Is lying ever acceptable?

[Farmersfan]

I had a fairly indepth discussion with a co-worker on this subject and wanted to know what some of my Downlow brethen thought about it. (it stems from a real life event).

If you consider the vast number of employers that are requiring a 4 year degree as a qualification for a job and most of them don't even require the degree to be applicable to the job duties, is it wrong for a canidate to lie on the application or provide false college transcripts? Lying is never a good practice and normally shows a character that is undesirable but what if it is only done to overcome another unacceptable condition?
Any insights?

[waterboy]

Nope. It's not okay for someone to lie. To me, that defines the character of the individual. If they'll lie on something verifiable, it usually means they'll lie about something else. In other words, they can't be trusted to tell the truth in my opinion.:hand:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I had a fairly indepth discussion with a co-worker on this subject and wanted to know what some of my Downlow brethen thought about it. (it stems from a real life event).

If you consider the vast number of employers that are requiring a 4 year degree as a qualification for a job and most of them don't even require the degree to be applicable to the job duties, is it wrong for a canidate to lie on the application or provide false college transcripts? Lying is never a good practice and normally shows a character that is undesirable but what if it is only done to overcome another unacceptable condition?
Any insights?

If there is a valid reason for "embellishing" the facts, I can't think of it. I also have difficulty finding when lying is not "only done to overcome another unaceeptable condition". Who decides which lies are OK? When a person applies for a position and is turned down because of an assumed lack of qualifications, he/she goes to the next prospective employer and makes application.

If a person "embellishes" his/her qualifications and is later found out, try explaining that one to the next prospective employer. In some cases it may even be fraud, such as a position that requires certification.

A college degree proves one thing and that is that the person is able to stick with a plan and complete it. Other than technical or professional degrees, the position may or may not require a specific skill but does require an ability to complete an assigned task.

No to lying.

[Old Dog]

My bro-in-law was in charge of reviewing resumes of appling engineers where he worked prior to retiring. He said the rate of false claims of levels of education was very high. He said that most applicants must not think anyone is going to check out the validity of their degree work. He said the most often stretch is showing completion of degree work while not actually finishing.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
If there is a valid reason for "embellishing" the facts, I can't think of it. I also have difficulty finding when lying is not "only done to overcome another unaceeptable condition". Who decides which lies are OK? When a person applies for a position and is turned down because of an assumed lack of qualifications, he/she goes to the next prospective employer and makes application.

If a person "embellishes" his/her qualifications and is later found out, try explaining that one to the next prospective employer. In some cases it may even be fraud, such as a position that requires certification.

A college degree proves one thing and that is that the person is able to stick with a plan and complete it. Other than technical or professional degrees, the position may or may not require a specific skill but does require an ability to complete an assigned task.

No to lying.



All very good answers. And it explains a lot as to why employers ask for a degree but that doesn't make it right!
Let me ask the same question this way. If a employer were to make Home Ownership a qualification of the job, would it be acceptable for a applicant to claim to own a home when they actually only rent? I am torn between allowing employers to hire whoever they want to hire and protecting employees from improper discrimmination. An employer might feel that a degree shows a applicant can "make a plan and stick to it" but the absence of a degree does not show they can't! so it should not be a qualification. Again this only applies if the degree requirement doesn't not require a certain field of study!
Before we passed laws to prevent it, if an employer made skin color a qualification, was it wrong for a person to lie about their race on their application in order to get a job?????

[Trashman]

There is only one question that you should tell a lie when answering. "Honey, do these pants make my A** look big?":D

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
All very good answers. And it explains a lot as to why employers ask for a degree but that doesn't make it right!
Let me ask the same question this way. If a employer were to make Home Ownership a qualification of the job, would it be acceptable for a applicant to claim to own a home when they actually only rent? I am torn between allowing employers to hire whoever they want to hire and protecting employees from improper discrimmination. An employer might feel that a degree shows a applicant can "make a plan and stick to it" but the absence of a degree does not show they can't! so it should not be a qualification. Again this only applies if the degree requirement doesn't not require a certain field of study!
Before we passed laws to prevent it, if an employer made skin color a qualification, was it wrong for a person to lie about their race on their application in order to get a job?????

Apples to oranges. Race and home ownership/financial status are matters of discrimination, and a college degree can indicate a skill set with makes one uniquely qualified for the job in question. There are very few jobs that I can think of that actually require a four year degree, and all the ones that do are fairly degree specific. Do you want a doctor who fudged a little on his degree? A lawyer who didn't actually take all the classes he was supposed to, but who fudges really well on his resume? In Texas we allow teachers who don't have education degrees to teach, and sometimes it shows. Not always, but in my 20 years of teaching the vast majority of those who've gone through alternative certification didn't last more than a year or maybe two.

