Slashdot Mirror
Burlington Northern to Stop Gene Tests for CTS
speleo writes: "An article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune tells how the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad has been ordered to stop its secret genetic testing of employees to determine whether they were predisposed to developing carpal tunnel syndrome. Holy Gattica!" This is a follow-up to this story.
11
- A.P.
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This is basic business.
Basic to whom? Certainly not anyone who has an inkling of how the US economy functions.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Employers should not have access to my private medical records for the same reason they shouldn't have the right to dictate how I live my life in my private time. Can you imagine what kind of society we'd have if corporations cherry picked only the healthiest individuals, worked them to death for a short duration, and then fired them before they grew old enough to lose their health? Just like only insuring the healthy, it distorts the very foundation of equal access and pay for equal work across society as a whole.
--Maynard
And I with generations in my family with no predisposition towards CTS, I myself am afflicted, albiet mildly. With a mass-market ergonomic keyboard and a minimum of care concern given to the angle of my wrists while typing my problem was resolved (I type on standard user keyboards frequently without any discomfort, I just switched my keyboards to ones that are more ergonomic).
Does this mean the genetic tests are worthwhile? Wouldn't this money be better spent by the employer insuring that all workers use ergonomic equipment that will help the genetically predisposed and non-predisposed alike?
The problem in this case (not yours, the employers) is that EVERYONE can develop CTS, it's all a matter of how you use the equipment. Sure, the select group will develop symptoms earlier than others, but eventually everyone will develop the damn symptoms.
Moof!
Shoot 'em in the head?
Put 'em on welfare, and raise taxes to pay for them?
Give 'em a job?
Paint them bright blue and beat the shit of of them with a dead puppy?
I'd hate to be someone working for you. Somebody track this guy down so I make no such ignorant mistake.
He is a person who thinks he is hot shit because he has figured out how to walk while looking only at his feet, while the rest of us run past him while looking ahead. Somebody throw this guy a hamburger...
Think again. Both my mother and her mother (my grandmother) have had to have surgery on both of their wrists due to CTS. Seeing my mother in that much pain when I was a kid caused me to pay more attention to ergonomics than most teens do/would. Despite that I started developing wrist pain to the point that I got medical attention from my employeer. I was fortunate enought to work somewhere that they are actually concerned about safety and have had enough experience with knowledge workers over the past half century that they know how to handle a situation like mine. They made some minor tweaks to my workstation and advised me how to take frequent breaks and do proper wrist exercises. All that made quite a difference and it keeps the pain at bay, but I still pay close attention to my body because I don't want to go under the knife like my mother and grandma.
Anyway, the lesson here is that I don't think it's coincidence that three generations of my family have been affected by CTS.
-"Zow"
As a small business owner myself, I have to agree completely with what you're saying. I would also suggest that most of the people making the same tired, liberal-emotional pleas have no conception of what it means to run, and be responsible for, a business.
In order for a business to run efficiently and successfully, they must hire the people who can do their jobs the best. Period. Nothing else matters at all. A racist or discriminating company will lose in the long run, as they're using irrational criteria to select employees - putting other factors ahead of performance. If a superior candidate is rejected by a competitor simply because of a handicap or race, I'll scoop them up in a minute.
However, I must never be forced to decide on hiring anyone on any basis beyond performance.
Hiring any employee is a substantial risk, and if it things don't work out well, the costs are borne by the company, and ultimately its employees and customers. An employer must use all available information to minimize the risks involved. Always. Anything less is irrational, grossly unjust, and detrimental to all parties involved.
You spelled Gattaca wrong!
Posted from the wireless couch.
For the right reasons then I do not have a problem with it. If they told their employees that if they have a disposition they will use that information only to help improve the working enviroment then I will say ok that is fine. Yet I do not think this was the case here this was clearly a misuse of their positions. Not genitic testing is bad but the sad part it can be abused in so many ways some think it will be safer just not do it at all.
I'm all for (voluntary) genetic testing. I'm not for employee screening based on potential 'risks'.
and in another you say: I have hired many handicapped people based on their merits and that is how I will continue to handle things, because I believe that any other way is an insult to the handicapped population and their collective abilities.
You have to balance the money lost from *potential* health problems with the cost of finding qualified, perfect personnel. I still believe the costs you cite are lost in the general noise of people not being perfect. You don't happen to smoke do you? If so, or you hire any employees who smoke, you're bleeding away sick days. That's expensive. Best to fire them immediately. And fat people too. Boy am I tired of looking at *those* walking heart attacks.
A business whose profits and wealth creation potential rely on having employees who do not have CTS
Very freakin' indirectly! You're advocating employee screening based upon *incidental* genetic characteristics. Which incidentally is not what the company in question was trying to do. Getting a spinal column check before going to work for a moving company, I can see. Denying employment because of a long-term avoidable health risk is completely different.
Your premise taken to its conclusion is a mess. While we're at it why don't we just make sure and only hire the genetically perfect people? Much lower health insurance costs as you say. Shit wearing glasses is a drawback -- bigger chance they might decide to get an eye exam. Pale geek skin? Cancer risk. Throw in some healthy racial profiling and we're all set.
Even given that, I don't have a problem with a company asking nicely for certain tests. If they can help the employee. Hell I'd like an ergonomic keyboard. These guys 1) didn't ask and 2) threatened to fire a person in at least one case. 3) Did you *read* the *original* article? They only tested the employees that filed claims against them. That's ... that's...
how is this type of a scenario any less objectionable than the "lemon laws" that used automobile dealers are forced to comply with
Yeah because I always get people confused with cars too. I thought I was cynical.
