Unethical Job Situation

[Aelwydd]

If blowback is unlikely to change the outcome, and the practice is pretty common, then what is wrong with assauging one's conscience by telling the truth?

Nothing, but you do run the risk of being seen as virtue signalling. And also that you don't know how to keep confidences. And possibly, that you are the type to want to police the workplace, which is a huge headache for HR and management.

 

Basically, unless she was exceptionally diplomatic in how she divulged the info, she would, ironically enough, have her character questioned as much or more so than the secretary's.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Aelwydd

[creekland]

And possibly, that you are the type to want to police the workplace, which is a huge headache for HR and management.

 

In my real world, this is the biggie.  When one of those "always by the rules or I'm telling" folks retired from our school a few years back, literally everyone rejoiced - admin included.  No one is perfect.  No one wants that pointed out all the time.  No one wants to worry that what they say or do - even minor things - will be reported.  No one likes the Secret Police, and when it's someone you thought was a friend reporting you... even worse.  The vast majority of people will also think less of that friend... so beware.

Edited April 10, 2017 by creekland

[Bootsie]

I say this gently, but you do not seem to understand that most professional workplaces do not hire on an even playing field. Most workplaces already know who they will hire. Nepotism, connections, networking, "a foot in the door," whatever--it all boils down to you know somebody who knows the inside game.

 

I work as a data systems technician in a large tech company, not because of my degree (which is in a completely different field anyway) but because someone I am related to put my name forward to his manager. I had to prove myself an a trial basis but the fact I even got that trial everything to do with having that connection.

 

Tomorrow, my dh has an interview for a job that his friend has definitely leaned on the inside for him. He also gave dh interview pointers.

 

There is a difference in the boss (the principal) having people who already have a foot in the door that he would like to hire and the secretary deciding that she wants to give some individuals a leg up with information that is not hers to divulge.  There is also a difference in giving interview pointers and giving an interviewee the specific, exact questions without the person who is doing the interviewing being aware of the situation.

[Aelwydd]

In my real world, this is the biggie. When one of those "always by the rules or I'm telling" folks retired from our school a few years back, literally everyone rejoiced - admin included. No one is perfect. No one wants that pointed out all the time. No one wants to worry that what they say or do - even minor things - will be reported. No one likes the Secret Police, and when it's someone you thought was a friend reporting you... even worse, both for that friend and everyone else who knows you (and now thinks less of you).

 

Yes, I do understand that Deb suffers from some scrupulousity regarding the secretary's misguided attempt to help. But it's one thing to report a person who broke the rules for selfish reasons. It's another when you report someone who broke the rules trying to help you or someone else out. The other party might be said to have poor judgment, or playing favorites, but you end up looking like you are disloyal and an ingrate, and possibly willing to sell out another to score political points.

 

Tell me which sentence sounds worse?

 

That secretary has been there for, what...15 years? If she has serious defects of character, I guess they would know about them.

 

I bet she's got some friends and allies, too.

 

I really don't see how ratting her out is a win for anybody.

Edited April 10, 2017 by Aelwydd

[creekland]

There is a difference in the boss (the principal) having people who already have a foot in the door that he would like to hire and the secretary deciding that she wants to give some individuals a leg up with information that is not hers to divulge.  There is also a difference in giving interview pointers and giving an interviewee the specific, exact questions without the person who is doing the interviewing being aware of the situation.

 

Really?  You think it's ok for the principal in a public school to go by his own rules in swaying the committee - giving the special benefits to his friends/relatives/whoever, but it's not ok for someone else to be doing the same thing in their own way?

 

He has this privilege... why?

[creekland]

Yes, I do understand that Deb suffers from some scrupulousity regarding the secretary's misguided attempt to help. But it's one thing to report a person who broke the rules for selfish reasons. It's another when you report someone who broke the rules trying to help you or someone else out. The other party might be said to have poor judgment, or playing favorites, but you end up looking like you are disloyal and an ingrate, and possibly willing to sell out another to score political points.

 

Tell me which sentence sounds worse?

 

That secretary has been there for, what...15 years? If she has serious defects of character, I guess they would know about them.

 

I bet she's got some friends and allies, too.

 

I really don't see how ratting her out is a win for anybody.

 

I agree 100% with you and wrote mine poorly - too many "yous" in there (my brain is only half on tonight - pretty tired).  I went back and edited mine for clarity.

