Law question. No, I'm not in jail.

[HoneyBBQ]

Ok, this is a really easy question (probably) for the many lawyers on the board.

I have a work document which I am supposed to sign. I fill out information, then sign and date it. It says prior to the signature:

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that this is a true estimate and legitamate (sic) business need.


Isn't perjury, by definition, something that happens between an individual and the US court/government?


I can't perjure myself at work, can I - because I don't work for the IRS/US court system/etc?


Besides the typo, I object to signing something that is a) dumb and b) wrong. So just wondering if it is wrong before I cross it out.


Thanks! 

[milee]

If you're very important and difficult to replace at work, cross it out or do whatever.

If you're replaceable or your family would be up the creek if you lost this job, sign the dumb thing and move on.

(Feel free to use this decision matrix whenever you encounter anything dumb at work... ) 

[milee]

I wasn't being flippant with that prior post, just being practical.

Who knows why your employer wants/needs that document?  Could be that part of your work is allocated to a project for which the company gets government grants or research funding.  Could be that your employer had some sort of government settlement years ago that dictates certain procedures are now followed.  Could be that your company will be bidding on government work in the future and needs to make sure they're in compliance with all the odd regs before they bid.  Or it could be that your HR department is filled with the types of idiots who like to use big words to make themselves look smart and all they are accomplishing is broadcasting how little they know.

But again, unless it's committing you to something improper, illegal, unethical or untrue, why worry about their odd wording?

[HoneyBBQ]

It's an expense report. I don't think it's some back-door government stuff. I think it might be your statement regarding HR that is correct. 

Why fuss? Well, I don't like the language. I don't like promising to do something (not perjure) if it doesn't make sense. I don't like signing things that are wrong/incorrect. 

Is it important? Probably not. 

But it bugs me, and it's something I've been taught over and over in my life experiences; don't sign anything you don't understand and don't sign anything that's not true. 

So the fact the language is odd and/or wrong... it makes me feel icky inside.

If it was just the typo I could overlook it.

[milee]

Honestly, it sounds like HR is being an idiot but maybe you are also being a PITA employee.  Is it really worth it to point out their error?

You can justify with the statement that you don't sign anything that's not true, but in this case it's not the fact that it's not true; the perjury thing just isn't relevant (different than being untrue.)  It's not being able to point out to them that they're idiots that's bugging you.  And I get it, stuff like that bugs me, too.  Just not enough to make it into an issue at work.  I pick and choose so I can be a PITA over stuff that's really going to matter to me.

[HoneyBBQ]

May 29, 2013 16:18:45 GMT -5 milee said:

  It's not being able to point out to them that they're idiots that's bugging you.

No, actually, that's not not the case. It's pointless to point out to an idiot that they are an idiot. I never waste my time or effort, nor would I derive any satisfaction if I did.

I was just going to quietly cross out the offending word and sign and submit.  I don't think that qualifies me as a "PITA employee."

I was more interested in the legal context of the wording on the document than a judgement on my performance.  

[Abby Normal]

I think it likely they are just trying to make sure people aren't embellishing their expense reports.  I fill out government reports all the time that  say " I certify that the information provided is true and accurate under penalty of perjury"  blah blah blah.

But if it were me and I wanted to be sure that internally people were only claiming business expenses- I'd have written  " By signing this expense report, I certify  that all expenses within for legitimate business use.  Any personal use or falsified expenses are subject to prosecution."

[midjd]

Who knows why your employer wants/needs that document?  Could be that part of your work is allocated to a project for which the company gets government grants or research funding.  Could be that your employer had some sort of government settlement years ago that dictates certain procedures are now followed.  Could be that your company will be bidding on government work in the future and needs to make sure they're in compliance with all the odd regs before they bid.  Or it could be that your HR department is filled with the types of idiots who like to use big words to make themselves look smart and all they are accomplishing is broadcasting how little they know.

That pretty much covers it.

Generally you have to be sworn in to commit perjury. If you're signing a written statement that will be used in a court proceeding, you do so "under penalty of perjury." I can see how that requirement could be extrapolated to a document that could be used in court, although it seems like a long shot.

That typo would drive me insane, though!