Originally Posted by
Cubdriver
Next, you are using the phrase "lie to employers" to describe my advice about reporting of Administrative Actions. You can describe it that way if you like, but you are taking it out of context where context means everything.
If you didn't counsel readers to lie to employers, why did you tell them they're fools for being 100% honest, and that to do so would be beyond naive? Why did you compound that bad counsel by saying that they need not disclose when asked? You really think it's wise, when asked if you've had a warning letter, to lie about it? COME ON!!
This was you, wasn't it?
Originally Posted by
Cubdriver
Anyone who says you should be 100% honest 100% needs to apply for Gomer Pyle's old job. Such an idea is beyond naive.
(1) There are things that when asked one should not disclose even when asked, like never tell a con man where your family fortune is if they ask. Other cases are more difficult to decide but a company begging details about your warning letter/letters, even if there are none past or present, should not get this data from you even if they ask for it specifically. Why? It undermines the FAA warning letter system- see my next point, and there are things that can be off limits to employers. I can come up with more examples if you like.
(2) The FAA warning system is specifically meant to be confidential, it functions on the basis of confidentiality, and anyone including a company that attempts to undermine it is willfully flaunting FAA policy on this matter. The policy cannot be confidential if industry prods an applicant into disclosing their data using a job as the lure. They know the policy about this, and yet they willfully choose to flaunt it, and the only reason they can get away with it pilots let them. But those pilots can also say "no", you are not going to flaunt the FAA policy on this and I do not care what you want to know about me if it is something you should not have access to.
Again, you say it "undermines the warning letter system." You didn't know that a warning letter and a "violation" are both administrative actions, so it's little wonder that you believe there's a "warning letter system," but your belief is also false. Your belief that it's confidential, which you cannot show, is also false, as is your belief that to ask about such a letter, or to ask a job applicant to reveal it being illegal; this is also false.
Originally Posted by
Cubdriver
Let's do another analogy. You are looking at a really nice wristwatch for $2000 in a shop and you really think you'd like to have it, maybe it's a new Breitling and the exact color and model you were thinking about buying the last month or two. You do not want pay full price so you say, "will you take a thousand cash for it?" The clerk says, "wait a minute" and goes to the manager, the manager looks at you from afar and sees you have on some nice clothes, then the clerk comes back and says, "he says he'll take whatever you have on you right now- how much do you have on you?" You know you have two thousand in your wallet but instead you say, "well, I have only eleven hundred on me today". Eleven hundred is much less than what you have, and you just told a bold-faced lie. But it was a fair context for telling a lie, wasn't it? If you dished out all two grand in the name of not telling a lie, you would have been a fool. A nine hundred dollar fool in this case.
Now your counsel is to lie to get what you want. You want the watch, and you'll lie to get it.
I wouldn't hire you. You're dishonest and not only an admitted liar, but you encourage others to do the same. I find it difficult to understand how you might be so bold as to float such bad advice, and clearly you're unashamed to do so.
To answer your question: NO. SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WANTED THE WATCH DOES NOT JUSTIFY YOUR DISHONESTY. It's still a lie.
In your "analogy," you told advocate lying to get what you want. No one is forcing you to buy the watch, any more than one forces you to take a job, or apply for it in the first place. You advocate lying to employers, then compare employers to violent felons in the commission of a crime, and now suggest lying to a commercial vendor to cheat him from the price of his merchandise.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust you at the drive up window at McDonalds with my change, let alone a credit card. You seem to have no trouble telling a lie if you think it benefits you, and your examples keep digging that hole deeper. I believe I'm done with you here.