They Said I Made Admissions also..

[Marty]

Drew,

Marty,

Although my mention of CIT exams was not the focus (the absolute necessity for audio/video recording of polygraph examinations was) of my last post or this thread, I believe you may have missed my point there.  I would never suggest CIT exams (or any other) be done for employee, applicant, or other screening.

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]

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

I couldn't disagree more, Marty.  The positions simply aren't even -- one entity is typically in a position of power, and the other is not.  That fact is the whole reason we have employment laws in the first place.

Skeptic

[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]

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.

Believe it or not, I don't consider your position that unusual.  But then, I have a fair amount of experience with libertarians.

Typically, most employers (especially during economic downturns) have several more qualified applicants than they have positions.  Considering the usual unemployment rate and the fact that most employers are far more organized than are employees, free market conditions tend to lead to employers having considerably more power than potential employees.  This means they can name their "price" for employment.

Remember, most people didn't want to take polygraphs back when it was legal for private employers to use them in pre-employment screening.  Yet their use was expanding.  It took popular revolt in the form of legislation to stop polygraph abuse in the private sector, and it will probably take the same for government.

Skeptic

[Marty]

Typically, most employers (especially during economic downturns) have several more qualified applicants than they have positions.

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

[The Man in Black (Guest)]

Good News to all who would like to send Skip Webb of the "American Polygraph Association" a private email. You may  contact him at: skipwebb@earthlink.net

Please send Mr. Webb any feeback that you feel is approprite. I strongly encourage feedback that recommends that all APA members be required to video tape all aspects of a polygraph exam.

This, I hope, will put an end to granting examiner's unlimited power to write reports that include false admissions.

signed:

"The Man in Black" (A Fiend of, "True Libertarian")

[The Man in Black]

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

[A True Libertarian]

Hi everyone:

There was an awesome article in the October 9th edition of the L.A. Times that detailed scientific data that suggest that polygraph testing is a fraud. Please go to LATIMES.com to view the article.

 The article is by Charles Piller, a Times Staff Reporter. Please send Mr Piller his due praise and feel free to mention my post at antipolygraph.org, if you wish.

Thanks,

A True Libertarian

[beech trees]

Hi everyone:

There was an awesome article in the October 9th edition of the L.A. Times that detailed scientific data that suggest that polygraph testing is a fraud. Please go to LATIMES.com to view the article.

The article is by Charles Piller, a Times Staff Reporter. Please send Mr Piller his due praise and feel free to mention my post at antipolygraph.org, if you wish.

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:

"I don't think federal agencies stop and ask themselves how many spies have we caught with this--because the answer is 'none'--or how many people have been unfairly denied employment, because the answer is 'many.' "-- Steven Aftergood

[George W. Maschke]

For anyone wishing to contact Charles Piller, the author of the above-referenced L.A. Times article, his e-mail address is Charles.Piller@latimes.com.

[A True Libertarian]

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

[A True Libertarian]

Mr. Piller:

I got your email and only hope that you register and become a senior member of this web site.  

Thanks again for reading my story!

"A True Libertarian"

P.S.   I have world series tickets to all Angels home games. Thank God!! Without baseball, I do not know if I would have made it through this witch hunt!!

[Friend of Pete]

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!"

[beech trees]

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!"

Although we are ranging ever-farther from the topic, the above sentiment indicates you know absolutely nothing about libertarianism.

[Anonymous]

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.