There could be a predisposition; I've been spending on the average 10 hours a day sitting on a keyboard, never with a favourable ergonomic disposition (I find the keyboard-under-the-desk position extremely silly and totally impractical - I prefer having the keyboard right under the CRT (which is about 75 cm from my eyes), so I can put some book or notepad "below" the keyboard), and never had been bothered by the slightest smidgeon of any whiff of a suggestion of a possible eventual occurence of tendinitis...
However, after I was able to decide on printer placement, I've always made a point of putting the printer in a place where I'd have to at least turn myself around to fetch the paper from it, giving me a sufficient distraction to change my posture.
* * *
One would not think that running a train, reversing a switch or swinging a lantern would give someone CTS, but I remember meeting an Amtrak engineer who was running turbotrains in New-York State.
The "deadman pedal" on those trains is simply that you had to touch intermittently a metal plate on the dashboard (those trains don't have a control stand). So, touching the plate developped into an automatism, and whenever he went for a beer after his run, he'd simply touch the ashtray or the placemat or whatever was contrasted on the table, like to reset the "deadman pedal"...
--
They mostly realize that the corps also ultimately belong to humans, who, quite unlike the cannon fodder employed by the said croporations, have a god-given right to the fattest bottom-line.
Wake up and smell the coffee, boy! This is AMERIKA!
--
Well, then it's certainly not the croporation's duty to see to that, but the employee's. And, being a private medical matter, the croporation certainly has no business sticking it's nose in there. Since when croporations look after the welfare of it's employees? It's like the rancher taking good care of his herd!!!
That's fucking unfair, indeed. Why should YOU pay for it? But fortunately, in the rest of the industrialized world, where Socialism can bestow untold benefits to the population (fuck the rich), there is no such bullshit happenning, because the State pays for health-care, so NO ONE IS DEPRIVED OF IT, NOR OF LIVELIHOOD BECAUSE OF PROBABLE EVENTUAL HEALTH ISSUES.
If you types with only-the-bottom-line-in-your-mind would care to take out your heads from your asses once in a while, and smell the coffee, you'd see that SOCIALISM CAN BENEFIT YOUR FUCKING HOLY-ABOVE-THE-REST ECONOMY, TOO. Hong-Kong, where the real-estate (used to be) the most expensive in the world (or nearly) HAD VERY STRICT un-FREE-MARKET RENT CONTROLS.
Why? Because it prevented workers from going on strike to ask for pay raises to pay for increasing rents. And this was at the request of the employers (who had more political weight than landlords).
--
As the State, representing it's Population, I tell you, mister businessman, your skimming the cream is unfair to those you leave behind, so I ORDER YOU, under penalty of LOSING YOUR VALUABLE PRIVATE PROPERTY (which is the only thing you care about), to enploy those you deem unemployable.
This is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and HOW DARE YOU IGNORE IT, YOU FUCKING BASTARD? How about an tax audit? Or two?
--
In other news, scientists were shocked to discover that some Burlington employees, when tested, possesed DNA composed of a fifth, previously unknown protein, now known as Inine.
"We thought Cytosine, Tyrosine, Anonymine, and Guava were the basic DNA blocks," said John Ersatz, professor at the Santa Fe Institute. "With this new protein, the art of DNA acrostics is going to improve by 25%!"
"We could even rename that film 'Gattica'!" said and excited Slashdot poster.
--
Tweet, tweet.
Is it a valid test?
You could run a DNA test and come up with random results.
At the very least an employee should know they are being tested.
I honnestly don't want my DNA tested as part of my employment at any place.
If you are geneticly predisposed then you should take some precaution. If your not? Well you should take some precaution anyway.
I don't actually exist.
So you won't mind if you get fired for posting on Slashdot?
You won't becouse you can not be discriminated against.
But think about this...
The very thing that you are advocating could put you out of work...
I don't actually exist.
They could..
They aren't
They won't.
DNA testing itself... good idea...
Secretly done by employer.. bad...
Anyway anyone can get CTS.. gentic predisposition isn't going to make much diffrence in the long run. If they are going to bother with prevention it shouldn't matter if they are geneticly predisposed or not.
I don't actually exist.
Newton's Third Law states:
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
That means that every step forward involves a step back - and it is as applicable to human endeavours as it is to physics.
So, as wonderful as genetic research is, we now see it is a dual edged sword - good (research into some debilitating diseases that may bring a cure) and bad (companies segregating you because of your genetic makeup).
Now, if the company said "Look, we're worried about you. We want to test you to see if you have this gene that pre-disposes you to CRS. If you submit to the test and have the gene, we'll give you this wrist brace, so you can work more comfortably.", it likely would have flown. Even though the sub-text would have been "This wrist brace will save us a couple o' bucks in Comp premiums". The story submitter was right - Gattica indeed.
When are the humans who run corps going to realise they employ humans? Sheesh.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
There may well be a predisposition to CTS, but anyone can get it if they don't take care of themselves. I know. I have CTS. A very mild case, which was diagnosed by the Workers' Comp specialist I was sent to. Yes, it cost the State of Georgia a couple three hundred. But we caught it early. I use an ergo keyboard (bought myself, didn't trust the state), a gel mouse rest (ditto), and Alleve occasionally. MUCH cheaper than surgery or even acupuncture, and I got to keep the ergo goodies when I left.
Point is, it behooves the employers to take care of its people, instead of sorting them like so many sheep, lest the good ones vote with their feet, and the trains not run on time. Your best workers are grown, not picked up off the street like a new ethernet card.
