# cheaters



## brodude (5 Feb 2008)

I was recently talking to a recruiter from the U.S. and we ended up having a conversation about the number of applicants that try to apply to the american military schools with a forged transcript. There has been a couple students that have recently confessed to have not even graduated high school but still managed to get a post secondary education with the military with a fake transcript. Apparently its pretty big news over there. It got me thinking, why do we never hear about that in canada? what is the process for verifying the authenticity of transcripts? are canadians just too honest or do we have a good system for filtering out fakes and verifying if they are real or not?


----------



## Pelorus (5 Feb 2008)

Interesting question.  Here's what happened with regards to my application (anecdotal, so read into it what you will).

When I obtained a HS transcript from my school to submit to my local CFRC (I am still being processed), my school printed it on official letterhead, sealed it in an envelope, stamped it, and signed on the envelope crease so it couldn't easily be tampered with.  They also offered to send my marks directly to the CFRC if required so it wouldn't be in my possession at any point (standard protocol for applying to civilian universities I believe).

When I brought it in, and told the recruiter that it could be sent directly if needed, he told me it wasn't necessary, and the impression that I got from him was that I could have just brought in a photocopy.  This really surprised me, because with the availability of programs like Photoshop these days, it seems to me it would be an easy thing to forge.  I would imagine that trying to forge a document like this would catch up with someone in the long run, but the whole thing seemed rather lackadaisical in my opinion. 

Regards.


----------



## mantai (5 Feb 2008)

interesting indeed..I was reading the "how to apply" on the royal military college website, and it explained that although you must provide official records of all previous college and university courses, your highschool transcript can be a mere photocopy. It got me thinking that they must have contact with the highschools or at least share a virtual network associated with them where they are able to see the grades. If not, it seems like it would be too easy to cheat the system. As boot said, transcripts seem like a very easy thing to replicate, especially with a program like photoshop. I do also agree that if someone manages to slip through the cracks, karma will do what it does best.


----------



## Roy Harding (5 Feb 2008)

I don't know the in's and out's of the whole thing - but it would seem to me that any forgery would be picked up - probably during the Enhanced Reliability Check.

Why don't one of you try it and let us know how you make out?


----------



## Pelorus (5 Feb 2008)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Why don't one of you try it and let us know how you make out?



Heh.  Taking one for the team?


----------



## mantai (5 Feb 2008)

we could all try it and split the fraud charge


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2008)

I have a suspicion that you already have.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (6 Feb 2008)

Without getting into details I administered a summary trial for somebody who had made false representations with respect to a high school transcript.  It was not for an RMC application, but the point is that the system has checks.


----------



## Strike (6 Feb 2008)

I know a reservist who got booted from the Masters Mil Stud program at RMC halfway through first term because he never did in fact get a bachelor of anything.


----------



## Lumber (7 Feb 2008)

For Ontarians, one of the requirements for enrolement at RMC (and in fact any Ontario University) is to have completed 6 grade 12, univeristy level courses. Because you can only take 4 courses a semester, you end up applying for enrolement without actually having met this criteria. The hope is that you will successfully complete the remainder of your courses, and the expectation being that you will supply an updated transcript as soon as it is available. Acceptance into RMC is completed, and offers are sent out before these updated transcripts are ever received. I know of individuals here at RMC who still, in second year, have no gotten around to providing the updated transcripts. They are attending RMC, but RMC's records only show them as having 4 university level highschool credits.

For example, you have to take both elementary chemistry and a third year level chemistry. If you took grade 12 univeristy level chemistry in highschool, then you are exempt from having to take the elementary chemistry. My roommate last year wondered why he was enrolled in elementary chemistry despite having the highschool credit required to have him exempt. When he went to the registrar's office, he discovered they had no record whatsoever of the courses he took in his second semester of highschool.

I would hope that the system has checks, and that no matter what these problems will work themselves out. I'm not so confident however.

Cheers


----------



## jalara (9 Feb 2008)

You can provide a copy of your transcripts to start your application, but the originals are required prior to enrolment.


----------



## airman87 (9 Feb 2008)

As far as I'm concerned for RMC, recruiters will add the mean average of each grade from grade 10-12 then average that out for a total 10-12 average. So say for example you got an average in grade 12 U 80% and through out grades 10-11 you were a slacker, it's all reflected on your transcript. Not like civie Universities where they only take the best 6 Grade12U courses.

"It is also recommended that in order to have a competitive file, applicants have marks of 80% or higher in grades 10, 11 and 12."
-RMC phaphlet


----------



## dwalter (10 Feb 2008)

When my recruiters looked at my file, they originally said that my grades were only average (After looking at my sub par grade 10 marks), however after they sat down and totalled them all up however they did it, they turned around and told me that my marks were very competitive, along with the other parts of my application. I guess you just have to do the 'submit and see' strategy. You won't know until you apply.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Feb 2008)

dwalter said:
			
		

> I guess you just have to do the 'submit and see' strategy. You won't know until you apply.



