Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Burlington Northern to Stop Gene Tests for CTS 120

Posted by michael from the first-blood-part-2 dept.
speleo writes: "An article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune tells how the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad has been ordered to stop its secret genetic testing of employees to determine whether they were predisposed to developing carpal tunnel syndrome. Holy Gattica!" This is a follow-up to this story.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Burlington Northern to Stop Gene Tests for CTS More

Burlington Northern to Stop Gene Tests for CTS

Comments Filter:

  • 11 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    11
  • If a case ever went to court over this, Burlington Northern would lose badly, since the Americans with Disabilities Act has been twisted so thoroughly out of shape by the American legal system. They're just covering their asses.

    - A.P.

    --
    Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

  • This is basic business.

    Basic to whom? Certainly not anyone who has an inkling of how the US economy functions.

  • It is discrimination. (Score:5)

    by maynard ( 3337 ) on Friday April 20, 2001 @07:41PM (#275742) Journal
    So refresh my memory .. who loses in this situation?
    The entire society. This is not a left vs. right issue, but one of privacy rights. Your employer doesn't and shouldn't have the right to private medical records, especially records that they've collected or created without your consent. This is no different from age or gender discrimination. It's been this way for decades.

    Employers should not have access to my private medical records for the same reason they shouldn't have the right to dictate how I live my life in my private time. Can you imagine what kind of society we'd have if corporations cherry picked only the healthiest individuals, worked them to death for a short duration, and then fired them before they grew old enough to lose their health? Just like only insuring the healthy, it distorts the very foundation of equal access and pay for equal work across society as a whole.

    --Maynard

  • And I with generations in my family with no predisposition towards CTS, I myself am afflicted, albiet mildly. With a mass-market ergonomic keyboard and a minimum of care concern given to the angle of my wrists while typing my problem was resolved (I type on standard user keyboards frequently without any discomfort, I just switched my keyboards to ones that are more ergonomic).

    Does this mean the genetic tests are worthwhile? Wouldn't this money be better spent by the employer insuring that all workers use ergonomic equipment that will help the genetically predisposed and non-predisposed alike?

    The problem in this case (not yours, the employers) is that EVERYONE can develop CTS, it's all a matter of how you use the equipment. Sure, the select group will develop symptoms earlier than others, but eventually everyone will develop the damn symptoms.
  • So, uh, great exalted one, mr fusterlee - what exactly would you have us do with the 'useless refuse and human trash' people?

    Shoot 'em in the head?
    Put 'em on welfare, and raise taxes to pay for them?
    Give 'em a job?
    Paint them bright blue and beat the shit of of them with a dead puppy?

    I'd hate to be someone working for you. Somebody track this guy down so I make no such ignorant mistake.

    He is a person who thinks he is hot shit because he has figured out how to walk while looking only at his feet, while the rest of us run past him while looking ahead. Somebody throw this guy a hamburger...

  • Re:There's a gene for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome? (Score:3)

    by "Zow" ( 6449 ) on Friday April 20, 2001 @08:53PM (#275745) Homepage
    Genetic Predisposition? I don't think so.

    Think again. Both my mother and her mother (my grandmother) have had to have surgery on both of their wrists due to CTS. Seeing my mother in that much pain when I was a kid caused me to pay more attention to ergonomics than most teens do/would. Despite that I started developing wrist pain to the point that I got medical attention from my employeer. I was fortunate enought to work somewhere that they are actually concerned about safety and have had enough experience with knowledge workers over the past half century that they know how to handle a situation like mine. They made some minor tweaks to my workstation and advised me how to take frequent breaks and do proper wrist exercises. All that made quite a difference and it keeps the pain at bay, but I still pay close attention to my body because I don't want to go under the knife like my mother and grandma.

    Anyway, the lesson here is that I don't think it's coincidence that three generations of my family have been affected by CTS.

    -"Zow"

  • Anytime I hear justification of policies that include arguments for bettering "society as a whole", I cringe-the arguments are almost always unjust to /real people/.

    The situation described by the parent post was not a privacy issue. The information requested by the employer was directly relevant to the performance of the employee, and because the employer is (unfortunately) responsible for the long-term health care of that employee, the employer has *every right* to reduce their risk.

    Coercing someone to get their medical records without their consent is wrong, but that's not the issue the parent poster brought up. It's whether the employer can ask for this data as a condition of employment. Absolutely they should.

    So there's a choice here; either:

    1. Allow the employer to properly assess the risks they are taking by hiring the employee, as they're liable for their long-term health.

    2. Remove the liability of the employer for long-term health care of the worker.

    You can't have it both ways, and ask an employer to assume liability for risks they are not permitted to assess. Doing so is totally unjust, and extremely dangerous, yes, to "society as a whole" as well as all individuals involved.
  • As a small business owner myself, I have to agree completely with what you're saying. I would also suggest that most of the people making the same tired, liberal-emotional pleas have no conception of what it means to run, and be responsible for, a business.

    In order for a business to run efficiently and successfully, they must hire the people who can do their jobs the best. Period. Nothing else matters at all. A racist or discriminating company will lose in the long run, as they're using irrational criteria to select employees - putting other factors ahead of performance. If a superior candidate is rejected by a competitor simply because of a handicap or race, I'll scoop them up in a minute.

    However, I must never be forced to decide on hiring anyone on any basis beyond performance.

    Hiring any employee is a substantial risk, and if it things don't work out well, the costs are borne by the company, and ultimately its employees and customers. An employer must use all available information to minimize the risks involved. Always. Anything less is irrational, grossly unjust, and detrimental to all parties involved.
  • You spelled Gattaca [imdb.com] wrong!

  • For the right reasons then I do not have a problem with it. If they told their employees that if they have a disposition they will use that information only to help improve the working enviroment then I will say ok that is fine. Yet I do not think this was the case here this was clearly a misuse of their positions. Not genitic testing is bad but the sad part it can be abused in so many ways some think it will be safer just not do it at all.
  • Ok, the fine line you are failing to discriminate (no particular reason for picking that word) here is that 20/20 vision is (quite) nescessary to perform the pilot's job. A tendency for CTS can be caught in the bud and mostly prevented.

