Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is 10 minus 4? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by polyfool
 - Dec 30, 2005, 02:06 PM
Quote from: maybefbiguy on Dec 30, 2005, 03:31 AM
To me common place doesn't mean right.  If I'm found under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work I expect to be fired.  What I do at home, be it a glass of beer, a joint, or staying up late watching movies is none of my employers business unless it effects my on the job performance.  If it does and my home life effects my work, I can fired.  

I'm sure my position seems odd with me being a non user, but its the principle to me.  I've seen discussion here about how people who are already employed somewhere that poly's might say that it seems to work since it did them no harm, and bury their heads in the sand.  I see no reason why home depot needs to know if their cart boy smokes pot on the weekends.  I think the bottom line is it saves home depot money and someone will take the job and put up with an invasion of their private life when its not necessary.  I, so far at least, refuse to do that for employment.

And now to find my way off this soapbox  ;)

maybefbiguy,

Although your position is a little odd considering you're a non-user, I would have to say your arguement does have some merit. While I don't myself have a problem with pre-employment drug screening and randon drug testing in the workplace, I could see how one might deem it an invasion of privacy of sorts. It seems to be a matter of principle with you and I can respect that. Since you have an issue with an invasion of privacy when it comes to drug testing, you definitely should stay away from the FBI. There's no way you'll put up with the BS that goes along with the application process from the poly all the way through the background investigation. The agency will know just about all there is to know about you once you've applied there--it's all about invasions of personal privacy. For me, I figured that it was understandable and necessary. I was glad that it was so thorough. I had not wanted to work for an agency involved in sensitive issues that didn't thoroughly check out its applicants because I wanted to feel safe working there. Anyway, good luck to you. I agree that no one should sacrifice their principles just for a job.
Posted by maybefbiguy
 - Dec 30, 2005, 03:31 AM
Quote from: polyfool on Dec 29, 2005, 08:07 PM
P.S. Why would you turn down employment because of drug screening if you've never used drugs? Drug screening, which is a scientific procedure, has become commonplace, even in the private sector. Employers don't want to be held liable for an employee who may be engaging in illegal behavior which could in turn, harm others. This is perfectly understandable and reasonable. Asking a prospective employee to submit to an unscientific procedure such as the polygraph is both unfair and unreasonable.
To me common place doesn't mean right.  If I'm found under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work I expect to be fired.  What I do at home, be it a glass of beer, a joint, or staying up late watching movies is none of my employers business unless it effects my on the job performance.  If it does and my home life effects my work, I can fired.  

I'm sure my position seems odd with me being a non user, but its the principle to me.  I've seen discussion here about how people who are already employed somewhere that poly's might say that it seems to work since it did them no harm, and bury their heads in the sand.  I see no reason why home depot needs to know if their cart boy smokes pot on the weekends.  I think the bottom line is it saves home depot money and someone will take the job and put up with an invasion of their private life when its not necessary.  I, so far at least, refuse to do that for employment.

And now to find my way off this soapbox  ;)
Posted by polyfool
 - Dec 29, 2005, 08:07 PM
Quote from: maybefbiguy on Dec 29, 2005, 04:36 PMNo kids, no animals, just consenting adults  ;)

I'm starting to think I need to lump polygraphs in with my feeling about urinalysis for most jobs.  Great site, thanks for the advice.  

maybefbiguy,

It's a mistake to lump a polygraph in the same category as a urinalysis--although I foolishly thought they were  similiar types of testing procedures before I took a poly. A person undergoing a urinalysis has control over the outcome--he/she knows what the results will be--take drugs=fail, don't take drugs=pass. Polygraphs are subjective and the examiner has ultimate say over whether the examinee passes regardless of how truthful he/she has been during the so-called testing procedure.

It would be wise to reconsider your decision to apply with the FBI. Even if you make it through the poly--an unscientific procedure over which you have no control--the FBI backgound investigation is very thorough. Investigators will talk with lots of people from your past and present, asking personal questions along the way. Any polygraph failure or failure to receive a clearance because of something uncovered during your background will be recorded in your permanent file and subject to disclosure to other government agencies as well as LE agencies. This is something the agency won't tell you when you apply there. When it's all said and done, you will feel like you have no privacy left. If you've got a problem with drug screening, I'd say it's best that you steer clear of the FBI. Good luck to you in whatever you decide.    

P.S. Why would you turn down employment because of drug screening if you've never used drugs? Drug screening, which is a scientific procedure, has become commonplace, even in the private sector. Employers don't want to be held liable for an employee who may be engaging in illegal behavior which could in turn, harm others. This is perfectly understandable and reasonable. Asking a prospective employee to submit to an unscientific procedure such as the polygraph is both unfair and unreasonable.
Posted by maybefbiguy
 - Dec 29, 2005, 04:36 PM
No kids, no animals, just consenting adults  ;)

I'm starting to think I need to lump polygraphs in with my feeling about urinalysis for most jobs.  Great site, thanks for the advice.  
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Dec 29, 2005, 07:40 AM
The FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies typically do not subject applicants to the sort of sexual inquisition that some CIA and NSA applicants have reported. That said, the U.S. Secret Service has in the past used (and may still) a question about sex with animals as a sort of "shock control" question. Although it's a "control" question, any admissions are likely to be disqualifying.

You'll find the questions you're likely to be asked on the FBI polygraph in the DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test (LEPET) examiner's guide.

But you might want to reconsider even applying with the FBI for a different reason. Roughly half of applicants who make it as far as the polygraph are being branded as liars by their polygraphers. Given that polygraphy is entirely without scientific basis to begin with, and that it's use for screening purposes is on even shakier ground, it is clear that many are being falsely accused and wrongly denied employment. Such false accusations are recorded in a permanent FBI file that follows the rejected applicant for the rest of his or her life. Not only is a failed FBI polygraph a permanent bar to FBI employment, it may also make it harder to obtain employment elsewhere in government, especially in positions that require a security clearance. In my opinion, the FBI polygraph a risk not worth taking.
Posted by maybefbiguy
 - Dec 29, 2005, 06:58 AM
I'm ready for a career change and think I would enjoy and posess skills that make be suitable for some federal law enforcement.  In particular I'm interested in the FBI.  I have some apprehension about applying however.  I've turned down private employment before because of drug screening.  If an employer doesn't need to know what I do at home, I won't tell them.  With something like the FBI I do understand the need to know a little bit more about a person and be more thorough so those standards I can work around.

I've never used drugs, not recreationally, with friends, to experiment, etc.  It seems like this would be ideal but after reading many posts here it seems like it may come off as "too ideal" and be a point of fixation.  Now what fun I didn't have with pot I've made up for with kinky sex.  I'll leave the details out, but I've dated some girls that like some interesting things.  Its all been consentual between adults, but certainly isn't all PC or would be viewed by all as acceptable.  Most of my friends know at least a little.  Its nothing I try to hide, its just nothing I flaunt.

My initial idea was to be honest and just tell them everything.  But it seems like that strategy isn't as reliable as you might think, and can cause complications down the road in life with a record that could haunt you.  Anyway the whole thing has me rethinking applying at all.   I've been reading about CMs and the like but I'm not sure I want to enter a career where I have be worried about when a polygraph might leave me unemployed.  I don't even know how deep they delve into sexual topics as part of a lifestyle poly.  

So what do you guys think?  Should I bother to go through the application process?  Will my bedroom activities be trouble?  Or am I expecting much ado about nothing.  Thanks.