I suppose I'm somewhat lucky really. I've no real need to falsify or inflate my CV in any way.

As I've never actually possessed qualifications of a kind that would necessarily sustain any amount of embellishment or enhancement.

In my particular vocational circumstances, it's a matter of my starting at 'the bottom' and regrettably...'staying at the bottom' !

Cheers folks.

Apropos, I was working for a large financial organisation in the late 90s and for some reason they had me on the interview panel (gender equity me thinks) to hire a senior IT specialist.

We needed someone with specialist knowledge of C++ (or something like that). I didn't have a clue and I don't think our IT or HR managers did either. In the end we picked someone who sounded and looked confident. Had an excellent CV.

The only problem was, he didn't know anything about C++ or whatever. He winged it for six months and learnt on the job. We didn't know enough to know that he didn't know enough. ce la vie.

Thank you for raising this issue on online forum. The vexed issue of people gaining emplyment can sometimes take two to create the "whatever it takes". I refer here to the recruiting of health "professionals" under the two way "whatever it takes" programmes which offer special entry programmes to overseas doctors whose qualifications are not recognised in Australia, some of whom go on to qualify as Fellows of the relevant College of Specialisation under the condition that they practice only in their area of specialisation. I feel for those doctors who have come in through the front door, retrained, undertaken English language proficiency exams,only to find themselves working alongside others who have bypassed such rigorous criteria.

Employer lies and fakes.

It works both ways, I come across people who have been promised careers, benefits, salary etc. when the company is just around the liquidation corner. Some have moved families and homes, just to find out that they are out of a job a month later. This also applies to large multi-national companies - who can afford to take them to court?

Charles Rahim, investigator (Private) says that perhaps polygraph lie detector testing should be introduced for pre employment testing.
The polygraph results should just be used as part of the process as an investiagtive tool.

For example, if the person fails the question: have you taken illegal drugs in the last 12 months then perhaps a urine test should be introduced.

All this should be subject to review and further discussion anyway.

I think you must be the best you can be, But I also think, what ever it takes,( with telling lies) is bull-crap and you know it.

THE TRUE PERSON WILL BE WHAT HE OR SHE IS, AND THATS TRUE FACT!.

All the best with your thoughts.

Evolution.