1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default Question reguarding past stupid things

    I was reading a thread,
    http://forums.firehouse.com/showthread.php?t=99246
    the second part of the first post more specifically.

    I'm 28 and I'm trying to find a job as a firefighter. When I was 19-21 I did a lot of stupid things. Ranging from a dui to drug use (never any addiction issues, only recreational with the wrong crowd..no excuses though). I am not that person any more. I have been a volly for some time now and I love the fire service. I'm a dedicated husband and business owner. This side of a few cold beers, I don't touch drugs or associate with those who do.

    on to the actual question, I have always thought being honest with any past (7-8 years ago) issues was the best thing to do. I do not lie. I'm starting to get concerned that no matter how well I can do on the tests, and no matter how hard I'm trying now, it won't out shadow the idiocies of my youth. Still not really a question I guess. It would make me feel a little more confident if someone within the hiring process could tell me that if I can prove myself as an asset to the fire service, my past issues are just that and in the past.
    Last edited by JackBauer24; 03-25-2008 at 01:52 PM.

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JLam77's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    162

    Default

    I don't know that anyone will be able to gaze into a crystal ball and tell you whether or not you're going to get hired. I suppose the only way to find out is to submit yourself to the process and see what happens.

    I suppose the argument can be made that you wouldn't want to go through the hassle if you're just going to get knocked out, but there's really no way to know.

    Hey, there's an ex gang member working for LAFD right now, so anything is possible.

    Good luck.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Be honest. If it is a half way decent department you will be investigated, and you don't want lies or with held information showing up.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JLam77 View Post
    I don't know that anyone will be able to gaze into a crystal ball and tell you whether or not you're going to get hired. I suppose the only way to find out is to submit yourself to the process and see what happens.

    I suppose the argument can be made that you wouldn't want to go through the hassle if you're just going to get knocked out, but there's really no way to know.

    Hey, there's an ex gang member working for LAFD right now, so anything is possible.

    Good luck.
    ha yeah thanks. Well, someone could tell me there was zero chance in hell I could make it, and I'd still try my hardest.

  5. #5
    Badgerland FOOL
    mvfd27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern WI
    Posts
    337

    Default

    As Dennis said, be honest because most FD's do a pretty thorough backgrounding and it is better to be up front than to have it come out during their investigation. It usually hurts your case far more to look like you're hiding something and have them hear it from others than to be up front about it. Plus being up front gives you chance to prove how far you've come from those days in the past. Best of luck!!

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvfd27 View Post
    As Dennis said, be honest because most FD's do a pretty thorough backgrounding and it is better to be up front than to have it come out during their investigation. It usually hurts your case far more to look like you're hiding something and have them hear it from others than to be up front about it. Plus being up front gives you chance to prove how far you've come from those days in the past. Best of luck!!
    thank you very much.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    433

    Default

    There have been many discussions about this. 7-8 years is a LONG time to establish a pattern of responsible behavior. I'm no expert, but I think even Gordon Graham says once the seven year mark has been hit many past mistakes are easier to look past.

    I know several people who have gotten hired with similar (or worse) issues in their background, all had less "good behavior time" than. A buddy of mine just got hired again, after being fired from another department a few years ago. I know of another who had a pretty severe DUI a few years ago, who was recently hired as well. They all learned their lessons and were straight up when asked about their past.

    If I were you I'd keep testing. You've got plenty of time, and the longer you go the better you look.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by powerhourcoug View Post
    There have been many discussions about this. 7-8 years is a LONG time to establish a pattern of responsible behavior. I'm no expert, but I think even Gordon Graham says once the seven year mark has been hit many past mistakes are easier to look past.

    I know several people who have gotten hired with similar (or worse) issues in their background, all had less "good behavior time" than. A buddy of mine just got hired again, after being fired from another department a few years ago. I know of another who had a pretty severe DUI a few years ago, who was recently hired as well. They all learned their lessons and were straight up when asked about their past.

