ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th March 2017, 11:06 AM   #121
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,599
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
No, that's incorrect. Jobs and people both come in a wide variety. There is no one-size-fits-all. Even as a felon I was able to find work. It wasn't my preferred work, but I wasn't unemployable.



A potential employer did not give you the disease. Under what moral precept do you feel they should pay for your treatment?
Can you concede that there is a difference between a criminal conviction and genetic material?
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 11:15 AM   #122
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I don't know how employment discrimination law plays out. My point was that the question doesn't impact the landscape either way. Discrimination is neither helped nor harmed by what I suggest.
If you don't know how employment discrimination laws work right now, how are you determining that your proposal will have no impact on discrimination in the workplace?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 11:16 AM   #123
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
As it regards health insurance coverage at present, an employer paid health plan has one monthly rate across the board. Insurance coverage through employment is priced by group, not by individuals. When the coverage on the contract I work under changed from a lifetime cap of 2 million coverage to coverage of up to 2 million per year there was no increase in the monthly H & W contribution - our plan also covers dependents and includes retiree coverage and it comes at a price - over $2,000.00 per employee per month.
Employers can save money by shopping around and by reducing coverage. They can offer health and wellness programs, improve working conditions, and get employees to quit smoking. The impact comes when data shows fewer claims and an insurer can reassess risk and offer lower rates.

Insurance is quite competitive this way, and it's even more so if a company self-insures.

Quote:
For the most part, employers providing health coverage for their employees do so through an insurer of one type or another, and under current HIPAA rules an employer doesn't have a right to know anything about an employee's current health issues, let alone what possible future issues they may have.
This is not entirely true. For example, compiled, anonymized data is available, doctor's notes can be required, the number of sick days tracked, employees can be asked for health information as part of a "wellness" program, and for companies that self-insure, you can't prevent one department from talking to another. Employers can also require various health tests related to the job. Maybe you have to run a mile once a year to keep your job. Maybe you can't wear glasses or contact lenses. And finally, many medical conditions (I'm looking at you, morbid obesity) cannot be easily concealed.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 11:19 AM   #124
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
No, that's incorrect. Jobs and people both come in a wide variety. There is no one-size-fits-all. Even as a felon I was able to find work. It wasn't my preferred work, but I wasn't unemployable.
What kind of position do you think I would get hired for if employers could decline to hire me for being epileptic? What kind of a job do you think I would be "suited" for?

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
A potential employer did not give you the disease. Under what moral precept do you feel they should pay for your treatment?
This is a fine argument for decoupling insurance from compensation. It is NOT an argument for disclosing personal medical information to employers. And it's DEFINITELY NOT an argument for disclosing potential future medical information to employers so they can decide whether or not to employ you.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 11:22 AM   #125
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Can you concede that there is a difference between a criminal conviction and genetic material?
For the purposes we are talking about they are similar. Both are historical facts - immutable and unchangeable. Both can be used to predict an increased future risk. Both are considered private and might be embarrassing.

They are more alike than unalike for this topic.

You might say that both can be misapplied and are sometimes unfair. The 50-year-old with an otherwise clean slate is denied a job in childcare because at 15 she sent a nude selfie to her boyfriend.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 11:30 AM   #126
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If you don't know how employment discrimination laws work right now, how are you determining that your proposal will have no impact on discrimination in the workplace?
I am going to refuse the burden of proof here. The remedy for discrimination is not requiring employees to conceal their status. I am not required to put on whiteface so my employer can't tell I'm black. I am also free to discuss my medical conditions at work.

Remember, the premise is that the medical issue entails a real risk, not just some off-handed fishing expedition - you added that in. I presume to fit the "evil employer" picture.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 11:43 AM   #127
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,599
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
For the purposes we are talking about they are similar.Both are historical facts - immutable and unchangeable. Both can be used to predict an increased future risk. Both are considered private and might be embarrassing.

They are more alike than unalike for this topic.

You might say that both can be misapplied and are sometimes unfair. The 50-year-old with an otherwise clean slate is denied a job in childcare because at 15 she sent a nude selfie to her boyfriend.
For the purposes you wish to assert exist, maybe.

Most other folks understand the fundamental difference between the genetic markers that one inherits from their parents and a specific act committed by an individual that results in arrest and conviction.

If you don't, that's on you.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2017, 12:06 PM   #128
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I am going to refuse the burden of proof here. The remedy for discrimination is not requiring employees to conceal their status. I am not required to put on whiteface so my employer can't tell I'm black. I am also free to discuss my medical conditions at work.
Part of the actual remedy in place right now is that employers are not allowed to ask about them.

Employers are not allowed to ask about religion, or about sexuality, or about marriage status, or about whether one has (or plans to have) children, or about any number of other things that are not directly and immediately relevant to the ability of the candidate to perform the job to the level of expectation.

