What if George Santos had been hired, not elected?
Since getting elected in November to represent New York’s 3rd Congressional District, Republican George Santos (pictured, above) has been under fire for misrepresenting portions of his biography, including his work history, education, religion and charity work, as well as falsely claiming his grandmother was a Holocaust victim and that his mother died in the 9/11 terror attack.
It seems Santos is a serial liar as last week multiple men described to ABC News past relationships with the New York congressman – some allegedly occurring when they were still teenagers – that they said turned toxic due to a flood of lies that Santos told to try to manipulate and trap them.
In an interview with One America News Network (OAN), Santos said, “I don’t think lying is excusable ever, period. There’s no circumstance especially if you’re legislating for the American people right now. So what I might have done during the campaign does not reflect what is being done in the office.”
Santos said he lied about his education because he felt it was the only way to win his House seat.
“It was a bad decision. Poor judgment,” he said. “I felt the need to do it because I thought that without a diploma, I’d be looked down on and less than the other people.”
Santos maintained that he came from humble beginnings and defended his character.
“I know that a lot of people want to create this narrative that I faked my way to Congress, which is absolutely categorically false,” he said. “I’ve worked hard I’ve built ground up a career, through experience and through knowledge and through self education.”
What to say about this?
Santos admits to lying because he thought it would help him get elected, then in the next breath, he says it’s false to say he lied his way into office.
The cognitive dissonance on display is simply staggering.
Santos has insisted he has committed no crime and has vowed to serve out his term for his constituents, saying it’s up to them to re-elect him or vote him out of office in two years’ time.
Why is the bar so much lower for elected politicians compared to employees? It beggars belief that such a disparity exists.
How many employers do you think would allow Santos to continue his employment if, shortly after being hired, it was discovered he had lied about relevant aspects of his past?
It seems extraordinary that a person, who is responsible for performing one of democracy’s fundamental roles – representing a designated section of the population – can continue in that role without any short or medium term consequences to his tenure.
Unfortunately, the evidence would suggest that Santos is the archetype liar amongst jobseekers.
In a 2021 ResumeBuilder.com survey of 1,250 US workers, 32% admit to lying on their resume with men twice as likely as women to lie on their resumes, by a rate of 42% to 22%.
When broken down by income, individuals who earn six figures lied more on their respective resumes.
Of the workers earning over $150,000 who admitted to lying, the most common lie was about their education credentials
Men are more likely than women to say they lied because they lacked the necessary qualifications for the job they wanted (50% versus 31%).
Jobseekers lie on their resume because they clearly believe the benefits it may bring outweigh the potential consequences, and it seems they may be right.
Of those respondents who had lied on their resume and were caught, an extraordinary 29% suffered no consequences; 12% were reprimanded, but kept their job, while 18% were fired after starting work and 41% had their offer rescinded prior to commencing.
As Andrew Flanagan has recently demonstrated, no matter how much publicity your lying has generated, serial liars can’t help reverting to their old habits that have served them so well.
How are you ensuring the George Santos’s and Andrew Flanagan’s of your candidate market are not fooling you?
Liar, liar, pants on fire: How to spot an interview lie
The Myer conman is back and 8 years later he’s a pretend teacher
Myer sacks lying executive on his first day: How were they duped?
The voters in New York’s 3rd congressional district wanted change….although they got a bit more than they bargained for. Given the receipts on this guy, the vetting would have been a very straightforward process. Appalling.