I'm not sure what the occupation in question is, but if nothing else it's a matter of integrity as to whether or not you lie on your application. Don't most applications have a place where you sign saying everything on the application is true? I sure wouldn't want to sign my name to a document that I knew was false.

[Farmersfan]

What about the termination of the multi year employee when the lie was found out? Apparently he was able to perform the duties of the position exceptionally well for several years without the degree. So does that prove the qualification was wrong in the first place? The employer can claim the lie shows a character flaw but the man's character was completely acceptable for several years! As an employer, do you forgive the lie and keep the good employee and realize that your degree qualification might have been wrong in the first place or do you terminate him? And do you think this man has a legal action against the employer?

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
All very good answers. And it explains a lot as to why employers ask for a degree but that doesn't make it right!
Let me ask the same question this way. If a employer were to make Home Ownership a qualification of the job, would it be acceptable for a applicant to claim to own a home when they actually only rent? I am torn between allowing employers to hire whoever they want to hire and protecting employees from improper discrimmination. An employer might feel that a degree shows a applicant can "make a plan and stick to it" but the absence of a degree does not show they can't! so it should not be a qualification. Again this only applies if the degree requirement doesn't not require a certain field of study!
Before we passed laws to prevent it, if an employer made skin color a qualification, was it wrong for a person to lie about their race on their application in order to get a job?????

There is a huge difference between requiring a degree and discriminating based on home ownership. There would be no legitimate reason that would hold up to require home ownership. Your original question was should an applicant lie about having a college degree, not should he be required to have a degree.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
What about the termination of the multi year employee when the lie was found out? Apparently he was able to perform the duties of the position exceptionally well for several years without the degree. So does that prove the qualification was wrong in the first place? The employer can claim the lie shows a character flaw but the man's character was completely acceptable for several years! As an employer, do you forgive the lie and keep the good employee and realize that your degree qualification might have been wrong in the first place or do you terminate him? And do you think this man has a legal action against the employer?

The employee was terminated for lying about his qualifications, not for the fact he had no degree. I would say that the man's character was not completely acceptable if he obtained the position under false pretenses. If a degree is a requirement, lying about it is fraud and the employer is justified in terminating the liar.

The US Air Force requires that all prospective officers have a 4 year degree. Will that make someone a better pilot or Combat Systems Operator? Maybe not, but the rules apply to all applicants and you best not lie.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Apples to oranges. Race and home ownership/financial status are matters of discrimination, and a college degree can indicate a skill set with makes one uniquely qualified for the job in question. There are very few jobs that I can think of that actually require a four year degree, and all the ones that do are fairly degree specific. Do you want a doctor who fudged a little on his degree? A lawyer who didn't actually take all the classes he was supposed to, but who fudges really well on his resume? In Texas we allow teachers who don't have education degrees to teach, and sometimes it shows. Not always, but in my 20 years of teaching the vast majority of those who've gone through alternative certification didn't last more than a year or maybe two.

I'm not sure what the occupation in question is, but if nothing else it's a matter of integrity as to whether or not you lie on your application. Don't most applications have a place where you sign saying everything on the application is true? I sure wouldn't want to sign my name to a document that I knew was false.




I agree! A degree can indicate a certain skill set that makes one uniquely qualified to do the job. But only if the degree is applicable to the job in question! How about the 1000s and 1000s of jobs out there that ask for a bachelors degree regardless of the field of study? Wouldn't that be a form of discrimmination? If it has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the job then is it acceptable to be considered as a qualification? I'm not sure if I agree or disagree just yet. It seems wrong in so many ways yet I always want Government to keep their noses out of our business.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I agree! A degree can indicate a certain skill set that makes one uniquely qualified to do the job. But only if the degree is applicable to the job in question! How about the 1000s and 1000s of jobs out there that ask for a bachelors degree regardless of the field of study? Wouldn't that be a form of discrimmination? If it has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of the job then is it acceptable to be considered as a qualification? I'm not sure if I agree or disagree just yet. It seems wrong in so many ways yet I always want Government to keep their noses out of our business.

Now I'm confused. First you ask if it's OK for an employee to lie about his/her qualifications, now you change the question to is it OK for an employer to require a degree. I believe those to be two totally separate questions.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
There is a huge difference between requiring a degree and discriminating based on home ownership. There would be no legitimate reason that would hold up to require home ownership. Your original question was should an applicant lie about having a college degree, not should he be required to have a degree.




