Have you ever been sec-checked while on staff at CoS?

[Smithers]

Not only are sec-checks cruel and unusual, they are illegal. And if you have any experiences being subjected to interrogation on a lie detector while working as an employee of the CoS, the US Department of Labor might want to hear from you

http://www.dol.gov/dol/contact/index.htm

Not my idea, I copied it from here:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-gener ... ogy-17627/

Definitions:
...
(2) Employer
The term ''employer'' includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee.
(3) Lie detector
The term ''lie detector'' includes a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechanical or electrical) that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.

Prohibitions on lie detector use:
Except as provided in sections 2006 and 2007 of this title, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce -

(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;
(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee;
(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against -
(A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses,
declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test,
or
(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the
results of any lie detector test; or
...

Enforcement provisions:
...
(d) Waiver of rights prohibited
The rights and procedures provided by this chapter may not be waived by contract or otherwise, unless such waiver is part of a written settlement agreed to and signed by the parties to the pending action or complaint under this chapter.
...

I strongly urge all former staff of the Church of Scientology to make detailed reports to the US Department of Labor, not only regarding the illegal use of lie-detectors on employees, but also any violations of minimum wage, overtime pay, record-keeping, and child labor standards.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/contact/index.htm


Australian ex-Scientologists - the Workplace Ombudsman would also like to hear about these matters, and it can be done confidentially:
http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=5688

UK ex-Scientologists - HM Customs and Revenue wants your input:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-medi ... ded-14925/

[Tsar von Humbug]

This is a very interesting angle, pregnant with possibilities.

I wonder though - 1988? Why has it taken this long for someone to realize that sec checks might be illegal?

[WhiteTrashMessiah]

This is a very interesting angle, pregnant with possibilities.

I wonder though - 1988? Why has it taken this long for someone to realize that sec checks might be illegal?

Sometimes while you're looking far and wide for the answers to the problem, it's been right there all along, kicking you in the shins

[Judith Anderson]

This is yet another Constitutional Amendment which the cult routinely violates - the Fifth, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination. Scientology invents its own criminal code to begin with, which is secular business only. It is the privilege of governments to devise a criminal code, not the privilege of any church unless its government is a theocracy. The unwary new member is inducted into this criminal code. Along the way he may be forced to answer incriminating questions if somebody rats on him, i.e., does a "knowledge report." The very title of this report provides a significant clue - "something already known." So, he is a dead duck even before the flagellation of a sec check begins.

Later, if he is to be routed out or decides he has had enough cult BS, he goes through a final sec check and responds to incriminating questions again. It is invasive, indecent, incriminating and illegal and serves as another example of Scientology's shaky foundation, and how it violates secular privilege.

Not only is Scientology a secular organization, it is a secular organization that operates on illegal practice. I exercise my First Amendment rights in stating what should be obvious to the regulatory authorities.

[Sea Horse]

It's definitely slippery ground for the Sea Org or a Class V Org to have a policy that you have to get a metered sec check before you get your last paycheck.

And even worse about their written policy that if you leave WIHOUT a sec check, you will be expelled from the Church of Scientology (declared SP). It shows their heavy reliance, requirement and culture re their lie detector tests.

[Smithers]

Are the results of sec-checks kept strictly confidential or does information tend to become widely known?

Would it be correct to say that sec checking is a fairly common procedure in the CoS that almost everyone goes through at some point, and that it is used as part of disciplinary actions?

[Sea Horse]

Are the results of sec-checks kept strictly confidential or does information tend to become widely known?

Would it be correct to say that sec checking is a fairly common procedure in the CoS that almost everyone goes through at some point, and that it is used as part of disciplinary actions?

Sec checks are an "I'm not auditing you" action. Meaning that it is NOT covered by Priest/Penitent confidentiality (therefore is not auditing, not "religious", and is not private) and reports go to the Ethics Section.

In other words, anything you say in a sec check can be used against you... and usually is.

[exstaff]

This is yet another Constitutional Amendment which the cult routinely violates - the Fifth, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination. Scientology invents its own criminal code to begin with, which is secular business only. It is the privilege of governments to devise a criminal code, not the privilege of any church unless its government is a theocracy. The unwary new member is inducted into this criminal code. Along the way he may be forced to answer incriminating questions if somebody rats on him, i.e., does a "knowledge report." The very title of this report provides a significant clue - "something already known." So, he is a dead duck even before the flagellation of a sec check begins.

Later, if he is to be routed out or decides he has had enough cult BS, he goes through a final sec check and responds to incriminating questions again. It is invasive, indecent, incriminating and illegal and serves as another example of Scientology's shaky foundation, and how it violates secular privilege.

Not only is Scientology a secular organization, it is a secular organization that operates on illegal practice. I exercise my First Amendment rights in stating what should be obvious to the regulatory authorities.

^^THIS THIS THIS!

The worst part is that you can come sooooo "clean" that there is literally nothing left to confess then the good ship lollypop takes a turn down a very dark and evil street of "thought police auditing". Then let the brainwashing begin...