[Guest]

I do not intend to rat out the secretary. If I turn the job down flat, I will not give a reason. When they ask, I will just decline. There is a possibility the secretary will be asked if she knows why, however.

I actually think it is less ethical. If the secretary is doing this without permission from the bosses she is the one in the wrong more than you. If I said anything at all I'd say I received a copy of the questions beforehand from the secretary and didn't realize it wasn't common practice until after the fact, if they wanted to weigh that in the interview. And I also have a sensitive conscience. But you're going way overboard here - don't take on someone else's mistakes. Fixing it is different than flaggelating yourself. Going overboard does nobody in this scenario any favors.

[SKL]

The secretary says the principal would be mad.  So that would bother me too.

 

But here is another question:  were there any secrets in the interview questions?  Or were they rather predictable?  I mean don't most interviews involve the same standard questions?  Where have you worked, what did you do, how long, why did you leave your last job, why do you want this job, what are your strengths and weaknesses?  If there wasn't any strategic info in the questions, then I still would not let that affect my decision as far as taking the job.

 

I am a person who is big on integrity.  I have walked away from many opportunities rather than be dishonest.  But in this case, I still think it is a gray area.

 

I do think the secretary screwed up if she feels the principal would be mad about this.  I don't think I'd rat her out though.  It's not worth getting someone fired.

[Aelwydd]

There is a difference in the boss (the principal) having people who already have a foot in the door that he would like to hire and the secretary deciding that she wants to give some individuals a leg up with information that is not hers to divulge. There is also a difference in giving interview pointers and giving an interviewee the specific, exact questions without the person who is doing the interviewing being aware of the situation.

Without knowing the specifics of the principal's hiring practices, I couldn't absolutely say anything for sure. These are just my projections based on the information shared and my own life experiences.

 

I do know that it's risky to implicate people like that, especially as filling positions is almost never straightforward business. Is this situation something that could follow her, reputation-wise?

 

As I said, it's almost guaranteed he got his own position via inside political butt kissing. His indignation would really be the least of my concerns. I'm thinking of potential repercussions for Deb.

 

What her conscience dictates is also something not to ignore. She should have a realistic view though of the system and how it goes. Next interview, she may be going against someone else who has all the questions.

[SKL]

If you've already decided you aren't taking the job if offered, it seems best to tell them before they decide, so they don't waste time considering you and making an offer to you.

[DawnM]

UPDATE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't like these kinds of threads hanging!  I need closure!

[Scarlett]

UPDATE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I don't like these kinds of threads hanging!  I need closure!

 

 

Me too!!!

 

And I would like to say that I agree that it is who you know when it comes to getting jobs.  My poor dh....in the almost 7 yeas I've known him has been laid off several times....every single time he has got a job based upon a connection. 

[creekland]

Good grief. Just because much of the business world operates on the good old boy, brown nosing, uneven playing field doesn't mean we have to roll over and normalize their crap. Unethical means unethical. That's a big problem today, we've normalized the cheaters, the fools, the ethically--challenged. Some things are worth fighting for. YMMV

 And no need to tread gently.  It's been a while, but I've taught in public, private, and Montessori schools, along with an office job and a job with a major department store. I've got a business degree. I fully know what can happen when an employee thinks she can go behind the boss's back and do what she chooses. That is not an employee most employers would choose to hire.

 

And yet, this secretary seems well loved and has been with the district for 15 years, so I'm not so sure those of us on her side are the ones reading between the lines incorrectly.

 

The world tends to work much better with common sense than letter of the law.  Most folks know that and instinctively correct for letter of the law.  I suspect it's a human tendency.  Not too many people like Javert (from Les Miserables).  Stealing bread or missing a parole hearing might be wrong, but not that wrong all the time.  As mentioned before, even Rahab in the Bible was praised for lying to save lives - yet lying is one of the 10 Commandments.  I could list many others.

 

I don't want a world where letter of the law wins in reality.  

[Aelwydd]

Good grief. Just because much of the business world operates on the good old boy, brown nosing, uneven playing field doesn't mean we have to roll over and normalize their crap. Unethical means unethical. That's a big problem today, we've normalized the cheaters, the fools, the ethically--challenged. Some things are worth fighting for. YMMV

And no need to tread gently. It's been a while, but I've taught in public, private, and Montessori schools, along with an office job and a job with a major department store. I've got a business degree. I fully know what can happen when an employee thinks she can go behind the boss's back and do what she chooses. That is not an employee most employers would choose to hire.

