From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-26 13:31:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Future with Ada Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:59:12 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9tuaf5$mg7$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3wdH7.20135$xS6.32614@www.newsranger.com> <9tqete0gqc@drn.newsguy.com> <9ttmmk$dg9$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1006808357 23047 136.170.200.133 (26 Nov 2001 20:59:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Nov 2001 20:59:17 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17007 Date: 2001-11-26T20:59:17+00:00 List-Id: O.K. I'm willing to stand corrected. Perhaps there are some companies with some jobs for which there is an existing clearance requirement. In all the times I have dealt with defense contractors and in the experience of many of the people I know in that business, its usually required that you be *clearable* rather than already cleared. (Although it can get tough to interview for a job on a project that doesn't exist and you don't have SAR clearance for it - they can't ask you too many specific questions and they can't give you *any* answers! {been there, done that} :-) If Raytheon requires you already be cleared, I'd wonder if it was for some specific job or is that a general policy? It would give them a bit of chicken-and-egg problem if they insisted on it across the board, eh? That's generally why I'd be skeptical of any claim that defense contractors working with Ada would want an existing clearance in most cases. How do you hire fresh-outs? Are the only people you can ever hire the ones that work for your competitors who *did* bite the bullet and get their people clearances? What happens if all the players follow that policy & the folks with existing clearances retire? I do know that it is usually easier/faster to get a clearance if you have had one in recent history rather than applying for one for the first time or trying to renew one that has been inactive for a number of years. But companies still do it - it just takes longer. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:K5+QUda6Bu6Z@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article <9ttmmk$dg9$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" writes: > > The phrases "Full-Time Employee" and "Existing clearance required" are > both present in the Raytheon page: > > http://www.headhunter.net/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.asp?did=JZ46T64B5WGN6586 88&CiBookMark=1&strCrit=QS%3Ddom%5Fbookmarks%3BQID%3DA3844800433238%3Bst%3Da %3Buse%3DAll%3BrawWords%3Dvms%3BTID%3D141104%3BBID%3DD8IJ%3BCTY%3DBoston%3BS ID%3DMA%3BCID%3DUS%3BENR%3DNO%3BDTP%3DDR3%3BYDI%3DYES%3BIND%3DAll%3BPDQ%3DAl l%3BJN%3DA%3BTITL%3D0&zbid=X15128F4B2C5F3F979BA6B438A073158BC76DE663A0E32063 8B6769472A799F9E9