No, 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.

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?

 

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.

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.

 

It's a ridiculous one, no more so than your continued defense of the concept.

Whether you make a comparison between employers and felons committing a crime, or whether you simply try to justify your counsel to lie to employers by making an "analogy" using a felon committing a crime, is irrelevant. You gave counsel to lie to employers, be it a lie of commission, or a lie of omission. If the employer asks if you've had a warning letter and you say "no," it's a lie.

This is your counsel. Lie to employers.

You tried to justify that bad counsel with an "analogy" making a comparison between an employer asking a question, and a criminal committing a robbery. Worse, you've continued to defend your counsel, and your "analogy."

You've still provided nothing to back up your assertion that an employer asking about a warning letter is doing something illegal. The employer is not. The reason that you cannot make your case is because despite your continued assertions that asking about a warning letter is illegeal, it's not illegal. Your reference to above states nothing, absolutely nothing, about confidentiality of a warning letter (it isn't), and doesn't address the legality of asking about one, at all.

You won't be able to provide a reference stating that a warning letter is confidential, because it's not. There is no expectation of privacy attached. You won't be able to find anything stating that asking about a warning letter is illegal, because asking about a warning letter is not. You won't be able to find anything stating that requiring an employee to divulge a warning letter is illegal, because it's not.

Never the less, you continue to insist. Again, provide the reference. Your advisory circular is neither regulatory, nor does it support your claim, which is wrong.

A warning letter is an administrative action.

An enforcement action for violation of a regulation (a "violation") is an administrative action.

In case you didn't know.

You don't know the difference between the two, and apparently didn't know that they're both administrative actions, and it's clear you're not an attorney. You should either be one, or have one on retainer before you begin floating legal counsel, however, and particularly before you start giving the suggestion to lie to employers (even if you think they're felons robbing you).

 

You can cast erroneous aspersions on my analogies if you like, and I get it that you did not like that one I used with a hypothetical mugger. I'll try and choose more pleasing analogies just for you. Like I said, I have nothing against employers, that was your erroneous assumption.

JB, I gave you a solid reference on the warning letter issue, and the fact is the FAA does not disclose them in the outgoing PRIA reports that it issues to requesting employers. That's a matter of fact. I am willing to talk some more about the implications of this fact, such as whether it is illegal (and by what law) for an employer to demand them given FAA policy clearly shows they do not disclose them; but for now I need you to concede you lost that one little argument. If you are sporting enough to do this, I'll gladly move onto other subtopics in this area.

So- show me where it says warning letters are to be included in PRIA disclosures to employers, or something to that effect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I surfed up another reference showing that Warning Letters are not included in PRIA disclosures (emphasis added)-

1-2. Actions NOT Reported By PRIA:

PRIA does NOT provide information concerning accidents or incidents in which the pilot may have been involved, any type of administrative action such as a warning letter, as well as enforcement cases that are still open, pending, cases under appeal, or reopened, when reporting on a pilot’s performance record.

FAA’s Office of Chief Council has determined that doing so could be unfair to the pilot because:
1. These reports may or may not involve pilot error.
2. Pilots identified in accident and incident reports do not receive the same due
process protections enjoyed by legal enforcement actions; and
3. Open cases that have not been fully reviewed by FAA, NTSB, or possibly by a
U.S. Court of Appeals, could eventually be dropped or dismissed by the court.

See- http://www.faa.gov/pilots/lic_cert/p...OIA_and_PA.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s another one (scroll down to Figure 14-5, emphasis added)-

About Administrative Action

Warning Notices and Letters of Correction are Administrative Actions. Administrative action is authorized by 14 CFR part 13 and is routinely used for minor infractions instead of legal enforcement (e.g., suspensions, revocations, or fines).

Legal Effect. Neither a warning notice nor a letter of correction constitutes a finding of violation and, therefore, notice and hearing are not required.

Recourse Available. The determination to issue the notice or letter is based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged violation(s) including any information you provided. An airman or company can introduce additional pertinent information in explanation or mitigation by writing to the reporting inspector or district office manager within 30 calendar-days of the date of the notice or letter. Administrative actions can be withdrawn.

Release of Information. When the FAA responds to Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) requests, only final legal enforcement actions resulting in a finding of violation are released. Enforcement database information pertaining to No Actions, Administrative Actions, or Legal Actions in process or under appeal, are not released under the PRIA. However, administrative action information may be released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.


See 8900.1 V14 C2 S1, Compliance and Enforcement Special Considerations

 

There's nothing pleasing about your counsel to lie to employers, and no way to defend it. You can spin it any way you like, but you have no justification for such counsel. None.

You can back peddle all you like, but it doesn't change the fact, nor does it justify your counsel to falsify data for employers (regardless of whether you think them felons).

You compounded your counsel to lie to an employer with a lie: you stated that an employer asking regarding warning letters is illegal. It is not. You've been wholly unable to show this, because there is nothing illegal about asking regarding a warning letter.

Further, you continue to insist that a warning letter is confidential, with nothing to back that up either. It isn't.

None of your references thus far point remotely to your assertions to back them up. None of them show that asking about a warning letter is illegal. None of them provide a legal reference prohibiting an employer from asking, or requiring that information. None of them state or suggest or provide a legal basis for stating that a warning letter is confidential.

I can state as fact that I've had warning letters (2) come back with FAA record requests as part of the PRIA process, and I've received them when conducting PRIA checks on prospective new-hires.

You attempted to provide legal counsel suggesting that one could sue the Administrator if this happened, but as you pointed out, you're not an attorney, and let's face it, you weren't even aware that certificate action (a "violation") and a warning letter were both administrative actions. Let's hope that you understand that under administrative law, one is guilty until proven innocent.

 

Are you confusing administrative law with administrative action as defined by the FAA order 2150.3?

 

First of all, since you cannot so far offer any references other than anecdotal ones to refute the fact that PRIA requests are not intended to include any warning letters, or that Administrative actions of that variety are supposed to be disclosed, I'll consider that issue settled.

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.

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.

Was this any better? I tried to create a more pleasant analogy for you this time. I thought it was pretty good, personally. Again, this analogy does not mean we are all just watch salesmen or anything like that. It makes a point, that's all. We can extend it to applying for a pilot job if you like, but I want to see if you are getting the analogy so far.

 

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?

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.

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.

 

You want this to be a simple moral issue JB, and try as I might, I can't get you to see that morality is more complex than right versus wrong, and it is context-dependent. I am not advocating immorality, you do not get off that quick. Think about it a little while, go back to my watch store analogy and mull it over and consider the context- it' s a watch buying transaction, a business transaction, not a sworn statement in front of god and judge. Can you seriously say that you would have emptied your pockets to avoid answering the clerk with a lie? Really? What if you had more than the watch was priced for in your pockets, would you advise the clerk about all that money and hand that over too? No, you would not. Can we at least agree on that? I still suspect you don't get the analogy, or maybe you simply do not wish to yield anything to me. That's fine, but I think you have some thinking to do.

As for the facts I presented about warning letters, you did not refute them to any satisfactory degree.

 

You keep saying this, where is your basis? Is your proof that we are talking about administrative law? If that's your basis, it's wrong, because "administrative action" and "legal action" are defined in FAA order 2150.3, and they only pertain to the FAA.