-- Read the Cluetrain Manifesto
Nick Waterman, Sr Tech Director, #include <stddisclaimer>
Maybe this would be a good thing, if they just provided that new employees be screened, and let the employee make an informed choice. But in this case, the BN employees loose the ability to choose, and even loose the right to be informed.
Heck, why not get rid of the concept of "sick leave". It's bad for business. People who can't manage to get themselves to work because they're sick should just be fired and replaced by someone luckier.
That seems to follow from your reasoning, at least. You seem to want to go back to the 1800's.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
The biology textbooks be damned! For the longest time we all thought the nucleotide base pairs consisted of only Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine, from which the movie title GATTACA was assembled. But wait! The movie now appears to be titled Gattica! There is now a 5th nucleotide base pair previously unknown to the world! Will this affect the Human Genome Project?
While DNA only has four different nucleotide bases, they are not the only nucleotide bases in existence. RNA contains uracil in place of thymine (that's your "5th" base right there). tRNA has a number of unique and modified bases, not the least of which is inosine, which is found in the anti-codon and can pair to adenine, cytosine, or uracil.
It's very simple - a constitutional ammendment barring discrimination on the contents of one's genetic code. There's already an ammendment barring discrimination because you carry the geness for a particular skin color - I think it's time to extent that protection to the rest of the genome
Spammers lose.
And the net forgets.
So much for history on the net.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
predisposition to fall under the influence of gravity.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
No it shows the hype foge hasn't cleared yet. a few more /.ings and all will be fine.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
There's a big difference between an individual having a genetic test run so they can plan their lifesytle...and a corporation planning your lifestyle for you based on $$$.
These tests were being performed for one simple reason: to save the company money. If they were being offered to individuals as a service, a free service, to help the employee make an informed decision about possibly changing their line of work yet still remaining employeed at the company, then hey, that would be great. But I doubt any workplace would have such undying devotion to their employees - even our Pie in the Sky tech jobs.
First off, they're not actually testing for CTS, they're testing for the possibility that you can have CTS, if you've got the gene for it (I don't much about the gene, but I think the syndrome is caused by a point mutation from what I gather from a quick pub med search) that doesn't actually guarantee that you'll have it.
This, as a previous poster noted, is a major invasion of privacy. First off, the company is not only being given this one gene to test for, but the whole genome. And with the magic of PCR, they can test for anything they want and get basically anything they want from your genome, be it a heart condition, a bend towards alcoholism, or prostate cancer. The company has no right at all to this information simply because you're an employee. If you develop CTS, you develop it and then if you can't effectively do your job then it has to be dealt with. An employer does not, and should not, have the right to do genetic testing on its employees because it isn't worth the invasion of anyone's privacy just to save a buck.
It's the exact same reason why your medical records are kept private. Do you really want your employer to know that you have a proto-oncogene that's just waiting to trigger brain cancer in you? "Sorry, your genome says you're a liability. Goodbye." Because this is where it'll go. They'll start with something "harmless" like CTS, and then it'll move on to large scale genomic testing. It's not that expensive to do now, and it'll only get cheaper and more and more invasive if we allow it. And then we're all fucked.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
It's very much an "us versus them" relationship in this instance. Granted, not all companies are evil (most aren't at all) but their only responsibility is to make money, and there will be no qualms about letting you go, no matter how "good" they are, if it's going to save them some cash when the time is right. This isn't just for a few isolated instances, this is on a massive scale. That's where the problem lies.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Whatever your political persuasion is, I think you ought to be really scared about the possibility of this. There's a good reason that the ethics committee from the Human Genome Project unanimously decided that insurance companies should not have access to this sort of information. You want to know who loses? Listen to the experts.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
What a load of crap. We know quite a bit about how genes work, and if you bothered to read any papers about how we know how they work, then maybe you wouldn't spout this kind of garbage. We can test for what a gene does by various methods. One of the best is to experiment with "knockout mice", which have your favorite gene removed for your experimenting pleasure. If you destroy the gene and compare what the knockout does in comparison with the normal one, you can get a good idea as to what the gene does as its end product. That's just one of the many many ways biologists can use to figure out how a gene works. We can get to the point where we tell you exactly what regions of what proteins bind to what sequences that control your gene that codes for whatever it is you're interested in. So don't tell me we don't know how a gene works until you read some literature.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
You list a few decent ideas (I think the Mars one's pretty good), but I don't think you've got the real benefit of genetic testing yet. The idea is already being put in place with things like screening for Tay Sach's disease. You screen two partners and see what the probability is that they'll have a kid with the disease from their tests. Then you let them know so they can decide if they're going to have a kid. Or, if they do already have a child in the womb who's got some disease, they can choose to abort it if they feel it's the right decision. These are the more primitive versions which are in place right now.
The big one will come when gene therapy really gets going. We've already had SCID (Severe Combined Immuno-Deficiency) cured by gene therapy, and you can test for that in the womb and treat it. Because of this, there won't be another "Boy in the Bubble" (that was a SCID child). When we can cure other diseases like Sicle Cell Anemia, which is caused by a single point mutation, that's where genetic testing will have it's biggest benefit.
However, right now, we can't do a hell of a lot besides test. It's good for things like testing for parentage and DNA fingerprinting for crime scenes. This makes it hard, because if you test for something that there's no cure for, you don't even really want to tell the patient. However, it's illegal not to test for a disease that we can cure. So, genetic testing really is here, probably more than people realize. But the big one, therapy, is coming. It's treatment that makes genetic testing truly worthwhile.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Actually, this is ancient news. BNSF agreed to stop DNA testing way back in February. I don't know why it took so friggin' long for the newspaper to pick this one up.
so long as it was solely for the 'evil' gene in phb's
I don't think that there is any scientific merit here. I do think that Burlington Northern was using the tests to intimidate employees under the guise of science.