    If I were you I'd keep testing. You've got plenty of time, and the longer you go the better you look.
    very encouraging! thank you very much.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Listen....you will have a hard time trying to get on a department that has a city the size of 75K or less. The "smaller" departments use things like you stated to remove people to make it easier to hire. They just want to eliminate as many people as possible and hire only people with awesome backgrounds, no matter how long it has been. I say you are better off trying the "big" cities they tend to look past the things you talk of.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Another thing you can do when tests come up - ask civil service if there is a list of grounds for immediate disqualification. I think every city has this list. I usually see them included in the background packet, but if you got it before the test, you could decide whether to bother testing with that city or not. I know Columbus, OH's list is on its website, if you want to see an example of one.

  11. #11
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skiwiz6 View Post
    Listen....you will have a hard time trying to get on a department that has a city the size of 75K or less. The "smaller" departments use things like you stated to remove people to make it easier to hire. They just want to eliminate as many people as possible and hire only people with awesome backgrounds, no matter how long it has been. I say you are better off trying the "big" cities they tend to look past the things you talk of.
    Please read my previous post above, and further explain your statement.

    Both of the people I mentioned with "past mistakes" were hired by "smaller" departments.

    Thanks -

    PHC

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    144

    Default

    okay?

    SW6

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    You know, I am aware that there are alot of young people who read these forums. This post is for them:

    Pay attention to this thread. If you are a kid and you have decided that the fire service is the career you want to follow, DECIDE RIGHT NOW TODAY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LEAD A LAW ABIDING LIFE, FREE ESPECIALLY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE. IT IS LIKELY YOU WILL GET CAUGHT AND IT IS EQUALLY LIKELY THAT YOU WILL LOSE YOUR DREAM AS A RESULT.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    edge1317's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    You know, I am aware that there are alot of young people who read these forums. This post is for them:

    Pay attention to this thread. If you are a kid and you have decided that the fire service is the career you want to follow, DECIDE RIGHT NOW TODAY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO LEAD A LAW ABIDING LIFE, FREE ESPECIALLY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE. IT IS LIKELY YOU WILL GET CAUGHT AND IT IS EQUALLY LIKELY THAT YOU WILL LOSE YOUR DREAM AS A RESULT.
    Also quite possibly injure or kill someone also.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,047