Whether or not a person *might* *someday* *potentially* develop a medical condition is NOT directly and immediately relevant to the ability of the candidate to perform the job to the level of expectation.

Your proposal violates that fundamental principle of ethical employment.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2017, 03:42 AM   #129
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 11,466
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Multiple things.

Firstly no one should be forced to undergo genetic testing for health insurance or enforced wellness programs. This is the last frontier of private information. And it is not even really reliable as your genetic marker may, for example, tells you are more at risk for diabetes, but you may never get diabetes. Yet that information is now there and can be abused by hiking your insurance or putting an heavier burden on you.

Secondly once the information is collected, depending on which interpretation of the bill you read, it is then available to employer which can abuse the information by deciding who they kick out or promote based on this. This is the ultimate kick in the balls & ovaries : something you cannot change, like your skin color, and get judged on it rather than be judged on your job output.

ETA And that also means that from the birth onward, some are already penalized on the job by employer just by the mere existence of their genetic make up.

You don't think insurer or employer want this information out of goodness of heart do you ?

People can see your genetic makeup by looking at you, relating to your personality and your level of intelligence.

I am sceptical you would be fired for having say, a diabetic gene marker, if you are good your job. I worked in a city bank where the traders were one step away from barrow boys: crude, vulgar, ill-educated, neanderthal. But do you know what? They earned the bank huge profits and that's why they were retained and extraordinarily well-paid. (Until, of course, the huge black holes in banking became apparent!)
__________________
3. So long Thy powr has blest me, sure it still
Wilt lead me on,
Oer moor and fen, oer crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. ~ John Newman 1834
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2017, 03:44 AM   #130
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,346
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
What they would do is hang on to that tidbit, and if such an employee were to subsequently suffer from a respiratory illness they would drag it out, point to it, and say; "Look. Not our fault.", and deny any financial responsibility they might otherwise have incurred.

Indeed. One of the fundamental issues with the proposition is the absolute trust placed in corporations that have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not worthy of such trust.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2017, 12:59 PM   #131
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Indeed. One of the fundamental issues with the proposition is the absolute trust placed in corporations that have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not worthy of such trust.
What does trust have to do with it?

Every job I've ever held (except possibly the military) was "at will." That means an employer can fire you whenever they like, for any reason except a very few reasons made illegal through anti-discrimination laws.

In that environment, they keep me on so long as I meet their performance metrics and I stay so long as they meet my salary needs. Trust doesn't enter into it.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2017, 02:15 PM   #132
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Part of the actual remedy in place right now is that employers are not allowed to ask about them.

Employers are not allowed to ask about religion, or about sexuality, or about marriage status, or about whether one has (or plans to have) children, or about any number of other things that are not directly and immediately relevant to the ability of the candidate to perform the job to the level of expectation.

Whether or not a person *might* *someday* *potentially* develop a medical condition is NOT directly and immediately relevant to the ability of the candidate to perform the job to the level of expectation.

Your proposal violates that fundamental principle of ethical employment.
I'm also always amused about the asymmetric presumptions involved in these proposals.

Is the premise that a negotiation is only fair if there's full disclosure? OK, then that means the job applicant has a right to know about his employer's and future coworkers' genetic predispositions.

If I'm applying for a job, I deserve to know if the prospective boss has a bad ticker. I'll need more money sooner, to save up for when the business collapses from a dead founder. Does he have genes associated with aggression or impulsiveness? That'd justify more pay as well, since it's a hostile work environment.

Full disclosure is full disclosure. Sauce for the goose.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2017, 02:21 PM   #133
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What does trust have to do with it?

Every job I've ever held (except possibly the military) was "at will." That means an employer can fire you whenever they like, for any reason except a very few reasons made illegal through anti-discrimination laws.

In that environment, they keep me on so long as I meet their performance metrics and I stay so long as they meet my salary needs. Trust doesn't enter into it.
I think the 'trust' in this situation is about whether we trust them with our genetic information.

I recall a company a few years ago that posted fake job applications as a mechanism for reselling the applicants' contact information to a 3rd party. There's a very lucrative market for genetic information - can we trust them NOT to use job applications as a data harvesting tool to pass our medical prospects on to the London Life health insurance sales team?
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 12:50 AM   #134
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by marplots View Post

And it's not all negative either. Suppose I have some genetic advantage which will make me better at a job. Shouldn't I be able to exploit my natural gift in the same way I would intelligence, strength, vocal talent or any other inborn trait?
This might be ignorance on my part, but what kind of genetics could possibly give you an advantage in the job market?
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 01:15 AM   #135
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
This might be ignorance on my part, but what kind of genetics could possibly give you an advantage in the job market?
Hypothetical or actual? The former is easier. Suppose I have a slightly different hemoglobin or a better version of a transfer enzyme - either of which gives me an advantage as a diver or mountain climber.

