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."

Comments

And what if...

[daveschroeder]

...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.

dangerous

[chez69]

when they find the slashdot reading gene, we are all screwed

Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Gattaca

[mnemonic_]

Thanks for mentioning that movie. You are the first to suggest such a connection.

Re:Life imitating art?

[winkydink]

Because you are heavily influenced by Hollywood, science fiction & pop culture and incapable of independent, creative thought?

It's essentially a "pre-existing condition"

[PIPBoy3000]

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.

Act now, before we lose the opportunity to act.

[jevvim]

How much have you given up to work at your present employer?

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.

BN-SF sucks anyway - this isn't a surprise

[Just Some Guy]

My mom worked at a smaller railroad that got swallowed up by BN. She rose through the ranks to become Wire Chief (think electrical engineering supervisor), the first and probably only female in that job at that railroad. As she grew closer to retirement, though, her new job assignments become increasingly horrific. For example, her last job included cleaning toilets in the crew shanties in the railyard.

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.

I have a "pre-existing condition"

[crovira]

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.