Just a note of caution for SWA interviewees.

[bravodude]

I find it somewhat dissappointing that we have to get into "legalese" of what the job offer constitutes. As for myself I always thought SWA to have a higher degree of integrity regarding the treatment of its customers, employees and potential employees.

When reading the book Nuts, I remember a paragraph by Herb stating to the effect that "if we say something we do it" i.e we mean what we say. I also remember reading of a corporate culture that cements policy on a verbal agreement.

With the current state of the industry have the values of SWA changed? I hope not but this incident certainly has me wondering.

Then I guess you remeber the paragraph about hirring the right employees for the job. While its sad to see a mistake like this happen, sometimes $hit happens.

 

[LUVChild]

I find it somewhat dissappointing that we have to get into "legalese" of what the job offer constitutes. As for myself I always thought SWA to have a higher degree of integrity regarding the treatment of its customers, employees and potential employees.

When reading the book Nuts, I remember a paragraph by Herb stating to the effect that "if we say something we do it" i.e we mean what we say. I also remember reading of a corporate culture that cements policy on a verbal agreement.

With the current state of the industry have the values of SWA changed? I hope not but this incident certainly has me wondering.

I'm wondering if we're getting the whole story here. Yes, SWA does the conditional job offers - conditional pending the background and drug check. That's been standard practice for several years now, and not just for the pilot group, either. It doesn't make sense to put candidates through the background and drug check until you're ready to hire them. Background and drug checks cost a great deal of money, so the goal is to put through as few of candidates as you have to.

The legalese does suck, but remember that SWA has to cover their legal rears, and you can't blame them for that. To not operate within the boundaries of employment law would be unprofessional and just plain stupid.

Having said that, I'm always a little suspicious of the "this happened to my friend" stories. I'd be very interested to know if it was a legitimate mistake on SWA's part, or if something came up that caused them to exercise those "conditional" employment terms. You'd be surprised at the things that people "forget" to note when it comes to criminal backgrounds, thinking that it won't be found because their lawyer told them it was expunged from their record and some other line like that. You'd also be surprised how the stories change when people's egos are on the line.

Just my personal observation.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

I
Having said that, I'm always a little suspicious of the "this happened to my friend" stories. I'd be very interested to know if it was a legitimate mistake on SWA's part, or if something came up that caused them to exercise those "conditional" employment terms. You'd be surprised at the things that people "forget" to note when it comes to criminal backgrounds, thinking that it won't be found because their lawyer told them it was expunged from their record and some other line like that. You'd also be surprised how the stories change when people's egos are on the line.

Just my personal observation.

Just for the record the gentlemen in question is not a personal friend of mine, according to him he has no skeletons in his closet and I have no reason to doubt his integrity.

This is very unfortunate for him and I feel sorry for him. Hopefully no one else will have to endure this awful experience.

 

[DLax85]

As someone told me as I transitioned from the military into this business...

"You're not an employee until your sitting in class with an employee # on your company badge....and then you're on probation for 12 months!"

Never burn a bridge until you have to....and always have a plan B.

 

[scoreboard]

When reading the book Nuts, I remember a paragraph by Herb stating to the effect that "if we say something we do it" i.e we mean what we say. I also remember reading of a corporate culture that cements policy on a verbal agreement.
.

First, you answered your own question, "we mean what we say". When your "friend" was called, he was offered to "continue the selection process", he was not offered a job. When we say it, we do it. We didn't say it, please get of your "holier than thou" horse.

Second, this sounds like your "friend" has some skeletons in the closet. even though he denies it, you will never know. Sorry.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

First, you answered your own question, "we mean what we say". When your "friend" was called, he was offered to "continue the selection process", he was not offered a job. When we say it, we do it. We didn't say it, please get of your "holier than thou" horse.

Second, this sounds like your "friend" has some skeletons in the closet. even though he denies it, you will never know. Sorry.

Holier than thou? far from it.

"continue in the selection process"=euphanism for "you got the job".
"not selected to continue in the selection process"=euphanism for"you did not get the job".

While I may never know, I do prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the candidate.

 

[Tidewater]

Dogs Balls-

He's not even a "friend" of yours, yet you instantly have no reason to question his integrity...hmm....sketchy. I agree with the majority of respondees...unfortunate, but stuff happens. You either got the job on your own merits, or you got the job by mistake, eh? Your friend will be better off when he gets a job on his own...not because of a typo.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

Dogs Balls-

He's not even a "friend" of yours, yet you instantly have no reason to question his integrity...hmm....sketchy. I agree with the majority of respondees...unfortunate, but stuff happens. You either got the job on your own merits, or you got the job by mistake, eh? Your friend will be better off when he gets a job on his own...not because of a typo.

I agree it is a very unfortunate mistake to happen. In regards to judging a person I do not know personally, I prefer to operate on the M.O. that they are of good character until proven otherwise-if that's considered a weakness of my own character that is something I can live with.

 

[scoreboard]

"continue in the selection process"=euphanism for "you got the job".

Sorry, Iit's not a euphamism. "Your hired, heres your class date"="you got the job". "Continue the process"= "we're still checking you out". It's not legaleeze, it's not pandering, it's not a euphamism, "we mean what we say", stop reading between the lines, there's nothing there. Again, sorry.

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

Sorry, Iit's not a euphamism. "Your hired, heres your class date"="you got the job". "Continue the process"= "we're still checking you out". It's not legaleeze, it's not pandering, it's not a euphamism, "we mean what we say", stop reading between the lines, there's nothing there. Again, sorry.

I will yield that the class date=job certainly has more of a finality to it I have one more question before I let this lie. What does in plain English "you were not selected to continue in the selection process" mean?