Exactly! So what legitimate reason would you give that would hold up for requiring a degree if that degree isn't even applicable to the job? It seems to me that in that instance the employer is using the degree to prove the character or personal merits of the applicant rather than the applicants actual ability to do the job. Isnt' that projecting worth or merit on the act of simply obtaining a degree and applying a lesser opinion to those who did not do so? Kind of like thinking a person who purchases a home is more stable and reliable than someone who doesn't?
I'm just thinking out loud here! I know we don't live in a perfect world but if we expect applicants to be honest and perfect then perhaps we should also expect employers to also be honest. Expecting a degree for a job that doesn't require a degree is not a honest (or at least wholesome) thing to do! Yet it is has become common place in our society these days.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Exactly! So what legitimate reason would you give that would hold up for requiring a degree if that degree isn't even applicable to the job? It seems to me that in that instance the employer is using the degree to prove the character or personal merits of the applicant rather than the applicants actual ability to do the job. Isnt' that projecting worth or merit on the act of simply obtaining a degree and applying a lesser opinion to those who did not do so? Kind of like thinking a person who purchases a home is more stable and reliable than someone who doesn't?
I'm just thinking out loud here! I know we don't live in a perfect world but if we expect applicants to be honest and perfect then perhaps we should also expect employers to also be honest. Expecting a degree for a job that doesn't require a degree is not a honest (or at least wholesome) thing to do! Yet it is has become common place in our society these days.

You asked if an employee should lie. End of answer to to that question.

I know nothing about the employer and am not in a position to answer the question of whether a degree should be required. If the employee feels he was discriminated against for not having a degree, take it to court, but not for either of us to answer.

[BullsFan]

I guess I would say that if this person lied on a legal document once, they're certainly capable of doing it again. Why would the employer have any reason to believe that this person hasn't done it again and again? And no, that person has absolutely no legal recourse towards their former employer. He signed his name to something he knew was inaccurate. He basically committed fraud.

And what thousands and thousands of jobs require a four year degree? I think there are many many jobs that don't require any kind of degree at all, or only require some post-high school education. I assume many employers, given a choice between someone with and without a college degree, would probably choose the employee with the degree. But that still is no excuse to LIE ON YOUR APPLICATION. This person should have been honest.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Now I'm confused. First you ask if it's OK for an employee to lie about his/her qualifications, now you change the question to is it OK for an employer to require a degree. I believe those to be two totally separate questions.



Perhaps it's just my mixed up way of navigating through my thoughts on the subject. Of course, on the surface it is always wrong to lie! But it seems to me that it is equally wrong for an employer to require a degree when a degree is not needed in the performance of the job. That would be eliminating a whole segment of society based on socioeconomic and cultural issues! People raised by poor parents or in cultures where college isn't a priority are automatically excluded from an opportunity to not only get this job but they aren't even allowed to interview for it. Even though they are just as capable. Of course, if the job requires a certain skill set that only college can give it is a different situation. I'm thinking that until society recognizes this and fixes it then anyone who lies on an application in order to just get a chance is completely justified in doing so! In this case it seems to me that 2 wrongs do make a right!!!! Or maybe not!

[Pick6]

Lying got someone a Nobel Peace Prize and has made millions for Michael Moore.

[MUSTANG69]

Originally posted by Pick6
Lying got someone a Nobel Peace Prize and has made millions for Michael Moore. :clap: :clap:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Pick6
Lying got someone a Nobel Peace Prize and has made millions for Michael Moore.

So is that justification for lying? I have no opinion on the legitimacy of either issue you cite, I just feel lying is never justified. I might be tempted to lie to save my family, but hope I never have to make that decision.

[LE Dad]

My company does not require a college degree, but we do require good credit and criminal history. All information is reviewed and verified by manager, by myself and then by corporate before you are issued an employee #. Lie and its bye-bye. I personally prefer HS graduates vs GEDs. I have found people with GEDs fold under pressure and there is plenty of pressure in this business. I am sure that the same can be said for employers seeking College grads.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I guess I would say that if this person lied on a legal document once, they're certainly capable of doing it again. Why would the employer have any reason to believe that this person hasn't done it again and again? And no, that person has absolutely no legal recourse towards their former employer. He signed his name to something he knew was inaccurate. He basically committed fraud.

And what thousands and thousands of jobs require a four year degree? I think there are many many jobs that don't require any kind of degree at all, or only require some post-high school education. I assume many employers, given a choice between someone with and without a college degree, would probably choose the employee with the degree. But that still is no excuse to LIE ON YOUR APPLICATION. This person should have been honest.





