That’s not true. If they’re looking for an applicant with a clean driving record, they may just throw his application away for answering yes to the question, even though for their purposes his record is clean. It’s a vague and poorly written question.
I’d still lean towards disclosing it, but if there’s no way to clarify I might consider answering “no” and maybe mentioning it in the interview or something. The ideal situation would be to call and ask someone for clarification ahead of time. I’d bet they’ll just say to answer “no” so long as there’s nothing that’ll show up on your driving record, which it sounds like this won’t.
The question is “ever been cited for a traffic violation”? and thus 99.9% of experienced drivers will have to answer yes.
I also doubt if that is the only traffic violation the Op has ever been cited for, altho I do not doubt the others are too old to show on his record. Unless he’s a newb driver, of course.
If you don’t, and at some far distant point in the future HR wants to fire you for some reason, they would be able to use the old “lied on the application” excuse, rather than have to go through all of the escalating verbal/written warning froofra.
Yes, but these things are usually done before a defendant pleads to anything, not afterwards. I still contend that what the OP describes is strange: “Now that you’ve paid the fine and thus admitted guilt, give us more money or we’re telling!”
That doesn’t sound creepy & blackmailish to anyone else?
By paying the fine the OP entered into a stipulation, which in most jurisdictions is the same as pleading guilty.
Why bother asking the question if the vast majority of experienced drivers would answer yes? If the question is being asked without any follow up, it might be some sort of bizarre honesty test, but it seems more likely to me that they want to know if you have any citations that will show up on a current driving record check and were just lazy with the wording of the question. The risk the OP runs in saying “yes” is that if other applicants are interpreting the question the same way as I am, they’ll answer “no” to the question and so the employer may prefer these applicants with “clean” driving records.
Getting various deals to keep points off after you’ve plead guilty isn’t all that uncommon, the only difference is that as the OP describes it they’re not even really trying to hide the blatant cash grab behind any sort of traffic safety justification. Normally it’s more like they tell you to go to some perfunctory traffic school or not pick up any other tickets and they just sort of sneak in the big fat “processing fee” or whatever they call it.
If a company wants to get rid of you, they’ll find (or manufacture) a reason even if you have a perfect record in every concievable way. Sure, not leaving any easy-outs for HR to use against you can buy you a little extra time or a couple weeks wages before the inevitable, but IME those last few weeks/months will be miserable for you when higher-ups decide they want you gone.
If you are in a good place and you & everyone else is happy with your performance, it’s extremely unlikely that HR will randomly go through archived files with a fine-toothed comb and fire people for typos or wrong answers on their initial job applications; why would they?
In my job searching experience, companies can sometimes have ridiculous hiring policies (often designed to protect the company from some sort of potential legal action or higher insurance rates) which can screen competant/qualified people out that you’d never expect; these policies are often closely guarded secrets as well so it’s hard to know ahead of time what they do and don’t want to see on an application or how they score it.
IME, a person is more likely to be rejected in the application stage by providing an answer that makes them look bad or unqualified (and thus never have a chance at the job)… than to get the job but then be fired months or years later after an inaccuracy or wrong answer was discovered. IOW, it’s harder to get a particular job than to keep it and I’d be inclined to make myself as competitive as possible to get my foot in the door… because once in your performance is what matters, whereas in the application stage your appearance is what counts. Whether this company uses the “ever been cited for a traffic violation?” question as a screening tool to hire only the lowest-risk drivers and keep their insurance premiums low OR as a more spohicticated check of your integrity is hard to know… they may not even care about the answer and only include the question as some sort of legal ass-covering window-dressing to show that they at least try to find out if they were interviewing decent drivers.
I have no idea what state the OP is talking about, but in Texas, if you’re stopped for a minor violation (rolling through a Stop Sign in my case) the ticket is waived if you take a defensive driving course and pay $150 or so.
That’s true of most states, but you have to elect the traffic school option within a relatively short time after the citation - say, 90 days. You certainly can’t go back and do it after 1.5 years.
Well, that didn’t happen in the OP, either. Basically, from what it sounds like, he paid the fine, then two weeks later got the letter about paying more to keep it off his record. That is a bit odd. The scenario he lays out in his follow-up post is not unusual to me: driving under supervision. Basically, you pay the full fine, and maybe a little extra for court costs (I can’t remember, it’s been 20 years), and it doesn’t go on your record unless you get another traffic violation within X amount of time (either 6 months or a year, in my case). If you do, then both violations appear. That said, I have never heard of it happening after you’ve already paid your fine.
Not in Wisconsin it isn’t. You can take a point reduction course once every 5 years, but it only takes 3 demerit points off, not any violations. The violation stays on record for 5 years no matter what. Even if a conviction is vacated (say on appeal. Very rare for a traffic case) the record will still list the violation, the conviction, and the vacation.
The point reduction course is basically for people who are dangerously close to losing their driving privileges. Points here are removed one year after the violation (not after the conviction) anyway. What this means is, if you get a ticket in January and can manage to keep it out of court until may, and get convicted in May, the points accessed are removed the following January, not May. This is in favor of the violator.
Wisconsin is one of the few states not a member of any compact, so the state may or may not inform a non-residents state about a violation conviction. Also, with the exception of DUI Wisconsin does not access points for it’s drivers out of state violations, and many times they don’t even appear on their record.
That’s the thing. I would get a speeding ticket about every 10 years, and one unsafe driving ticket ($150) once for sliding off the road when it was sheet ice, causing about $800 damage to the car. Anybody driving for more than a few years likely will get something. If they want someone with a perfect driving record, they can hire a 16-year-old.
Sorry - that’s what I meant. In this case, he’s plead guilty by paying the fine. By paying the extra, perhaps he’s updated the conviction (i.e. like on appeal) to something less of a real record.
OTOH, I was recently (almost two years ago) given a ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign. I told the officer at the time “I believe I came to a full stop”. I asked for a court date, when I got there (14 months later), they told me the case had been dropped. Speaking to some of the half the court attendees who were also told this, I found someone else caught in the same trap and also dismissed. Did they find flaw with the police process? Was it cheaper and simpler to drop the charges for those with fairly clean driving records?
Anyhoo, having not been convicted, I consider it nobody’s f–ing business whether or not I was given that ticket. The crown decided the charges were not worth taking to court, ergo I committed no offense. It is NOT the insurance company’s business, my employer’s business, or anyone else’s, if the police made an unsubstantiated claim.