    Default

    Background Investigations

    Fire departments traditionally spend thousands of dollars to advertise, recruit and hire firefighters. The departments sift through applicants using written examinations, physical agility tests and comprehensive oral interviews, but only do a cursory check on their backgrounds. They eventually produce a list of top candidates. It is now up to the organization to ferret out those candidates who were less than truthful on their application or during their interview.
    Background investigations are an important component of the hiring process. They are completed by most fire departments across the country. Historically, fire departments have not placed as much emphasis on a thorough background check as their counterparts on the police department. A criminal check with the local police agency and a DMV check was the extent of what we used to look at.
    The local police departments often complete today’s background checks. Many fire departments hold their firefighter candidates to the same high standards expected of a police officer. These standards include criminal history, drug usage, credit history, employment record, encounters with the law and a candidate’s overall persona.
    The reasoning is that if a person has demonstrated an inability to manage his or her personal finances, is unable to get along with co-workers, or has simply made poor life decisions, these will be magnified as their responsibilities increase. If, on the other hand, a candidate has demonstrated a strong history of being able to manage his or her personal and professional life, there is no reason to expect that he or she would not continue to do so after being hired by the agency.
    Gordon Graham, an attorney and well-known expert on issues pertaining to police and fire departments, believes that “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.” He feels that if a candidate has had problems in the past, he or she will have problems in the future. His advice to police and fire chiefs across the country is, “Why take the chance and incur the liability, especially when you have so many candidates to choose from.” A thorough background check can help an agency reduce its future incidents of personnel problems and minimize the risk of negative publicity for the agency. Patterns of past performance issues and problems with co-workers are a strong indicator of future behavior and should not be overlooked.
    A thorough background investigation is important because of the role of the fire department in the community. The firefighter candidate will eventually hold a position of authority and responsibility. Firefighters are welcomed into people’s homes and businesses without fear for their personal safety or their prized possessions. If the candidate is of questionable ethical or moral character, he or she may ultimately become a liability for the hiring agency. This could erode public trust and compromise the department.
    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that dishonesty by employees costs a business 1 – 2% of its gross sales. Surveys reveal that 33% of employees admit to stealing product or money from their jobs in the last three years. It is estimated that 30% of businesses fail because of employee theft. Statistics also reveal that roughly 40% of applicants have false information on their applications.
    Negligent hiring litigation is on the rise. Employers lose 72% of all negligent hiring suits, with the average award to the plaintiff exceeding one million dollars. Most of these are due to the employer failing to take the proper steps to avoid hiring an unfit employee. Courts have ruled that an employer has a general duty to check criminal records for employees who will interface with the public.
    Once a candidate has been selected to move on in the hiring process, he or she is assigned a background investigator. Before meeting the background investigator, the candidate is given a background packet. These vary slightly from agency to agency, and are often 25 – 30 pages long. A candidate is usually given 14 – 21 days to complete the packet prior to the first meeting with the investigator. Candidates are advised to photocopy the packet and fill out the copy in pencil. Once the rough draft is complete, the original is completed in pen or, even better, typed.
    Neatness is a characteristic that is important to a background investigator. If he or she is unable to decipher an applicant’s chicken scratch, it makes a poor first impression. A typed background packet, on the other hand, gives the impression of being thorough and complete.
    The background packet will seek information relating to all jobs held (including names of supervisors and dates employed), military record including DD214, sealed high school and college transcripts, and a thorough questionnaire regarding drug and criminal history. Applicants will be expected to complete a section that outlines any and all encounters with illegal drugs, including persons involved, dates and times, as well as the number of times he or she has experimented with each substance.
    Any omission of information is considered to be covering up and will be viewed as deceitful, which is grounds for automatic disqualification. If a candidate legitimately forgets information, it can certainly cost him or her a job. To avoid making these costly mistakes, a candidate should keep a log of information that would be helpful to a background investigator, including names and addresses of landlords, employers, friends and co-workers. Any blanks left in the packet raises the question of whether the applicant is attempting to cover something up.
    Once the applicant has completed the background packet, he or she will be scheduled to meet with the assigned investigator. The investigator may be a firefighter on the department, a police officer for the city or county, or a private contractor. Whoever it is, the applicant’s future employment relies on successfully completing the process.
    The investigator will take several photos of the candidate that will be shown to friends, neighbors and co-workers during the investigation. The applicant will be asked for a list of friends and close associates, including their names, addresses and phone numbers. The prospective firefighter must sign a stack of release waivers that will be used by the investigator for each person contacted.
