TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances From:"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat -at- editors-writers -dot- info> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Thu, 14 Aug 2003 21:26:17 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: <MList -at- chrysalis-its -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Sent: August 13, 2003 04:08 PM
Subject: RE: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances
>
> eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com suggested:
>
> > In the end I might even be inclined to argue that the requirement for
> > clearance IS fair. After all, if some one with clearance is available
> > isn't it only fair to hold the job for them instead of giving it to
> > someone that has yet to perform the necessary steps to get clearance
> > themselves?
>
>
> Are there actually workable procedures where a person
> can simply request a form at the FBI (USA), RCMP/CSIS (Canada)
> or other (your country, whoever you are), and the clearance
> process just automatically procedes until they receive a certificate
> of some sort to wave in the faces of prospective employers?
No. You have to have a sponsor -- you have to have a JOB where you need the
clearance.
Does that
> process have a user fee that's manageable by an unemployed writer
> or editor who's simultaneously trying to keep the family fed and
> sheltered?
>
You cannot do it yourself.
> Isn't one of the clearance sticking points... being unemployed?
You are not unemployed if you are applying for a clearance.
>
> I've got SECRET at the moment, because my employer entered into
> situations that carried the requirement. For the first year or
> two with this company it was not an issue, then they had to
> clear a bunch of us, which took many, many months to happen,
> after we'd filled out the forms. When I was in the military,
> I had TOPSECRET compartmentalized clearances, which were processed
> by THAT employer. I don't believe I've ever met anyone (maybe
> I just didn't think to ask, but I notice that nobody in this
> list of many thousands has volunteered...) who had themselves
> cleared, as a private person with no present need.
>