 

Good grief right back at ya. Why the hostility? You are characterizing the situation as some sort of mean spirited act by the secretary. The way Deb described the situation did not stike me that way. More like she bent the rules in a misguided attempt to help Deb. You aren't alone in judging the secretary's act to be unethical, but the tone of your post strikes me as pretty harsh and even resentful. Do you think the secretary was operating out of malice?

 

And "normalizing" such tactics? As if this is a recent development in the public and professional sphere? Au contraire, Madame. This is how it's always been in the cutthroat world of business. "Old boys' network" is not a new invention. Several decades ago, you and I wouldn't have even made it to the interview in many male dominated fields. Point being, the field has always been uneven. Life's not fair.

 

I do think that it sucks. But trying to castigate every instance of it would be a bit like tilting at windmills. You gotta pick your battles. Acknowledging that does not mean one has to like how the game is played. But human nature is clannish and always has been. People tend to trust what they know versus what is unknown.

 

Anyway, I say all this not to argue with you, but to point out that this kind of behavior is really so endemic, it's just par for the course. And that's why I'm not inclined to rake a very minor player, such as the secretary, over the coals. What she did was, relatively speaking, hardly significant compared to some of the scheming and plotting I've witnessed.

 

But I also understand conflicts of personal conscience. I hope Deb was able to make a decision that lets her move forward without regret.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Aelwydd

[DawnM]

Good grief. Just because much of the business world operates on the good old boy, brown nosing, uneven playing field doesn't mean we have to roll over and normalize their crap. Unethical means unethical. That's a big problem today, we've normalized the cheaters, the fools, the ethically--challenged. Some things are worth fighting for. YMMV

 And no need to tread gently.  It's been a while, but I've taught in public, private, and Montessori schools, along with an office job and a job with a major department store. I've got a business degree. I fully know what can happen when an employee thinks she can go behind the boss's back and do what she chooses. That is not an employee most employers would choose to hire.

 

In the first sentence you say all of the businesses are unethical brown nosers who say their "crap" is normal.

And then you go on to say that you know what can happen when those people perform their crap.

 

Which is it?  They are chastised or they are normalized?

 

The main problem I am having with your posts is that it comes across as superior,  like you think you are the only one who doesn't tolerate X or Y.  (I don't even know what that means, to not tolerate it in the business or academic world, do you have the authority to fire?   I sure don't.  I am only a school counselor.)   I am quite sure most of us don't think lying, cheating, or going behind a boss's back is the best policy.

 

But we are addressing THIS situation, in which the OP was not at fault.  She was an innocent party to the situation.  And she was given the questions just minutes before the interview which is far different than being given 2 days to study and come up with the best answers.

[Bluegoat]

The secretary probably shouldn't have given the questions, and probably her boss would be annoyed.  But where does that sit in the scale of bad things to do?  Not very high - it was probably a momentary poor decision.  It doesn't warrant getting her in trouble.

 

Proprtionality is an important pinciple.

[Sneezyone]

This is *public* employment, right? A classified, not exempt, position? One governed, potentially, by union/collective bargaining rules? That's not the same as private sector employment. At all. Rigging things like that could get someone fired.

 

Recommending friends/family apply, writing job descriptions to favor preferred people/qualifications doesn't mean others can't also meet those requirements. Once the job is open, it's open on the same terms to all qualified people. I've seen jobs tailored to specific ppl go to unexpected others. Handing over interview questions to one and not all is unheard of in every public sector, classified job I've ever had, and I've served on many hiring committees.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sneezyone

[creekland]

 Rigging things like that could get someone fired.

 

This is why no one is advocating that all of us should suddenly start doing it (or stealing bread, or skipping probation check ins, or lying, or ____).

 

But what has happened has already happened and is actually fairly common among "sins" - or at least - the overall aspect of trying to help a friend is.  We can't change the past.

 

What the OP can do is see to it that someone who has been seemingly a loved employee quite capable at her job is NOT fired over a very minor sin.  The crime simply doesn't fit that sort of punishment.  To quote a couple of things from the Bible, "For ALL have sinned..." and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."  These sorts of things have always been going on (since we're all human) and will always be going on in one form or another.  None of us are perfect.  All should get grace, esp when nothing awful came about due to it.