If people did that, it sure would cut back on the repetitive "what if" questions around here.  


i know, i know........"get back in the box CDN Aviator"


----------



## Pelorus (10 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If people did that, it sure would cut back on the repetitive "what if" questions around here.
> 
> 
> i know, i know........"get back in the box CDN Aviator"



It's a wonder that people somehow managed to get through the application process before the advent of the internet!


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (10 Feb 2008)

Eventually they'll get caught, and then we have a wonderful thing called a 1(d) Release "Release for Misconduct" also translates to can't get a job with any level of government and really lucky if McDonalds picks him up as a 4th round draft pick. (unless of course the fraudulent statement relates to age on enrollment)


----------



## ballz (10 Feb 2008)

Somehow I doubt that McDonald's or any low-end job that only requires you to be able to read & write long enough to fill out your application checks to see if you had a Release for Misconduct.

For that matter I'd bet money you could start an apprenticeship in Fort McMurray after one of these releases, and be making 150k a year within 4 years.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Somehow I doubt that McDonald's or any low-end job that only requires you to be able to read & write long enough to fill out your application checks to see if you had a Release for Misconduct.
> 
> For that matter I'd bet money you could start an apprenticeship in Fort McMurray after one of these releases, and be making 150k a year within 4 years.



I guess you missed the point.  You may be right on the Mcdonald's question, but the Fort McMurray part is irrelevant.  It isn't a Government job.  Then again, many of the employers up there also do some background checks as to suitability, and may in fact take that as a sign that you are an 'undesirable'.


----------



## TCBF (10 Feb 2008)

boot12 said:
			
		

> It's a wonder that people somehow managed to get through the application process before the advent of the internet!



- Yup. And we got through it a LOT FASTER back then, too!


----------



## George Wallace (10 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Yup. And we got through it a LOT FASTER back then, too!



Or so your memory tells you.     ;D


----------



## ballz (10 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess you missed the point.  You may be right on the Mcdonald's question, but the Fort McMurray part is irrelevant.  It isn't a Government job.  Then again, many of the employers up there also do some background checks as to suitability, and may in fact take that as a sign that you are an 'undesirable'.



Well the McDonald's part would lead one to believe that apparently you can't get a job anywhere, government or not, which is what kinda grabbed me.

And as irrelevant as this stuff is to the thread, as long as you can pass the drug and alcohol test the one time they test you (right before you get hired) you can work pretty much anywhere for anyone in Fort McMurray. There's plenty of people with criminal records as long as you can get 'em that manage to get jobs there. 

But now I've hijacked the thread soooo yeah I'll try and contribute here. I've had to give original copies for everything. Meds, high school stuff, anything that needs somebody signature basically.


----------



## Lumber (10 Feb 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> And as irrelevant as this stuff is to the thread, as long as you can pass the drug and *alcohol test* the one time they test you (right before you get hired) you can work pretty much anywhere for anyone in Fort McMurray.



Huh?


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2008)

NCdt Lumber said:
			
		

> Huh?



Yeah, stupid enough as it is, no one is allowed on the sites unless their employer has given them a drug test and an alcohol test (yes, a breathalyzer). Don't ask me why, sometimes I wonder how these people make millions and millions of dollars with some of the stupid stuff they come up with.

I actually didn't know I was being tested for alcohol, and when the person said "alcohol test" I was like "Well f**k I can tell you right now I'm going to fail that. I just graduated on Friday and I've been drunk ever since (this was a Wednesday)." When she turned around with a breathalyzer I realised why she was laughing at me to the point of choking.


----------



## Greymatters (11 Feb 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yeah, stupid enough as it is, no one is allowed on the sites unless their employer has given them a drug test and an alcohol test (yes, a breathalyzer). Don't ask me why, sometimes I wonder how these people make millions and millions of dollars with some of the stupid stuff they come up with.
> 
> I actually didn't know I was being tested for alcohol, and when the person said "alcohol test" I was like "Well f**k I can tell you right now I'm going to fail that. I just graduated on Friday and I've been drunk ever since (this was a Wednesday)." When she turned around with a breathalyzer I realised why she was laughing at me to the point of choking.



Although the drug testing is getting more and more common these days, thats the first Ive heard of a company using a breathalyzer test as part of the hiring process...


