Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
You didn't mean it, but that's the parallel you drew. Entirely non-sequitur. Of course one withholds from a criminal during a crime, if one can help it...
No, I did not say employers are muggers, you got me wrong. I made an example using a mugger to show that when there is a valid reason, a higher priority than simple adherence to a common moray might apply. My using some example or other does not mean you can impute any meaning to it you like.
...That has NO bearing and NO similarity and NO relationship to a job interview. When you go to the interview that you requested with the company to whom you chose to apply, in an attempt to secure the job you want, it has no bearing, no similarity, and no relationship in any way, shape or form to being the victim of a crime in which the criminal is violating the law, has chosen you to victimize, and is threatening your safety, security, and possibly your life. It's an utterly ridiculous comparison.
There is a valid point whether you like the street mugger example or not. I think it is a valid example more or less, because the employer is saying more or less that if you do not give us this information we want illegally, then no job for you. That's fine for most things they might want to know as long as they are legal questions, but not when they are asking illegal things they have no right to know. They don't get to know who I had sex with last night for example so I can have that job, what political (or sex) position I prefer, where my mind drifts occasionally in my spare moments, what I think of the leader of China, or any of a thousand other things either. It's none of their business. Same with my confidential dealings with the FAA- it's none of their doggone business. Why is this so hard for you to grab? Just because they offer a job I want does not entitle them to ask me whatever they want. We have laws about that and it lives under the broader heading of Labor Law.
...Honesty is expected in an employee. A crime victim is not an employee of the crime, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to the discussion...
We're not discussing street crime, we are discussing individual rights, labor and FAA laws, and what's appropriate to ask at a person at a job interview.
...Such a simple solution: don't work for them.
Problem solved.
No, that's not the solution, the solution is they ask appropriate, legal questions on/at a job application/interview and you supply the appropriate, honest, legal answer in order to get the job.
...Allow it? Who employs whom? As a pilot applicant, you are the beggar, not the chooser... You don't set the terms. The employer does...
No, it's a matter of law. If a company attempts to undermine or avoid the law they are wrong for doing so. Pilots should avoid such companies the way they would avoid any less than unethical entity or behavior. When that happens in large numbers, just see how the equation changes towards worker rights. That's a two way street you have there, the other way being workers voting with their feet to drive such abusive firms out of business.
I am convinced you are on the side of industry in some fundamental way, and at the same time anti-FAA in your basic outlook. You argue here for more freedom for industry to ask whatever they want, while at the same time you bash the FAA. In the end its a balance between these things that is needed. Too much of either thing creates a problem that needs to be addressed. I can let it go at that, but we'll have to agree to disagree on where the balance lies for now.