Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
...you compared a job interview to a mugging by connecting the subjects. No matter how you might try to backpeddle to explain that way, it's a ridiculous comparison. You cannot connect an employer asking a legitimate question with a felon committing a crime. You can't attempt to justify your counsel that one should lie to an employer by comparing the employer to a felon committing a crime. Never the less, this is what you've done...
Again, I gave an analogy, not a comparison. They are similar but not the same. Let's get the dictionary definitions out and look at them. The mugger item I presented is an analogy, you erroneously claim instead that it is a comparison. They are not one and the same.
From Mirriam Webster-
comparison (n.)- the act of looking at things to see how they are similar or different; the act of suggesting that two or more things are similar or in the same category.
analogy (n.)- a comparison of two things based on their being alike
in some way [italics added for emphasis]; the act of comparing two things that are alike
in some way [italics added for emphasis].
The italics in the second item mark the crucial distinction. The mugger example is analogy, not a comparison. As such it only has certain identified
ways in which it is similar to the employer example. In this case, it is not that a mugger and an employer are both criminals, maybe they are and maybe not. But what I made it clear is, they are similar another way, namely that they both use prevailing force and/or circumstances to influence a person to do something against that individual's best interests. I did not say employers are muggers or even close to that. I am not explaining this point again, you should get it by now, unless maybe you do not wish to.
…Show me. Show that an employer asking if you've had a violation, warning letter, have been the subject of an investigation, or have had an accident or incident, is illegal. Show the law. Reference it. Link it. Do something other than keep saying it's illegal to ask. It's not. You're repeating yourself with this error doesn't make it so. It's illegal to ask, is it? it's illegal to require this information? Show me that a warning letter is "confidential." It's not. This is something you made up. References?
Here is a reference from AC 120-68F (3-8)(a); note in particular item (3):
a. Records From the FAA. AFS-620 will provide the following:
(1) Current airman certificates with associated type ratings and limitations;
(2) Current airman medical certificate, including any limitations; and
(3) Summaries of FAA legal enforcement actions resulting in a finding by the Administrator of a violation that was not subsequently overturned. PRIA reports certificate revocations indefinitely. NOTE: Hiring employers may use a request with a signed consent by the pilot/applicant to authorize the FAA to release records of Notices of Disapproval for flight checks for certificates and ratings to an air carrier making such a request.
See
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%20120-68F.pdf
Warning letters are not violations, they are administrative actions. There’s a formal difference in case you did not already know. If they were violations, they would be included in a PRIA check (what this document is about) but they are not, and as such they are not included in a PRIA report. If you find out that the FAA is mailing out any warning letters of yours, then they are violating their own policy per the above. As such, you have grounds for legal action against them. I am not a lawyer and I have no idea how that would play out, but what I am showing you is that PRIA does (or should) not contain warning letters because they are administrative actions, not violations.