Restricted Area Bust!
11-07-2014 | 01:10 PM
#91
Moderator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 0
From: ATP, CFI etc.
From a holistic perspective, I agree that context is an important factor when divining what the "right thing to do" is. I will also agree that unequivocal honesty in all human affairs is not required as an absolute behavior model to be considered a moral or just person. The best I can say is that complete honesty is the default rule, to which many "contextual" exceptions (with innumerable grey areas) may dictate, with reasonable prudence, less than absolute honesty. Furthermore, these "less than absolute honest actions" operate on a continuum as opposed to discrete benchmarks.
With my above comment in mind, I would offer that, in the context of employment applications and interviews, the reasoned approach to candor with the employer is 'complete' honesty. The caveat to this, however, is when a detrimental act has been documented by any governmental agency, the employee candidate must obtain a clear "legal" understanding of what is and is not discoverable by the employer. In the case of the FAA warning letter, the link in my previous post clearly illustrates that, while warning letters are not routinely disclosed under PRIA, a prospective employer can still obtain information concerning the warning letter via FOIA requests. This then places the warning letter in a category that is NOT completely confidential. With this in mind, it would be a significant gamble for an applicant with a warning letter on file to intentionally mislead the employer concerning its existence. The power the employee candidate is giving to the employer is the absolute right to terminate the employee at ANY future date for reasons of a misrepresentation on the employment application.
With my above comment in mind, I would offer that, in the context of employment applications and interviews, the reasoned approach to candor with the employer is 'complete' honesty. The caveat to this, however, is when a detrimental act has been documented by any governmental agency, the employee candidate must obtain a clear "legal" understanding of what is and is not discoverable by the employer. In the case of the FAA warning letter, the link in my previous post clearly illustrates that, while warning letters are not routinely disclosed under PRIA, a prospective employer can still obtain information concerning the warning letter via FOIA requests. This then places the warning letter in a category that is NOT completely confidential. With this in mind, it would be a significant gamble for an applicant with a warning letter on file to intentionally mislead the employer concerning its existence. The power the employee candidate is giving to the employer is the absolute right to terminate the employee at ANY future date for reasons of a misrepresentation on the employment application.
11-07-2014 | 01:54 PM
#92
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: Captain Extraordinaire
^^^^ Thanks. Ah we agree. I imagine that the intrusiveness of pilot recruitment policies stem from the high bar of required safety inherent in the job. When you couple that with an abundant applicant pool and the general temporary nature of Regional pilot jobs, you get a fairly apathetic group as it pertains to hiring policies. Once someone gains employment at their "dream" airline, there is likely no incentive to change these hiring policies. To make it even more difficult, IMHO, any publicly exhibited backlash towards these practices would likely not garner much support from an unsympathetic public. From what I've witnessed (which may be wrong), the general public perception remains that pilots are an overpaid and underworked class who are self-absorbed prima donnas.
11-07-2014 | 02:55 PM
#94
Disinterested Third Party
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,758
Likes: 74
JB, I think you should admit I won the part about the warning letters not being part of a PRIA package because (1) I did win it for one thing, and (2) I was sporting enough to admit that not being a lawyer I might be wrong about Labor Law in regard to asking about them. I do know that some actually quite a few topics are off limits for employers to ask, things such as sexual and political orientation, do you have any hidden medical conditions, stuff like that- but I am not sure about this new one. Are you up for this one little trade I offer?
I stated much earlier, and provided quotes and links (long before you) showing that while the Letter of Warning is not included in the PRIA package, I have personally seen it arrive with the FAA data. I have seen this in my own applications (sat down across the desk and the employer said "We received your paperwork AND two Letters of Warning"--letters I did disclose, though they didn't ask--but which did raise concerns initially upon receiving the report). I have seen this with other applicants while executing the PRIA requests and follow-up, as the employer. It does happen.
You want me to "trade" what I provided before you ever attempted to bring reference? That's not a trade.
You don't happen to have a watch for sale, do you?
In many cases, the public is correct. In some cases not overpaid. In others not underworked.
11-10-2014 | 03:07 PM
#95
Moderator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 0
From: ATP, CFI etc.
Sure but I thought you had trouble buying watches, playing cards and dealing with muggers because of your high moral grounding and I did not want to disturb you with any of that. The rest of us do a lot of those things all the time of course, not so many muggings as other things, but being morally depraved it doesn't really bother us when we do. Actually I am happy just to have won that point about the PRIA disclosures with my irrefutable references. Good day, sir.
11-10-2014 | 04:24 PM
#96
Disinterested Third Party
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,758
Likes: 74
I don't play cards as a rule, as I don't engage in games of chance. I don't bet, either, or gamble in any form.
I've dealt with muggers and carjackers. No moral high ground, but I was armed and it worked out well for me. I wouldn't attempt to correlate by comparison or analogy those criminal acts with any job interview I've attended, however, regardless of whether it was a good or mediocre employer. I have the choice whether to attend an interview, you see, whereas the crimes were thrust on me.
You "won" nothing regarding PRIA, as your points were ones I had already made. That you think it's some kind of competition that you must "win," however, speaks volumes about your level of maturity. Coupled with your professed dishonesty, I'm quite certain where my decision would fall were you to seek an interview in my house.
Remember when you walk away that the only person who called you "morally depraved" was YOU. A dishonest person can't be expected to have a good day, but do the best you can.
11-10-2014 | 06:41 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,148
Likes: 43
From: Volleyball Player
So, what is this "FAA data". Please describe what you are talking about, give some examples.
And you never answered my question where I asked you which form you used. Shirley you know that, being all schooled up on PRIA?
11-10-2014 | 07:00 PM
#98
Disinterested Third Party
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,758
Likes: 74
As stated, when FAA records came back, regardless of the fact that PRIA doesn't include the warning letter, the information was contained therein. Whether it's supposed to be there or not, when it is there (and I've seen it there), it can impact the hiring process.
11-10-2014 | 10:20 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,148
Likes: 43
From: Volleyball Player
By being vague, it seems to indicate your trying to protect the fact that you don't understand you were FOIAing the records from AFS-760, via complying with the minimum PRIA requirement for air carriers.
I can show you what the "standard" PRIA request is, if you need help. Maybe you can tell me, but so far you haven't been able to.
If you don't understand what you were requesting, just say so.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