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2008)

That's probably because it's so stupid ... I guess the big wigs think that a few hours without a beer proves you're not an alcoholic. I mean you pretty much have to TRY to fail it, unless you regularily shotgun a few cans during you're lunch hour or something? And it's not just any company, this is all sites, meaning CNRL, Shell, Syncrude, Suncor, etc, yeah, some of the biggest companies in the world.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2008)

Perhaps you are missing the other factor; and that is the Rules and Regulations regarding Drugs and Alcohol in most, if not all, Northern Communities.  This may not be a company induced policy, but a policy they have implemented to comply with the rules set out by Northern Communities and Territories due to problems of abuse by the Native population.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2008)

You could be right there, it's something I never considered, but I have never heard of it either. As far as I knew it was just part of the safety stuff they have on site, they're crazy about it. But it's only the sites that require it the breathalzyer, so I dunno.

Regardless of who's policy it is, it's still pretty pointless. Who can't pass a breathalyzer when you know the date and time you have to go get it done and everything.


----------



## Greymatters (11 Feb 2008)

Following up on the drug and alcohol testing, its a lot more common than I thought, especially if the organization is in the manufacturing sector and/or has links to the USA which has stronger rules allowing employers to use drug and alcohol testing as part of pre-employment.  Linked here is the page refering to Alberta employers: 
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/Information_Sheets/Text/Info_Drug_Testing.asp


----------



## Rowshambow (11 Feb 2008)

perhaps you were going to a dry camp (and you missed it in the instructions)....but I digress, when I joined, I only needed copies of my transcripts. but that was awhile ago


----------



## dwalter (11 Feb 2008)

I can see it making sense to do an alcohol check as part of the application process, because if someone is intoxicated during that phase, then it gives an employer a flag to watch out for whilst doing work as well. The only reason why I say it is because I had been talking with some chaps who work in construction site security, and they were telling a story about how on every site there is always at least one guy on the graveyard shift who will go into the electrical room with a bottle of his favourite. They drink a bunch, curl up and go to sleep in the cozy place, and therefor they are not doing what they should and any manner of things could happen.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2008)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> perhaps you were going to a dry camp (and you missed it in the instructions)....but I digress, when I joined, I only needed copies of my transcripts. but that was awhile ago



No to that one for sure. I didn't stay in camp, I lived in town. Our company was also based in town, we just did a lot of work at site as contractors.

The CNRL camp has a bar out there, and they still require alcohol testing with the drug testing, so it's got nothing to do with dry camps. You need to do the testing regardless of whether you're going to camps or not. If you need to go out to site to replace a rusty bolt for your company, you need to have been drug and alcohol tested at some point before you're allowed to go replace that bolt.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Feb 2008)

dwalter said:
			
		

> I can see it making sense to do an alcohol check as part of the application process, because if someone is intoxicated during that phase, then it gives an employer a flag to watch out for whilst doing work as well. The only reason why I say it is because I had been talking with some chaps who work in construction site security, and they were telling a story about how on every site there is always at least one guy on the graveyard shift who will go into the electrical room with a bottle of his favourite. They drink a bunch, curl up and go to sleep in the cozy place, and therefor they are not doing what they should and any manner of things could happen.



I think there are a few legal applications in this as well, such as precedent for individuals (you agreed to take the test before, why are you saying 'no' now?) or as a group (if applied to everyone no one can claim they are being singled out and targeted for punishment or profiling or denial of work opportunities), and the results can always be used at a later time to the company's advantage if liability isues ever come up...


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yeah, stupid enough as it is, no one is allowed on the sites unless their employer has given them a drug test and an alcohol test (yes, a breathalyzer). Don't ask me why, sometimes I wonder how these people make millions and millions of dollars with some of the stupid stuff they come up with.
> 
> I actually didn't know I was being tested for alcohol, and when the person said "alcohol test" I was like "Well f**k I can tell you right now I'm going to fail that. I just graduated on Friday and I've been drunk ever since (this was a Wednesday)." When she turned around with a breathalyzer I realised why she was laughing at me to the point of choking.



If the workers are operating heavy machinery or doing another job that requires total mental alertness (not that all jobs don't 'require' that, but pushing pencils when you are inebriated is not the same as flying a plane in said condition), then it is perfectly reasonable for an employer to request drug and alcohol tests, in my opinion. It is pretty well-known that some isolated Northern communities are rife with drug/alcohol abuse, and what employer wants to risk the future of their company, millions/billions of dollars, and the very lives of their employees on the possibility that someone's non-stop partying could cause irreversible damage?


----------



## ballz (12 Feb 2008)

I think you're misunderstanding the breathalyzer.... They don't make you take a breathalyzer before you hop into your dumptruck to go driving, or whatever. They make you take a breathalyzer weeks sometimes months before you start work..... After that, you can show up to work plastered and you won't get breathalyzed unless management smells you or you cause an accident.


