Applicant for position has an unfavorable employer Prohibiting the use of polygraph would remove one of the only safeguards an employee has with which he can exonerate himself of suspicion or accusation. Studies have consistently shown that culpable employee actions result in a major cost increase to businesses, an increase which is ultimately passed on to the consumer. A 1977 United States Department of Commerce study indicated that costs resulting from employee crime amounted to $43 billion annually. A 1983 survey conducted by the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice, used a random sample of employees at all occupational levels from 47 corporations. Based on anonymous responses, the study revealed that one-third of the employees admitted to stealing from the company. Two-thirds of the group admitted guilt in other types of misconduct including drug abuse, falsification of time sheets and sick leave abuse. The fallacy of using reference checks as a substitute for polygraph is evidenced in a Minnesota court ruling. A tenant of an apartment complex brought suit against the complex owner after being sexually assaulted by the manager. The manager, who had a criminal record and was on parole at the time he submitted his employment application, gave two references. subsequently determined to be his mother ans sister. The court ruled negligent hiring in that the employment screening was not commensurate with the degree of risk posed by the employee's position. They were I concur that the public has a right to privacy and that this right must be protected. I believe that, with stringent regulation, this protection can be provided without prohibiting the use of a service which has consistently proven that its merit to society outweighs its risk. It is a fact that polygraph has been condoned and its use increased in the interest of national security. In the wake of the Walker spy trial the Congress sanctioned increased use of polygaph in the screening of government employees. By a vote of 331 to 71, the House recognized the effectiveness, validity and propriety of polygraph use in the national interest. In light of such recognition, their current position that the use of polygraph should be denied to American business is untenable. further compound the situation, HR 1524 provides exemptions not only for employees of all levels of government, but also for certain select industries including pharmaceuticals, armored car guards, security guards, day care and nursing home employees and gambling casino emplyees. То Can we selectively protect certain rights of labor, government and business while denying the same rights to other select groups? HR 1524 accepts the validity, accuracy and propriety of polygraph use for some interests, but not for others. Cash handlers such as armored car personnel and gambling casino employees are exempted from the bill, while others such as bank tellers and grocery store cash handlers are not. Is a bank teller, being in a position to take or be a party to the theft of funds, any less a security risk than the armored car personnel who guards it? Conversely, doesn't the armored car employee have the same constitutional right to privacy as the bank empoyee? If the basis for the proposed virtual prohibition of polygraph in the private sector is contingent on constitutional rights, that position must hold constant for the rights of all prospective employees in both the public and private sectors. The reason suggested for exempting gambling casino employees from the restrictions of HR 1524 was that these employees could be laundering drug money. Doesn't this same situation apply to bank employees to an even greater degree? As one of twenty-eight states with polygraph licensing laws, the State of Florida is aggressively pursuing the reduction of potential abuse of polygraph by proposing even stronger legislation than that currently in place. It is my personal and professional belief that polygraph serves a vital interest to all sectors and provides an essential method for the exoneration of guilt as well as the confirmation of deception. As in all professions which serve the public, regulation, not prohibition, is the key to protection. STATEMENT OF NANCY HARPER, PRESIDENT, HARPER TRUCKING CO., RALEIGH, N.C. Mr. Chairman, my name is Nancy Harper. I am President of Harper Trucking Company in Raleigh, North Carolina. As President of the company, I have complete responsibility for the operations of our trucking facility and the services we provide to our customers in transporting goods. I appreciate this opportunity to present my views to your committee. I have examined S.1815, the Polygraph Protection Act of 1985. Although I am not an attorney, I have discussed this bill with my attorneys. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, S.1815 would prohibit Harper Trucking Company from polygraphing its employees or anyone we were considering hiring. I am deeply troubled by this proposal because it would have serious ramifications for my company. On Harper Trucking Company hauls, stores, sorts, loads, and unloads quantities of controlled substances on a daily basis. The drugs my employees handle and haul each day have a tremendous resale market on the street. Let me give you one example. one occasion a box of dilaudid was missing from one of our shipments. Dilaudid is a narcotic prescribed for individuals with extreme pain. The authorities told me that the missing box, which contained 300 tablets of dilaudid, would sell for about $60.00 to a pharmicist, but its street value was between $10,000 and $15,000. The only way for me to run my business is to employ people I trust implicitly. And the only way to establish that trust is through the use of lie detector tests. My employees who have nothing to hide don't mind the examinations. In fact, the examinations are a means of protecting their jobs. previous I always polygraph prospective employees because I can't afford to have working for me individuals who have an undisclosed record of drug abuse, drug sales, or theft from employers. I cannot take the risk of hiring someone who has been or may become involved with organized crime or who might conduct a drug sale operation of his own by stealing the controlled substances handled in our warehouse by our employees. The frequent polygraphing examinations serve to remind my employees of the special nature of our work and their jobs. My employees know that our company's reputation and their individual reputations are unlikely to be sullied by an employee who does not share our commitment to providing good services and obeying the law. Harper Trucking Company also ships firearms and ammunition. The same arguments that apply to the drug problem apply to this |