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.
when they find the slashdot reading gene, we are all screwed
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
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) -
What good is science if you don't use it for evil? There are too many goody-two-shoes scientists out there. Come on, more evil science please.
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
Thanks for mentioning that movie. You are the first to suggest such a connection.
Because you are heavily influenced by Hollywood, science fiction & pop culture and incapable of independent, creative thought?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
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.
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.
On the one hand we espouse the notion that "all people are created equal." It's an excellent core belief for the basis for civilization, government, law, etc. Yet science makes a mockery of this belief because we are not geneticaly equal and those differences impact outcomes that have legal, governmental, and social implications.
It does not take science and genetics to show that all men are not created equal in the sense that you are using the term. Even back in the 1700 some people were born bigger, stronger, smarter, prettier, etc. than others. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and inherent advantages and disadvantages due to circumstance.
The phrase, "all men are created equal" is followed by the phrase, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." It then goes on to enumerate some of those rights. Men are created equal in that they are all deserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not in that they are all equally strong, smart, or resistant to cancer.
While we're at it, I hear that strip clubs discriminate against disabled dancers when hiring, and supermodels discriminate against geeks when selecting sex partners! This blantant discrimination must end! I say we demand legislation now to mandate quotas for supermodels dating slashdot readers!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
Was it because she was a bad employee? Nope - her work record was spotless and her evaluations were impeccable. No, it was because BN-SF went out of their way to try to make people quit before they reached retirement. They did this to everyone in hopes of avoiding paying those hard-earned pensions.
Therefore, it doesn't surprise me at all to hear that they're trying to screw over yet another set of employees. That's been their SOP for years, so I can't imagine they'd turn tail now.
By the way, if you want an example of a completely incompetent union, there you have it. I'm not pro-union to begin with, but I'd expect one to at least try to help its members.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
As an older worker, I have a pre-existing condition, multiple sclerosis.
:-)
My mobility is affected and I certainly can't dance anymore. (The cane was getting to be a hazard to the others on the dance floor. I know because I danced at a XMas party a couple or jobs ago.
Trouble is that I am probably working on the last job I will ever be able to get. I'm not that old, 50, so what am I supposed to do what that job 'goes away' as all consulting tech jobs that I ever worked on over the past 25 years have done.
I'm too handicapped and I may be too old for retraining, despite the Associate's in Business that I am currently getting (at week's end thank you.)
I am just getting tossed out. Its nothing personal but that's just the way it goes. The software I was working on (a CRM system written in Smalltalk,) has been end-of-lifed.
What am I supposed to do for money? I don't want a free ride but odds are that, if I wouldn't hire someone disabled like me, nobody else will either.
I'm not dead yet, but some days, I sort of get the feeling that everybody else wishes that I was. so they wouldn't have to be bothered.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.