    I'm all for (voluntary) genetic testing. I'm not for employee screening based on potential 'risks'.

  • ... in one paragraph you say: 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.)

    and in another you say: 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.

    .. 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 to offset the cost (including hassle!) of that stupid ramp you had to have built? ... hmmm. excellent point actually.

  • I'll assume that you're working with an expendable (read replacable) work force (it is not so in my division .. if we can get some brains out of you we typically don't care what weird problems you have..)

    You have to balance the money lost from *potential* health problems with the cost of finding qualified, perfect personnel. I still believe the costs you cite are lost in the general noise of people not being perfect. You don't happen to smoke do you? If so, or you hire any employees who smoke, you're bleeding away sick days. That's expensive. Best to fire them immediately. And fat people too. Boy am I tired of looking at *those* walking heart attacks.

  • Re:This is good business, not discrimination (Score:3)

    by mandolin ( 7248 ) on Friday April 20, 2001 @09:14PM (#275753)
    omfg, incredible troll.

    A business whose profits and wealth creation potential rely on having employees who do not have CTS

    Very freakin' indirectly! You're advocating employee screening based upon *incidental* genetic characteristics. Which incidentally is not what the company in question was trying to do. Getting a spinal column check before going to work for a moving company, I can see. Denying employment because of a long-term avoidable health risk is completely different.

    Your premise taken to its conclusion is a mess. While we're at it why don't we just make sure and only hire the genetically perfect people? Much lower health insurance costs as you say. Shit wearing glasses is a drawback -- bigger chance they might decide to get an eye exam. Pale geek skin? Cancer risk. Throw in some healthy racial profiling and we're all set.

    Even given that, I don't have a problem with a company asking nicely for certain tests. If they can help the employee. Hell I'd like an ergonomic keyboard. These guys 1) didn't ask and 2) threatened to fire a person in at least one case. 3) Did you *read* the *original* article? They only tested the employees that filed claims against them. That's ... that's...

    how is this type of a scenario any less objectionable than the "lemon laws" that used automobile dealers are forced to comply with

    Yeah because I always get people confused with cars too. I thought I was cynical.

  • My tendinitis was caused by too much typing in a bad ergonomic situation. But the supracondylar process reducing blood flow made the tendinitis easier to contract and more difficult to recover from.

    There could be a predisposition; I've been spending on the average 10 hours a day sitting on a keyboard, never with a favourable ergonomic disposition (I find the keyboard-under-the-desk position extremely silly and totally impractical - I prefer having the keyboard right under the CRT (which is about 75 cm from my eyes), so I can put some book or notepad "below" the keyboard), and never had been bothered by the slightest smidgeon of any whiff of a suggestion of a possible eventual occurence of tendinitis...

    However, after I was able to decide on printer placement, I've always made a point of putting the printer in a place where I'd have to at least turn myself around to fetch the paper from it, giving me a sufficient distraction to change my posture.

    * * *

    One would not think that running a train, reversing a switch or swinging a lantern would give someone CTS, but I remember meeting an Amtrak engineer who was running turbotrains in New-York State.

    The "deadman pedal" on those trains is simply that you had to touch intermittently a metal plate on the dashboard (those trains don't have a control stand). So, touching the plate developped into an automatism, and whenever he went for a beer after his run, he'd simply touch the ashtray or the placemat or whatever was contrasted on the table, like to reset the "deadman pedal"...


    --

  • When are the humans who run corps going to realise they employ humans? Sheesh.

    They mostly realize that the corps also ultimately belong to humans, who, quite unlike the cannon fodder employed by the said croporations, have a god-given right to the fattest bottom-line.

    Wake up and smell the coffee, boy! This is AMERIKA!


    --

  • 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.

    Well, then it's certainly not the croporation's duty to see to that, but the employee's. And, being a private medical matter, the croporation certainly has no business sticking it's nose in there. Since when croporations look after the welfare of it's employees? It's like the rancher taking good care of his herd!!!

    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?

    That's fucking unfair, indeed. Why should YOU pay for it? But fortunately, in the rest of the industrialized world, where Socialism can bestow untold benefits to the population (fuck the rich), there is no such bullshit happenning, because the State pays for health-care, so NO ONE IS DEPRIVED OF IT, NOR OF LIVELIHOOD BECAUSE OF PROBABLE EVENTUAL HEALTH ISSUES.

    If you types with only-the-bottom-line-in-your-mind would care to take out your heads from your asses once in a while, and smell the coffee, you'd see that SOCIALISM CAN BENEFIT YOUR FUCKING HOLY-ABOVE-THE-REST ECONOMY, TOO. Hong-Kong, where the real-estate (used to be) the most expensive in the world (or nearly) HAD VERY STRICT un-FREE-MARKET RENT CONTROLS.

    Why? Because it prevented workers from going on strike to ask for pay raises to pay for increasing rents. And this was at the request of the employers (who had more political weight than landlords).


    --

  • 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.

    As the State, representing it's Population, I tell you, mister businessman, your skimming the cream is unfair to those you leave behind, so I ORDER YOU, under penalty of LOSING YOUR VALUABLE PRIVATE PROPERTY (which is the only thing you care about), to enploy those you deem unemployable.

    This is the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, and HOW DARE YOU IGNORE IT, YOU FUCKING BASTARD? How about an tax audit? Or two?


    --

  • In other news, scientists were shocked to discover that some Burlington employees, when tested, possesed DNA composed of a fifth, previously unknown protein, now known as Inine.

    "We thought Cytosine, Tyrosine, Anonymine, and Guava were the basic DNA blocks," said John Ersatz, professor at the Santa Fe Institute. "With this new protein, the art of DNA acrostics is going to improve by 25%!"

