Ridiculous analogy, IMHO. Here you are discussing bartering, or in a legal context, negotiating a simple contract. Neither party is being completely forthright in this example. The manager is the real fool because he is gambling on two issues; 1) that the customer will be honest, and 2) that the customer has the minimum price that the manager will accept in exchange for the watch. What if the customer only had $200? Would the manager then renege on his "offer" to exchange the watch for 'whatever the customer had on him at that moment'? My guess is yes, or the manager wouldn't be in business very long. As to the lie about the $2000. In the context of negotiations, when the customer say's he only has $1100 he is not telling a "bold faced lie" from the standpoint of what he is willing to pay for the watch. What if the customer had $6000. Is he obligated to tell the manager that? I don't think so. And even if he did, no contract has been formed that would obligate the customer to fork over $6000 for a $2000 watch. I know it's semantics, but to say that the customer's offer of $1100 for the watch when he in fact had $2000 in his pocket is a "bold faced lie" mischaracterizes the "context" of the circumstance.

 

True, warning letters are not, by the FAA's own internal policy, disclosed under a PRIA request. And also true, the 'administrative action' referred to as a "warning letter" or "warning notice" are "automatically expunged from the EIS computer records, and [] no longer reportable" after 2 years. This however, will not prevent a prospective employer from obtaining copies of these letters. Some employers, albeit not all, also submit a FOIA request along with the PRIA request. Any non-expunged warning letter will be disclosed to the employer as a result of this request. Therefore, to consider a "warning letter" as 'confidential' is technically inaccurate. Failure to disclose the receipt of a "warning letter" (when asked to do so) due to a misunderstanding of the "letter's" confidentiality limitations could result in undesired consequences to the prospective employee. It's a dicey game being played when one willfully and/or intentionally deceives a prospective employer concerning information specifically requested that is also directly pertinent to specific job functions. Better to receive an offer of employment with all cards on the table, than to later be terminated for fraud on an application.
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/lic_cert/p...OIA_and_PA.pdf

 

It's a lie. The watch maker sets the terms, and you lie to get what you want. Anything you do is in front of God. Simply because a judge isn't watching doesn't change the fact; you're lying. You're being dishonest. You're advocating a lie. Dress it up, make it pretty, it's still a lie. You advocate lying, and in this thread, you advocate dishonesty to an employer. You advocate lying to an employer as part of the negotiation of being hired. You believe lying if it benefits your best interests, lying is acceptable, as you have demonstrated.

Either you are lying about your beliefs and thus misrepresenting them, or you actually believe this garbage, in which case you are a dishonest person. On the one hand you are dishonest for presenting a false point of view, or on the other you are dishonest if you really believe lying is the best course of action to take. There is no upside to your position here, and as a moderator and poster (and "professional," you have no place advocating lying to an employer during the interview/application process, or at any other time).

My wife and I discussed your "analogy" here this evening, and her response was "clearly not a christian" and that you came across as a young man used to doing what it takes to get what he wants, with no qualms about being dishonest to get it. That was my impression, too.

I seldom meet people who openly advocate dishonesty as you do here. I meet a lot of people who act dishonestly, but who are at least ashamed enough or concerned enough about getting caught that they try to be discreet.

Regarding your watch "analogy," should a merchant tell me he will sell me the watch for what I have in my pocket, I will tell him either A) I have two thousand but am not willing to pay that for the watch (here's my counter offer), or B) I'm not interested, have a nice day. What I will not do is lie to get what I want. Again, it's dishonest. Either you lie by telling him that you've only got eleven hundred, or you lie by omission by failing to disclose the rest; the bargain was that he would sell it to you for what you've got, and you're cheating him by concealing what you've got. It's a lie, no matter how you slice it, and yes, a bald faced one at that.

You seem to think that because a judge isn't looking, it's okay. Integrity is who you are when no one is looking. Would a sworn statement in front of a judge be any different? It's either true or not true, and if it's not true, then it's a lie. It's a lie. You're advocating lying, and you continue to sprout examples advocating lying. This is not something done by an honest person.

This is the same reason that employers have training contracts; pilots who take the job and run with after getting the expensive training. Dishonest pilots lacking integrity or honor do this, lowering the bar for everyone. Same thing; it's dishonesty. So is lying about a letter of warning, when asked. It's the reason we have PRIA, ironically; employees who move on and don't disclose their past. PRIA is about exposing such employees, and mandating employer participation.

You've provided no "facts," yet supported my original statements and references.

You've provided nothing whatsoever showing that asking about a warning letter is "illegal."

You've provided nothing whatsoever showing that requiring a prospective new-hire to provide documentation about a warning letter to be "illegal."