    The investigator will review the background packet with the applicant, seeking to identify any discrepancies and delve deeper into them. This is the applicant’s opportunity to explain his or her side of what transpired. It is akin to going to confession. After this stage, anything uncovered by the investigator that was not previously disclosed is considered to be intentionally “forgotten” and could be used as a foundation for dismissal from the hiring process. Once an investigator gets a feel about a candidate from the interview, he or she will begin some cursory checks of driving and criminal records, as well as a credit check.
    Driving records are important, since having a current driver’s license is required for most firefighter positions. A candidate who has a history of speeding or ignoring traffic laws may be disqualified since we operate emergency vehicles. Driving lights and siren through the city is a huge liability for the agency. Imagine if a firefighter was driving lights and siren at an excessive rate of speed and plowed into a bus bench full of school children. The subsequent investigation revealed that the firefighter had a series of speeding and moving violations. The agency would probably lose any lawsuit. Even if it didn’t, it would certainly be a black eye for the department.
    Numerous parking tickets make a statement of how a candidate reacts to authority. If a candidate has a series of infractions (paid or not), it could indicate that he or she feels that it is unnecessary to abide by society’s rules.
    I was asked in a seminar recently if a candidate would be held liable for the parking tickets he was given while driving the company delivery vehicle. He tried to reason that they weren’t his fault because, as a delivery driver, his boss gave him permission to park in the red zone. I asked him who gave his boss the authority to tell him it was OK to ignore the law. He continued to tell me that since his boss told him it was OK, and the company paid for the tickets, he felt he was off the hook. I told him that even if he were off the hook for the parking tickets, he would probably fail the background because he has a pattern of exercising poor judgment.
    Another candidate asked if it would look badly if he was always the one to bail his friends out of jail. He rationalized that it showed he was a loyal and dedicated friend. He stated that he knew the fire service valued strong friendships and looking out for each other. I assured him that he was correct on both counts. We do value strong friendships, and we certainly take care of each other. I would question why he is associating with people who are constantly being thrown in jail. I reminded him of the old saying, “Birds of a feather flock together.” In other words, if your friends and associates are guilty, then so too are you. Whether this is the case or not is irrelevant; you define yourself by the company you keep.
    Obviously, criminal records are important to the hiring agency. Firefighters routinely find themselves unsupervised in people’s homes and businesses. Imagine for a moment the headlines in the local newspaper: “Firefighter arrested for stealing from elderly lady’s bedroom while she was having a heart attack.” Of course, this would be picked up by the national media and would be a black eye for all firefighters.
    Credit history is also important, as it too makes a statement of how an individual handles responsibilities. If a person is not able to live within his or her means, this person is a potential liability to the agency. A blemished credit history may indicate an inability to handle responsibility.
    Bankruptcy is a big red flag to an agency. Simply because a credit card company considers an individual untouchable and relieved of financial responsibility once he or she declares bankruptcy, fire departments do not view this in the same way. In reality, although an individual has declared financial bankruptcy, he or she is morally obligated to repay the money that was borrowed. In the eyes of the law the obligation has been “forgotten,” but somebody is still out money. Is it an automatic disqualification? No, not if there has been progress made toward repaying the debt after bankruptcy was declared. According to a former background investigator for LAPD, “If an individual is making an honest effort to repay the money, we can look past a bankruptcy. We cannot overlook someone who does not attempt to right known wrongs.”
    Candidates often wonder if they should report things that occurred when they were younger. They feel that if a record was sealed, they are not accountable for anything until they reached 18 years of age. Nothing is further from the truth. Remember the forms you signed when you sat down with the background investigator? These give permission to look into every aspect of your life. There is no such thing as a sealed record to a background investigator. Even if there were, whatever a candidate did to get a police record sealed would be cause for alarm and would raise the issue of liability for the agency. For the record, there is no such thing as a sealed file, regardless of what your attorney tells you.
    Many people believe that they can give the background investigator only the names of their responsible friends, the ones who will say positive things about them. They will make sure to brief their friends on what to say and what not to say. In effect, they will coach them on how to answer the questions. Certainly, the investigator will interview the people listed by the candidate, but they will also ask the individual for the name of 5 friends. They will interview the five new people, and when completed, will ask for 5 more friends, and so on. It doesn’t take long for a trained investigator to get to someone who has not been coached.
    The investigator will knock on the door of your neighbors and show them a Polaroid picture (the same one taken on the day of your initial background interview). If your neighbor tells the investigator that it looks like you, but the nose ring and bandana that you always wear are missing, the cat is out of the bag. In other words, the investigator has learned a lot about you. Will this disqualify you? Probably not, but it now gives the investigator cause to look deeper into your profile.