    "We could even rename that film 'Gattica'!" said and excited Slashdot poster.

    --
  • Is it a valid test?
    You could run a DNA test and come up with random results.

    At the very least an employee should know they are being tested.

    I honnestly don't want my DNA tested as part of my employment at any place.

    If you are geneticly predisposed then you should take some precaution. If your not? Well you should take some precaution anyway.
  • So you won't mind if you get fired for posting on Slashdot?
    You won't becouse you can not be discriminated against.
    But think about this...
    The very thing that you are advocating could put you out of work...
  • They could..
    They aren't
    They won't.

    DNA testing itself... good idea...
    Secretly done by employer.. bad...

    Anyway anyone can get CTS.. gentic predisposition isn't going to make much diffrence in the long run. If they are going to bother with prevention it shouldn't matter if they are geneticly predisposed or not.
  • Newton's Third Law states:

    "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

    That means that every step forward involves a step back - and it is as applicable to human endeavours as it is to physics.

    So, as wonderful as genetic research is, we now see it is a dual edged sword - good (research into some debilitating diseases that may bring a cure) and bad (companies segregating you because of your genetic makeup).

    Now, if the company said "Look, we're worried about you. We want to test you to see if you have this gene that pre-disposes you to CRS. If you submit to the test and have the gene, we'll give you this wrist brace, so you can work more comfortably.", it likely would have flown. Even though the sub-text would have been "This wrist brace will save us a couple o' bucks in Comp premiums". The story submitter was right - Gattica indeed.

    When are the humans who run corps going to realise they employ humans? Sheesh.

  • Exqueeze me?

    There may well be a predisposition to CTS, but anyone can get it if they don't take care of themselves. I know. I have CTS. A very mild case, which was diagnosed by the Workers' Comp specialist I was sent to. Yes, it cost the State of Georgia a couple three hundred. But we caught it early. I use an ergo keyboard (bought myself, didn't trust the state), a gel mouse rest (ditto), and Alleve occasionally. MUCH cheaper than surgery or even acupuncture, and I got to keep the ergo goodies when I left.

    Point is, it behooves the employers to take care of its people, instead of sorting them like so many sheep, lest the good ones vote with their feet, and the trains not run on time. Your best workers are grown, not picked up off the street like a new ethernet card.

    -- Read the Cluetrain Manifesto [cluetrain.com]

  • The title of the film is made up entirely of the gene-sequence letters G,C,T,A

  • The difference is, that BN secretly tested prospective employees. That is useful only for helping the company cherry-pick the genetically least-risk employees.

    Maybe this would be a good thing, if they just provided that new employees be screened, and let the employee make an informed choice. But in this case, the BN employees loose the ability to choose, and even loose the right to be informed.

  • Re:Now we see the other side of the coin. (Score:3)

    by Dwonis ( 52652 ) on Friday April 20, 2001 @08:37PM (#275766)
    Grr.. I really wish people would stop using the wisdom of one field (physics) to push their own opinions in another (philosophy/technological progress). It may make you look smart, but it's still stupid.
    ------
  • Heck, why not get rid of the concept of "sick leave". It's bad for business. People who can't manage to get themselves to work because they're sick should just be fired and replaced by someone luckier.

    That seems to follow from your reasoning, at least. You seem to want to go back to the 1800's.
    --
  • The biology textbooks be damned! For the longest time we all thought the nucleotide base pairs consisted of only Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine, from which the movie title GATTACA was assembled. But wait! The movie now appears to be titled Gattica! There is now a 5th nucleotide base pair previously unknown to the world! Will this affect the Human Genome Project?

    While DNA only has four different nucleotide bases, they are not the only nucleotide bases in existence. RNA contains uracil in place of thymine (that's your "5th" base right there). tRNA has a number of unique and modified bases, not the least of which is inosine, which is found in the anti-codon and can pair to adenine, cytosine, or uracil.
  • It's very simple - a constitutional ammendment barring discrimination on the contents of one's genetic code. There's already an ammendment barring discrimination because you carry the geness for a particular skin color - I think it's time to extent that protection to the rest of the genome
  • Spammers lose.

    And the net forgets.

    So much for history on the net.
  • predisposition to fall under the influence of gravity.
  • No it shows the hype foge hasn't cleared yet. a few more /.ings and all will be fine.
  • For example, "must be able to lift 50 pounds repeatedly" is a requirement for many jobs

    In that case, the job description should have said, "Must not be genetically predisposed to getting CTS." But it doesn't say that, does it?

    I agree that the test ought not to be done in secret, it ought to be part of the normal employment process

    The whole point behind the article is that it wasn't done in secret!
    --
    Lord Nimon

  • Make that "is that it was done in secret!"

    Damn ... even with a preview I missed that.
    --
    Lord Nimon

  • What's wrong with this you ask?

    There's a big difference between an individual having a genetic test run so they can plan their lifesytle...and a corporation planning your lifestyle for you based on $$$.

    These tests were being performed for one simple reason: to save the company money. If they were being offered to individuals as a service, a free service, to help the employee make an informed decision about possibly changing their line of work yet still remaining employeed at the company, then hey, that would be great. But I doubt any workplace would have such undying devotion to their employees - even our Pie in the Sky tech jobs.

  • First off, they're not actually testing for CTS, they're testing for the possibility that you can have CTS, if you've got the gene for it (I don't much about the gene, but I think the syndrome is caused by a point mutation from what I gather from a quick pub med search) that doesn't actually guarantee that you'll have it.

    This, as a previous poster noted, is a major invasion of privacy. First off, the company is not only being given this one gene to test for, but the whole genome. And with the magic of PCR, they can test for anything they want and get basically anything they want from your genome, be it a heart condition, a bend towards alcoholism, or prostate cancer. The company has no right at all to this information simply because you're an employee. If you develop CTS, you develop it and then if you can't effectively do your job then it has to be dealt with. An employer does not, and should not, have the right to do genetic testing on its employees because it isn't worth the invasion of anyone's privacy just to save a buck.