Very good points Bullsfan! What If a degree requirement is proven unethical and biased then would the employee have a case? Even if he lied?

[big daddy russ]

I agree with Ron on everything except a situation where the "better good" is served by not telling the truth (i.e. life-threatening situations).

For those who are Christian, even the Bible accepts it in certain circumstances. In Joshua, Rahab lied to protect the Israelite spies. James, however, said she was justified in her lie.

Lying to get a career advancement, however, is a far cry from lying to protect a life or the like.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Pick6
Lying got someone a Nobel Peace Prize and has made millions for Michael Moore. Also got 100k men in Iraq

[Pick6]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Also got 100k men in Iraq

Funny thing is the nobel prize winner's boss also said the same thing and i'm pretty sure the nobel prize winner agreed with him.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Pick6
Funny thing is the nobel prize winner's boss also said the same thing and i'm pretty sure the nobel prize winner agreed with him. You're probably right.

[DDBooger]

Back on topic, lying is a VERY interesting topic. I worked with a professor who studied men that lied to women about who they really are, background, profession, married etc. It's called Romantic Deception. You can find it on Amazon. Her name is Dr. Sally Caldwell. Interesting topic. Did some research with her early on and found the dynamics of lying as a social construct really to be quite fascinating. In many cases we have set up a society that appreciates the lie more than the truth. That is why when someone is straightforward we think of them as anti-social or sociopathic (not able to rationalize the pain their words may inflict). They may suffer from lack of norms and mores, however if what they're saying is the truth, than we as a society have embraced lies because it masks it. (Sort of reflects our denial with how unsatisfied our lives are and the huge pill pushing industry we call big pharma).

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
There is a huge difference between requiring a degree and discriminating based on home ownership. There would be no legitimate reason that would hold up to require home ownership. Your original question was should an applicant lie about having a college degree, not should he be required to have a degree.

I'm not so sure. Owning a hope demonstrates stability and proves credit-worthiness. More and more employers are requiring credit checks on their employees, so such a requirement may not be terribly unreasonable.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Back on topic, lying is a VERY interesting topic. I worked with a professor who studied men that lied to women about who they really are, background, profession, married etc. It's called Romantic Deception. You can find it on Amazon. Her name is Dr. Sally Caldwell. Interesting topic. Did some research with her early on and found the dynamics of lying as a social construct really to be quite fascinating. In many cases we have set up a society that appreciates the lie more than the truth. That is why when someone is straightforward we think of them as anti-social or sociopathic (not able to rationalize the pain their words may inflict). They may suffer from lack of norms and mores, however if what they're saying is the truth, than we as a society have embraced lies because it masks it. (Sort of reflects our denial with how unsatisfied our lives are and the huge pill pushing industry we call big pharma).
I love your outside-the-box takes on subjects such as this. Stuff like this is thought-proking because it makes complete sense.

As someone who studies political science, I love thoughts like this. Being that politics is actually the relationship between people (not just the relationship between states and governing bodies), lies, small deceptions, persuasion, and the withholding of information is part of the way that we all interrrelate. Those factors are known in many circles as "office politics" or the "popularity contest" and are practiced, in some form or another, by every one of us. It's all part of our social and cultural construct and defines how we interact with one another.

Good stuff, DD.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I love your outside-the-box takes on subjects such as this. Stuff like this is thought-proking because it makes complete sense.

As someone who studies political science, I love thoughts like this. Being that politics is actually the relationship between people (not just the relationship between states and governing bodies), lies, small deceptions, and the withholding of information is part of the way that we all interrrelate. Look at our elections. It's just one big symbolic interaction between what we WANT to see and what they SHOW us. Life according to many who utilize that theory is a series of dominant statuses and how we manage them. Dramaturgy. One hour I'm an A$$hole boss, then I'm home and I'm a wonderful father. We all play a role according to our audience. :D

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Look at our elections. It's just one big symbolic interaction between what we WANT to see and what they SHOW us. Life according to many who utilize that theory is a series of dominant statuses and how we manage them. Dramaturgy. One hour I'm an A$$hole boss, then I'm home and I'm a wonderful father. We all play a role according to our audience. :D


Your right..go a step further..look at debates...if a politican told the truth 90% in a debate he would lose the election..instead we get BS head in a cloud answers or very generic statements.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Your right..go a step further..look at debates...if a politican told the truth 90% in a debate he would lose the election..instead we get BS head in a cloud answers or very generic statements.