 

The Javerts of this world are sure the woman should be stoned.  She sinned.  That's what the law says. Most of us don't align with Javert.  We're more likely to talk with the woman in person (esp if we know her well) and suggest she stop doing it in the future as it could get her into trouble if she were to run into him or his kind.  Then we move on with life and it doesn't bug us at all.

[MamaBearTeacher]

If you want to look at this in terms of ethics, you should look at the Big Picture:

 

This is a teaching job right?  Ultimately, you want this job so you teach children and contribute to their lives.  If you believe you can do so effectively, stick with it.  Since you are already involved in this school, this is probably the best place for you.  If you pull yourself out of the interview process you will be robbing the kids of what you could be giving them as a teacher.  That would be more unethical than having a slight advantage in an interview process.  The other interviewees might not even accept the job.  It might be their second choice and then the school would be left with no teacher or have to put their resources into looking for more candidates.

 

The interview process was not a contest to declare the best person.  It is scary to hire someone new.  That is why they prefer someone who they know is already a good fit.

 

If you pull yourself out, it will do nobody any good and that is not what ethics is all about.

[scrapbookbuzz]

Here's my thought on this:

MOST people are often stumped by questions asked in an interview. So much so that there are places that offer workshops on acing the interview, etc. In those workshops, you're often given a list of many possible interview questions. Then you go over them one by one while the facilitator explains what the hiring company really means when they're asking that question. So, the reality is, the list the secretary handed you most likely contained a selection of the exact same questions that ALL employers ask.  For example, at the end of an interview, the interviewer always tends to ask, "So tell me (us) about yourself." Well, until I went through one of the workshops on this, I always use to think, "You've just spent 15-20 minutes grilling me. If you wanted to know something, why didn't you ask?" And I would say, "What do you want to know?" BUT what they REALLY want to know and hear is what YOU think of YOU and how that translates into how you will benefit THEIR company.  And there is nothing wrong with being prepared with your answers before an interview.  You said the secretary thought the principal would be mad if he found out you had the questions beforehand. Well, that's just it - she really doesn't know. And neither do you. Fearing the unknown and trying to control what we have no control over is what causes so much of our stress. That being said, take a DEEP BREATH and relax. You did nothing wrong.

[Sneezyone]

This is why no one is advocating that all of us should suddenly start doing it (or stealing bread, or skipping probation check ins, or lying, or ____).

 

But what has happened has already happened and is actually fairly common among "sins" - or at least - the overall aspect of trying to help a friend is. We can't change the past.

 

What the OP can do is see to it that someone who has been seemingly a loved employee quite capable at her job is NOT fired over a very minor sin. The crime simply doesn't fit that sort of punishment. To quote a couple of things from the Bible, "For ALL have sinned..." and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." These sorts of things have always been going on (since we're all human) and will always be going on in one form or another. None of us are perfect. All should get grace, esp when nothing awful came about due to it.

 

The Javerts of this world are sure the woman should be stoned. She sinned. That's what the law says. Most of us don't align with Javert. We're more likely to talk with the woman in person (esp if we know her well) and suggest she stop doing it in the future as it could get her into trouble if she were to run into him or his kind. Then we move on with life and it doesn't bug us at all.

I don't think one has to be Javert to want to make things right.

 

It could be as simple as saying to the secretary, I am not going to take this job but I need you to know that your behavior in sharing the questions with me put me in a difficult position and made me very uncomfortable. Please don't do that again.

 

AND--

 

Dear principal, thank you for offering me the job/interviewing me. I appreciated the opportunity. As much as I would like to take the job, I feel uncomfortable doing so. I was given an unsolicited, advance look at the interview questions, and do not feel the process was fair to all candidates. Therefore, I am withdrawing my name from consideration. If another position becomes available, I hope I have your support to reapply. (This is actually something I have done, not over an ethics issue but a personality conflict with a member of the interview team).

 

The only choices aren't to out her or be silent and benefit from the perfidy.

 

My conscience would not allow me to take no action at all.

 

ETA- it would really bother me if my kid's teacher was unable to do the hard thing when no one is looking. THAT is the very definition of personal integrity to me.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sneezyone

[creekland]

I don't think one has to be Javert to want to make things right.

 

It could be as simple as saying to the secretary, I am/am not going to take this job but I need you to know that your behavior in sharing the questions with me put me in a difficult position and made me very uncomfortable. Please don't do that again.

