I find it ironic that the same governmental body that often will not provide even basic information is demanding polygraph tests be done as part of their hiring process (on top of criminal checks, psychological testing, drug testing, credit checks, etc..) What’s next? DNA swabs for ‘health’ testing?
—What’s the point?
This article appears in Oct 1-7, 2009.
The credit check for employment thing always blew my mind. If a person can’t pay their bills because they have no job, they probably have bad credit. Therefore, giving them a job would assist them with this problem. Do they think the applicant is going to get the job just so they can steal a box of pens and sell them on the black market to make ends meet? Sheesh.
Who do you think the government is? The government is more than the elected officials; it is the hundred of thousands of employees. I, for one, would love it if they hire quality people. Maybe some of these people will blow the whistle when the elected ones do wrong; maybe some of them will fight for disclosure of information; maybe some will work hard to make good policies. I dunno, but a polygraph test doesn’t seem like such a bad thing unless the applicant has something to hide.
I don’t think someone should be expected to forsake their privacy just to prove they have nothing to hide.
Credit Checks are usually only done for positions that require the individual work with money or accounts (i.e. a Finance Clerk). Most other times, if you don’t deal with money, you are subject to a Criminal Record Check.
I say polygraph the politicians. Wait that would cost us a shipload of money from the instruments blowing up and replacing them.
C,mon Peter and Dawn and company. We are waiting for your results.
greenish-bluish, Grue/Breen, = ),
‘Maybe some of these people will blow the whistle when the elected ones do wrong; maybe some of them will fight for disclosure of information; maybe some will work hard to make good policies.’
You make an excellent point about hiring top quality people. It is doubtful these very same people will tolerate unethical practices.
Unless, (conspiracy theory stuff here) they are not being screened for their honesty but for their potential to fit into a type that is wanted. I know, I know, unlikely, but the fact that they are being screened on so many levels make it POSSIBLE for the screeners to choose particular types to use for whatever they need that type for. I mean we are talking about total disclosure–criminal and financial at the lowest level, than experience probing (lie detector), psychological and physical (drug testing samples can be used for complete DNA testing) for higher up jobs. I mean, the potential to exploit someone’s type is there, never mind unfair hiring practices. Can you imagine not moving up because you are too honest?!
Regardless, I say that if the government thinks this is such a good idea, it should be mandatory for them to go through the same testing before they are allowed to run for office. And, they should have to have periodic testing done throughout their career. And, their electronic devises, desks and everything else that they feel is their business to scrutinize should be open to scrutiny as well. After all, our security is in the hands of these people we employ, we want to be sure we are safe.
(If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.) I bet they wouldn’t be so eager to employ such tactics then.
Don’t like their hiring policies? Don’t apply there.
It’s not so much about getting a job with the government as it is about the government asking something that they refuse to give themselves (disclosure). Yet, in asking for it, they reveal that it is of importance.