Tell people what they need to know, not what they want to know.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Tell people what they need to know, not what they want to know.


a politican trying to win an election CANNOT do that sadly

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
a politican trying to win an election CANNOT do that sadly

That's the point though, as far as means which serve the interests of the politicians or whoever the individual or group is that aims to gain power and influence over others. We want to know the truth, but rather, we need to know whatever wool will be pulled over our eyes so that we can be swayed, from the standpoint of the cunning party.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Pick6
Lying got someone a Nobel Peace Prize and has made millions for Michael Moore.

And Pick6 manages to turn the thread into a political debate.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Very good points Bullsfan! What If a degree requirement is proven unethical and biased then would the employee have a case? Even if he lied?

I don't think you can make a justified claim that a degree requirement is either unethical or biased. Employment is a privilege, not a right. Employers have a right to make whatever requirements they want so long as those requirements are not discriminatory. And having a college degree isn't like gender or race, so you can't claim that having a degree requirement is discriminatory. Anyone can get a degree if they want it badly enough.

See, I think you're trying to move the particulars around because you're sympathetic to the employee in question. But in my place, if I found out someone I worked with had lied about having a degree I'd be upset. I worked hard to get my degree, and I think it cheapens the job for someone to lie about it. I worked too hard for my degree to be okay with someone lying about it.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Very good points Bullsfan! What If a degree requirement is proven unethical and biased then would the employee have a case? Even if he lied? Read your company employment application, I am sure that it will stipulate that falsification and deception on the part of the applicant will be considered fraud and grounds for termination... Or something to that effect. That is why every appicant completes one. I don't know how many applicants think that just because they bring in a resume they are magically exempt from filling out our paperwork. Read the fine print before you sign your life away.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Read the fine print before you sign your life away.

So agreeing to be truthful on an application is signing your life away?:eek:

[PPSTATEBOUND]

Originally posted by DDBooger
(Sort of reflects our denial with how unsatisfied our lives are and the huge pill pushing industry we call big pharma).

Feel sorry for those caught up in this little game.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I don't think you can make a justified claim that a degree requirement is either unethical or biased. Employment is a privilege, not a right. Employers have a right to make whatever requirements they want so long as those requirements are not discriminatory. And having a college degree isn't like gender or race, so you can't claim that having a degree requirement is discriminatory. Anyone can get a degree if they want it badly enough.

See, I think you're trying to move the particulars around because you're sympathetic to the employee in question. But in my place, if I found out someone I worked with had lied about having a degree I'd be upset. I worked hard to get my degree, and I think it cheapens the job for someone to lie about it. I worked too hard for my degree to be okay with someone lying about it.





Once again you make some very good points Bullsfan! And you are correct! I truly am sympathetic to my associate who is going through this situation but I pride myself on not getting locked into a thought process based on allegiance or devotion but try to see the REAL impact of things. A employer who "Elevates" the qualifications for a certain job when those elevated qualification aren't required is basically eliminating a portion of the populace from contention for no viable reason other than their personal prejudices. This is in essence discrimmination. In it's base form this is not any different than an employer requiring that an applicant drive a BMW or a Mercedes. This employer is placing value on the act of spending money and devoting time to acheiving a status that they deem more desirable even though it doesn't help in the performance of the job. Of course there has not been any precedence set in any court yet that I know of, but I think it's probably coming. Discrimmination against someone for economic reasons is frowned on by everyone. It's a desire for a certain "Status"! Of course these are just my opinions and thoughts! NOT FACTS!!!
BTW: I also have a degree but am trying to recognize that people who don't have a degree could have worked just as hard as I did to become able to perform the job. My degree doesn't make me better than them! Even though a employer is acting like it does!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I don't think you can make a justified claim that a degree requirement is either unethical or biased.





But wouldn't it in fact be biased?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_bias

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
But wouldn't it in fact be biased?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_bias

Well it wouldn't be cultural bias based on the examples at that wiki link, but I suppose you could make a case that it is a form of bias. But in that case, I'm not sure bias is a crime. It's certainly not the same as discrimination. I personally am biased in favor of people who are not criminals. I'm biased in favor of parents who don't beat their children. I'm biased in favor of people who are not child molesters. So bias isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And for your other post, I get what you're saying but I still don't think I agree. How can you possibly prove that a college degree isn't a benefit for the job in question? And that's what you'd have to do--prove beyond a reasonable doubt that requiring a college degree is making a portion of the population ineligible for no reason. I don't disagree that people without a degree work just as hard as people with a degree, but working hard isn't the only qualification for a job. And I still maintain that, for the most part, employers have a right to make that distinction.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
So agreeing to be truthful on an application is signing your life away?:eek: You haven't seen our apps. Cash agreements, at will policy, arbitraition agreement, backgrond check, criminal history, credit history are all agreed to before we even begin to entertain hiring someone... We don't hire dishonest people often.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
But wouldn't it in fact be biased?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_bias Texas is an "at will employment state" . You can be terminated at any time with or without cause. The only difference is if you're terminated without cause you can draw unemployment. This is a with cause case and the only hope would be appeal to EEOC and they would laugh upon hearing about fraud and forging of credentials.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by LE Dad
You haven't seen our apps. Cash agreements, at will policy, arbitraition agreement, backgrond check, criminal history, credit history are all agreed to before we even begin to entertain hiring someone... We don't hire dishonest people often.

