Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site uwai.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!uwvax!uwai!luner
From: luner@uwai.UUCP (David L. Luner)
Newsgroups: net.jobs
Subject: Re: Urinalysis...Lie Detectors...all the new rage?
Message-ID: <358@uwai.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Mar-86 20:04:09 EST
Article-I.D.: uwai.358
Posted: Wed Mar  5 20:04:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Mar-86 08:16:03 EST
References: <1336@pucc-i> <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 30
Keywords: inaccurate,1984
Summary: Polygraph tests and other employment qualifications

In article <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>, bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) writes:

> ... article on "lie detectors". They have a short section of tips 
> on how to beat them.

I spent a very comfortable 1 hour in a chair one day answering numerous
questions about my past actions, habits and loyalties. This was not
for a cashiers job at Gimbels. My $0.02 is that the interview was
professional, justified and effective. Companies (e.g. The Company) may
had a clearly legitimate reseon for their inquiries. If you personally
don't think the inquiry is relevant, don't take the job. For those who find
themselves in a similar position, I suggest the following:

1. If you have been engaged in serious illegal activities in the past and
   don't want to talk about them, don't even bother taking the interview.

2. If you have exhibited poor judgement in the past, but don't plan on doing
   so in the future, don't worry about it.

3. For (highly) classified positions, you better plan on sticking to
   Jim Beam in the future.
   
> What business does your employer have telling you what to do and
> what not to do in your off-hours? 

Participation in illegal activities is grounds for "justified" dismissal.
The exact definition of "illegal" would (I hope) ultimately be determined 
by the court. I suspect that CONVICTION for a felony is sufficient.

		David Luner