 

AND--

 

Dear principal, thank you for offering me the job/interviewing me. I appreciated the opportunity. As much as I would like to take the job, I feel uncomfortable doing so. I was given an unsolicited, advance look at the interview questions, and do not feel the process was fair to all candidates. Therefore, I am withdrawing my name from consideration. If another position becomes available, I hope I have your support to reapply. (This is actually something I have done, not over an ethics issue but a personality conflict with a member of the interview team).

 

The only choices aren't that her out or be silent and benefit from the perfidy.

 

My conscience would not allow me to take no action at all.

 

ETA- it would really bother me if my kid's teacher was unable to do the hard thing when no one is looking. THAT is the very definition of personal integrity to me.

 

And again, honestly, if someone is that bothered by the letter of the law not being followed in this situation, not accepting this job IS the best choice for them. We live in the real world.  There are no perfect people.  There are plenty who do what they can for their friends even if we wouldn't all make those same decisions.

 

What you suggest doing is merely putting salt into wounds - opening them wide.  You're annoyed that your perfect world isn't there and you want the sinner punished for ruining it.  You want to rub it in their face by letting the secretary know she messed it up for you (rather than just suggesting she might not want to do it in the future due to it being illegal) and you want to let her boss know that someone - they'll know it's her - messed it up for you.  That's no different than Javert.

 

At places where I've worked (school and business), you'd be the one looked down upon for dissing a friend and being so much of a perfectionist.  Due to the letter of the law, they might have to take action, but no one would think highly of you for enforcing it.  If you turned down the job, they'd be sighing relief because who knows what petty thing you'd get upset about next - friend or not.

 

Folks I know who are admired are those who can fix problems without causing waves.  They'll take friends (or co-workers or students) aside and converse with them privately - only getting "powers that be" involved if every other option has been tried and failed to work.  Those make the best teachers too.  They teach students right from wrong.  They don't punish every single time they see something wrong - esp minor infractions.  They try to work it out first - better for the future since one can't change the past.  Punishment is a last resort, not first.

[DawnM]

I don't think one has to be Javert to want to make things right.

 

It could be as simple as saying to the secretary, I am not going to take this job but I need you to know that your behavior in sharing the questions with me put me in a difficult position and made me very uncomfortable. Please don't do that again.

 

AND--

 

Dear principal, thank you for offering me the job/interviewing me. I appreciated the opportunity. As much as I would like to take the job, I feel uncomfortable doing so. I was given an unsolicited, advance look at the interview questions, and do not feel the process was fair to all candidates. Therefore, I am withdrawing my name from consideration. If another position becomes available, I hope I have your support to reapply. (This is actually something I have done, not over an ethics issue but a personality conflict with a member of the interview team).

 

The only choices aren't to out her or be silent and benefit from the perfidy.

 

My conscience would not allow me to take no action at all.

 

ETA- it would really bother me if my kid's teacher was unable to do the hard thing when no one is looking. THAT is the very definition of personal integrity to me.

 

 

While you are up on horse, you will need to add, "And, not only did I receive the questions, but I read them and studied them so that i would give myself an unfair advantage.  But hey, please consider me next time, because you know, I will already know the best answers anyway!"

[Sneezyone]

While you are up on horse, you will need to add, "And, not only did I receive the questions, but I read them and studied them so that i would give myself an unfair advantage.  But hey, please consider me next time, because you know, I will already know the best answers anyway!"

 

Did I say, ANYWHERE, from my high horse or anywhere else that you image I am, that I felt the need to identify the person who gave the questions? ANYWHERE AT ALL? Can you, or the previous accuser, find where I suggested the woman be fired? That's a major stretch from what I ACTUALLY said.

 

I do not think that the person who broke civil service law should end up with her buddy as an employee. And I think the boss should be given the option of saying, meh, no big deal take the job anyway or gee thanks for letting me know, I'll definitely keep you posted.

 

Regardless of what others might do, *I* would not knowingly benefit from this kind of behavior. Others can and do make that call for themselves. If it's bothering the OP this much tho, she's probably got a stronger moral compass than many.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sneezyone

[DawnM]

Did I say, ANYWHERE, from my high horse or anywhere else that you image I am, that I felt the need to identify the person who gave the questions? ANYWHERE AT ALL? Can you, or the previous accuser, find where I suggested the woman be fired? That's a major stretch from what I ACTUALLY said.

