Dear "Nancy Drew",

I do not know where you got the inference or impression that the salary could be "negotiated."  The Federal government has strict OPM guidelines on what you will be paid and how pay raises will be administrated.  What you do not see "upfront" is not going to happen.  You have to state that you are only interested in a job if you qualify at a specific "GS" level.  Do not accept a job expecting that they will make a significant change on threat of you leaving.  Many Special Agents were burned after signing up after 9/11 thinking that the FBI would make them whole after seeing what they could do.  They took significant salary cuts from their previous private sector jobs of what they were making, relocated to high cost of living areas, and expected to "grind through the ranks" like all agents before them.  There was no special consideration given.

I sense you are heading for deep disappointment with your line of questions.

Regards.

Dear Sackett,

I am a member and poster on this site.  I try not to be sarcastic.  The only expectation that I had when I applied for a federal job was a "fair chance", hence my screen name.  I know that life is not always fair but the process concerning "not acceptable parameters" in pre-screening polygraphs borders is cloaked in secrecy and yet can ruin lives.

Regards

Dear Sackett,

I am gainfully employed by an agency and I have all of the clearances with lots of letters behind them including three letter classified levels and beyond.  The polygraph pre-screening exams would have thrown me aside to the wolves but for my many years of honorable service in the military and the Department of Justice.  The exam was wrong in its conclusion: way wrong in its assumptions.  I am living proof that it is very fallible.  This country is spending so much money on a method that known by our adversaries.  

You did hit the nail on the head with the hammer when you stated that agencies and HR departments are using the exam results to scapegoat more serious issues with applicants.  This is destroying the credibility of the polygraph in all ways, shapes, and forms.

As for being completely honest with the polygraph examiner, I find that a hoot.  I am completely honest with all persons involved with any employment application.  I do not need the "threat" of a polygraph examination to keep me honest.  That is what is ironic.  The polygraph examination was not needed to keep the FBI employees honest in the past and has not been proven to prevent any of the ones that went bad from being dishonest.  The ones that were bad were never caught by the polygraph.

A thorough background check is the best defense against a potential threat.  The polygraph is just a crutch thrown at Congress to make it look like the agencies are "getting tough" and to have a "scape goat" reason that no individual would take responsibility for their actions of approving a person for clearance.

Regards.

Quote:


That makes no sense.  Depends what the "anti" is addressing.  If it is targeted against something that is a fraud, does more harm than good, has been debunked...etc, then the responsible thing to do is be "anti".  Of course, that is best done by getting the facts, pro or con ("Anti").


Quote:


You ARE talking about THIS site and not the "Polygraph Place", aren't you?

Lots of people come here because they are perplexed as to why they failed the test despite telling the truth.  They get propaganda at PP, they get facts here.  Would a post pointing to the NAS report get deleted on that board?

You job is to HIDE the truth, our job is to EXPOSE the truth.

You just no like dah truth!