While I'm sure the app is not all of the reason you hire very few dishonest people, it seems it doesn't hurt either!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Well it wouldn't be cultural bias based on the examples at that wiki link, but I suppose you could make a case that it is a form of bias. But in that case, I'm not sure bias is a crime. It's certainly not the same as discrimination. I personally am biased in favor of people who are not criminals. I'm biased in favor of parents who don't beat their children. I'm biased in favor of people who are not child molesters. So bias isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And for your other post, I get what you're saying but I still don't think I agree. How can you possibly prove that a college degree isn't a benefit for the job in question? And that's what you'd have to do--prove beyond a reasonable doubt that requiring a college degree is making a portion of the population ineligible for no reason. I don't disagree that people without a degree work just as hard as people with a degree, but working hard isn't the only qualification for a job. And I still maintain that, for the most part, employers have a right to make that distinction.




Great discussion.

Hooters had their (you know whats) handed to them in court for hiring only large breasted women! It was determined that the size of a womans breasts had ZERO impact on their ability to wait tables. This employer was actually hiring these women to be looked at as much as for waiting tables and it was determined to be inappropriate to judge them based on breast size.

The cases that have gone to court in this country over the years are numerous and in almost all cases the employer had to show that the qualification in question was indeed needed for the performance of the duties involved. This would not be any different I think. But for anyone to truly take it serious someone with some authority would have to challenge it.

This was about race but the exclusion of a segment of society for no good reason is comparable:

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)
In this case, the Court decided that certain education requirements and intelligence tests used as conditions of employment acted to exclude African-American job applicants, did not relate to job performance, and were prohibited.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
While I'm sure the app is not all of the reason you hire very few dishonest people, it seems it doesn't hurt either! It is a very good start. Three seperate sets of eyes looking over all documents doesn't hurt either, but it took learning the hard way to get our hiring process to where it is today. A bad loan can cost you a few thousand but a bad employee can cost you millions in losses, attorney fees, and time tracking what is legitimate vs bogus loans.

[BullsFan]

Again I think it's apples to oranges. Women are born with a breast size. No one is born with a college degree. No one would seriously try and argue that breast size has anything to do with how well a person performs at their job, unless their job is (I suppose) Playboy model. It would seem to be fairly obvious that breast size is not relevant to how well a person can wait tables. Without knowing your industry I can't personally make a judgment about whether or not a college degree makes a difference, but I could probably make a case that even at Hooters a person with a college degree has an advantage. One would assume they'd have better math skills, an ability to learn written material, etc.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Great discussion.

Hooters had their (you know whats) handed to them in court for hiring only large breasted women! It was determined that the size of a womans breasts had ZERO impact on their ability to wait tables. This employer was actually hiring these women to be looked at as much as for waiting tables and it was determined to be inappropriate to judge them based on breast size.

The cases that have gone to court in this country over the years are numerous and in almost all cases the employer had to show that the qualification in question was indeed needed for the performance of the duties involved. This would not be any different I think. But for anyone to truly take it serious someone with some authority would have to challenge it.

This was about race but the exclusion of a segment of society for no good reason is comparable:

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)
In this case, the Court decided that certain education requirements and intelligence tests used as conditions of employment acted to exclude African-American job applicants, did not relate to job performance, and were prohibited. Apples to oranges... Had he not been hired those precedents could be applied. You need to find case law that supports deception, fraud, and forgery (if he submitted bogus transcripts) for a terminated employee. The section of EEOC code you are trying to use pertains to hiring not terminating employees.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Again I think it's apples to oranges. Women are born with a breast size. No one is born with a college degree. No one would seriously try and argue that breast size has anything to do with how well a person performs at their job, unless their job is (I suppose) Playboy model. It would seem to be fairly obvious that breast size is not relevant to how well a person can wait tables. Without knowing your industry I can't personally make a judgment about whether or not a college degree makes a difference, but I could probably make a case that even at Hooters a person with a college degree has an advantage. One would assume they'd have better math skills, an ability to learn written material, etc.



