Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Discrimination in the IT Workplace
MisterTut writes "In what could be a troubling trend, one employer- the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway -was found to have secretly run unproven genetic tests on workers suffering Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. The company was trying to prove that they were not culpable for cases of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from which the employees were suffering.
The ethical considerations of such testing, covert and illicit or not, are profound for those of us working in the IT industry."
...a company is not culpable for, say, Carpal Tunnel in a particular worker, because it ultimately is shown to have a genetic component, and the company has already taken reasonable, industry- and regulatory agency-accepted, good-faith steps to mitigate it, but can't be prevented with this type of work in this type of employee (except by taking extreme measures and/or changing the person's job completely)?
That makes a lot of assumptions, but in that event, why would/should the employer be responsible? Should an employee have to pay worker's compensation claims for events that it is not primarily responsible; i.e., events that it has already taken steps to prevent? (Sure, you can argue "Well, Person X wouldn't have gotten Carpal Tunnel at all if they weren't in that job, even if they were genetically predisposed to it", assuming that is established at some point, for the sake of argument. But is the employer always, then, responsible? Under what conditions are they not responsible?)
And further, especially for an at-will employer, why would it not want to avoid workers who won't be able to effectively perform certain tasks, or workers who statistically may become liabilities in the future? What is the source for the reasoning that everyone has a "right" to work, and to work for a particular employer, to those who believe that?
I'm most certainly not saying employers should run secret genetic tests without employee consent. I'm also not making an argument that such testing, even with consent, should necessarily become commonplace. These are larger questions.
And on another note, why is every trend always "troubling", every impact "profound"? I find it amusing that those who would, say, be fully in support of embryonic stem cell research, apparently throwing any ethical concerns to the wind, all of a sudden see "troubling" ethical implications for employers trying to use the same essential tools.
Employers aren't always bad; aren't always in the wrong. You can make assertions that they might gravitate that way, and cite examples, but that doesn't automatically mean all employers' decisions are always wrong and worthy of suspicion, and all employees' decisions and actions are always right and worthy of protection. Note again that I am NOT defending Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway's decision, or anything having to do with this specific case. I'm speaking in generalities here, and am honestly curious as to peoples' thoughts.
From TFA: Granted, this legislation is certainly important, but it sidesteps the central issue: no one should have access to my genetic code without my permission or a warrant. Period. My company can't break into my house and inspect my personal belongings...what makes it OK for them to inspect my genome? Granted, if the above mentioned legislation passes, companies will not be able to overtly discriminate based on these findings...but all this really means is that if they want to get rid of an employee because of genetic considerations, they will just have to dream up some sort of pretense to remove the offending employee.
Yes, I'm sure that if genetic testing of individuals without their consent were to be outlawed, some companies would continue doing it in secret, just as if discrimination was outlawed, some companies would circumvent the law as I outlined above. But the point remains valid: if outlawing discrimination based on genetic tests protects employees to some degree, then it folllows that outlawing the genetic testing of individuals without their consent in the first place would enhance that protection considerably.
More importantly, if this issue isn't nipped in the bud firmly and immediately, we couold find ourselves on a slippery slope of truly brobdingnagian proportions. Imagine a world where you are under constant surveillance by law enforcement...not because you have a history of violent crime, but because you have a genetic predisposition to violence. You find it difficult to get a job because of your genetic predisposition to adult ADD, and you can't get health insurance because you are geneticlly predisposed to heart problems.
A line in the sand must be drawn now, before Gattica becomes an uncomfortable reality.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
If they find someone has a genetic flaw that means they are likely to develop CTS, wouldn't they be protected by the disabilities act?
If so, the business would really have to accomodate them with an altered, and likely expensive, work environment.
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
People are leaving genetic material all over the place all the time. From a practical standpoint this is like anything else that you discard, it doesn't belong to you any more. That being said, I wouldn't appreciate someone using my blood, sweat and tears (always available at work) for testing purposes, but what can I do?
If I were being cloned that would be different. However, I don't think ethical rules cover any of these situations.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Once you open the door to proving negatives as accepted social policy, there's no real end in sight.
Land of the free, home of the piss test.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
They were doing the research 5 years ago, and stopped over 4 years ago. It doesn't look like they were taking a really serious look at it anyway. How much data can they really get from 200 tests?
The problem is no one wants to assume risk. Shouldn't this be an insurance issue instead of a workman's comp issue? You have insurance companies that don't want any risk but yet want premiums. Part of the recipe for insurance is that you are paying them to assume a risk and they are betting on that risk not falling through. Further, they are making profit off your money via investment. In the case of employers, they are making these deposits on the chance that something does happen. I understand that you don't want to lose at poker, but you're playing the game. I realize this analogy breaks down at some point but isn't it equally unethical to collect insurance premiums from people who have predispositions to ANYTHING? Insurance companies are largely evil entities and unfortunately, necessary evils. My opinion, FWIW.
