Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mcnc!rti!tijc02!pjs269
From: pjs269@tijc02.UUCP (Paul Schmidt        )
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Re: Lieing to get a job
Message-ID: <167@tijc02.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 11:24:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: tijc02.167
Posted: Tue Oct  6 11:24:19 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 23:40:11 EDT
References: <957@bc-cis.UUCP> <1839@tekig5.TEK.COM> <158@tijc02.UUCP> <1319@houdi.UUCP> <7067@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Texas Instr., Johnson City TN
Lines: 105
Xref: mnetor misc.jobs.misc:793 comp.misc:1408

In article <7067@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU
>In article <1319@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
>>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.....
>
>A job is not a right.

Agreed.  But equal oppurtunity is.

> ... If I flushed a prospective employee because he doesn't
>like country music, it would be my perogative.

I certainly hope not!

> ... Because of the hostile and
>litigous atmostphere where every yahoo who gets jilted by a big company runs
>for the ACLU, employers keep their reasons for rejection close to the vest.

I never went to the ACLU.
>
>If the author of the above dosn't want to work on defense contracts, he
>has to accept that any defense contractor with a whit of sense won't
>hire him.

I am currently working for a major defense contractor in there non-defense
related Industrial Systems Division.  The company that would not hire me is
now a direct competitor in the EXACT same field.  So how could I be whining?

> ... In today's economy, where any college educated person can
>get a good job, whining about your political preference keeping you
>from working for a defence contractor sounds like you want to bite the
>hand that feeds you and keep doing so with impunity, not just basic
>constitutional protection.

Zigurd misrepresented what I said.  I said "I also believe in retrospect
that I was discriminated on because of my religious beliefs."  In my
article I was not whining about not working for a defense contractor
or biting the hand that feeds me and keep doing so with inpunity.  My
article was NOT whining and I NEVER thought about bringing any legal
action against the company.  The reason I never mentioned the name of
the company in my article is because I am NOT out for vengence.
>
>If you want to lie in order to get a job, you have to weigh the
>following: If you lie to someone like me, and I find out, there will
>be hell to pay. Most employment contracts specify severe consequesces
>for such deception, and I would follow up to the harshest extent. If
>you lie to some soft headed type who doesn't really care, you have to
>consider that you have just sold your personal political views for the
>difference between the salary you have, and the salary you would have
>in a job that wasn't sensitive to your views. You will have sold out
>cheaply.
>
>-Zigurd

I would like to state my case again so that no one is misled into thinking
that I was whining about not getting a job with a defense contractor.
The purpose of my article was to add to the discussion of whether lying
in an interview may be defensible.

I personally could never lie in an interview.  And in my article, although
I never said I wouldn't, I also never said I would.

I feel that all interviewers are human and have prejudices and may not
represent their company in all details.  It is not fair that a person
not get a job because of a personal interviewer prejudice, and it is
shocking that Zigurd says that it is their perogative!

Since all interviewers have prejudices I said:  "lying may be defensible".
The reason being that a 30 minute initial interview is not enough time
to overcome some of these prejudices to show how one "could be a benefit
to their company."  I was not saying I would lie.  That is why I used
the word "may".

To continue my story from the previous article:  When I told the head of
the Placement Office what happened, her advice was "LIE!".  It would be
interesting to know if MIT's placement office might suggest the same
thing.

Zigurd article proves my point.  Some interviewers believe that it is there
perogative to hire or not hire on the basis of prejudice.  Zigurd states:
"If I flushed a prospective employee because he doesn't like country music, 
it would be my perogative."  If an interviewer asks a non-work related
question, like "Do you like country music?" and know that he will hire
you depending on your answer, it may be justifiable to lie.

I still would not lie in my case, though.  The company that had lots of
defense contracts may want to reserve the right to move their employees
to any job they choose, without any concern for the employees.  I wouldn't
want to work for this company because it appeared from the interview to
have no concern for the individuality of it's employees.  This company
was diverse enough that had the interviewer gotten past that one question
I could have benefited the company.  (As I am it's competitor.)

Zigurd only quoted a few lines from the article I wrote, and I am wondering
if he, too, could not get past the answer to my question.

By the way; there was another question on the application:

	Would you work in a nuclear power plant?