posted 12-13-2006 07:51 PM         

My example.. the one that happened to me (albiet on a voice stress test not a polygraph)

"Have you ever been fired from an employer that you have omited from your application?"

It said I had been. I have all my pay stubs from every job Ive ever had- all three of them.the first job was with my dad, who retired and sold the store- so he just had me quit working when he sold the store- the second job fired me (and told them about this), the 3rd job Im still working at.

Not only do I have all my tax records, and pay stubs, and can easily account for every day of my working life between when I was 16 to now in those three jobs- but it was only three jobs!

I called the sheriff (I actually have his personal cell phone #) and told him I was concerned over the results- I told him "if you elected not to hire me based on something I did, Im fine with it- but I dont want to be dismissed from the process because of something I did not do, and can prove I never have done.

I know the numbers dont say everything- but if what I reported to the IRS is the same as my one job's pay stubs- it would prove I didnt have a 2nd job at the time, and if I only had one job at a time, then I can prove Ive only had three jobs, and thus can prove I only been fired once. If on the other hand you argue that maybe I decided not to report the 2nd job to the IRS- then what about the buisness reporting it? ... Im not trying to get all detailed here, It just steams me to no end to be let go because of something I didnt do- and I dont care to sit on that. (If I was failing to report to the IRS, or working for a job that dont report to the IRS, then Id have a bigger problem then just being fired from a job that dont legally exist)

anyhow, back to the basic question, sorry to have gone on the soap-box there... would you reconcider the applicant if they could prove to you they did not do what the machine indicates a responce to?

posted 12-13-2006 09:16 PM            

your in hand records prove nothing to the issue. They prove a positive, not a negative. How do you go about proving you were never fired from a job, by simply providing employment records?

Taking an exam from a private examiner may not be accepted by the sheriff's Office. Now, if you ask them if doing so and passing would instigate them to re-review your packet, that would be something different.

But honestly, it sounds to me like they have decided not to hire you. You may want to seek employment elsewhere...

sackett

posted 12-13-2006 11:33 PM         

to anyones knowledge, has the polygraph ever been used to dismiss the process of an applicant that was undesired, but they could not find any real reason to dismiss them?

posted 12-14-2006 01:56 PM         

Please remember, it's not the examiner's job to get you hired or dismissed from the hiring process. He or in my case, she, is the middle person. When we run pre-employments we are not out there praying to catch someone lying. We do not go in the interview hoping we get a liar. I HATE having to mark someone as 'deception indicated'. Also, I do not know about other examiners, but when I have ran pre-employments I go through the pre-test interview, I run the charts, then if the subject is hitting on a question I go onto a "detailed post-interview" on that question. After doing all this, I type up a report and send to the HR people. It is no longer in the examiners hands. We do our job and move the information along.

posted 12-15-2006 11:00 AM            

In my past, I have been a part of the HR system conducting pre-emploment testing and must admit that the workings of an HR dept are mysterious, at best. As I have indicated elsewhere, there are quota's, political interests and stats that must be met. This is a fact!

To address your direct question of, "to anyones knowledge, has the polygraph ever been used to dismiss the process of an applicant that was undesired, but they could not find any real reason to dismiss them?"

No hiring decision should ever be made solely on the results of a polygraph, says the profesional ethics some of us are bound by (and I personally agree with). However, I have seen applicants told it was the polygraph results that kept them from employment. This leads to blame being placed on the examination process when in fact the HR folks just didn't want to hire that applicant (for their own unknown or perhaps even rediculous reasons) but "HAD" to proceed through the process, usually due to the law of that jurisdiction.

Using polygraph as a reason one is not hired has led to many, many misinformational and disinformational issues regarding polygraph and its use in pre-employment processing...

I hope that explains some things.

sackett