    This scenario is the number one reason that when I speak to a group of fire science students, I encourage them to look the part. You don’t see many firefighters with nose rings and bandanas. The students constantly assure me that when they start testing, they will shave off the goatee and get a haircut. It is important to note that we are not looking to hire the person who can do a complete makeover in 30 days or less. If you changed that quickly to get the job, it stands to reason that you will change back after you get it. We are looking to hire people who authentically live their lives in a positive fashion.
    Are there automatic disqualifications for the background process? Yes and no. What does this mean? It depends on the agency and on the feelings of the fire chief. Some fire chiefs don’t care what you have done (within reason), but will automatically disqualify a candidate who is not completely honest during the process, while others have certain actions that are immediate cause for dismissal.
    Some common causes for automatic disqualification include the following: any injectible drug use (i.e. any controlled substance or steroid put into the body via a needle); any selling, intent to sell or transporting of narcotics; hallucinogens such as LSD and acid; multiple uses of marijuana that is considered more than experimental; any type of assault or domestic battery; stealing and arson.
    Of course, these are generic, but most agencies will have a policy dealing with any of the above cases. For some it may be an automatic disqualification, while other agencies may be more lenient and receptive to a reasonable explanation.
    If a candidate has a blemish on his or her record that is not considered an automatic disqualification, the investigator will look further into the background. The intent is to determine if the infraction is a one-time incident or a pattern of poor choices. Oftentimes a driving under the influence arrest was the proverbial accident waiting to happen. In other words, a candidate tells the investigator that after the annual company picnic, he or she had too much to drink. The designated driver was nowhere to be found, and the candidate had to get home to feed his or her cats. It was a matter of life and death. The candidate got behind the wheel and drove when he or she shouldn’t have. As luck would have it, the candidate rear ended a police car and was arrested for driving under the influence. It was just an isolated incident that could have happened to anybody, right?
    This would naturally trigger the investigator to look further into the candidate’s alcohol consumption. In fact, one of the questions is, “How often do you drink?” Nobody wants to look like an alcoholic, so they grossly underestimate the number of times alcohol is consumed each week. This is easily uncovered by interviewing your friends, who vouch for the fact that you are able to hold your liquor.
    When it is revealed that you play softball in a beer league every Tuesday night with the guys from the shop, the investigator will easily identify that you drink every Tuesday night. Of course, the next question will be, “How does the candidate get to and from the game?” Your helpful friend raves about the pickup truck that you completely restored and drive to each and every game. The connection is now made complete that after drinking during the weekly softball game, the candidate hops into his restored pickup and drives home. Now, the driving under the influence conviction is no longer an isolated event, but rather part of a pattern of poor choices that finally caught up with a careless individual.
    If, on the other hand, it does appear to be an isolated event the investigator will want to know what have you learned from the event. A candidate who was arrested for driving under the influence four years ago, has since quit drinking and is now a designated driver on the major holidays and a spokesperson for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), will certainly be considered above the previous candidate. In this scenario, it’s not the mistake that draws the attention, it’s the recovery.
    A person who has smoked marijuana is usually not eliminated unless it was done in recent history. Some departments will eliminate a candidate if it was done after the candidate decided he or she wanted to become a firefighter. Again, an example of poor decision making. In today’s day and age, it is understood that most people will at least try marijuana. In fact, a recent news study revealed that 66% of high school seniors have at least tried it. Unfortunately, it seems to be on the rise. If smoking marijuana were an automatic disqualification, the fire and police agencies across the country would not be able to hire most new employees. The applicant pool would simply be too small.
    The background investigation is the time to be accountable for all of your life’s actions. Most people have some past indiscretions that, if given the choice, they would change. That is what we call life experience. If the individual is honest and forthcoming with information and has not made any life altering decisions, as mentioned above, he or she should have no problem passing a comprehensive background check. It is important to note that if a candidate believes he or she may have difficulty with a background investigation he or she probably will.
    My advice is to be honest and forthright with information. Everyone makes mistakes. If a candidate is caught in a lie, he or she is automatically eliminated from the process, even if the issue was not a big infraction. The fact that the candidate lied says a lot about his or her character.
    Once a candidate fails a background investigation, the next agency has a right to know about it. In other words, when a candidate goes through a background investigation for a different agency, they have a right to know why you failed. If a candidate failed a background for lying, chances are they will not make it through the next process.
    Paul Lepore
    Battalion Chief
    www.aspiringfirefighters.com
    Paul Lepore
    Battalion Chief
    www.aspiringfirefighters.com