Well it would be beneficial to your business to get the ergonomic keyboards and furniture anyway. You can get CTS weather you have the gene or not. It makes sense to get the other stuff as it lowers risk for everyone. The keyboards are priced about the same as normal ones if you know where to look. Can't speak for the chairs though.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
This means we will not yet be able to see the courts rule on this issue and decide how American law (particularly the Civil Rights Act, and the ADA) will deal with genetic testing, once and for all.
This fight is definitely not anywhere close to being over.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
If you're looking for entertainment of a different strain, try crapflooding my ring of 3l337 Geocites Slashdot-related wepages:
The latter is from before Hemos' wedding, which is a testament to how long porn can go undiscovered on GeoShitties. I encourage all to make their own anti-Slashdot webpages on GeoCities and send the URLs to the official Crapflooder mailing list for appropriate dispersal.--
--
I like to watch.
I don't know. Watch TV, reading the media, it's like out of a bad version of 1984 or Brave New World.
I don't know.
I got the hear an interest interview the other day on Minnneasota Public Radio with a PhD. who specializes in genetic tests. Basically, the main problems with the BN case is this.
THE TEST THEY ADMINISTERED WAS NOT FOR CT! It tests for other genetic problems and in some circles is believed to provide a link to it. Problem is, there has been no clinical studies with peer review to confirm this link. And the studies that have been done are up for debate in science circles.
Two, the test was not optional. Refusing to take the test would result in disipline action.
Three, AT NOT POINT DID THE COMPANY DISCLOSE TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT A GENETIC TEST WAS TAKING PLACE. There were mearly told they required six viles of blood. And if they didn't give the blood they could expect disapline actions.
For those who say a company has the "right" to do this I got some sad news. In MN mandatory genetic testing is not allowed. However, the way the law was worded it only applied to health insurence companies. It created a loophole for companies that self insure. That's currently being corrected.
For all BN's woes, they did seem to learn a lesson and are now campaining against genetic testing. So go figure.
screening peoples genes to see if they're likely to hurt themselves is good, it protects the people. but the thing that makes this really seedy is they decide for you whether you should work there or not. i think they should screen you tell you if you have bad genes, and say that you risk it. however, i'm sure they don't want to pay workmans comp, so they'd rather take the decision out of your hands. very sticky situation.
"But if I hire a junk employee"
To equate people with cars is a mistake, but I don't think that's where you make your big mistake.
The problem with your approach is that this "junk employee" as you call him (or her) needs to find a job somewhere. Should people be condemned to a life of minimum wage jobs because of poor genetics?
Does this junk person sit around all day and collect public monies until they die? Who pays for that?
Further, who decides they're junk? Companies will screen for a disposition to be obese, addiction, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancers of all types, baldness, and stuff that you or I can't imagine.
Based on your premise, you could screen based on race and/or skin color, since every ethnic group has a disposition towards some types of medical conditions.
I think you look for a person's ability, attitude and willingness to do the job should be first and foremost.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Beyond that, is this even the kind of change that people want in their lives? Do people really want to know what all their genetic weaknesses are? How does that affect the way you think of yourself? The way you live your life?
Of course, we could always work on systematically eradicating the offending genes from our pool. (but that's called eugenics, and it has a bad name for some reason)
Once your genetic profile gets leaked to Freenet, how can you really prove that the company you're interviewing with isn't using it to evaluate you?
Personally, I doubt that our genes will really be very private once detailed genetic profiling becomes cheap and fast(legal or not). And because there are benefits to knowing what your genetic makeup, profiling will eventually become cheap and fast. I don't think people (or the genomics companies) are really investigating the possible downsides. Really, there only needs to be a small set of people willing to pursue this, and it will get done. Wierd world our kids will grow up in.
---
--
If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going.
This "testing" seems okay to me. Who put sandpaper on their toilet seats? Can they really, ethically order them around like that? ...
I would suspect so, since its a product of your body... DNA exists in all of our sells, right? I mean, it's a natural by-product that contains (a) that which we consume and (b) that which attempted and failed to digest it, which is why it is what it is. So, given that, I'm sure that there are all kinds of chemicals and cells and enzymes there that could provide for DNA testing.
Why is this not like "lemon laws"?
Simple: cars don't have a right to privacy.
Period.
Secondly, "who loses in this situation?" Clearly, the worker who has an increased genetic likelihood of receiving carpal tunnel syndrome. Apparently you think it's okay for a railroad company to not employ such a person. So, where do they work? I guess not in construction... or on an assembly line... or typing in an office. Under your argument, a whole class of people, through no fault of their own, are made unemployable and basically unable to get health insurance (in the US) for any such ailment that does occur.
Thirdly, "IMHO the real reason the economy has been in a downturn has been eight years of big government assault from the Clinton Administration..." With all your business acumen, have you never heard of an economic cycle? That we've just seen the longest period of increasing production ever? Please, clue us in to what Clinton-sponsored regulation forced cruddy VC investments and nutty Amazon market capitalizations to finally confront rational business reality. You know, there are legions of Democrats (et. al.) angry at Clinton for being the most pro-corporate leader of his party in decades. Count your blessings, Mr. Good Business.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Exactly, it should be like wages. The employer says here's what you're getting and the employee should accept it, wages or bogus no-pay health plan, gratefully with a deferential tug of his forelock.
