Drew,

Quote:


I never expected you did Drew. Sure hope that wasn't implied. I was trying to demonstrate the intrinsic lack of accountability in screening CQT's as well as some of the more extreme rationalizations used in the pro polygraph community.

Raskin and Hont's, in Kleiner's "manual" discuss the CQT and are clearly uncomfortable with the deception involved in it, preferring the DLT for screening. I consider this better than the CQT since it is not deceptive. This is the part of the CQT that most disgusts me. Too bad the polygraph community continues to prefer the CQT. One of the advantages that community has is due to inadmissibility in court. If it was one suspects the CQT's basic deceptiveness would be outed rather quickly.

As for screening tests, employement screens, or outright voo-doo doesn't bother me. I tend to the libertarian perspective. I think an employer should be able to hire or fire for any reason, no matter how stupid. I also think an employee can do the same.

-Marty

Skeptic,

I know my attitude re employee-employer is unusual but I find many intelligent people view the relationship as one where the employer is somehow doing a favor by hiring the employee. Typically the opposite is true since employers tend to hire only when they see the employee as benefiting them more than the wage and overhead cost. People need to be more aware of the power they have. Of course this applies less in government jobs where such balances do not directly occur.

Anyway I proffer that opinion not to change anyone's mind in that area but simply to make my posts re the polygraph more clear. Why do I somehow think there is a snowball's chance in hell I would ever be hired in government?  Can't say I would blame em. 

-Marty

Skeptic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2002 at 5:43am:


It's all relative. It's my experience that people vary enormously with respect to the specific skill set they have that an employer needs for any one job.  The days of employees being assy line replaceable cogs is long gone.

When an employer can not combine invested capital and business goodwill with an employee's labor and produce incremental value that is the very definition of an unsustainable situation where "power" increasingly lies with the employer (since the employees are paid in excess of their generated value) but that "power" is inadvertant and temporary by definition.

Occasionally, corporations are looted by their more highly placed employees, ie management, but that is not the norm just as stock market bubbles are not common. Neither are rare though. Enron is an example of a company obliterated by a few employees.  (It wasn't the owners, ie: shareholders) that screwed Enron.

-Marty

Sorry, please edit the spelling of "appropriate" and "friend" of my last post.

However, do not forget to send Mr Webb feedback at: skipwebb@earthlink.net

Quote:


That article can be read here. Log in using

Username: newslinks1
Password: newslinks1

(To read the article one must first register. If you don't wish to do so feel free to use the information above.)

Fair use quote:

Quote:

There was another article by Charles Piller regarding the polygraph in the October 14th edition of the L. A. Times (page A20). Check it out at LATIMES.COM

Libertarian:

If you are "A True Libertarian" then what is your complaint???

Most libertarians believe in giving very broad powers to employers! Your posts makes you out to be more like "A True Socialist!"

Friend of Pete,

A libertarian will generally give wide discretion and seek broad freedoms for individuals, not organizations or governments controlling individuals.  This not withstanding, neither libertarian nor other honest Americans of any political persuasion or stripe will condone criminal activity, e.g., a polygraph examiner (or other government employee) attributing fabricated admissions/confessions to an individual during and as a result of the conduct of government business and related activities.