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Surtur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Edgerton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    74

    Default

    I'm sorry, but I hate it when people just say "be honest" as if that's all there is to it. Telling people to be honest just barely scratches the surface of helping someone. It takes a lot more than being honest, even after seven or eight years, to get a decent firefighting job these days. You can't just expect the good behavior since your mistakes to speak for itself. If you're lucky enough to get an interview, you really have to acknowledge your mistakes by accepting full responsibility for them, prove you understand that what you did was wrong, and explain in a very sincere manner how you've grown since the mistakes and WHY you would never do things like that again. Make sure they understand that you've changed your ways for personal reasons that reflect your values and not just to get a job. If you approach explaining your prior mistakes this way at an interview and have done enough good things recently to overshadow those mistakes, then you may just get a chance.

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edge1317 View Post
    Also quite possibly injure or kill someone also.
    I realize this is most likely not directed at me, but I feel..... lets say compelled to respond. I was in no way a troubled young person. That DUI was on 3 whole beers, I just hadn't eaten. It's not like I was drunk off my *** driving around. Yeah I did a few drugs, none any worse than the current president of the united states has done.

    This is what bothers me, the fact that a bunch of uptight people who in their own minds live/lived perfect lives will judge me on the mistakes I've made. There's a lot I wish I could take back, but there's also a lot I'd never take back. It's who I am, your past builds you. I'm driven, one hell of a fire fighter, I run a mile in 6.5 minutes, I can do 20 wide grip pullups, I squat 3x my body weight, and I eat a healthy diet. I want to be paid to do what I love, if there's not a department that wants to pay me for it because they can't see beyond my past, then that will be okay too. I'll keep vollunteering and running my business that pays a damn site better.


    /rant. Not directed at anyone here, just venting a little. Not to mention I gave up Dip this week so I'm a little touchy.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BCLepore View Post
    Background Investigations

    Paul Lepore
    Battalion Chief
    www.aspiringfirefighters.com
    thanks man.

    all I can say is wow. wow. I guess if I was put through all that it would serve as a reverse interview. I would neither want to work for those people or with the people that get through that kind of interview. Those are the kinds of people who end up with a gimp tied up in the basement and are legally in a coma from all the anti-depressants their doc prescribes them.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Honesty is always best, but some people have done things in the past that will automatically drop them from the process.
    I don't think that's really fair.
    Depends on the testing process in my opinion.
    If they use a polygraph, tell the truth and pray for forgiveness of your sins.
    If no polygraph, I figure the fact that you smoked pot, or did blow, are your personal business, as long as these events are in your past.
    Keep in mind that our current president, and a leading candidate for future president, have both admitted using cocaine.
    I personally know 3 or 4 people that used piles of cocaine back in the day, and have been working career firemen for 15+ years.
    Past sins don't always indicate future performance.

    And some people will throw the "well if you want liars and druggies and convicts working with you..." speech at you.
    I would say that if you can't tell after working with someone for 15 years that they used to do drugs, well, who cares?

  20. #20
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitllesmertz1 View Post
    Honesty is always best, but some people have done things in the past that will automatically drop them from the process.
    I don't think that's really fair.
    Depends on the testing process in my opinion.
    If they use a polygraph, tell the truth and pray for forgiveness of your sins.
    If no polygraph, I figure the fact that you smoked pot, or did blow, are your personal business, as long as these events are in your past.
    Keep in mind that our current president, and a leading candidate for future president, have both admitted using cocaine.
    I personally know 3 or 4 people that used piles of cocaine back in the day, and have been working career firemen for 15+ years.
    Past sins don't always indicate future performance.

    And some people will throw the "well if you want liars and druggies and convicts working with you..." speech at you.
    I would say that if you can't tell after working with someone for 15 years that they used to do drugs, well, who cares?
    good points

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitllesmertz1 View Post
    Honesty is always best, but some people have done things in the past that will automatically drop them from the process.
    I don't think that's really fair.
    Depends on the testing process in my opinion.
    If they use a polygraph, tell the truth and pray for forgiveness of your sins.
    If no polygraph, I figure the fact that you smoked pot, or did blow, are your personal business, as long as these events are in your past.
    Keep in mind that our current president, and a leading candidate for future president, have both admitted using cocaine.
    I personally know 3 or 4 people that used piles of cocaine back in the day, and have been working career firemen for 15+ years.
    Past sins don't always indicate future performance.

    And some people will throw the "well if you want liars and druggies and convicts working with you..." speech at you.
    I would say that if you can't tell after working with someone for 15 years that they used to do drugs, well, who cares?
    Have you ever been through a back ground investigation? Telling him to be honest is the only way to survive one. Of course he needs to let them know he has been clean living for X number of years and show them that his record has been clean since the DUI X number of years ago, but if he lies it will most likely be found out in the background investigation. They don't just go to the folks you have listed, they ask each of those people for a few names of folks that know you too. You can't get to everyone to get them to lie for you.

    Our Kiefer want to be here needs to apply, be honest, and let the chips fall where they may. Even if he does not get a firefighting job out of the experiance, it will make him a better job applicant for other things.

    You will never get the job if you don't start, complete and submit the application.