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
Entertain me
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
My tendinitis was caused by too much typing in a bad ergonomic situation. But the supracondylar process reducing blood flow made the tendinitis easier to contract and more difficult to recover from.
Fight Spammers!
You are wrong in stating that providing ergonomic accomodations hurts the employer's bottom line. Studies have shown that employees who work in a more ergonomic environment tend to be happier and produce more (when you think about it, that employee is wasting productive time everytime s/he stands up and streches to rearrange their bones). Those $2000 ergo desks and chairs actually end up raising profits.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Wow, nice. I wan't sure at first where you were coming from. Now I got it.
---
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Actually, it's Gattaca, spelled only using the letters of the four compounds found in DNA.
Twitter.com/TrentonHyatt
1. (Response): Business sense aside, it's wrong to not give a job to a handicap or otherwise disabled employee, who is qualified and wants the job, simply because it's going to cost that business more money to meet their needs than a normal employee. That's called discrimination. Especially when it's discrimination based on the possibility of CTS.
2. Again, we're not talking about discriminating against someone with a condition, we're talking about discriminating against someone who might one day have a condition. No one know's for sure if these people will get CTS, just like no one knows for sure if someone will get cancer. Would it be OK for a company to not offer you a job, simply because your family has a history of cancer, and they don't want to risk exposing themselves to costly medical bills?
I'm not advocating giving someone something for nothing here. Businesses should hire the best qualified employee, period. What I am against, however, is businesses using genetic information to deny jobs to otherwise qualified employees, simply because other employees will cost them less.
OK, I can't really decide if you were trolling or not, so here goes. 2 things to keep in mind here:
1. Even people at high risk for CTS can perform in a repetitive function job, provided that they or their employer make sure their work environment is adequately equipped to handle the stresses. If a person is qualified for the job, and wants the job, there shouldn't be an artificial barrier created by this "risk of CTS" factor.
2. If you accept this, where does it stop? A familiar battle cry in many issues, but very relevant in this case. Should employers be able to check for histories of heart conditions for the same reasons (don't want employees keeling over eating a Bacon Cheeseburger, bad for moral)? Should your company be allowed to know your family has a history of glaucoma (after all, more medical bills bring the stock down)?
I realize it's not the same, as your point seems to be that both parties are benefiting: the company doesn't pay for surguries, and the person doesn't get CTS. But what you have to realize is that this company probably doesn't give a rats ass about whether their employee get's CTS or not, they just care if they have to pay for it. Allowing this sort of thing to go on opens a flood gate for all other kinds discrimination in the name of "employee benefit".
Genetic Predisposition? I don't think so.
Here's some info about CTS.
-Cyc
/.'s 10 Millionth
As an employee of BNSF, the official line was that we settled this long ago. The court action was only a follow through on the part of the EEOC and others to make sure that other corporations didn't try to do this.
Wow, perhaps you'll make good mid-level management for a Fortune 500 corporation when you grow up. In the mean time your personal life becomes an open slate and your genome is public information. What the hell, screw personal privacy rights... who needs them... they are bad for big business.
Even if the company tries to argue this in court (that the firing was not based on genetic tests), their credibility is pretty much shot through of holes.
Speaking of shooting, I think the Board of Directors should be dragged into the street and shot. I'm serious about this. This kind of invasion of privacy is on a whole new level.
Fine, this time it was testing for CTS, next time?
The thing is, if we let shit like this slide, it sets precedent. In this country, precedent is everything.
It'd be nice if we had some real leaders, and not some corporate pawns - this refers to bush and gore, and the majority of politicians out there.
Gattaca is not coming, we will see people hanging from the lampposts before that. I wonder how much shit will happen before people start actually going after their rights.
A few hundred killings is all that is needed to make America a great place to live.
- we just got to get the right people.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Stories posted on slashdot in the last few months talked about the lack of information in genes. This story seems to show that there still is information in the genes that's "usefull". What do they look for to see how you'd be pre-disposed to how you position your wrists and take breaks and such?
That's the first I've heard of it. Anybody have any links, or were they just lying?
Since when has CTS been genetic? As far as I know almost anyone can get it given enough repetitive exercise which affects that area. Thats why so many CS people get it. Keyboards aren't really designed with your CT in mind. I suppose you can have a genetic predisposition to getting it but if its a job thats likely to cause, even those without a genetic predisposition will eventually get it. Businesses should look at the way their equipment works and adjust that instead of trying to genetically test potental employees, which is probably more costly than changeing some equipment in the longer run.
One way to satisfy all sides might be for companies to offer free voluntary testing for genetic predispositions that may affect someone's fitness for that line of work. Then everybody really does win. No one's privacy is invaded, the company doesn't have to shell out lots of money to support someone who isn't making them any profits, and the worker avoids unnecessary health risks.
The heart has reasons that reason does not understand. - Jacques Bènigne Bossuet
All solutions will come out of the GNP anyway ( except homelessness, and I know that some /. contributors have no problems with this solution, but these angry white males are beyond hope, and I am not trying to convince them anyway).
However the implementation cost differs as well as the distribution of risk. From a purely financial perspective, I'd say that insurance is the most efficient. But that implies a universal health insurance, which the US doesn't have because big business oppose it ( they like the power that medical insurance gives them and they like the way it screws up small competitors ). The next best thing is putting the burden on the employer, because the employer is more efficient then the welfare system and more likely to have sufficient funds then the family.
