Genetic Discrimination in the IT Workplace 556
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."
And what if... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org], 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.
Genetic Testing !Consent == Invasion of Privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [imdb.com] becomes an uncomfortable reality.
This could backfire... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Is this really a problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were being cloned that would be different. However, I don't think ethical rules cover any of these situations.
Re:And what if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who are these "those who would"? I don't recall any information on the number of people who fully support all embryonic stem cell research also being troubled by employers engaging in the practices in this article.
And this is a surprise...how? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This is a 5 year old story (Score:2, Insightful)
No risk (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And this is a surprise...how? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's essentially a "pre-existing condition" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And what if... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm kind of tired of comments like that.
Re:And what if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course if we had universal health care like most industrialized nations, it wouldn't be an issue.
As for your digression (cough*TROLL*cough) into stem cell land, there are two distinct issues: research into a life saving technology and invasion of privacy. Just because they happen to both be related to genetics in some vague way doesn't mean they are the same. Tractors and tanks both use treads but I fully endorse the use of one and not the other. Does that make me some kind of hypocrite?
Employers actions are not always wrong and employers actions not always right, to be sure. What I protest is the system that gives the concerns of one precedence over the other, one more power than the other, one more status than the other in complete disproportion to the amount of societal good one does over the other.
trend? (Score:0, Insightful)
I'm not too worried about this in the long run... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:And what if... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Have you ever heard the phrase, "power corrupts?"
Employers have a lot of power over a great many individuals. Employers get bigger and bigger, consolidating into fewer opportunities for work. It is at the point where a few major players control all opportunity to work in certain fields. Collective employment is only occasionally balanced by collective employees in the form of unions. Even when it is, power usually concentrates into a few hands within the unions and corruption and collaboration are commonplace.
This leaves the average individual worker in a very precarious place. Individuals in general don't have the money, influence, or voice to fairly balance their interests with those of a large employer. Given all of the above, it is indeed troubling when an employer is shown to be abusing that power in a new way. When that power is abused in a way that invades the privacy of individuals and opens the door to even more prejudice (which already abounds) then it is profoundly troubling.
Tools are only a means to an end. I don't object to people owning firearms. I do object to people murdering innocent people with firearms. Those beliefs are not contradictory.
I'm speaking in generalities here, and am honestly curious as to peoples' thoughts.
In general employers are only interested in making the largest profit possible for themselves and sometimes for their shareholders. As powerful entities motivated solely or for a large part by greed and with no inherent interest in the welfare of their employees, they need to be watched carefully and regulated by the people to protect the people. Theoretically the government acts in the best interests of the people, but it has been shown time and again that large companies have significant influence over the government even when acting against the interests of the public.
Basically, large companies have proven themselves untrustworthy (in general) and dangerous to the well being and rights of the individual. They have also been able to corrupt the government to the detriment of the individual. I'd say any behavior they show that is damaging to the individual is troubling, wouldn't you?
Re:Genetic Testing !Consent == Invasion of Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
You raise an excellent point here...we got started on this slippery slope when we sat back and complacently let urinanalysis in the workplace start chipping away at our civil rights.
But there's one important difference between testing for the presence of illicit chemicals and testing for the presence of genetic predispositions: while I can choose to indulge or not to indulge in illicit drugs, I cannot change my genetic code. This fudamental difference marks the boundary, and this difference is what we must base our stand upon.
The fight to keep our history of illicit drug use private has been lost...the fight to keep our genetic code private has just begun.
The difference is informed consent (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is this really a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Then you say:
If I were being cloned that would be different.
So, why is it different? You just threw the genetic material away, remember? If someone manages to clone you from it, what can you do?
Re:Is this really a problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless we live life in a bubble we don't have much choice about leaving genetic material laying around, but that doesn't mean its ethical to test such material without consent.
Re:And what if... (Score:1, Insightful)
This whole issue only comes up because the poor way in which health care is structured in the U.S. If we had universal health coverage, it wouldn't really matter much "whose fault it was". The person with the injury would get treatment, and that would be the end of the problem. All the money that is currently wasted on finger-pointing litigation and redundant paperwork could be spent on actual medical care instead. (and before you accuse me of being business-unfriendly, let me point out that even big business is finding that the lack of a coherent health care system makes the US less competitive [www.cbc.ca])
And on another note, why is every trend always "troubling", every impact "profound"?
That's not the case at all -- there are plenty of trends that are non-threatening and unimportant. It's just that nobody bothers to write articles about them, for precisely that reason.