You've certainly provided nothing to support your assertion that one should lie to an employer, though it's very clear you're willing to do whatever it takes to get what you want. Honesty is clearly no object for you.

Quite so. Well said.

 

JB, you live in a simpler world than most of us. I wish my world were as simple. I am glad you feel you occupy the high moral ground wherever you are, and I do not want to disturb you with my thoughtfulness any more. I am sure you are a fine worker and pilot. Not so much a fine thinker, though.

On the technical issue we debated, I won it with references as you asked me to, you did not assent to those facts nor did you rebut them with any better ones. I do not doubt you've seen some wanring letters mixed in with PRIA requests, but that does not prove they should be there. Who knows, maybe the pilot in question submitted them personally, and that's how they got in there. Doesn't matter, you failed to supply the factual refutation.

 

You're at least thinking about this analogy and sorting it out one way or the other. Others here resisted mightily, preferring instead to make a grab for high moral ground, finding my analogies offensive and my morality lacking. JB says I am what the ancient philosophers called a sophist, one who makes up truth as they go using tricks and semantics.

What I was trying to show was, context dictates the appropriate morality.

Let's do another analogy. Is it immoral to to hold back facts, or even to lie at times if the context warrants it is the subject of this one. All of us on this thread are seated at a card table holding hands of playing cards, and the hand you were dealt happens to include an ace of spades, let's say. One of the other players then says, "who has the ace of spades?- I really need it". And then look deadpan back at them and say nothing. You might even debate in your mind to say "I do not have it". So, are you a liar by omission? Of course not, the context is a common card game. You said nothing, and although you lied by mission in the absolute sense you were right for doing so because the context was a common card game.

Does this help?

A sensible person will hopefully agree, context applies.

Now for the discussion of whether a job application is the right context to exercise your right to privacy in regard to your warning letters, or absence thereof, I think it can be argues they are private, much like that ace spades at the card game. It's not a card game, but what it is not, is a public item that you should disclose automatically in the name of honesty. At best it is an optionally disclosed item, depending on whether you really want the job and several other things.

I said it is illegal for them to even ask earlier, and I freely admit I really do not know if that is correct or not. I also said I am not a lawyer, and that's a factual question to put to a lawyer, not me. I do know that certain types of questions are illegal to ask on a job application, or at best they are optional material for the applicant to decide if they wish to answer.

 

Without taking sides in this deal, the unfortunate reality is that we now need to conduct our lives with very little to no real expectation of privacy. Businesses, even retailers, ask questions they, in good conscience, should probably not. Politicians pass laws and agency's form rules without due diligence or regard. People readily volunteer personal information they should not; and those charged with protecting information, which should remain private, cannot seem to be depended upon. This world of overreach and data mining has created more problems than it solves and also serves as an impediment for good folks to go about their daily life and jobs in the most effective manner. Information is often misinterpreted and misused. If folks when getting up in the morning would just say to themselves "What can I do to be of service today, how can I make the world a better place, how can I help someone or some thing" the world would not have half the problems it does. Character and integrity seem to be things of the past, creating the ever increasing atmosphere of distrust that surrounds us. While not quite in the style of my hero Earl Rogers; In summary I would say that both sides have put up some valid arguments...

 

Incorrect.

I stated early in the conversation that while PRIA does not include warning letters, they are there; I've seen it happen personally on both sides of the equation (applicant, and recipient). I provided the reference direct linked to the FAA website regarding PRIA content early on, and you reiterated it over and over, what I'd already provided, but what you did not do was what you were asked to do: show that A) warning letters are confidential (they're not); B) asking about a warning letter is illegal (it's not, despite your claims), and C) requiring an applicant to disclose a warning letter is illegal (it's not, though you claim otherwise).

In short, you've been wholly unable to support your claims, and have instead turned to one example after another advocating dishonesty, including outright counsel to others, telling them to lie to employers.

Clearly you have no problem telling lies. If you think being honest is some lofty "high ground," that also speaks volumes for your integrity, doesn't it?

I did not say that. YOU just said that.

What you have done is openly advocate lying and dishonesty, noting that you believe both are acceptable in order to get what you want.

A job application does not entitle you to dishonesty to get what you want. That's the context. It's not a violent felony. It's not a card game. It's not ripping off a watch vendor.

In a job interview, you won't be buying a watch. You shouldn't plan on being held at gunpoint, and it's unlikely that your prospective employer will ask you to pick a card.

Say it again.

'Cause it ain't illegal.

 

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.

 

 

^^^ Good one. I actually was thinking the same thing a few pages back but with "wide body captain" inserted for engineer.

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?