1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2

    Post Sacramento Metro hopeful

    I am applying for a position w/ Sacramento Metro and was wondering if this was a good dept. Is it political? Do you have to live right in Sacramento or can you live in West sacremento, Rancho cordova and other surrounding areas? Also whats with Psych tests being last? I mean you show yourself a qualified candidate, then after you've passed all aspects, you've passed drug tests, background checks, cpat, written, oral, and some know it all psychologist tries to discredit your determination. None of us a perfect, if we were all honest I doubt any one would qualify (well maybe one or two, but still not many). Any help would be appreciated. TX

  2. #2
    Permanently Removed
    CALFFBOU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    6,520

    Default 2 cents...

    Bro- From what I have seen, they are a very progressive FD in
    the Sac region. Nice equipment and strong union.

    As for where you live, as far as I know, no residency requirement.

    Check out their website.
    Last edited by CALFFBOU; 08-08-2004 at 06:43 AM.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2

    Default

    thanks, Their websites great they seem like a really well rounded dept. Some commercial some residential and some wildfire, wild!

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,474

    Default VSA

    One of the land mines that knocks many candidates out of the Sac Metro process is the Voice Stress Analyzer. Here's a little insight on this wiz bang system:

    Voice Stress Analyzer

    The first time I saw a voice analyzer was in a James Bond movie. Bond used mouth spray to throw the machine off. This is not fiction anymore because several agencies have been convinced this is the cats meow. Better than a polygraph. Interesting, the Department of Justice will not use this system. Those agencies that are using them have experienced a higher rejection rate. Candidates who are failing are going on to be hired by other departments who give a polygraph, too. It is thought these agencies use this system because it costs less.

    I know several candidates who have elected not take the voice stress test for one agency because of the high rejection rate and that it will place them on some kind of secret black list that would prevent them from being hire by another department. Iím not aware of the existence of any black lists.

    One head of HR still hangs onto this tool even with overwhelming evidence questioning the validity of the process. Many experts say the operator of a voice stress analyzer test has the same chance of determining if you are lying as the flip of a coin. Unfortunately, he or she has the same chance of determining if you are telling the truth. Some say get an attorney and don't take the test.

    Consider this:

    Have you lost a job opportunity with a public service agency because you wrongly failed a voice stress analyzer test? You may have a legal remedy. Most large agencies are governed by state or municipal civil service rules or laws, which make them also subject to the US governmentís Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule 29 CFR 1607, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (July 1, 1998). According to the EEOC, all employee selection tools must meet minimum standards, including validation. It is simply a matter of law that departments must use validated tools for hiring, such as the MMPI, CPI, polygraph, urinalysis, intelligence tests or others that have withstood independent scientific investigation. They are specifically prohibited from using unvalidated methods. The voice analyzer technology falls into the unvalidated category. If you took a voice stress to get a public service job, it is a violation of your rights under these EEOC provisions. Contact an attorney for more advice.

    How about this:

    The first time I was given the test the operator said it was used only to show me how the machine worked. It still counted and I was eliminated. I requested a second opinion. The second operator said I failed a drug use question, which I have never seen let alone used the illegal substance in my life, nor would I or could I give an explanation for this. So he did a third test. This time I passed the same drug question but now failed a serious crime question of which I had passed on the second one. So I again will not admit to something that I havenít done. I was told by the person that this test is 99% accurate and I argued the point that I got the same questions right then wrong and visa versa. Obviously there is no discussing or changing their views on the matter of accuracy.

    A recent candidate who failed a voice analyzer test was in disbelief when he was told the machine indicated he had sold drugs and had forced women to have sex with him. Neither was true according to him. He requested and was granted a retest with another operator. Same results. Fortunately he is a medic on several other hiring lists.

    A Summary of the Testimony Before the Texas Legislature Regarding the Reliability and Validity of the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer

    A Summary by Victor L. Cestaro, Ph.D. March 7, 2001

    During my tenure as a researcher at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute at Fort McClellan, Alabama, between 1993 and 1999, I performed research using the National Institutes for Truth Verification (NITV) Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA).
    To my knowledge, no other scientific research has been conducted using the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer, and there has been no scientific evidence presented that would support the contention that the CVSA is capable of detecting differential levels of stress, or differentiating between truth and deception at any level greater than chance. Unless and until there is compelling scientific evidence to the contrary, it is my opinion that the CVSA is not capable of distinguishing truth from deception in human speech.

    Captain Bob

    www.eatstress.com

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    OKC,OK
    Posts
    27

    Default Polygraph question

    Capt Bob,

    If a department does not post anywhere on their website or job posting that a polygraph still be used as a testing procedure. The reason that I ask is that the City of #### on their application says that there is the possibility of a polygraph if there is reasonable suspicion. Is this correct, is the polygraph not supposed to be given to all or none? Just wondering. I know that #### used to give a polygraph but when they did it was written as part of the application process. Thanks.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    2,474

    Default Las Vegas???

    Yea, I know what it says. But Iím not aware of any test where the candidates were held hostage with the threat of a poly being given and they had to take one. I know of candidates who were turned down and wanted to take a poly to prove they were telling the truth and they couldnít get one because they would have to give it to everyone else.

    Captain Bob

    www.eatstress.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register