Should Someone Who Lies About Their Education Be Fired?

[William33 110]

Yeah, so where's the lapse in integrity in the guy who uncovered the lie?

You're unhappy he did what he did, but in no way are his actions dishonest or illegal or even unethical.

Profiteering, as lawyers do. Aka, Jackazz. I hate lawyers... Is that wrong?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yeah, so where's the lapse in integrity in the guy who uncovered the lie?

You're unhappy he did what he did, but in no way are his actions dishonest or illegal or even unethical.

Profiteering, as lawyers do. Aka, Jackazz. I hate lawyers... Is that wrong?

I believe it is, yes.

An absence of lawyers implies an absence of law (who would practice it if one eliminated the practitioners?). And yes, that is wrong.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Yeah, so where's the lapse in integrity in the guy who uncovered the lie?

You're unhappy he did what he did, but in no way are his actions dishonest or illegal or even unethical.

Profiteering, as lawyers do. Aka, Jackazz. I hate lawyers... Is that wrong?

I believe it is, yes.

An absence of lawyers implies an absence of law (who would practice it if one eliminated the practitioners?). And yes, that is wrong.

Ahemmm.....A.J., you are debating this:

I cite post #44 as my evidence Your Honor.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am not debating at all. I am merely conversing with one of my 4 favorite moderators!

[William33 110]

Yeah, so where's the lapse in integrity in the guy who uncovered the lie?

You're unhappy he did what he did, but in no way are his actions dishonest or illegal or even unethical.

Profiteering, as lawyers do. Aka, Jackazz. I hate lawyers... Is that wrong?

I believe it is, yes.

An absence of lawyers implies an absence of law (who would practice it if one eliminated the practitioners?). And yes, that is wrong.

Ahemmm.....A.J., you are debating this:

I cite post #44 as my evidence Your Honor.

At this stage, I vote for the above!!

[Teacher Mark 53]

Yeah, so where's the lapse in integrity in the guy who uncovered the lie?

You're unhappy he did what he did, but in no way are his actions dishonest or illegal or even unethical.

Profiteering, as lawyers do. Aka, Jackazz. I hate lawyers... Is that wrong?

I believe it is, yes.

An absence of lawyers implies an absence of law (who would practice it if one eliminated the practitioners?). And yes, that is wrong.

Ahemmm.....A.J., you are debating this:

I cite post #44 as my evidence Your Honor.

At this stage, I vote for the above!!

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

I am not debating at all. I am merely conversing with one of my 4 favorite moderators!

[William33 110]

ouch..Substance is expected here...

[Nothing1234 2]

It has always puzzled me on how much emphasis is put on degrees in the US. Some of the richest people I know only have a high school education. Just look at the athletes, singers, entrepreneurs and entertainers who earn more in a year each than 100 MBA graduates will earn in a lifetime.

Performance in the classroom does not automatically equate to success in the real world. How many of the world's billionaires are educated, let alone highly educated? not many actually.

I totally agree! Working in HR I could tell so many stories of the ding dongs with advanced degrees I spend more time with explaining policies, helping with performance managment, etc. I'm not knocking education I think its important but there is TOOOO much emphasis on it these days and university does not teach real world experience.

My answer to your original post would be "No" he should not be fired provided his performance over his years of service is/was stellar. There are other ways to discipline an employee...no raise, no bonus, required to take university classes, etc.

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

ouch..Substance is expected here...

i just hope aj doesn't find substance

[Ling Ling 22]

With employment comes a fiduciary responsibility to your employer.

In plain English, by the nature of employment, you are expected to be

loyal, obedient, to give full disclosure, to maintain confidentiality, to execute your duties

with reasonable care and diligence, and to be accountable for your actions.

Therefore I would concede that someone who enters employment dishonestly,

has already failed to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities, and should be terminated.

THAT's my legal side answering the question.

My human side says, if the education lied about was not a requirement of the position,

and if the employee agrees to immediately and actively pursue the education stated,

and there are no other reasons to consider termination, then I feel an otherwise

competent, and efficient employee should be retained.

It really has to be considered on a case by case basis. The reason we make hiring decisions

is based on what is best for the business, not purely based on what is on the application.

Likewise, termination decisions should be weighted to what's best for the business.

ouch..Substance is expected here...

i just hope aj doesn't find substance

Far too often, substance is abused

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

ouch..Substance is expected here...

i just hope aj doesn't find substance

Far too often, substance is abused

earlier he was brown nosing a mod, so maybe he did find substance and that's why he disappeared so quick!

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I guess the question centers on the degree to which honesty is valued. It's common knowledge that formal education and degrees don't equal competence or guarantee that someone will perform well on the job, but it's also assumed that job applications accurately represent one's credentials and education. It's one thing to embellish experience in a certain area on a resume, but something else altogether to lie about completion of a required degree, especially an advanced degree. Simply put, most people don't take too well to being lied to. It's also reasonable to assume that someone who lied his or her way into a job might take a similar approach while on the job.

On to the substances...

[Ling Ling 22]

Too late to add to my original response, but...

I think the bottom line is that both hiring and firing of employees should be based on the needs of the business,

not based on personal feelings...not even personal feelings about what is right and what is wrong.

Management has a responsibility to attain and retain the best employees for the job.

That said, even if someone is doing a great job, if by nature of their having lied on the application,

the possibility of a lawsuit or loss of new or existing business comes to play, then they are not

the best employee for the job, and should be terminated.

It's a tricky question, but actually very easy to answer when you remove your personal feelings,

and put the needs of the business first.

[Ling Ling 22]

I guess the question centers on the degree to which honesty is valued....SNIPPED.... It's also reasonable to assume that someone who lied his or her way into a job might take a similar approach while on the job.

Applicants for jobs are marketing/advertising themselves. In a way it's like dating. Early on, you might embellish,

fail to disclose, or tell an outright untruth. Example...early on in dating you might say that you LOVE going to poetry events.

After a few years of marriage you might admit that you have never enjoyed poetry, but made the statement to gain favor.

Honesty is the cornerstone of a relationship. Should the spouse be "terminated"?

We live in a very competitive world. People applying for work are often applying for the ability to maintain a family,

to keep a roof over ones head, or to be able to eat a regular meal everyday.

By conservative accounts 70% of all applicants lie, embelish, or fail to disclose something.

Expecting every applicant to be a candidate for sainthood is not very realistic in today's economy.