I'm talking above about the cost of the result of CTS. You call the prevention cost "excessive". This can't be done without reference to the cost of the result. If the result of CTS is X dollars of income lost for the inflicted person over a lifetime, plus a subjective Y cost of physical and emotional pain ( courts know how to calculate this), the cost of prevention can be excessive only if it is higher than X+Y. I don't think anyone here ( myself included) has done the numbers, so I really don't see any meaning to excessive except "wow, I don't feel like paying that". If prevention is not excessive, the same methods of distribution are available. Insurance is ruled out because there is no risk issue. And, because prevention must implemented by the employer anyway, letting the employer manage it ( under supervision ) seems the most efficient way.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
But if I hire a junk employee...
Listen to yourself. That's exactly why people are afraid of corporations performing genetic testing -- they think that people will end up being labeled as useless refuse, as human trash.
Surely people at the very least have a right to know when their employers are doing these kinds of things.
-- dR.fuZZo
oh, your solitary voice of reason...:) Of course, what BNSF is doing isn't wrong. Suppose a music label were looking for signing up new talent. And let's assume there was a gene for song writing and playing. Wouldn't the label love to test people for that gene? or let's say the music label could test singers for the drug addiction gene? wouldnt testing for such a gene make their lives easier (just think - they could actually plan a Behind the Music and Where are they Now, not to mention a posthumous compilation wayyyy in advance). BNSF requires people to perform physical tasks. Physical tasks require fitness. Period. As an entity that exists to make money for shareholders (yeah, surprised, arent you, slashdotters, that companies do not exist to guarantee employment), they are merely protecting their liabilities and risks. OTOH, it would be utterly wrong if they were testing for the gay gene.
GATTACA is a set of letters that can appear in DNA. There is no I in DNA. Bryguy -Nor is there an I in Team, or else it would be, well, Tiam.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Now while I agree that it benefits both the corporation and the person if the person knows whether he/she is genetically pre-disposed to carpal tunnel syndrome, that should only happen if the employee voluntarily takes the test. They aren't.
That's why it's wrong, because it's done without permission and that's a violation of privacy.
And if you want to read more about DNA and violations of privacy, read any of the slashdot articles that talk about it. I'm not going to re-post information here.
What is carpal tunnel syndrome? And does it affect the worker's safety or endangers the safety of others?
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
70%-80% accuracy is misleading. While it may be true that 80% of the tests administered give a correct result, that doesn't mean that the result means much. For instance, assume 20% of people have the CTS gene. Then .2*.8=.16 of the population will have CTS and test positive, while .8*.2=.16 will not have CTS but will still test positive.
Two words: slippery slope.
An employee provides labor in return for compensation from the employer. It is a bilateral transaction, an implied contract. During the 1980's, some paranoid person (I wish I knew whom...) determined that usage of illegal drugs by employees was responsible for high business costs such as insurance claims, etc... This is actually ridiculous considering that marijuana affects the user for a matter of hours, but its byproducts are detectable by tests for a month or longer. Other people were convinced and this whole notion of "employer's rights" spread like the meme it is. No one seemed to remember, or stress assertively, that the employer-employee relationship is a satisfied contract in itself. The employer doesn't have a right to any additional information not present in observed, objective analysis of the employee's actual job.
However, in spite of an unproven relationship between casual drug use and employment costs, millions of Americans stepped up to the toilet and gave a sample of warm pee. The worker's compensation carriers made drug testing ubiquitous by offering insane discounts to employers who sample urine. IANAL, but it seems illegal for one industry to tell all other industries how to hire their employees.
All this "New World Order" shit is getting out of hand already. The whole purpose of insurance is to share the financial burden of health care across society. Now the employers and insurance companies are moving toward specific identification, which nullifies the point of shared burden. What will happen once the PACs from all industries have convinced Washington of the validity of their "rights"? I think we will have a large number of unemployable individuals, who will have to steal in order to eat. This will result in overflowing prisons, where the prisoners will be forced to work for companies who want first-world labor at third-world prices. It would be ironic to see people doing the same types of labor in prison that they wanted to do for Burlington or whatever company before they were turned into a physical reject and then a criminal.
I remember that in the days leading up to the French Revolution there were a large number of people languishing and dying in the Bastille for the sole crime of being hungry in a heartless nation. For how long will we resist the inevitable?
Ewige Blumenkraft!
Ewige Blumenkraft!
The reason companies pull this kind of crap is that they have to pay the insurance premiums. It's not about the employee missing work, it's about the medical costs. Every high-risk employee they can screen out becomes somebody else's problem. Health insurance should not be a point of contention between employee and employer.
First it was our urine.
Now our blood.
Where will they stop?
I think a clear pattern is discernible here, one that is cause for great alarm...
Corporations are proven piss fetishists and blood-sucking freaks.
"The business (in this case Burlington Northern) can go after other potential employees that are more likely to create the greatest amount of wealth at the lowest possible liability. The CTS-prone person, on the other hand, now has enough information about his genetic makeup to consult with a doctor and plan for a lifestyle that will not result in painful problems years down the road."
...and might be unable to get a job at all, since his 'fault' is stored in their database, and as we all know, big corporations have a tendency for not caring about privacy at all.
"But if I hire a junk employee, I'm stuck paying medical benefits and hospital bills for the rest of that employee's life? Ask yourself: is that fair?"
First, I don't like your use of the word 'junk' there.
Secondly, it may be sad for the corporation, but that's just the way in the big ol' US with their lack of any good health care like the Bismarck health insurance other countries have since over a century. Don't complain about fairness, it's just the American way. (and by the way, throwing out an employee because he's 'junk' isn't very fair either, eh?)
Apparently it wasn't much of a secret now was it?