 

I do not think that the person who broke civil service law should end up with her buddy as an employee. And I think the boss should be given the option of saying, meh, no big deal take the job anyway or gee thanks for letting me know, I'll definitely keep you posted.

 

Regardless of what others might do, *I* would not knowingly benefit from this kind of behavior. Others can and do make that call for themselves. If it's bothering the OP this much tho, she's probably got a stronger moral compass than many.

 

 

Yes, since the secretary is the only one privy to the questions, and she is friends with her, it would be quite obvious.  

 

And yes, we are well aware of where you stand and you have indeed been berating those who think differently.

 

But go ahead and yell with caps....

[Aelwydd]

Or she deals with a scrupulous conscience. I don't agree with the harsh judgements of Deb, the secretary, or really anyone here. I've repeatedly said I hope for a resolution that Deb can abide, ethically speaking. But, I don't particularly appreciate the charge that because I wouldn't throw the secretary under the bus, or write letters even hinting at implicating her, I must be morally inferior.

 

One can maintain a high standard of ethics while seeking to avoid the appearance of posturing or "virtue signalling." It's not an either/ or proposition.

[Sneezyone]

And again, honestly, if someone is that bothered by the letter of the law not being followed in this situation, not accepting this job IS the best choice for them. We live in the real world.  There are no perfect people.  There are plenty who do what they can for their friends even if we wouldn't all make those same decisions.

 

What you suggest doing is merely putting salt into wounds - opening them wide.  You're annoyed that your perfect world isn't there and you want the sinner punished for ruining it.  You want to rub it in their face by letting the secretary know she messed it up for you (rather than just suggesting she might not want to do it in the future due to it being illegal) and you want to let her boss know that someone - they'll know it's her - messed it up for you.  That's no different than Javert.

 

At places where I've worked (school and business), you'd be the one looked down upon for dissing a friend and being so much of a perfectionist.  Due to the letter of the law, they might have to take action, but no one would think highly of you for enforcing it.  If you turned down the job, they'd be sighing relief because who knows what petty thing you'd get upset about next - friend or not.

 

Folks I know who are admired are those who can fix problems without causing waves.  They'll take friends (or co-workers or students) aside and converse with them privately - only getting "powers that be" involved if every other option has been tried and failed to work.  Those make the best teachers too.  They teach students right from wrong.  They don't punish every single time they see something wrong - esp minor infractions.  They try to work it out first - better for the future since one can't change the past.  Punishment is a last resort, not first.

 

This is a really sad commentary on the people in your prior workplaces. I've never, ever, had a problem in my workplace and folks have begged me to stay. Mostly because I *don't* play favorites and really do try to do the right thing, none of which requires making waves. It is possible to accomplish things within the spirit if not the letter of the law. It does, however, require effort and commitment not laziness and a preference for expedience. I find people typically respect that, not mock it. In my experience, shady dealers often end up dying by the sword.

[Sneezyone]

Or she deals with a scrupulous conscience. I don't agree with the harsh judgements of Deb, the secretary, or really anyone here. I've repeatedly said I hope for a resolution that Deb can abide, ethically speaking. But, I don't particularly appreciate the charge that because I wouldn't throw the secretary under the bus, or write letters even hinting at implicating her, I must be morally inferior.

 

One can maintain a high standard of ethics while seeking to avoid the appearance of posturing or "virtue signalling." It's not an either/ or proposition.

 

I don't think one can claim a position of moral anything if the behavior of the secretary or the OP results in someone else getting screwed out of a public job.

[Aelwydd]

Good for you. So sad that others out there are all too lazy and too concerned with expedience to mimic your personal diligence against workplace nepotism and favoritism.

 

I have always favored the "treat others respectfully and with fairness" approach myself. But I have never took it upon myself to enforce the same among my peers.

[Aelwydd]

I don't think one can claim a position of moral anything if the behavior of the secretary or the OP results in someone else getting screwed out of a public job.

So the secretary is now considered an amoral agent? Or just those of us who wouldn't try to seek retribution against her for a common, almost mundane, action?

[Sneezyone]

Good for you. So sad that others out there are all too lazy and too concerned with expedience to mimic your personal diligence against workplace nepotism and favoritism.

 

I have always favored the "treat others respectfully and with fairness" approach myself. But I have never took it upon myself to enforce the same among my peers.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if the secretary felt the same.