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.
The distinction you are missing is that embryonic stem cells come from embryos, which are (a) not persons (in the commonly understood sense of the word), since they don't have minds or bodies, and (b) going to be thrown away anyway, so stem cell research will at worst not result in any loss of life that wasn't going to be lost anyway, and at best will save or improve the lives of millions of people. Genetic discrimination, on the other hand, has potential to cause significant problems for many people, hence the hand-wringing. (Go watch Gattaca [imdb.com] if you'd like to see an example of the sort of things people want to avoid)
Act now, before we lose the opportunity to act. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:And what if... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like black people, who are statistically more likely to get pulled over when driving? Or perhaps like women, who are statistically more likely to become pregnant and cause downtime at work?
The first observation might concern a trucking or taxi business more, while the second one concerns nearly every industry, but society forbids this sort of discrimination. Generally, we allow an employer to make decisions based on what the employee or applicant has done (prior arrests, bad credit, etc.), not what they are statistically likely to do in the future.
Not all laws should be written for the maximum convenience of corporations. We require them to do all sorts of things, from cleaning up their toxic waste to giving a mother some time with her newborn baby without losing her job. As long as a significant portion of people with such genetic dispositions do not actually develop the illness or can be effectively treated, I expect discrimination to remain illegal.
Re:And this is a surprise...how? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And what if... (Score:2, Insightful)
The alternative to a 'right to work' would either be people dying in the streets or a large welfare state (likely with discrimination against those who are receiving welfare).
I wouldn't be happy living in a society where only the ubermensch can work, would you?
Because EVERYONE is less than perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's essentially a "pre-existing condition" (Score:3, Insightful)
The "problem" is that we (the insurance consumers) have always been used on insurers having to take a gross average, because they have little information about us as individuals. Technology is changing the picture. They have realized that, by compiling more information about us individually, they can reduce their liabilities.
Does this mean we get lower rates? Sort of. It means that those companies who are "choosier" about their coverage of risks and exclude known high risks can provide lower premiums, all things being equal. That generally doesn't line your pocket, however, because your employer picks up most of those costs. They pass it on as price, giving them a competitive advantage and thus are more likely to succeed, and - all things being equal - you're more likely to keep your job. Not a very direct return for you.
Of course, the insurance companies have a little secret that affects premiums as much or more than claims - the performance of market bonds. You see, they invest a large portion of you premiums in stable, liquid bonds in order to make a return on the reserve which they must keep to pay premiums. When the market is poor, such as it has been for the last 4-6 years, insurance rates rise significatnly. Why? They count on that return to add to their bottom line. If they anticipate making 8% on their portfolio each year, and the market gives them 3%, the "consumer" must make up the difference - hence higher premiums.
We got used to high returns on investments in the 80s and 90s, and so did the Insurance industry. They could effectively sell their product "below cost" knowing that the investment revenue would keep them in the black. Without competition, the insurance companies would have just been filty rich, never dropping premiums to account for their investment returns. Now, though, we're seeing the flip side - when investments are poor, we have to pay full fare for our insurance, and that can be a pretty big premium hike.
I shouldn't bother responding but... (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
What comes next? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have a "pre-existing condition" (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, I suspect that, because you can't spell "Britain", you're not very informed about it.
Re:And what if... (Score:2, Insightful)
I like this quote:
"It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."
-- David Brin
Re:And what if... (Score:3, Insightful)
I "love" the "evidence" police on /.(I lothe them frankly) Why can't they just shut up and allow a person to express an opinion. The opinion may or may not be based in fact and whats more the person might just know the facts but of course.... (Well enough on that)
The issue of a person being genetically tested and as such being descriminated against in hiring because they might tend to get a disease etc is a serious problem. It suffers from the problem that such science right now is more opinion than fact. It will be even more serious when these tests get accurate.
It is for example generally known that women have certain abilities that men either lack or are substantially less able than the women. Similarly men have abilities that accrue less to women. Various racial groups same... Temperment varies by race. Visual accuity varies by race. Family lines vary as well. Suppose you are prevented from work because of what family you came from?
Is a person to be prohibited access to work simply because it might wear them out faster than do other persons? Shall we only recruit from a specific family because of some behavior?
Argument can be made that selection against injury etc is a good thing. At the same time how finely do we allow the human race to be split up and catergorized realizing that all personal freedom goes with such? I personally think that such things should not be allowed at any level other than the most gross assessment.