© Pimpfolio
360 degrees of Karma
OK, so we are all agreed that genetic testing of this nature is, for the most part, unacceptable behaviour from a current or potential employer seeking solely to protect itself from litigation down the line. But are there any circumstances under which it becomes palatable?
Take for example the armed forces. If the Air Force could genetically screen trainee combat pilots at an early stage for degenerative diseases that affect eye sight, motor control, etc, would it be right to do so? After all, combat pilots must have 20/20 vision, sharp reflexes, etc, to maintain their service. A pilot who fails the strict medical criteria for the job won't have his wings for long (as he is a potential risk to himself and his colleagues in a combat situation).
Given that training a pilot takes millions of tax payers dollars, should a person who science can accurately predict will develop a medical condition that will stop him/her doing their job and perhaps place lives in jeopardy be filtered out from the process sooner rather than later? Hang the money, is the right of that individual today more important than the potential risk to the safety of others tomorrow?
And that's just one example. Astronauts: should NASA send someone on a three year mission to Mars before first checking all the bases medically? Another extreme perhaps, but society is littered with good examples.
Sure, in today's money-driven society with its ambulance-chasing lawyers, the risk to the employer is often a great call to action than the rights, concerns and wellbeing of the employee. But employees can benefit from screening too - someone suceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome can take precautions to minimise the risks to their health. They might choose to use a trackball instead of a mouse, to have regular massages, or to persue another career path entirely.
More than likely, they will only look at the options if faced with the problem (after all, we are all at risk from CTS but how many of us have ditched their mice because they are potentially dangerous to our health?) so knowing before is much more advantageous than knowing after. After all, prevention is much better than a cure.
Genetic testing is here. It isn't suddenly going to disappear so isn't it a good idea to learn how to use it effectively and to our maximum advantage?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Two years ago, Repetitive Stress Injury in both shoulders. Asked the doctor about use of a sling and he laughed. Same story. Keep the muscles strong and it'll a) heal faster, and b) hurt less. That doesn't mean lifting weights, but it does mean regular, gentle movements to keep things strong and fluid. Two years later I've regained nearly 100% mobility in both shoulders, become a certified geek, and know how to avoid the same injury again.
Bottom line: It isn't band-aid measures like wrist braces that'll prevent this sort of injury. It's education and attention to ergonomics in the workplace (as others have already mentioned).
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Another important difference between your vison example and CTS screening:
I already have bad eyesight. Make me read for 5 minutes and you'd be able to tell that. But you can't tell that I might be suseptible to CTS without forcing me into a genetic test. That is why it's discrimination: I can preform the job if I might develop CTS; I can't fly a fighter jet if I can't see well.
"rm -rf /"... what does that do again?
What you miss here is the fact that although financially sound, it's wrong. It is discrimination, and we as a society have decided that you shouldn't preform such practices.
Certinally, slavery was a good thing from a financial standpoint...
"rm -rf /"... what does that do again?
At least to me, discrimination is judging a person by a trait they have no control over. I'm gonna have to make a parallel to explain this one:
My friend is black. I'm white. Now, neither of us had any choice about this; it's in our genes. Is one of us a better person? Am I going to be able to do the job better than him because of this genetic happenstance? I'm guessing just about everyone would say no.
Another Example: Me and my friend now apply for a job. We're not being judged on color, because that would be discrimination. But he has a genetic predisposition to CTS. I don't. Now, I'm going to make a worse employee than him; I'm lazy, I'm not as good at the job we're applying for. Now, there is the risk that my friend turns out to be an expensive hire, because he could get CTS. But should the company really hire me, just because they're less likely to have to pay more money to thier insurance carrier some time down the road?
That isn't discrimination??
And then, another good thing to point out is that things like this are really just risks... It is entirely possible for someone with "bad" genes to never experience the issues that threaten them.
"rm -rf /"... what does that do again?
.. so basically you're saying you'll hire a dude in a wheelchair, as long as he makes you enough money more than the other candidate
Basically, yeah. If one choice makes more money than the other choice, then go for it.
This is basic business.
It has nothing to do with wheelchairs, handicaps, and so on and so forth. It has everything to do with the bottom line. People who allow themselves to be shackled by emotional attachments to their genetic inferiors are going to be held back for the rest of their lives, sorry to say.
Listen to yourself. That's exactly why people are afraid of corporations performing genetic testing -- they think that people will end up being labeled as useless refuse, as human trash.
Um, some people are useless refuse and human trash.
NOTE: this does not mean that they're bad people!! Only that they're either too young, too old, or too uneducated to contribute to the political causes that matter the most to our generation.
Personally I see no refuse and trash here. I see a generation that has a hell of a lot of potential. Were it not for the lot of you slamming them at every possible opportunity, all of these kids would be reading at an eighth grade level by now. It's time to stop dissing and start learning.
All right, let's talk about judging a person by a trait they have no control over.
:) (Okay, I take that back, don't -1 troll me.) :)
Let's take, as an example, an Air Force fighter pilot. Current regulations require fighter pilots to have 20/20 vision. Contact lenses are not allowed, since the vast G-forces that fighter pilots are subjected to actually cause the lenses to slide back on the eyeball. The end result is that if you want to be a fighter pilot, you have to have (almost) nearly perfect vision. Naturally. Nobody that I know of had any control over their vision quality when they were born. It's beyond their control.
Yet by the standards that you would set, this is discrimination.
I don't know about you, but if a visually impaired pilot is going to put the lives of innocent American babies / kittens / etc. into jeopardy, then I say "keep the the hell away from the airplane." I'm not claiming that we should be gleeful about keeping the visually impaired out of the sky, but we should at least be honest about it; if we were to adopt the politically correct policy that you (apparently) espouse, we would be sending an unknown number of innocent people off to early graves. I cannot accept this, and I hope you understand why.