    It's the exact same reason why your medical records are kept private. Do you really want your employer to know that you have a proto-oncogene that's just waiting to trigger brain cancer in you? "Sorry, your genome says you're a liability. Goodbye." Because this is where it'll go. They'll start with something "harmless" like CTS, and then it'll move on to large scale genomic testing. It's not that expensive to do now, and it'll only get cheaper and more and more invasive if we allow it. And then we're all fucked.

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."
  • It's very much an "us versus them" relationship in this instance. Granted, not all companies are evil (most aren't at all) but their only responsibility is to make money, and there will be no qualms about letting you go, no matter how "good" they are, if it's going to save them some cash when the time is right. This isn't just for a few isolated instances, this is on a massive scale. That's where the problem lies.

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."
  • Whatever your political persuasion is, I think you ought to be really scared about the possibility of this. There's a good reason that the ethics committee from the Human Genome Project unanimously decided that insurance companies should not have access to this sort of information. You want to know who loses? Listen to the experts. [ornl.gov]

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."
  • What a load of crap. We know quite a bit about how genes work, and if you bothered to read any papers about how we know how they work, then maybe you wouldn't spout this kind of garbage. We can test for what a gene does by various methods. One of the best is to experiment with "knockout mice", which have your favorite gene removed for your experimenting pleasure. If you destroy the gene and compare what the knockout does in comparison with the normal one, you can get a good idea as to what the gene does as its end product. That's just one of the many many ways biologists can use to figure out how a gene works. We can get to the point where we tell you exactly what regions of what proteins bind to what sequences that control your gene that codes for whatever it is you're interested in. So don't tell me we don't know how a gene works until you read some literature.

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."
  • You list a few decent ideas (I think the Mars one's pretty good), but I don't think you've got the real benefit of genetic testing yet. The idea is already being put in place with things like screening for Tay Sach's disease. You screen two partners and see what the probability is that they'll have a kid with the disease from their tests. Then you let them know so they can decide if they're going to have a kid. Or, if they do already have a child in the womb who's got some disease, they can choose to abort it if they feel it's the right decision. These are the more primitive versions which are in place right now.

    The big one will come when gene therapy really gets going. We've already had SCID (Severe Combined Immuno-Deficiency) cured by gene therapy, and you can test for that in the womb and treat it. Because of this, there won't be another "Boy in the Bubble" (that was a SCID child). When we can cure other diseases like Sicle Cell Anemia, which is caused by a single point mutation, that's where genetic testing will have it's biggest benefit.

    However, right now, we can't do a hell of a lot besides test. It's good for things like testing for parentage and DNA fingerprinting for crime scenes. This makes it hard, because if you test for something that there's no cure for, you don't even really want to tell the patient. However, it's illegal not to test for a disease that we can cure. So, genetic testing really is here, probably more than people realize. But the big one, therapy, is coming. It's treatment that makes genetic testing truly worthwhile.

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."
  • Actually, this is ancient news. BNSF [bnsf.com] agreed to stop DNA testing [bnsf.com] way back in February. I don't know why it took so friggin' long for the newspaper to pick this one up.
  • so long as it was solely for the 'evil' gene in phb's
  • I don't think that there is any scientific merit here. I do think that Burlington Northern was using the tests to intimidate employees under the guise of science.
  • Wow.. genetic disposition to Carpal Tunnel? I wonder if it's the same gene as the disposition to being a computer nerd... (hence the correlation...) ;-)
    --
  • 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.

    Well it would be beneficial to your business to get the ergonomic keyboards and furniture anyway. You can get CTS weather you have the gene or not. It makes sense to get the other stuff as it lowers risk for everyone. The keyboards are priced about the same as normal ones if you know where to look. Can't speak for the chairs though.
    Molog

    So Linus, what are we doing tonight?

  • This means we will not yet be able to see the courts rule on this issue and decide how American law (particularly the Civil Rights Act, and the ADA) will deal with genetic testing, once and for all.

    This fight is definitely not anywhere close to being over.
    ========================
    63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
    ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
  • Okay, here's a mildly interesting piece of Slashdot history. Slashdot once (about a year and a half ago, I think) had one of their "interview" question-gathering articles for a lamer "web designer" named Linda Weinman. And I'm not just being a troll, she was really lame, her so-called websites were awful combinations of broken HTML and Macromedia Madness. Myself and several others who believe in W3C standards and the non-proliferation of Flash proceeded to flame her into oblivion, and it was so effective that Slashdot never even sent her the "questions" that were gathered, because the highest-modded posts were all aggressive insults. That was amusing.

    If you're looking for entertainment of a different strain, try crapflooding my ring of 3l337 Geocites Slashdot-related wepages:

    http://www.geocities.com/hemos_wedding/ [geocities.com]

    The latter is from before Hemos' wedding, which is a testament to how long porn can go undiscovered on GeoShitties. I encourage all to make their own anti-Slashdot webpages on GeoCities and send the URLs to the official Crapflooder mailing list for appropriate dispersal.

    --

  • The wrist brace is probably cheaper than the DNA test, so they could simply issue them to everyone. However, I take your point. The company could say "Here's a bunch of info on preventing CTS/RSI/OOS (choose your TLA) and we'll pay for a test that only you get to see the results of so you can know if you are particularly susceptible."

  • Wow (Score:1)

    by smcavoy ( 114157 )
    I don't know. Watch TV, reading the media, it's like out of a bad version of 1984 or Brave New World.
    I don't know.
  • I got the hear an interest interview the other day on Minnneasota Public Radio with a PhD. who specializes in genetic tests. Basically, the main problems with the BN case is this.

    THE TEST THEY ADMINISTERED WAS NOT FOR CT! It tests for other genetic problems and in some circles is believed to provide a link to it. Problem is, there has been no clinical studies with peer review to confirm this link. And the studies that have been done are up for debate in science circles.