SEA AARGH!

[Ladybird]

This is yet another Constitutional Amendment which the cult routinely violates - the Fifth, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination. Scientology invents its own criminal code to begin with, which is secular business only. It is the privilege of governments to devise a criminal code, not the privilege of any church unless its government is a theocracy. The unwary new member is inducted into this criminal code. Along the way he may be forced to answer incriminating questions if somebody rats on him, i.e., does a "knowledge report." The very title of this report provides a significant clue - "something already known." So, he is a dead duck even before the flagellation of a sec check begins.

Later, if he is to be routed out or decides he has had enough cult BS, he goes through a final sec check and responds to incriminating questions again. It is invasive, indecent, incriminating and illegal and serves as another example of Scientology's shaky foundation, and how it violates secular privilege.

Not only is Scientology a secular organization, it is a secular organization that operates on illegal practice. I exercise my First Amendment rights in stating what should be obvious to the regulatory authorities.

This really makes sense! It goes along well with Arnies thread "About those Cease and Desist Letters from Scientology" viewtopic.php?t=27799

If the ex members who are talking on the net and on youtube were to be officially heard by congress, scientology would be finished and all the things listed above would become easy to do. America is currently their worldwide stronghold and in the history of scientology, its critics have NEVER BEEN HEARD before congress yet congress has pandered to their requests for hearings repeatedly, especially by means of a black congressman from new jersey, named Payne.

This would turn "The stuff on the net is all lies" as osa claims

into Congressional testimony

ask for a congressional hearing into scientology - scientology has done this to their own
advantage a number of times...we were once very close to having congressional hearings, and then there was 911..

See this page please LINK

Pushing for congressional hearings for those touched by scientology in a bad way would do something else, that has been difficult for us... it would confer upon all who testified, congressioal protection of law against extortionate conduct and retribution for testifying.. The Federal criminal code states that anyone who is harrassed in order to intimidate them even BEFORE they are an official witness before congress, once they testify, it makes the prior actions actionable under the federal criminal code for witness protection.

All the ideas listed in this thread are good ones, but, folks, please, understand this.. what we need is to get the sordid 55 year history of scientology on the record in congressional hearings. There is nothing that scientology fears most, That scientology works hardest to prevent, in every possible way.

Imagine, some ex member telling a bunch of congress critters, "I was asked to steal books from the Library of congress so you would not be able to get any critical information when your constitutants started writing you." (said the ex-mate of big shot scientology lawyer to me)

The PURPOSE of the Library of Congress is so that our representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

Scientology criminally CONSPIRES to prevent that.

THIS is what should be pushed for, everything else is nice but this will accomplish everything, and THIS will be opposed by every OSA bot

That scientology is a 'threat to democracy' is almost an understatement.

[magoo1]

I was a Sec Checker, trained and Interned at "Flag"...so I'll try to give you what I thought of Sec Checking, as a Sec Checker:

1) I thought I was helping people---sort of like confession, which IS the analogy Hubbard uses for it.

2) I Sec Checked staff, while on my Internship at Flag, some top Executives.

3) One of the Executives Folder had been "Vetted" ...meaning things were either blacked out or sometimes CUT out.

Joe and _____went to_____
and after________________-and ________________ they got to
___________________. (Literally like that: SUPER WEIRD!)

4) ALL of the people sec checked say it helped them, and I did, too.
(It's VERY weird, truly. I do think "Confession" can help people---but this gets into deeper, weirder, you didn't really do it stuff. People get into *that* because of the e-meter:

Meter reads: "What is THAT?" Person looks: "Nothing".
Sec Checker HAS to get *Something* .....(it could be a false read,
meaning it IS nothing ...but you all have to get how bad this is:

"IF A SECURITY CHECKER MISSES ONE READ, THEY LOSE *ALL*
OF THEIR CERTIFICATES"

That means, one time someone says, "Nothing" and you let it go----
and there really was something, and Badaboom! You head back to GO,
after often many YEARS of training.

So it IS a sick practice. It isn't "Confession" as they state, and yes,
info IS used against the person. I know, as they've posted shit that I know was from sec checks re me, on the net...over the years.

4) When "in", I honestly never thought ANY of the info would be used against the person...even though you have to send a report to "Ethics" with the info re their 'bad deeds". BECAUSE you believe "Ethics" helps someone--------you think this is for the good of the person.

Thank GAWD I'm OUT!

Tory/Magoo~~~

[Smithers]

Sec checks are an "I'm not auditing you" action. Meaning that it is NOT covered by Priest/Penitent confidentiality (therefore is not auditing, not "religious", and is not private) and reports go to the Ethics Section.

In other words, anything you say in a sec check can be used against you... and usually is.

So a sec check is a purely investigatory or disciplinary procedure, and the e-meter is being used as a lie detector - with no real "religious" aspect to the whole thing. The results are sent to ethics and you may be subjected to punishment, which could be a sentence in the RPF (yet another can of worms).