[Sneezyone]

So the secretary is now considered an amoral agent? Or just those of us who wouldn't try to seek retribution against her for a common, almost mundane, action?

 

She is an immoral agent. Her action a) isn't common in the public sector and b) isn't mundane. Depending on who gets the job, you could seriously open the employer up to legal liability. Not cool. This is not, oh heh, use the printer to help your kid on the weekend or make a few personal calls or surf the net for kicks. Those are common and mundane. This is potentially impacting folks' livelihoods. Not ok in my book. I'm surprised so many take such a cavalier attitude to it really.

[Sneezyone]

Is this an example of moral purity? She called you out on your tone, and you called her an ass.

 

I never claimed to be morally pure. Fair, yes.

[emzhengjiu]

Discuss the issue without personal attacks please!

[scrapbookbuzz]

Agreeing with the Moderators here. The OP was stating how she felt and looking for some input on her issue.

What I've read here is a lot of nothing to help the OP but personal affronts. Are we not all part of the same Hive? 

I'm pretty sure we ALL have come here at one point or another to seek helpful advice.

 

Debbi, I truly hope you've been able to make a decision and take action on that decision that gives you peace in that 

decision.

[Aelwydd]

She is an immoral agent. Her action a) isn't common in the public sector and b) isn't mundane. Depending on who gets the job, you could seriously open the employer up to legal liability. Not cool. This is not, oh heh, use the printer to help your kid on the weekend or make a few personal calls or surf the net for kicks. Those are common and mundane. This is potentially impacting folks' livelihoods. Not ok in my book. I'm surprised so many take such a cavalier attitude to it really.

 

 

Sharing interview questions ahead of the interview is entirely common. At least in the professional sphere. Where I work, we even have a whole format and process that we are trained to follow. Outside interviewees don't have that prep, but those of us already hired do. On a regular basis, in company paid for trainings.

 

My husband recently interviewed for a job, and a friend who works there advised him what kind of questions to expect. Nobody thought it weird or suspicious that he came prepared. Employees are encouraged to head hunt and to share such info there.

 

I'd argue that coming to an interview without googling the company, and at a minimum, looking at Glassdoor, which frequently shares interview questions and processes, is actually likely to make you look ill prepared. Companies do their background research on you; to go in without doing your own research doesn't make you look morally superior. It makes you look unprepared and unresourceful.

 

Has it occurred to you that many companies expect and want people to have prepared answers to these questions? And in fact is why they do go not generally around suing and firing current and past employees for sharing such info?

 

But I don't think this really has anything to do with interview questions being shared. It is about your desire to punish a stranger for doing something that you think was wrong. So you basically call her amoral, like she's got no conscience. Feel free to judge her one action. But I really don't know where you get off judging her entire character like that. Most people are pretty complex. I can disagree with her action and think, well she was trying to help. Which means she is looking out for a friend. So, she's got at least one redeeming quality.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Aelwydd

[Sneezyone]

Sharing interview questions ahead of the interview is entirely common. At least in the professional sphere. Where I work, we even have a whole format and process that we are trained to follow. Outide interviewees don't have that prep, but those of us already hired do. On a regular basis, in company paid for trainings.

 

My husband recently interviewed for a job, and a friend who works there advised him what kind of questions to expect. Nobody thought it weird or suspicious that he came prepared. Employees are encouraged to head hunt and to share such info there.

 

I'd argue that coming to an interview without googling the company, and at a minimum, looking at Glassdoor, which frequently shares interview questions and processes, is actually likely to make you look ill prepared. Companies do their background research on you; to go in without doing your own research doesn't make you look morally superior. It makes you look unprepared and unresourceful.

 

Has it occurred to you that many companies expect and want people to have prepared answers to these questions? And in fact is why they do go around suing and firing current and past employees for sharing such info?

 

But I don't think this really has anything to do with interview questions being shared. It is about your desire to punish a stranger for doing something that you think was wrong. So you basically call her amoral, like she's got no conscience. Feel free to judge her one action. But I really don't know where you get off judging her entire character like that. Most people are pretty complex. I can disagree with her action and think, well she was trying to help. Which means she is looking out for a friend. So, she's got at least one redeeming quality.