    Two, the test was not optional. Refusing to take the test would result in disipline action.

    Three, AT NOT POINT DID THE COMPANY DISCLOSE TO THE EMPLOYEES THAT A GENETIC TEST WAS TAKING PLACE. There were mearly told they required six viles of blood. And if they didn't give the blood they could expect disapline actions.

    For those who say a company has the "right" to do this I got some sad news. In MN mandatory genetic testing is not allowed. However, the way the law was worded it only applied to health insurence companies. It created a loophole for companies that self insure. That's currently being corrected.

    For all BN's woes, they did seem to learn a lesson and are now campaining against genetic testing. So go figure.
  • screening peoples genes to see if they're likely to hurt themselves is good, it protects the people. but the thing that makes this really seedy is they decide for you whether you should work there or not. i think they should screen you tell you if you have bad genes, and say that you risk it. however, i'm sure they don't want to pay workmans comp, so they'd rather take the decision out of your hands. very sticky situation.
  • "But if I hire a junk employee"

    To equate people with cars is a mistake, but I don't think that's where you make your big mistake.

    The problem with your approach is that this "junk employee" as you call him (or her) needs to find a job somewhere. Should people be condemned to a life of minimum wage jobs because of poor genetics?

    Does this junk person sit around all day and collect public monies until they die? Who pays for that?

    Further, who decides they're junk? Companies will screen for a disposition to be obese, addiction, high blood pressure, heart disease, cancers of all types, baldness, and stuff that you or I can't imagine.

    Based on your premise, you could screen based on race and/or skin color, since every ethnic group has a disposition towards some types of medical conditions.

    I think you look for a person's ability, attitude and willingness to do the job should be first and foremost.
  • There is a lot of good that can potentially come from genetic testing, especially when you're testing for conditions that can be avoided through lifestyle changes. But if we opt to use it for good reasons, can we avoid having the same information used for bad reasons? Corporations clearly have a very strong financial incentive to avoid paying worker's comp. If the information is out there, can it really be kept private?

    Beyond that, is this even the kind of change that people want in their lives? Do people really want to know what all their genetic weaknesses are? How does that affect the way you think of yourself? The way you live your life?

    Of course, we could always work on systematically eradicating the offending genes from our pool. (but that's called eugenics, and it has a bad name for some reason)

    Once your genetic profile gets leaked to Freenet, how can you really prove that the company you're interviewing with isn't using it to evaluate you?

    Personally, I doubt that our genes will really be very private once detailed genetic profiling becomes cheap and fast(legal or not). And because there are benefits to knowing what your genetic makeup, profiling will eventually become cheap and fast. I don't think people (or the genomics companies) are really investigating the possible downsides. Really, there only needs to be a small set of people willing to pursue this, and it will get done. Wierd world our kids will grow up in.

    ---

  • This "testing" seems okay to me. Who put sandpaper on their toilet seats? Can they really, ethically order them around like that? ...
  • I would suspect so, since its a product of your body... DNA exists in all of our sells, right? I mean, it's a natural by-product that contains (a) that which we consume and (b) that which attempted and failed to digest it, which is why it is what it is. So, given that, I'm sure that there are all kinds of chemicals and cells and enzymes there that could provide for DNA testing.
  • Why is this not like "lemon laws"?

    Simple: cars don't have a right to privacy.

    Period.

  • I disagree. (Score:3)

    by dcollins ( 135727 ) on Friday April 20, 2001 @08:02PM (#275797) Homepage
    I disagree on a number of counts. Firstly, "this is Slashdot, and the left is disproportionately represented here". I my view, Slashdot commentators are distressingly to the right; either wildly pro-business or with an apolitical, let-me-live-anonymously militia-type mindset. (Both being flavors of the Ayn Rand-ish school of thought.)

    Secondly, "who loses in this situation?" Clearly, the worker who has an increased genetic likelihood of receiving carpal tunnel syndrome. Apparently you think it's okay for a railroad company to not employ such a person. So, where do they work? I guess not in construction... or on an assembly line... or typing in an office. Under your argument, a whole class of people, through no fault of their own, are made unemployable and basically unable to get health insurance (in the US) for any such ailment that does occur.

    Thirdly, "IMHO the real reason the economy has been in a downturn has been eight years of big government assault from the Clinton Administration..." With all your business acumen, have you never heard of an economic cycle? That we've just seen the longest period of increasing production ever? Please, clue us in to what Clinton-sponsored regulation forced cruddy VC investments and nutty Amazon market capitalizations to finally confront rational business reality. You know, there are legions of Democrats (et. al.) angry at Clinton for being the most pro-corporate leader of his party in decades. Count your blessings, Mr. Good Business.

  • Health insurance should not be a point of contention between employee and employer

    Exactly, it should be like wages. The employer says here's what you're getting and the employee should accept it, wages or bogus no-pay health plan, gratefully with a deferential tug of his forelock.

  • Entertain me
  • Being predisposed does not mean that the muscle usage does not cause it. If you have brittle bones, fall and break your hip the fall is what caused you to break the hip. It's just that most people would not have been hurt from the fall.

    My tendinitis was caused by too much typing in a bad ergonomic situation. But the supracondylar process reducing blood flow made the tendinitis easier to contract and more difficult to recover from.

  • Wrist braces have problems of their own -- atrophy.

    If you have wrist braces supporting your wrists, the muscles that were used instead will weaken.

  • You are wrong in stating that providing ergonomic accomodations hurts the employer's bottom line. Studies have shown that employees who work in a more ergonomic environment tend to be happier and produce more (when you think about it, that employee is wasting productive time everytime s/he stands up and streches to rearrange their bones). Those $2000 ergo desks and chairs actually end up raising profits.
  • >Um, some people are useless refuse and human trash.

    Wow, nice. I wan't sure at first where you were coming from. Now I got it.

