Since the polygraph is inadmissible in many criminal courts, should it be incorporated in employment decisions in regards to government and law enforcement positions? Please provide a rationale for your position.

On one hand, there is a fundamental difference between using polygraphs in criminal cases and employment decisions: namely, the burden of proof in criminal cases is much higher, as it is in relation to civil cases. Therefore, to qualify as an appropriate form of evidence in criminal cases, polygraphs would have to satisfy a much higher standard of reliability and infallibility. Likewise, the magnitude of the consequences are vastly different in criminal cases and the outcome of employment decisions based on evidence that may not be reliable.

Meanwhile, there are still independent reasons to question the appropriateness of polygraph results...

Specifically, even when polygraphs are administered and interpreted properly, they provide, at most, an accurate reading of the physiological state of the subject rather than any direct measure of truthfulness or deception. Therefore, polygraphs are perpetually vulnerable to skilled liars and they are notorious for misconstruing general nervousness and anxiety for evidence of deception in relation to specific questions.
There is a conceivable use of polygraphs that might be appropriate in connection with employment in sensitive positions, but only to the extent the process can be standardized and demonstrated empirically to be capable of eliminating false conclusions based on the similarity of physiological responses to stress and physiological indications of deception. Currently, the field of polygraphy does not meet that standard.