 

Public and private sector employment are not governed by the same rules. Apples to oranges. Long-term public sector employees are not completely ignorant of the laws/rules governing civil service employment. This kind of behavior in public sector employment is, quite literally, against the law in every state where I've worked. It's not just unethical. I'm trying to follow the moderator guidance here so please knock it off.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Aelwydd]

Public is just as bad, because politics. No school administrators get their jobs without someone having an angle somehow. They know the right people, the have the right network, they say the right things to the right people. Kiss the right behinds.

 

 

Deb was conflicted about the situation and we understand that. Was she even offered the job? We don't know, and we also don't know if the hiring manager had his own person in mind.

 

It would be nice if she came back with an update. Hopefully, it all worked out for her.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Aelwydd

[Sneezyone]

Public is just as bad, because politics. No school administrators get their jobs without someone having an angle somehow. They know the right people, the have the right network, they say the right things to the right people. Kiss the right behinds.

 

 

Deb was conflicted about the situation and we understand that. Was she even offered the job? We don't know, and we also don't know if the hiring manager had his own person in mind.

 

It would be nice if she came back with an update. Hopefully, it all worked out for her.

 

School administrators are generally exempt employees. Teachers and support staff are classified. The rules are not the same for those two classes of employees. Have you worked in the public sector before? I do agree with you on the rest tho. I think the OP was put in a terrible position.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Jean in Newcastle]

https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/23-TEACHER-JOB-INTERVIEW-QUESTIONS-W-SAMPLE-ANSWERS-2585333?gclid=Cj0KEQjwioHIBRCes6nP56Ti1IsBEiQAxxb5G3fXuUizicnMvGfKKhagZS6XEXqt0DYHU88ce5gbjf4aAhUx8P8HAQ

 

https://www.thebalance.com/teacher-interview-questions-and-best-answers-2061223

 

http://www.teachhub.com/6-common-teacher-interview-questions-and-how-answer-them

 

Personally, I don't feel super strongly either way.  I personally don't see anything all that advantageous about getting a peek at the interview questions.  I am curious if any of the questions on these links were similar or the same as the ones on the infamous question list.  My gut feeling from doing lots of teacher interviews (where there were very little if any surprises) that the questions were probably predictable.  So I don't get the moral outrage here.  But while I personally wouldn't say anything about the secretary, if someone felt that strongly, then I suppose they should do as their conscience dictates. 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

https://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/23-TEACHER-JOB-INTERVIEW-QUESTIONS-W-SAMPLE-ANSWERS-2585333?gclid=Cj0KEQjwioHIBRCes6nP56Ti1IsBEiQAxxb5G3fXuUizicnMvGfKKhagZS6XEXqt0DYHU88ce5gbjf4aAhUx8P8HAQ

 

https://www.thebalance.com/teacher-interview-questions-and-best-answers-2061223

 

http://www.teachhub.com/6-common-teacher-interview-questions-and-how-answer-them

 

Personally, I don't feel super strongly either way.  I personally don't see anything all that advantageous about getting a peek at the interview questions.  I am curious if any of the questions on these links were similar or the same as the ones on the infamous question list.  My gut feeling from doing lots of teacher interviews (where there were very little if any surprises) that the questions were probably predictable.  So I don't get the moral outrage here.  But while I personally wouldn't say anything about the secretary, if someone felt that strongly, then I suppose they should do as their conscience dictates. 

 

I think it depends on the process and interviewer. Some of the interview questions I've gotten, particularly at OSPI, were very unique and creative. There were questions that got at judgment, prioritization/inbox exercises, etc. Having the ability to think about those questions in advance would be a huge boon. 

[Aelwydd]

Public and private sector employment are not governed by the same rules. Apples to oranges. Long-term public sector employees are not completely ignorant of the laws/rules governing civil service employment. This kind of behavior in public sector employment is, quite literally, against the law in every state where I've worked. It's not just unethical. I'm trying to follow the moderator guidance here so please knock it off.

Excuse me? Knock what off? I am debating you with regards to what you, yourself, have said. I haven't called you names, nor even come close. Critizing your judgment in this situation, and how you present your arguments is entirely fair. Especially as you haven't held back on your judgments on everyone else's motivations.

 

Asking how you reached a judgement about a stranger's whole character is entirely fair. Because you put it out there.

 

Do not accuse me of breaking board rules or somehow forcing you to break them, because I challenged your statements. I expected return challenges and a defense or clarification in response, not name calling or baseless charges.