    ---

  • Gattica... (Score:3)

    by Traxton1 ( 154182 ) <Traxton1.yahoo@com> on Friday April 20, 2001 @06:43PM (#275804)
    Actually, it's Gattaca, spelled only using the letters of the four compounds found in DNA.
  • 1. (Response): Business sense aside, it's wrong to not give a job to a handicap or otherwise disabled employee, who is qualified and wants the job, simply because it's going to cost that business more money to meet their needs than a normal employee. That's called discrimination. Especially when it's discrimination based on the possibility of CTS.

    2. Again, we're not talking about discriminating against someone with a condition, we're talking about discriminating against someone who might one day have a condition. No one know's for sure if these people will get CTS, just like no one knows for sure if someone will get cancer. Would it be OK for a company to not offer you a job, simply because your family has a history of cancer, and they don't want to risk exposing themselves to costly medical bills?

    I'm not advocating giving someone something for nothing here. Businesses should hire the best qualified employee, period. What I am against, however, is businesses using genetic information to deny jobs to otherwise qualified employees, simply because other employees will cost them less.
  • OK, I can't really decide if you were trolling or not, so here goes. 2 things to keep in mind here:

    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. If a person is qualified for the job, and wants the job, there shouldn't be an artificial barrier created by this "risk of CTS" factor.

    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)?

    I realize it's not the same, as your point seems to be that both parties are benefiting: the company doesn't pay for surguries, and the person doesn't get CTS. But what you have to realize is that this company probably doesn't give a rats ass about whether their employee get's CTS or not, they just care if they have to pay for it. Allowing this sort of thing to go on opens a flood gate for all other kinds discrimination in the name of "employee benefit".
  • Me too. I thought CTS was just something that came up as a result of repetition on the muscles of the wrist.

    Genetic Predisposition? I don't think so.

    Here's [aaos.org] some info about CTS.

    -Cyc

  • As an employee of BNSF, the official line was that we settled this long ago. The court action was only a follow through on the part of the EEOC and others to make sure that other corporations didn't try to do this.
  • Wow, perhaps you'll make good mid-level management for a Fortune 500 corporation when you grow up. In the mean time your personal life becomes an open slate and your genome is public information. What the hell, screw personal privacy rights... who needs them... they are bad for big business.
  • Though this probably won't get the pulitzer (sp?) for investigative journalism, I'm sure that the RR folks will get several interesting phone calls from lawyers in the next few days. Pretty much everyone who was laid off/fired since the tests were going on is guaranteed $$.

    Even if the company tries to argue this in court (that the firing was not based on genetic tests), their credibility is pretty much shot through of holes.

    Speaking of shooting, I think the Board of Directors should be dragged into the street and shot. I'm serious about this. This kind of invasion of privacy is on a whole new level.

    Fine, this time it was testing for CTS, next time?
    The thing is, if we let shit like this slide, it sets precedent. In this country, precedent is everything.

    It'd be nice if we had some real leaders, and not some corporate pawns - this refers to bush and gore, and the majority of politicians out there.

    Gattaca is not coming, we will see people hanging from the lampposts before that. I wonder how much shit will happen before people start actually going after their rights.

    A few hundred killings is all that is needed to make America a great place to live.
    - we just got to get the right people.


    I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.

  • now you've gone and told him... Augh, when will the master of the world learn?

    I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.

  • I'll go tell my son then. Methinks he sould be rather exited. (pssst. say that with a monty python accent for best results)

    I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.

  • Then we're in some weird parallel universe where the stupid and insipid rise to the top.

    Hmm.... Dunno about the parallel universe thing. Typically the family of the CEO rises to the top. Lets not rule out the stupid and insipid too soon.

    Dammit, AC comments are the best because the people who write them don't give a shit about karma.

    I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.

  • Dude . . .
    Alright.

    I'm not blaming the shareholders, in fact, thats pretty much the only thing that controls some corporations. You start fucking around - get sued - even if you win, your share price drops. If you have 100,000 shares that drop $5, thats a shitload of money. A lot of CEO's have A LOT more than 100,000.

    OK. about knowing everything that is going on in the country.. I'm sorry, I mean company - isn't this what some Germans used shortly after the second world war?

    You can't tell me that the fucking CEO did not know about this. Shit like this does not "get lost". The CEO and the board thought about it, voted for it and also voted to cover it up.
    As for genetic testing by your employer on whether or not to hire someone - that is at the very least unethical, it is a morally reprehensible act - but it is "Good Business".
    The question is what line can we cross.

    Of course, genetic testing was illegal in Gattaca too.

    I'm not asking for a utopia, just for some fucking accountability.
    Utopias are boring.
    I'm also asking for people, if the world becomes like Gattaca, to kick some ass and empty some skulls.

    And format your shit next time.

    I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.

  • I like the bits about the lawyers and the blunt instruments. Nice work.

    I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.

  • Stories posted on slashdot in the last few months talked about the lack of information in genes. This story seems to show that there still is information in the genes that's "usefull". What do they look for to see how you'd be pre-disposed to how you position your wrists and take breaks and such?

  • That's the first I've heard of it. Anybody have any links, or were they just lying?

  • Since when has CTS been genetic? As far as I know almost anyone can get it given enough repetitive exercise which affects that area. Thats why so many CS people get it. Keyboards aren't really designed with your CT in mind. I suppose you can have a genetic predisposition to getting it but if its a job thats likely to cause, even those without a genetic predisposition will eventually get it. Businesses should look at the way their equipment works and adjust that instead of trying to genetically test potental employees, which is probably more costly than changeing some equipment in the longer run.

  • One way to satisfy all sides might be for companies to offer free voluntary testing for genetic predispositions that may affect someone's fitness for that line of work. Then everybody really does win. No one's privacy is invaded, the company doesn't have to shell out lots of money to support someone who isn't making them any profits, and the worker avoids unnecessary health risks.

  • Since almost any work can result in CTS, the CTS prone person carry a financial burden in his genetic make-up. Someone is going to pay for this burden eventually. The alternatives are: his family, his employer, all others employees (insurance), all other citizens ( taxes ), nobody (yet another homeless ).