    And when did our President ever confirm or even imply that he did coke?
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,474

    Default

    Like it or not the reality is HR and the agency are the gatekeepers of who’s getting hired under today’s rules. Those doing the hiring process look for patterns. Yes, there can be exceptions. You will be asked what drugs you took and how many times. If you smoked marijuana 200 times it will certainly raise a red flag. Experimenting with cocaine or methamphetamine is much more serious.

    The application and background packet will ask you in several different ways, “Have you ever”. Computers don’t forget. If you don’t put it down they find it your immediately eliminated from the hiring process.

    Where this can really play out is in the psych evaluation where up to 40% of candidates fail. With drug use in your past the doc will ask you some difficult questions that could take the wheels off your wagon.

    Candidates believe they still have a shot if it’s been more than 5 years. They have convinced themselves by the four inches between their ears that they have an explanation about what has happened in the past that will convince those in the hiring process they’re the right candidate. So, they pack on all kinds of credentials, degrees, experience, academy, volunteer paramedic, etc. thinking this will erase the problems of the past. Not always true.

    When I tell candidates it will difficult to get hired with problems in their background like drugs, DUI, etc. what do you think most say? Well, I’m going on anyway. How many do you think get back to me that they were hired?

    None!

    You should never bring this situation up in an oral interview unless the panel does. Many candidates feel they have to do repair work. It could only bury you. With most departments running structured orals where they ask every candidate the same questions the panel probably won't because this is something that is often handled in background and the psych evaluation.

    If it does come up, consider this problem solution format to show you are a viable candidate:

    This is who I was.
    This is what changed.
    This is who I am now.

    "Captain Bob" www.eatstress.com

    "The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." --Aristotle Onasssis
    Last edited by CaptBob; 03-27-2008 at 01:40 PM.

  23. #23
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    548

    Default not a flame, just some talking points

    Bush has said that he has not used illegal drugs at any time since 1974, but he has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974

    A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."

    In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in April, 1972 and his subsequent refusal to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which was officially launched April 21, 1972. Boehlert said "according to Maj. Jeff Washburn, the chief of the National Guard's substance abuse program, a random drug-testing program was born out of that regulation and administered to guardsmen such as Bush. The random tests were unrelated to the scheduled annual physical exams, such as the one that Bush failed to take in 1972, a failure that resulted in his grounding." Boehlert remarks that the drug testing took years to implement, but "as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented."

    And on his Drinking and DUI:
    Bush's drinking may not have caused problems were it not for his tendency to become excessively uninhibited, according to reports of friends. In the article referenced above, Kristof quotes Bush's cousin Elsie Walker as saying, "He was a riot. But afterward, when you're older, that can wear thin", and gives the example of Bush asking a "proper" female friend of his parents at a family cocktail party, "So, what's sex like after 50, anyway?" (this comment i think is funny as hell)

    In December, 1966 (age 20), he was arrested for disorderly conduct after he and some friends had "a few beers" and stole a Christmas wreath from a hotel.The charges were later dropped.
    On September 4, 1976 (age 30!!!), Bush was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his family's summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He admitted his guilt, was fined US$150, and had his driving license in the state suspended for two years. The White House had claimed 30 days, the document shows two years. This incident did not become public knowledge until it was reported in the press in the week before the 2000 election.

    Agian, not a flame, just some cited quotes in answer to the question.. seems he is kinda vauge about his drug use.. his DUI on the other hand is a matter of public record.
    -pete

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    And when did our President ever confirm or even imply that he did coke?
    seriously? long time ago. like before he admitted to lying about why going to Iraq because of 9/11. Pretty sure it was even back in the campaign days.

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterbound View Post

    Agian, not a flame, just some cited quotes in answer to the question.. seems he is kinda vauge about his drug use.. his DUI on the other hand is a matter of public record.
    -pete
    awsome. Our firefighters are held to tighter restrictions than the President.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. stupid question (no, really)
    By jakebty in forum Hazardous Materials General Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-26-2006, 07:16 PM
  2. Stupid Question?
    By mteresczuk7 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-14-2005, 12:18 PM
  3. Stupid Question
    By CBlasek in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-31-2004, 04:53 PM
  4. stupid question
    By backdraft663 in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2003, 10:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register