Truly? You see it as apples and oranges?

Hooters believed that their targeted demographics would better respond to a wait staff of large breasted women. They were 100% correct! And yet it was still deemed unlawful to discrimminate against women because they didn't have the large breasts.
Isn't it the exact same thing if a employer believes that a degree provides them with something that they wouldn't get without the degree? Hooters believed (rightfully) that large breasts would help their business and this employer believed (wrongfully) that requiring a degree would get them a better employee! How is it apples and oranges?

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Apples to oranges... Had he not been hired those precedents could be applied. You need to find case law that supports deception, fraud, and forgery (if he submitted bogus transcripts) for a terminated employee. The section of EEOC code you are trying to use pertains to hiring not terminating employees.




At this point I am discussing the overall philosophy of this degree expectation rather than a particular event. My associate was completely wrong for lying on his application. I get that! I simply feel it was a justifiable wrong. The adequate performance of his duties without a degree for several years proves that the employer set the expectations too high in the first place which excluded a lot of people who were actually qualified. I'm basically digging myself into a hole here trying to find a foothold on some legal understanding of why it is acceptable in our society for a employer to CHOSE to exclude a 3rd of the population for no other reason than a false belief. (much like the belief that large breasts would help their business by Hooters).

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
At this point I am discussing the overall philosophy of this degree expectation rather than a particular event. My associate was completely wrong for lying on his application. I get that! I simply feel it was a justifiable wrong. The adequate performance of his duties without a degree for several years proves that the employer set the expectations too high in the first place which excluded a lot of people who were actually qualified. I'm basically digging myself into a hole here trying to find a foothold on some legal understanding of why it is acceptable in our society for a employer to CHOSE to exclude a 3rd of the population for no other reason than a false belief. (much like the belief that large breasts would help their business by Hooters). Well first let me say, as a proud supporter of Hooters, I think the court got it wrong.:D


As for your main point; all employers have minimum education requirements regardless if it is GED, HS, or college, that is not holding anyone back in a discriminatory manner. Just like we require a good credit history and cash handling ability. It is not our fault you can't pay your bills and count backwards but if you made an effort you could. Now if we didn't hire you because you were white or black, then that is something that you can't change and becomes an EEOC issue.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
How is it apples and oranges?

I thought I explained that in my last post. Women are born with a breast size. No one is born with a college degree. It's a matter of will power, initiative, and desire as to whether or not you get a college degree. A woman's breast size may make her more attractive to her customers but it DOES NOT affect her ability as a server. A college degree absolutely can have an affect on your effectiveness at a certain job. Without knowing within what industry you work, I can't predict how a college degree would affect your ability to do your job. But even when it comes to Hooters, I could point out some ways that a college degree would indicate a higher degree of readiness--I did that in my last post.

[LH Panther Mom]

The job requirements, whether necessary or not, specify "degree required". There were plenty of positions in my job searches that I was qualified for because of either experience or skills, except for....."degree required". It's pretty simple to check, I would imagine, so why anyone in their right mind would think it would be "okay" to lie and say they had a degree when they didn't, is beyond me.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by BullsFan
I thought I explained that in my last post. Women are born with a breast size. No one is born with a college degree. It's a matter of will power, initiative, and desire as to whether or not you get a college degree. A woman's breast size may make her more attractive to her customers but it DOES NOT affect her ability as a server. A college degree absolutely can have an affect on your effectiveness at a certain job. Without knowing within what industry you work, I can't predict how a college degree would affect your ability to do your job. But even when it comes to Hooters, I could point out some ways that a college degree would indicate a higher degree of readiness--I did that in my last post.

Dude. Boob job. As for ability, in service jobs, interpersonal skills are often more important than technical skills. It can be said that in a service job, be it Hooters, Macy's or at a bowling alley, if an employee has tools that appeal to patrons, they will be more desirable to employers. Willingness to show a hint of cleavage and giggle at cheesy pick-up lines is probably a better tool to use on customers at Hooters than the ability to memorize food orders.

[BullsFan]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Dude. Boob job. As for ability, in service jobs, interpersonal skills are often more important than technical skills. It can be said that in a service job, be it Hooters, Macy's or at a bowling alley, if an employee has tools that appeal to patrons, they will be more desirable to employers. Willingness to show a hint of cleavage and giggle at cheesy pick-up lines is probably a better tool to use on customers at Hooters than the ability to memorize food orders.