There's some interesting details about the legislation with links to the text of the law:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/polygraph/

There is no mention of exemptions for religious organizations, and strict requirements apply even in cases where an exemption applies.

The CoS has violated this law by repeatedly forcing employees to undergo lie detector tests, and using the results to discriminate against and punish employees. Employees are coerced with the threat of forced labor, termination of employment, separation from family and spiritual damnation.

Even if there was a loophole in this law that allows the CoS to use lie detectors on employees, the way they do it surely remains illegal.
Using the results as an excuse for cruel and unusual extrajudicial disciplinary actions, failing to keep the results confidential, failing to use an adequate device (where a lie detector test is permitted the device used must be a polygraph), failing to use licensed and insured personnel to administer the tests, etc.

edit: and it's interesting/disturbing how there is so much pressure on the sec checker to find something that people run out of real 'crimes' to confess.

I urge anyone with experience of being sec checked while working for the CoS to report this to the Dept of Labor by mail and/or by telephone.

By Mail:

U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20210

By Phone:

National Toll-Free Call Center. Live assistance is available Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time by calling, 1-866-4-USA-DOL, TTY: 1-877-889-5627.

Toll-free number for calls related to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act: (866) 487-9243


1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243)
TTY: 1-877-889-5627
Monday-Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

[ZenuEtrawl]

I'm sure that the CoS will argue:
1) it is religious confession for the good of the person receiving it. Sec checks are used in other contexts than interrogation.
2) An e-meter isn't a lie detector. CoS can undoubtedly back this up by getting an expert on lie detection, and asking them if they'd touch an e-meter with a 10-foot pole. Most such people would consider an e-meter to be hopelessly obsolete and almost completely worthless.

That's not to say that I buy either argument, but I think people should be prepared for them.

Other inferior lie detectors, like voice stress analysis equipment (evaluated by the US Department of Defence as being about 50% reliable) are still used, not because they are accurate, but because if the person under interrogation believes that they work, they are likely to admit to things which they wouldn't otherwise. Scientologists have spent huge amounts of money on the premise that e-meters work. Crappy lie detector, perhaps, but great for interrogating scientologists.

[thorn]

There was one year that I got sec-checked and crammed at least once a week. 1979/80 when LRH was demanding improved promotion materials and magazines for the Scientology Orgs. I was in the Dissemination Bureau at Flag and my job was to design and layout the Class IV Org magazines as well as any book promotion and special marketing materials.

Each time I sent things up for approval I would get back a telex either blasting me or telling me to change things. I'd send things up for approval and then a day or two later two messengers would show up and take me away to cramming and ethics.

One time LRH ordered me to get my eyes checked because he didn't like the colors I picked for a book flier. He thought I was color-blind. I wasn't, but the CMO in CLearwater sent me to an eye doctor to verify it.

I got crammed and sec-checked so much that year that I became numb to the idea of people criticising me in their presence. I decided it wasn't personal.

Later that year I had a realization that my taste or sense of what made good design didn't matter. This was LRH's show. I'd read almost all of his fiction and knew he liked heavy handed, corny shit. So I wrote and designed an issue of the Class IV Org Magazine as if I was him, stuck in the 1950's. It was pretty awful, but he loved it. I got a big commendation in the next telex. "This magazine is well done. Commended" he wrote.

What a relief not to be targeted for a change.

The promo approval line was the only communication I ever had with him. I had to write a CSW for approval of any work I was submitting. Then it went through the CMO Clearwater, then the CMO International, then the Watchdog Committe, then LRH. Each layer of the approval line would question and second guess my work, fearful of a reprimand from above. It's almost impossible to be creative in that kind of circumstance. But then again, this was a totalitarian cult. Creativity and individuality weren't high on their list. -- Pete (Thorn)

[spacecootie]

This is yet another Constitutional Amendment which the cult routinely violates - the Fifth, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination.

Unfortunately, the Fifth Amendment prohibits government action; it doesn't apply to non-government organizations.

Federal and state protections against lie detector tests are probably a better tool to fight sec checking in Co$.

[SuzanneMarie]

I'm sure that the CoS will argue:
1) it is religious confession for the good of the person receiving it. Sec checks are used in other contexts than interrogation.
2) An e-meter isn't a lie detector. CoS can undoubtedly back this up by getting an expert on lie detection, and asking them if they'd touch an e-meter with a 10-foot pole. Most such people would consider an e-meter to be hopelessly obsolete and almost completely worthless.

That's not to say that I buy either argument, but I think people should be prepared for them.

Other inferior lie detectors, like voice stress analysis equipment (evaluated by the US Department of Defence as being about 50% reliable) are still used, not because they are accurate, but because if the person under interrogation believes that they work, they are likely to admit to things which they wouldn't otherwise. Scientologists have spent huge amounts of money on the premise that e-meters work. Crappy lie detector, perhaps, but great for interrogating scientologists.

Also, CoS is not engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce, so the law that was quoted does not apply to them.