    All solutions will come out of the GNP anyway ( except homelessness, and I know that some /. contributors have no problems with this solution, but these angry white males are beyond hope, and I am not trying to convince them anyway). However the implementation cost differs as well as the distribution of risk. From a purely financial perspective, I'd say that insurance is the most efficient. But that implies a universal health insurance, which the US doesn't have because big business oppose it ( they like the power that medical insurance gives them and they like the way it screws up small competitors ). The next best thing is putting the burden on the employer, because the employer is more efficient then the welfare system and more likely to have sufficient funds then the family.

    I'm talking above about the cost of the result of CTS. You call the prevention cost "excessive". This can't be done without reference to the cost of the result. If the result of CTS is X dollars of income lost for the inflicted person over a lifetime, plus a subjective Y cost of physical and emotional pain ( courts know how to calculate this), the cost of prevention can be excessive only if it is higher than X+Y. I don't think anyone here ( myself included) has done the numbers, so I really don't see any meaning to excessive except "wow, I don't feel like paying that". If prevention is not excessive, the same methods of distribution are available. Insurance is ruled out because there is no risk issue. And, because prevention must implemented by the employer anyway, letting the employer manage it ( under supervision ) seems the most efficient way.

  • But if I hire a junk employee...

    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.

    Surely people at the very least have a right to know when their employers are doing these kinds of things.
  • oh, your solitary voice of reason...:) Of course, what BNSF is doing isn't wrong. Suppose a music label were looking for signing up new talent. And let's assume there was a gene for song writing and playing. Wouldn't the label love to test people for that gene? or let's say the music label could test singers for the drug addiction gene? wouldnt testing for such a gene make their lives easier (just think - they could actually plan a Behind the Music and Where are they Now, not to mention a posthumous compilation wayyyy in advance). BNSF requires people to perform physical tasks. Physical tasks require fitness. Period. As an entity that exists to make money for shareholders (yeah, surprised, arent you, slashdotters, that companies do not exist to guarantee employment), they are merely protecting their liabilities and risks. OTOH, it would be utterly wrong if they were testing for the gay gene.
  • >This is no different from age or gender discrimination.

    I suffer from both age *and* gender discrimination when I purchase auto insurance - companies see that I'm a young male and immediately charge me double what they would a middle-aged female. Society seems to agree that this makes sense because I'm statistically more likely to have an accident.

    So if companies can do this, why can't they also choose employees according to statistical predisposition?

  • GATTACA is a set of letters that can appear in DNA. There is no I in DNA. Bryguy -Nor is there an I in Team, or else it would be, well, Tiam.
  • No. I would agree if it weren't for one thing: this information is being collected without the person's permission.

    Now while I agree that it benefits both the corporation and the person if the person knows whether he/she is genetically pre-disposed to carpal tunnel syndrome, that should only happen if the employee voluntarily takes the test. They aren't.

    That's why it's wrong, because it's done without permission and that's a violation of privacy.

    And if you want to read more about DNA and violations of privacy, read any of the slashdot articles that talk about it. I'm not going to re-post information here.

  • So about 20-30% of those who were denied jobs because of this actually weren't even predisposed to HAVE carpal tunnel syndrome?
  • What is carpal tunnel syndrome? And does it affect the worker's safety or endangers the safety of others?

  • I've had some of the early symptoms of CTS from time to time. Dunno if I actually have it, b/c I don't work for anyone who requires a blood or urine sample; i.e., I haven't had my genes surreptitiously sampled.

    Anybody predisposed to CTS or suffering from it should take up Hatha Yoga or some other practice that increases body awareness while slowly building strength and flexibility. For me, we got into wrist-strengthening poses about six months after I started yoga. After about six months of trying, I can finally balance my whole body over the fulcrum of my wrist. That pose, called Crow pose [google.com] in English, strengthens the forearms through countering the computer user's typical wrist position, which is curled forward. No matter what your profession, there is a set of yoga poses that will correct the maladapted motions and posture errors that your profession requires of you. It's not for the lazy though.

    I spend 8 - 12 hours a day attached to a kb/mouse, much more than I have in the past, but have no CTS symptoms after a year of practicing yoga.



    Ewige Blumenkraft!

  • Two words: slippery slope.

    An employee provides labor in return for compensation from the employer. It is a bilateral transaction, an implied contract. During the 1980's, some paranoid person (I wish I knew whom...) determined that usage of illegal drugs by employees was responsible for high business costs such as insurance claims, etc... This is actually ridiculous considering that marijuana affects the user for a matter of hours, but its byproducts are detectable by tests for a month or longer. Other people were convinced and this whole notion of "employer's rights" spread like the meme it is. No one seemed to remember, or stress assertively, that the employer-employee relationship is a satisfied contract in itself. The employer doesn't have a right to any additional information not present in observed, objective analysis of the employee's actual job.

    However, in spite of an unproven relationship between casual drug use and employment costs, millions of Americans stepped up to the toilet and gave a sample of warm pee. The worker's compensation carriers made drug testing ubiquitous by offering insane discounts to employers who sample urine. IANAL, but it seems illegal for one industry to tell all other industries how to hire their employees.

    All this "New World Order" shit is getting out of hand already. The whole purpose of insurance is to share the financial burden of health care across society. Now the employers and insurance companies are moving toward specific identification, which nullifies the point of shared burden. What will happen once the PACs from all industries have convinced Washington of the validity of their "rights"? I think we will have a large number of unemployable individuals, who will have to steal in order to eat. This will result in overflowing prisons, where the prisoners will be forced to work [google.com] for companies who want first-world labor at third-world prices. It would be ironic to see people doing the same types of labor in prison that they wanted to do for Burlington or whatever company before they were turned into a physical reject and then a criminal.

    I remember that in the days leading up to the French Revolution there were a large number of people languishing and dying in the Bastille for the sole crime of being hungry in a heartless nation. For how long will we resist the inevitable?



