Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!mtune!whuts!homxb!ho95e!wcs
From: wcs@ho95e.UUCP
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Lieing to get a job
Message-ID: <1729@ho95e.ATT.COM>
Date: Thu, 24-Sep-87 18:36:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ho95e.1729
Posted: Thu Sep 24 18:36:34 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Sep-87 16:40:10 EDT
References: <957@bc-cis.UUCP> <1839@tekig5.TEK.COM> <158@tijc02.UUCP> <1319@houdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: wcs@ho95e.UUCP (46133-Bill.Stewart,2G218,x0705,)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs 46133, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 25
Xref: utgpu misc.jobs.misc:513 comp.misc:1160

:In article <158@tijc02.UUCP>, pjs269@tijc02.UUCP writes:
:> When I was interviewing for a job ...
:> One of the questions on the application was (paraphrased):
:> 	Would you be willing to work on a defense contract?
:> I answered this question honestly as "no".  During the interview the
:> interviewer spent five minutes asking me why.....
:>	[interviewer's prejudices caused rejection]

An answer that would have avoided this problem is
	"No, my religious beliefs wouldn't permit me to do that kind of
	work."
This is a valid answer even if you don't belong to a traditionally
anti-war religious group (e.g. Quakers).   You still may not get the job,
if it really *is* a defense job, but it's a non-arguable point, even if the
interviewer is anti-anti-war and believes war is a Good Thing.

Assuming that the question meant
	"we have a military department and a non-military department, and
	have to decide where we can use you"
it leaves you and the interviewer in a position where you can explore the
non-military job options.  Dealing with the more specific issues can get you
into an argument, which is not productive for either side.
-- 
#				Thanks;
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs