UPS new hire Part II

[sleepy]

Perhaps she has kept her nose clean and done a good job since then. Maybe UPS took that into account. It is hard to say if a man would have been offered a job with a General Discharge for the Good of the Service. I know a few men who crashed aircraft in the military who are flying for major airlines now.

 

[DAL737FO]

I know several men that have been hired with DUIs
I would say this was in the past not in todays competitive environment especially at major airlines.
as well as a history of spousal abuse in their past.
I would doubt this statement to be true. If it was document then it was a felony and would be one of the no no offenses in the background check. Now if you are talking about personal knowledge that was undocumented then that is a different story.
What's the difference? Some people are able to overcome their pasts, be humble in an interview and explain what they learned from their mistakes.
This takes me back to my original question. How did the person get the interview to be able to explain the mistake. Let's say you have two stacks of resumes. Stack number 1 is 1,000 candidates deep and all of them meet or exceed your companies hiring requirements. Additionally stack #1 applicants have none of the "other" blocks checked. ( "other blocks" are DUI, less than honorable discharge, speeding tickets, etc.). Now you also have stack #2. Stack #2 also has 1,000 applicants with the exact same credentials as stack #1 but everyone in this stack has an "other" block checked in some way shape or form. Why would a recruiter ever even look in stack #2 until all applicants in stack #1 have been interviewed?

I think DUIs and spousal abuse convictions are much more heinous than what this UPS new hire did.

I agree completely with the above statement.

 

[UPSFO]

Tailhook '91 blemished the records of many Naval Aviators over ten years ago. Most of us were fortunate enough to have a forgotten past! I suggest we extend the same courtesy to the young lady identified in this thread.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Good For UPS

The hypocrisy is obvious and gagging. The most powerful man on the planet AND "She who must not be named's" Commander in Chief at the time also commits adultery and finishes out his term without being "discharged". Now former president Clinton looks like he's on the road to the top job at the UN ... WHY ... HOW COULD THIS BE? I'M OUTRAGED! Surely there are thousands of other candidates that have clean backgrounds that are equally as qualified? (Political - DUH!)

Adultery is rampant in society and it is equally rampant in the military from what I observed. "She who must not be named" was a scapegoat in the classic sense (Political - DUH!). A slap on the wrist for disobeying an order (Article 15 usually) and move on.

I say good for UPS for seeing through the bull$hit of this hypocrisy!

 

[1-tacan-rule]

Paranoia....Self-destroyaaaaaa..

DAL737FO

Not absolutely positive (chime in anytime Chase) but I'd be really surprised if a speeding tik in '97 would prevent you from getting called by SWA.

I know guys who've been interviewed/hired with worse than an eight year old speeding ticket.

Obviously, there's tons of apps, and they may just not have gotten to you yet for any number of reasons.

Good luck!

 

[BIGBROWNDC8]

As I said before in my response before it was locked out. I'm glad shes here, I have room in my heart for forgiveness and I think its important for us all that if we make mistakes in life, that we be given another chance to make amends and move on. I worked with her at ASA and now at UPS. She did a great job there under extreem prejudice. My only hope for her now is that she is allowed to come to UPS, welcomed with open arms by the pilot group, fit in with the rest of us and have a GREAT career. No little whispers as she walks by...

Im glad the moderator used good judgement and removed the thread from earlier. Names do not need to be mentioned here. My best advice to anyone that is really upset about this is to just let it go. She's qualified, she did a good job at the interview, She got hired. Congrats to her. One more thing to mention. A "General" discharge has conditions attached to it. ie: General discharge under Honorable conditions, less than honorable conditions etc, Really, the only difference between a General discharge under honorable conditions and a Honorable discharge is that the General discharge requires an explanation. It doesnt automatically disqualify you.

Welcome aboard to all the new hires, whom ever they are...

BBDC8

 

[DAL737FO]

DAL737FO

Not absolutely positive (chime in anytime Chase) but I'd be really surprised if a speeding tik in '97 would prevent you from getting called by SWA.

I know guys who've been interviewed/hired with worse than an eight year old speeding ticket.

Obviously, there's tons of apps, and they may just not have gotten to you yet for any number of reasons.

Good luck!

I agree with you, I was using myself as an example. I have an other block checked and especially with computerized applications sometimes that is all that it takes. I'm just short on PIC turbine time compared to what they are calling in right now. I'll keep plugging away though.

 

[Eagleflip]

Moderator Input

OK, so now I'm ticked.

I closed the thread only to have it yet reopened. Soooo, I'm removing any real names from this thread--if a name re-emerges, I'll close the thread and ban the poster for a period of time.

Remember the rule here, gang. No names...This is history...let it go.

And thank you for your support!

EF

 

[1-tacan-rule]

"OK, so now I'm ticked."

Read: "If I have to stop this car, someone is in big trouble"

heh heh...just kidd'n

please don't ban me....you people are all the friends I have.....

 

[Eagleflip]

heh heh...roger!