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.
.. 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.
Perhaps CTS can be mitigated, but only at excessive cost to the employer. If you weigh the cost of ergonomic keyboards, chairs, etc. versus the number of employees that are likely to get CTS, you will quickly discover that it's not worth it. From a financial standpoint it's better to put capital into the development of an attractive workplace than it is to subsidize defective employees that will only shackle you to the ground as time marches on.
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.
All right, let's talk about judging a person by a trait they have no control over.
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.":) (Okay, I take that back, don't -1 troll me.):)
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.. who loses in this situation?
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
.. 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.
Perhaps CTS can be mitigated, but only at excessive cost to the employer. If you weigh the cost of ergonomic keyboards, chairs, etc. versus the number of employees that are likely to get CTS, you will quickly discover that it's not worth it. From a financial standpoint it's better to put capital into the development of an attractive workplace than it is to subsidize defective employees that will only shackle you to the ground as time marches on.
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.
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."
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.