank account is but you do not have to to tell them, and it is not dishonesty with a mugger. If professionalism means selling out your personal rights to get a slightly better job, then I disagree. You have rights, guard them and use them. FAA as the right to set some rules in aviation, even above industry's rules, and one of the rules they set was that warning letters are confidential.
You equate a job interview with a criminal act? You just made the comparison. If you don't see a potential employer as a criminal entity and an interview as a crime, then perhaps you shouldn't make such a ridiculous comparison.
Where is this "rule" found that states that warning letters are "confidential?" You keep coming back to that. On what basis?
Originally Posted by
Cubdriver
You really don't trust the FAA, do you?
Of course not. One would have to be a complete fool to trust the Administration. Particularly those operating at the lower rungs who are often there because they were unable to make it on their own in private industry.
The real issue here is the distinct need for the subject described in the original post to seek qualified legal counsel.