----------



## Rowshambow (12 Feb 2008)

Celticgirl, just so you know, Ft Mcmurray (albeit in Northern Alberta) I don't think it is considered a "norther community" it has (I think the last time I was there) about 70 000 people living there (I am sure ballz could give you the exact amount) It has quite a few major commodities!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Feb 2008)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Celticgirl, just so you know, Ft Mcmurray (albeit in Northern Alberta) I don't think it is considered a "norther community" it has (I think the last time I was there) about 70 000 people living there (I am sure ballz could give you the exact amount) It has quite a few major commodities!



And most of those 70000 are Newfoundlanders  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (12 Feb 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> If the workers are operating heavy machinery or doing another job that requires total mental alertness (not that all jobs don't 'require' that, but pushing pencils when you are inebriated is not the same as flying a plane in said condition), then it is perfectly reasonable for an employer to request drug and alcohol tests, in my opinion. It is pretty well-known that some isolated Northern communities are rife with drug/alcohol abuse, and what employer wants to risk the future of their company, millions/billions of dollars, and the very lives of their employees on the possibility that someone's non-stop partying could cause irreversible damage?



The reason the drug testing meets such difficulties is that a judge decided that drug testing (in his opinion) only tests what your mental state was in the past, not in the present, so had no bearing on the current mental condition of the testee, therefore shoulodnt be a an to performing work.   I certainly dont agree with that, but that was his ruling.  Same with the breathalyzer, the ruling was that it only tested what the persons alcoholic state was now, not what it would be when performing the job.  Its basically taking innocent until proven guilty a bit too far and a fairly narrow interpretation as any person who shows up for an interview and breathalyzer test drunk is just as likely to show up for the job drunk.  Oh and as for pencil pushers being not very dangerous, that is a biased flaw.  Although not a great risk to life, desk jockeys can be just as dangerous in liable actions and making bad decisions, which can be even more expensive than any mistakes made with heavy machinery...


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Celticgirl, just so you know, Ft Mcmurray (albeit in Northern Alberta) I don't think it is considered a "norther community" it has (I think the last time I was there) about 70 000 people living there (I am sure ballz could give you the exact amount) It has quite a few major commodities!



They're all Northern communities to me, as I've never been to that part of the country.   Thanks for setting the record straight. Mind you, I have heard stories about some 'activities' that go on in FMM, but as that is hearsay, I'll keep those little tidbits to myself.  ;D

[Edit for grammar errors, which are popping up in all of my posts today.  :blotto:]


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Oh and as for pencil pushers being not very dangerous, that is a biased flaw.  Although not a great risk to life, desk jockeys can be just as dangerous in liable actions and making bad decisions, which can be even more expensive than any mistakes made with heavy machinery...



Good point.


----------



## ballz (12 Feb 2008)

The official population is about 80,000, plus commuters and shadow population (camp workers that don't count in a government consensus) brings the widely accepted population to about 100,000.

Last I heard, about 17% of the official population were Newfies. I imagine the percentage for Atlantic Canadians would be anywhere between 30-40%. 

My favorite regionalistic quote applies pretty well up there: "If all the Newfies left and went home, Newfoundland would sink, and the rest of Canada would shut down."  ;D


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Feb 2008)

I can speak to this from the perspective of two different eras.

In 1977 (the previous boom) I was a labourer in an oil camp (I was kitchen help - nothing fancy).  In 2006 I went to Fort Mac (temporarily, for only two weeks - and my company put us up in company owned mobiles) as part of a team to fix problems that my employer had encountered.  (I was not resident or a "permanent" labourer in either case).

In 1977 I washed a lot of dishes, peeled a lot of potatoes, played a lot of cards, and drank a WHOLE lot of booze.  And nobody cared.

In 2006 I worked HARD 18 hour days, stayed away from the bars, and NEVER played cards.

What was the difference in culture that I saw (aside from the obvious age difference between "1977 me", and "2006 me")?

Well - in 1977 it was accepted that all oilmen drank too much, whored too much, gambled too much, perhaps "smoked" too much, but hey -  they were a "tough bunch" who could work through their hangover.  

In 2006 it was recognized that ALL these men deal with multi-million dollar equipment, their peers' lives depended upon them, and not being "up to par" was unacceptable.  I welcome the change.

In my 2006 experience, we did drug/alcohol tests BEFORE being dispatched north from Edmonton.  A couple of guys didn't cut the mustard - I was glad they weren't brought along.  They were NOT fired (labour shortage being what it is), but they were NOT sent north to the oilfield - they stayed back in Edmonton, far away from where they could cause serious damage.

As a soldier, I dealt with life-threatening situations, and although I was guilty of being hungover on more than one occasion, I welcome the change that has taken place regarding impairment.  

As an oilfield worker, many (not me personally) deal with life-threatening situations, and although I was guilty of being hungover on more than one occasion, I welcome the change that has taken place regarding impairment.


----------

