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.
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
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"
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 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
Grr.. I really wish people would stop using the wisdom of one field (physics) to push their own opinions in another (philosophy/technological progress). It may make you look smart, but it's still stupid.
------
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."
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
Actually, it's Gattaca, spelled only using the letters of the four compounds found in DNA.
Twitter.com/TrentonHyatt
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".
It's legit. Check out:
http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/hnpp
It's a hereditary disorder (Hereditary Pressure Sensitive Neuropathy), which can be detected via DNA tests with a 70-80% accuracy.
I have a friend with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Very nasty.
--
--
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
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.