Page 2 the subject are interpreted by the examiner. It is, therefore, the interpretation of the examiner which determines whether the subject passes or fails the polygraph test. A brochure published by the American Polygraph Association states, "In laboratory role-playing experiments, with reasonable attention to motivation, research psychologists have achieved accuracy of over 80 per cent" in the use of polygraph tests. Some polygraph examiners claim an accuracy of 90-95 percent. However, what do these claims really mean? Researcher Peter Holden of Wichita State University clarifies the matter when he points out, "if 95% accurate, a machine testing 1,000 people--25 of whom are lying--will detect 24 of the 25 liars; but among the remaining subjects it will erroneously identify 49 honest people as liars. If only 90% accurate, the polygraph would misidentify 98 of those guiltless subjects as liars." While these figures may please corporate employers, to those 98 innocent people turned down for employment and branded as liars the result is an inexcusable injustice. If the research results of 80% accuracy reported by the American Polygraph Association are accurate, the injustice is substantially greater. These figures are from research conducted with qualified examiners. How low would those accuracy figures go with the use of poor quality examiners? Page 3 If questions of the accuracy of polygraph testing aren't enough to ban their use in the workplace, use of polygraph tests also raise profound constitutional and invasion of privacy issues. Even if the polygraph test were 100% reliable there are still serious questions about invasion of privacy, violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches, of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, of the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and of the Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine one's accusers. Although use of polygraph tests may appear to reduce an immediate problem it creates other and far more significant problems than property loss. In our view, this threat to human values outweighs any arguable benefits to the use of polygraph testing. The American Pharmaceutical Association urges the Committee to report favorably S. 1815 and to prohibit the use of polygraph testing in the workplace. We suggest that polygraph proponents use other more reliable loss prevention techniques. Many are available and they should not be put aside for mere reasons of expediency. Thank you for the opportunity of providing this testimony. The American Retail Federation is an umbrella organization representing the 50 state retail associations, some 30 national associations and corporate retailers, large and small. In all, we represent over one million retail establishments which employ nearly fourteen million workers. The American Retail Federation wishes to state once again our unequivocal opposition to S. 1815 as presently drafted, while we recognize the need for balanced and effective legislation in this area. The bill as currently drafted would preclude our retailing members from utilizing the polygraph examination as one in a series of tools for determining a worker's eligibility for employment. Moreover, retailers would be unable to polygraph current employees as a part of investigative techniques upon an incidence of theft or fraud. The retailing community sustains through employee theft a loss of merchandise estimated to be more than forty percent of inventory loss. Nationwide employee pilfering is costing American retailing billions of dollars each year. These losses inevitably raise the cost of goods and services to the consumer. In an effort to minimize these significant losses retailers utilize polygraph tests along with other security procedures to ascertain an applicant's honesty or to investigate major internal shortages. It is the experience of our members that the prudent use of polygraph examinations has proven to be very useful in curbing this critical problem. We believe that retailers have a right to implement reasonable procedures, including carefully selected and administered polygraph examinations to help protect against theft. We, therefore, respectfully urge that you and the members of your Committee examine the issue of polygraph application carefully Page 2 The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch April 30, 1986 and reconsider the effect of S. 1815 upon retailing, a major sector of the business community. Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your consideration of our point of view. JPO:asl Sincerely, Joseph P. O'Neil James N. Alkinson, CPP Johnson & Johnson New Brunswick, New Jersey Secretary/Treasurer Donald J. Murphy, CPP Puget Sound Power & Light Company Bellevue, Washington Chairman of the Board Darlene T. Sherwood, CPP SRI International Menlo Park Califomia DIRECTORS Joseph G. Deegan, CPP Balmore Gas & Electric Company Baltimore Maryland Clifford E. Evans, CPP Navistar International Corporation Chicago ncis Brian R. Hollstein, CPP Xerox Corporation William R. Martin, CPP GTE Midwestern Telephone Operations Westfield, Indiana George J. Murphy, CPP Framingham, Massachusetts Carl G. Newby, CP Richard S. Post, CPP American Can Company Joseph P. Reynolds, CPP Sanders Associates, Inc James I. Royer, CPP Herman C. Statum, CPP Business Risks international Raymond R. Stommel, CPP Troy Michigan Robert L. Stromberg, CPP General Telephone Company of the Southwest San Angelo, Texas Charlene Y. Taylor-Derry, CPP Federal Aviation Administration Oliver O. Wainwright, Sr., CPP SCM Corporation New York, New York April 23, 1986 The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Chairman, Labor and Human Resources Committee 428 Dirksen U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Mr. Hatch: Thank you very much for your kind letter of April 11, 1986 indicating Thanking you again for providing us with the opportunity to address an important matter of concern to our membership, I remain, Sincerely, E.J Criscuoli, Executive Vice President Enclosure |