When I think of "discrimination", I think of it as not hiring people because of things that they have no control over and have nothing to do with their job. Skin color is an obvious example here. But let's look at eyesight. Clearly, a person has little control over his or her own eyesight, but in a fighter jet, I hope that it's obvious that eyesight is very important! Clearly, the color of a person's skin says nothing about he will perform in a fighter, but if he can't see worth shit, do we really want him bombing nursery schools and retirement homes simply because we want to be "inclusive?"
My opinion is that folks on the left do not want to admit that not every human being is equally qualified to perform every job. I don't know how to respond to this, other than to say that it's wrong. It's not discriminatory, it's just the truth. And if a person's wrists are going to be shot to hell and painful after three years of labor, then a railroad company should not hire that person. And that person should use this advanced medical knowledge to ensure that they get the help they need to live a pain-free life. Nobody loses except for the far-left PC crowd, and that is a textbook example of an "acceptable loss."
1. Even people at high risk for CTS can perform in a repetitive function job, provided that they or their employer make sure their work environment is adequately equipped to handle the stresses.
And why should they be forced to do this? From the perspective of wealth creation, which is preferable? A handicapped employee that is going to cost way too much to keep around (in terms of special equipment, medical bills, etc.) or a normal employee that does not require this type of special treatment? As a businessman, I can shell out money for ergonomic keyboards and furniture, or I can purchase normal furniture and employ normal people and not have to worry about things like this.
2. If you accept this, where does it stop? A familiar battle cry in many issues, but very relevant in this case. Should employers be able to check for histories of heart conditions for the same reasons (don't want employees keeling over eating a Bacon Cheeseburger, bad for moral)? Should your company be allowed to know your family has a history of glaucoma (after all, more medical bills bring the stock down)?
If a potential employee does indeed have a serious, life-threatening illness, I cannot fathom a single reason to hold that information back. If a new hire keels over in the hallway dead of a heart attack a week after I hire him, what am I supposed to do then? It will take at least three weeks to arrange interviews and identify the next-highest qualified candidate, and chances are that he will want to be paid more.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's in my best interest to hire those people that maximize my ability to create wealth. To that end, I require information about the habits and possible weak points of my employees. Those that represent a short-term flight risk shall not be considered. Those who have disabilities shall be carefully considered (more carefully than most), but I will not hire a cripple to please Uncle Sam. I have hired many handicapped people based on their merits and that is how I will continue to handle things, because I believe that any other way is an insult to the handicapped population and their collective abilities.
Here is the bottom line: you believe that people are entitled to things that they have not earned. I do not. I want people to earn their respect, their position, and their name. That can be done regardless of what your physical and/or mental limitations are. Earn my respect and I'll give it to you. But if you come up to me and think that I owe you respect, I'll tell you to piss off. And you'll have earned it.
Okay, I don't get this.
.. who loses in this situation?
A business whose profits and wealth creation potential rely on having employees who do not have CTS has a way to determine who will and will not be likely to get it. And this is supposed to be bad? This actually benefits both sides. The business (in this case Burlington Northern) can go after other potential employees that are more likely to create the greatest amount of wealth at the lowest possible liability. The CTS-prone person, on the other hand, now has enough information about his genetic makeup to consult with a doctor and plan for a lifestyle that will not result in painful problems years down the road.
So refresh my memory
Phrased a different way: how is this type of a scenario any less objectionable than the "lemon laws" that used automobile dealers are forced to comply with? If I sell you a junk automobile, in the long run you are not liable for the car's upkeep, even though you could have researched the car's physical condition before you bought it. But if I hire a junk employee, I'm stuck paying medical benefits and hospital bills for the rest of that employee's life? Ask yourself: is that fair?
Yes, yes, I know; this is Slashdot, and the left is disproportionately represented here. Yet I can't help but ask myself if many of you actually believe what you're saying. It's trendy to hate big business and corporations, but what people need to realize is that the wealth and prosperity that we now enjoy is precisely because of those "hated" corps. The ironic thing is that by lashing out at companies like BN by making them stop a perfectly reasonable business practice, you might be sawing off the tree limb from beneath yourself. IMHO the real reason the economy has been in a downturn has been eight years of big government assault from the Clinton Administration is finally catching up with us. Interesting how the new President has enacted some more business-friendly measures, and the economy is now looking up. Funny how that works, isn't it.
Do you really want your employer to know that you have a proto-oncogene that's just waiting to trigger brain cancer in you?
Actually, yes, I do.
I'm afraid your 'us versus them' adversarial relationship is counterproductive. I work for a good company. We all can, but not while resources are drained off so some Union boss can run a 'protection' racket.
The same people who are already writing all the code. (namely, the people not mucking around in 'Your Rights' bullshit discussions on Slashdot).
Next thing you know THEY r gonna check for a slashdot gene and kick all of us ppl out... Hmmmmmm then who would write all the code???
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
A company is well within its rights to test an employee for genetic conditions, especially when those conditions might interfere with his ability to do a job well or safely.
Whatever else might be true of CTS, it's a nasty any painful condition, and makes tasks that require fine motor skills (like conducting a train) exceptionally difficult. So far as I know, it's also characterized by relatively sudden onset-- meaning that the guy running the 5:15 from NYC to Boston could find himself unable to perform necessary operations with little prior warning.
That the employees were subject to examinations in the first place implies that they were in positions where their ability to perform physical tasks was important-- if that's the case, testing for CTS seems like a good idea.
You never know who will get one.