    Ewige Blumenkraft!
  • The reason companies pull this kind of crap is that they have to pay the insurance premiums. It's not about the employee missing work, it's about the medical costs. Every high-risk employee they can screen out becomes somebody else's problem. Health insurance should not be a point of contention between employee and employer.

  • Re:There's a gene for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome? (Score:4)

    by Chyron ( 304285 ) on Friday April 20, 2001 @06:52PM (#275836)
    It's legit. Check out:

    http://www.geneclinics.org/profiles/hnpp

    It's a hereditary disorder (Hereditary Pressure Sensitive Neuropathy), which can be detected via DNA tests with a 70-80% accuracy.
    I have a friend with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Very nasty.
    --
    --

  • OK, so we are all agreed that genetic testing of this nature is, for the most part, unacceptable behaviour from a current or potential employer seeking solely to protect itself from litigation down the line. But are there any circumstances under which it becomes palatable?

    Take for example the armed forces. If the Air Force could genetically screen trainee combat pilots at an early stage for degenerative diseases that affect eye sight, motor control, etc, would it be right to do so? After all, combat pilots must have 20/20 vision, sharp reflexes, etc, to maintain their service. A pilot who fails the strict medical criteria for the job won't have his wings for long (as he is a potential risk to himself and his colleagues in a combat situation).

    Given that training a pilot takes millions of tax payers dollars, should a person who science can accurately predict will develop a medical condition that will stop him/her doing their job and perhaps place lives in jeopardy be filtered out from the process sooner rather than later? Hang the money, is the right of that individual today more important than the potential risk to the safety of others tomorrow?

    And that's just one example. Astronauts: should NASA send someone on a three year mission to Mars before first checking all the bases medically? Another extreme perhaps, but society is littered with good examples.

    Sure, in today's money-driven society with its ambulance-chasing lawyers, the risk to the employer is often a great call to action than the rights, concerns and wellbeing of the employee. But employees can benefit from screening too - someone suceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome can take precautions to minimise the risks to their health. They might choose to use a trackball instead of a mouse, to have regular massages, or to persue another career path entirely.

    More than likely, they will only look at the options if faced with the problem (after all, we are all at risk from CTS but how many of us have ditched their mice because they are potentially dangerous to our health?) so knowing before is much more advantageous than knowing after. After all, prevention is much better than a cure.

    Genetic testing is here. It isn't suddenly going to disappear so isn't it a good idea to learn how to use it effectively and to our maximum advantage?

  • At least to me, discrimination is judging a person by a trait they have no control over. I'm gonna have to make a parallel to explain this one:

    My friend is black. I'm white. Now, neither of us had any choice about this; it's in our genes. Is one of us a better person? Am I going to be able to do the job better than him because of this genetic happenstance? I'm guessing just about everyone would say no.

    Another Example: Me and my friend now apply for a job. We're not being judged on color, because that would be discrimination. But he has a genetic predisposition to CTS. I don't. Now, I'm going to make a worse employee than him; I'm lazy, I'm not as good at the job we're applying for. Now, there is the risk that my friend turns out to be an expensive hire, because he could get CTS. But should the company really hire me, just because they're less likely to have to pay more money to thier insurance carrier some time down the road?

    That isn't discrimination??

    And then, another good thing to point out is that things like this are really just risks... It is entirely possible for someone with "bad" genes to never experience the issues that threaten them.

  • 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.) :)
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • This is good business, not discrimination (Score:5)

    by Adam Fosterly ( 325341 ) on Friday April 20, 2001 @07:28PM (#275851)
    Okay, I don't get this.

    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.
  • I'm curious. Do you own your own business, or are a manager? In either case, I wonder how you would feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

    As a business owner, suppose that your bank required you to be genetically screened for a predisposition to depression. They have a strong interest, of course, in being assured that you are not likely to default on your loan because of a mental breakdown. It's a perfectly reasonable request, isn't it?

    "Hmm. Says here that there's a significant chance that in your thirties you will develop a chronic depression that may end in suicide. You inherited this tendency from your mother. Too bad -- in all other respects you seem to be a bery low credit risk, and are clearly an astute businessman. But we have carefully calculated what level of risk we can afford to take on a loan of this magnitude and interest rate, and I'm sorry to say that you don't qualify."

    Or, as a manager, suppose that you were asked to be screened for a predisposition to heart disease before you could considered for an upper-management position. It would be a position of great responsibility, of course, and the company has a strong interest in being assured that they will generate a return on the investment of promoting you and training you in this high-responsibility position.

    "Oops, sorry, there's a forty-percent chance that you will develop serious heart disease by the age of fifty. Too bad, you'd make a great executive, but we just can't take that chance. Not when there are other candidates available that don't have your liability."

    Try to keep in mind that the social rationale for capitalism is not that it's a "good thing" that any given businessman makes money. The rationale is that Adam Smith's "hidden hand" moves capital and labor to where it is most efficient, thus generating the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people. This only works when the workings of the market is transparent. In terms of labor, this requires that both labor and management know what they are barginning with and for. Secretely evaluating genetic predispositions without consent provides management with an advantage that undermines the efficiency of the market.

    Furthermore, while Smith's "hidden hand" has proven to be much what Smith thought it was, it is also well understood that there are certain exceptional cases where it fails. Monopolistic power in a market undermines the hidden hand, for example; and just so does a monopolistic power over a labor market. Monopolies of labor, like monopolies of trade, are very profitable in the short-term but self-destructive in the long term. The rights of labor that the US government protects in many cases do not increase inefficiency and undermine capitalism; rather, they increase efficiency and safeguard capitalism. Many labor laws that you probably disagree with actually benefit capitalism because they encourage employers to make long-term investments in labor that pay a greater dividend, over the long term, than the slash-and-burn strategy. As a result, general wealth increases.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Imitation is the sincerest form of television." -- The New Mighty Mouse

Close