Insurance companies and businesses have long flip flopped on the concept of "pre-existing conditions". Those are cases where a person is hired who has medical conditions that are potentially expensive to treat (e.g. diabetes, cancer, AIDS, etc.).
It used to be that insurers tried hard not to pay for conditions that existed before the person came onto the plan. As you might expect, it was hugely unpopular (insurance companies really do listen to people) as well as expensive to administer (it's expensive to decide what's pre-existing and what isn't).
I see this as the same way. When you hire a bunch of people, they'll have a range of health issues, some obvious and some hidden. Sure it's possible to try and figure out who might get what conditions, but it's not worth it. When dealing with millions of people being insured, it's typically easier to simply manage the overall risk and adjust prices accordingly. Micromanaging at that level is expensive and wasteful.
Since when is one incidence considered a trend?
The particulars of this case, though, I do find troublesome, with the fact that Burlington Northern Santa Fe are using an unproven method and are preparing to take action on it. However, a good lawyer will probably be able to stop them from (a) firing someone who shows the genetic markers for "carpal tunnel susceptibility," and (b) suggesting that people who do put in claims for carpal tunnel were "going to get it anyway," and disallowing the claims (unless they can show that they did take some action).
There will always be employers who are willing to jump to the conclusion that a predisposition towards something is a guarantee that it will happen. These people will use genetic tests for the latest-found markers, and will wind up not being able to hire anybody.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Not all employers require drug screening. My employer right now has never required me to pee in a bottle. Furthermore, if they tell me tomorrow that I had to, I would have the option of walking away.
The case in question had neither information nor consent. The nature of the test isn't in question; the means used to obtain the testing sample is the problem. In that respect, it is very different from typical drug screening.
Did you agree to random drug tests, at their whim? Perhaps they wanted to see your credit report?
In my experience, companies are constantly trying to gain more concessions from their employees, often without granting anything to the employee in exchange.
It's natural, then, that they're moving on to these genetic test - at least from the company's perspective. Employees, however, are balking at this brand new intrusion for now. But how long until it's just like that drug test that everyone else seems to be OK with, simply because they aren't looking for you?
If you don't speak out for others, no one will be left to speak out for you. This is why Unions are still a good thing - it allows workers to speak up against policies such as this while protecting themselves from direct retribution at work, since the company doesn't know who, exactly, started the complaint.
Every last person has different genes and is below average in some category or other. Allowing employers to screen for these conditions is akin to making every action you take illegal. It would simply be a handy dandy basket of excuses ready to to get a company off the hook for the slightest deviation from safe working conditions.
Slipped on loose carpeting and hurt your ankle and out for a couple of days? Ha! Your genes show you only have 99% of the average person's balance control due to a genetic defect in yoru inner ear. You lose.
Don't say this won't happen. It will. You know it will. Corporations aren't evil so much as susceptible to faceless bureaucrats looking for a pat on the back for saving money.
Infuriate left and right
a) Embryos don't have bodies? No, they just have bodies that are different from yours or mine. In the same way that my body is different from that of a newborn child or a 90 year old man. An embryo is living and is genetically human and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable treating them as things. The best argument is that they don't have minds, but this is an argument in the much larger and abstract argument of what is it that makes human beings worthy of protection under law. Is being a living human being enough? Does it require conciousness? If so what is consciousness? Can you prove if someone has or does not have consciousness? Again, a question we don't have a real answer to.
b) This begs the question of whether or not it was ethical to create the embryos in the first place knowing that most of them were going to be thrown away. Now we're back at the question in 'a', what makes a human being worthy of protection? And besides, starving kids in Africa are going to die anyway, why not harvest their organs? Think of all the good we could do! Hell, you and I are going to die some day. Killing you or I now isn't going to result in any loss of life that wasn't going to be lost anyway, so obviously there would be absolutely nothing wrong with scientists killing us to study us as long as it would benefit society!
There are still a lot of unanswered questions and grey areas when it comes to embryonic stem cell research that no one can answer. The only reason people choose to gloss over these and support embryonic stem cell research is because they are blinded by the potential benefit we might derive. I know it's cliche, but the ends do not justify the means. Unfortunately it seems a lot of people in America have forgotten that.
The laws of probability forbid it!
So...the employer claims that they are not liable for a work related injury because the employee is genetically predisposed to said injury. How far are we from insurance companies refusing coverage for diseases where the victim is genetically predisposed? Thankfully, this specific case was shut down by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...I hope that is the trend that is set from this case.
Please provide a source for this. What do you mean by "health care plans"? Are you saying that the NHS will not provide dialysis for certain patients, or that private health insurance will not? There's a big difference.
In any case, I suspect that, because you can't spell "Britain", you're not very informed about it.