Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jasvll
The rules defining what is 'legal' and 'illegal' for that specific company would have no bearing on what should or shouldn't be 'legal' for any other company, government, or other institution. In other words, saying *lie detector tests should never be used in a legal case* is meaningless in both contexts. On the one hand we're talking about any of an infinite number of legal contexts, each different from the next. On the other hand, we're talking about the traditional context, which clearly doesn't apply to the commission hearings.
|
lol
if your taking that route then i`ll say; what is legal in one country isnt always legal in another so does the ideal of legality become a vacuous idea? id say no.
im saying, and as well as the other guy that this is a commonal use of language, a large organization puts together rules and if you break them you are subject to punishment in a form of their "law" and thats why you get lawyers which specifically deal with employee and employer problems. because in the end if an employee wants to force a company to reconsider then they are able to provided they have some legal ground with in the justice system.
so i still say the term is valid.