Ummm...it's Dudette, thank you very much. ;)

I don't think boobs have much to do with interpersonal skills unless a guy is so mesmerized him that he's unable to interact. (And I am clearly the wrong gender to make that call.) A woman can have the biggest bazongas this side of the Mississippi and still act like an idiot, mess up orders, pour beer on the patron, etc. Boob size is no indicator of skills as a waitress. I think I can speak for the men in my environment when I say it doesn't matter how giggly or the cleav-atious a woman is, if she can't bring the right food and the drink she's not a good waitress. Which doesn't necessarily mean they won't leave a HUGE tip. ;)

[Old Tiger]

The key to a healthy marriage/relationship is lying because being honest hurts it more.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by LE Dad
Well first let me say, as a proud supporter of Hooters, I think the court got it wrong.:D


As for your main point; all employers have minimum education requirements regardless if it is GED, HS, or college, that is not holding anyone back in a discriminatory manner. Just like we require a good credit history and cash handling ability. It is not our fault you can't pay your bills and count backwards but if you made an effort you could. Now if we didn't hire you because you were white or black, then that is something that you can't change and becomes an EEOC issue.




Educational requires are suppose to be set based on the skills and abilities that the performance of the job requires. How many ditch digging jobs have you ever seen that requires a HS diploma? That is just my point! Escalating the job qualifications above where they should be set is forcing OUT otherwise qualified individuals. I have no problem with an employer requiring a 4 year degree in Nutrition or Health when the job is Health Inspector. But for a employer to accept a degree in French Literature as a qualification for a Health Inspectors position it becomes a problem for me. Requiring the degree ONLY for the sake of the degree itself appears to be discrimminatory to me. But judging by the lack of others posting in support I guess I'm the one barking up the wrong tree.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by BullsFan
Ummm...it's Dudette, thank you very much. ;)

I don't think boobs have much to do with interpersonal skills unless a guy is so mesmerized him that he's unable to interact. (And I am clearly the wrong gender to make that call.) A woman can have the biggest bazongas this side of the Mississippi and still act like an idiot, mess up orders, pour beer on the patron, etc. Boob size is no indicator of skills as a waitress. I think I can speak for the men in my environment when I say it doesn't matter how giggly or the cleav-atious a woman is, if she can't bring the right food and the drink she's not a good waitress. Which doesn't necessarily mean they won't leave a HUGE tip. ;)




75% of the battle in the service industry is getting the patronage to return. Serving people 1 time and never seeing them again will close a resturant pretty quickly. Young, beautiful women with very large breasts would insure a LARGE segment of the population would return frequently regardless of how poor the food was or how inept the service was. Of course large breasts have no effect on how good a waitress is but they do have a huge effect on how big her entourage will become! Or how often her patrons return to sample her tasty wings.

[LE Dad]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Educational requires are suppose to be set based on the skills and abilities that the performance of the job requires. How many ditch digging jobs have you ever seen that requires a HS diploma? That is just my point! Escalating the job qualifications above where they should be set is forcing OUT otherwise qualified individuals. I have no problem with an employer requiring a 4 year degree in Nutrition or Health when the job is Health Inspector. But for a employer to accept a degree in French Literature as a qualification for a Health Inspectors position it becomes a problem for me. Requiring the degree ONLY for the sake of the degree itself appears to be discrimminatory to me. But judging by the lack of others posting in support I guess I'm the one barking up the wrong tree. I can see your point on a degree unrelated to the job field. Most job postings I have seen are specific as to the type of degree that is required. I would suggest looking up at EEOC or TWC website. They are the experts.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by LE Dad
I can see your point on a degree unrelated to the job field. Most job postings I have seen are specific as to the type of degree that is required. I would suggest looking up at EEOC or TWC website. They are the experts.



I don't think there has been any kind of precedent set on this subject yet and as of now it is completely legal and apparently even acceptable to most people. My involvment in this is purely speculative and I only brought it up to get some other thoughts on the subject to see just how far off center I am! At least on the Downlow it appears I am way off center! Perhaps it would be too far out on a slippery slope for the Feds to requlate how employers are allowed set their job qualifications. But at the rate things are going now, it won't be long before a job at Mickey D's will require a Bachelors degree and a "REAL" job will require a minimum Masters degree. I am dumbfounded when I look at the want ads and see 25K a year jobs asking for a Bachelors degree! There really isn't much of a surprise the American economy is screwed.

[LH Panther Mom]

In my opinion, an employer requiring a degree, even if it's NOT necessary for the position, isn't much different than if they require that the employee be a non-smoker. It's their money. Why can't they be allowed to hire who they want and set whatever requirements, providing they're following legal requirements? :thinking: