Truth or Consequences

Globules of sweat gathered on the young man's forehead as he sat stiffly next to the machine. A rubber tube was wound around his chest and wires were taped to his fingertips. Two squiggly blue lines on a roll of paper winding out of the machine marked the progress of unseen physiological processes inside his body. His inquisitor kept coming back to the same insinuating questions about whether he had been stealing or was heavily in debt; every time he answered no, he imagined to his horror that the lines were jumping wildly. Fortunately, they were not. The young man eventually passed his lie-detector test --and thus qualified for a job as a store manager for a hamburger chain.

It could just as well have been a job for a trucking line, jewelry store or bank. Despite intense opposition from unions, legislators and civil libertarians, a growing number of companies are forcing present workers and/or would-be employees to submit to polygraph tests. Main reason; executives are looking for an easy way to cut down employee stealing, which insurance analysts estimate may total $3 billion this year.

The business of conducting the tests has become a growth industry. Restaurant chains and retail stores--both notorious targets for petty, in-house thieves--are known to be heavy users of the polygraph. Officials of Zale Corp., a Dallas-based jewelry chain, admit that they ask a large number of new employees to take lie-detector tests before they are formally hired. The Burger King and McDonald's hamburger chains also have used the polygraph on some employees, though McDonald's last month ended the practice at its California outlets under pressure from the state labor commissioner. Indeed, polygraphers figure that as many as one-fourth of all major U.S. companies now subject at least some of their workers to the lie-detector test.

As many as 400,000 tests were administered last year by commercial polygraph firms for an average fee of $25 to $50. The number of professional polygraphers has increased 50% in the past five years, to 1,200. Many operate one-machine offices, but a few companies, like Dale System Inc. of Garden City, N.Y., and Management Safeguards Inc. of Manhattan, have offices in a number of cities. Lincoln M. Zohn Inc. of Manhattan, probably the largest U.S. lie-detector firm, recorded sales of $1.5 million last year, double those of 1969, and has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a public stock offering.

To a longtime employee of one of their clients, polygraphers will put such questions as: "Have you taken any money or merchandise?" or "Have you violated any company policies?" New job applicants can expect such questions as: "Is there something important concerning yourself that you haven't told us? Have you ever been arrested or questioned by the police? Would you classify yourself as a light, medium or heavy drinker? Have you ever taken any drugs other than pot or hash?" (A surprising number of companies consider marijuana or hashish usage inoffensive.)

The polygraph supposedly identifies false answers by measuring involuntary changes in blood pressure, breathing and galvanic skin response, a process that involves sweating. The changes purportedly occur under the emotional stress of lying. But however sensitive it is, the machine is not infallible. Results of lie-detector tests normally are not admitted as evidence in court cases because they are not considered reliable enough. A coolly determined person can sometimes hoodwink the machine, as TIME Reporter-Researcher Eileen Shields did in a polygraph test at Dale System headquarters. By trying to remain calm and control her physical responses, she successfully convinced her questioner that she was 26 years old instead of her correct age, 29. "I tried to think of no as a meaningless word, just as easy to say as yes," she recalls. The operator eventually determined that she was lying, but only after he began to monitor her blood pressure in addition to her breathing and perspiration.

Guilty. Reliability aside, polygraph opponents argue that forcing employees to take lie-detector tests is unfair and degrading. Next month, the American Civil Liberties Union will publish a report contending that employee testing by polygraphy violates the constitutional principle that a citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty and constitutes "an illegal search and seizure of the subject's thoughts, attitudes and beliefs." Says John Shattuck, a co-author of the report: "It is logically impossible to determine whether polygraph testing at a particular company is voluntary or a condition of employment, so all pre-employment use should be banned." Democratic Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina has introduced a bill to do exactly that.

Unions representing employees of some retail chains, including locals at E.J. Korvette and Grand Union, have won contract provisions severely limiting lie-detector tests. A few stores, like New York's Bonwit Teller, have abandoned tests on sales personnel because of worker opposition. And many executives, whether out of consideration for good employee relations or philosophical conviction, will have nothing to do with the machine.

Polygraphers argue that businessmen simply must protect themselves against dishonest employees. "There comes a time when your privacy and mine has to be weighed against the company's being stolen blind and put out of business," says J. Kirk Barefoot, former president of the 900-member American Polygraph Association. So many businessmen obviously agree that, for a while at least, many employees will have to regard a polygraphic game of truth or consequences as a normal part of their working lives.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.