You might protest that these are no different than traits like height or muscle mass - that is, things evident before employment, evident by way of physiognomy and hence not fitting the notion of DNA as predictive. However, DNA has the capability to show a different envelope of possibility and available variability. We see this generally when we talk about defects, but the flip side, what we think of as the normal trait, is relatively a plus.

The second one down on this page if I'm hiring space station workers: http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism...ions-in-humans

The third one down if I'm hiring workers to work in a malarial area.

Last edited by marplots; 19th March 2017 at 01:16 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 08:09 AM   #136
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,138
Ah history, it really does repeat. Anyone remember the linking of XYY genes with criminal propensity?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 06:27 PM   #137
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Ah history, it really does repeat. Anyone remember the linking of XYY genes with criminal propensity?
Yeah, whatever happened to genetics? It's not like a real science. Don't they know all men are created equal? It's right in the founding documents for goodness sake.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 07:45 PM   #138
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,527
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Well, if one wants to do anything, one needs money which means one needs a job. It's an essential part of the capitalist system.
It's an essential part of any system. One either does the job of surviving for oneself, or someone else does the job for two and shares the surplus. What makes capitalism so remarkable is how good it is at producing surplus.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2017, 07:57 PM   #139
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,527
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I suggest you watch the movie GATTACA, it'd likely be your version of a Utopia.
GATTACA is fictional. It only looks that way because the storyteller wants it to look that way, in order to preach the sermon they want to preach.

Besides, so what if someone in GATTACA is unhappy? There are unhappy people in every society. Any solution to the problem of man's imperfect nature is going to have trade-offs. Any solution is going to leave people behind, and have outcasts at its edges. Avoiding GATTACA won't save us from that. Hollywood saying marplots' vision is dystopic doesn't make it so.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 04:55 AM   #140
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,094
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Yeah, whatever happened to genetics? It's not like a real science. Don't they know all men are created equal? It's right in the founding documents for goodness sake.
You're missing the point - propensity is not certainty.

The only reason that a qualified candidate should be refused hire is that there is a better qualified candidate for the position. Such qualification should ONLY be measured against the bonafide occupational requirements of the position, not whether or not a person MIGHT develop a medical condition and POSSIBLY cost the company's insurance provider more money then another person.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 11:04 AM   #141
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
You're missing the point - propensity is not certainty.

The only reason that a qualified candidate should be refused hire is that there is a better qualified candidate for the position. Such qualification should ONLY be measured against the bonafide occupational requirements of the position, not whether or not a person MIGHT develop a medical condition and POSSIBLY cost the company's insurance provider more money then another person.
We don't make judgements based on certainty in any case. All hires are done on the basis of guessing how well someone will perform on the job. This is why trial periods are common.

Thought experiment.
Suppose you knew, with scientific certainty, that within a decade someone would develop a debilitating genetic disorder that would make them both incapable of doing their job and very expensive to insure. Under those conditions would it be alright for an employer not to hire them, or should they be hired anyhow, since they can do the job now?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 12:36 PM   #142
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,094
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
We don't make judgements based on certainty in any case. All hires are done on the basis of guessing how well someone will perform on the job. This is why trial periods are common.



Thought experiment.

Suppose you knew, with scientific certainty, that within a decade someone would develop a debilitating genetic disorder that would make them both incapable of doing their job and very expensive to insure. Under those conditions would it be alright for an employer not to hire them, or should they be hired anyhow, since they can do the job now?


Under the system you describe, why wouldn't they be hired now?

Under any rational system the person could work at the job until this disorder rendered them incapable of performing it - at which time they would be let go. Since their insurance is tied to their employment that would cease on their termination. Most insurance companies that I'm aware of though will allow people to continue on a similar policy by electing to purchase it. This is why tying health insurance for basic care to employment is barbaric.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 12:42 PM   #143
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Under the system you describe, why wouldn't they be hired now?

Under any rational system the person could work at the job until this disorder rendered them incapable of performing it - at which time they would be let go. Since their insurance is tied to their employment that would cease on their termination. Most insurance companies that I'm aware of though will allow people to continue on a similar policy by electing to purchase it. This is why tying health insurance for basic care to employment is barbaric.
The only difference in what I was describing is that the employer would offer the job contingent on the prospective employee agreeing to accepting the liability themselves. You are correct that non-employer based health insurance avoids the dilemma.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:28 PM   #144
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
GATTACA is fictional. It only looks that way because the storyteller wants it to look that way, in order to preach the sermon they want to preach.

Besides, so what if someone in GATTACA is unhappy? There are unhappy people in every society. Any solution to the problem of man's imperfect nature is going to have trade-offs. Any solution is going to leave people behind, and have outcasts at its edges. Avoiding GATTACA won't save us from that. Hollywood saying marplots' vision is dystopic doesn't make it so.
Can't tell if sarcasm...
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2017, 03:31 PM   #145
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Marplots... There's a specific genetic market, "XX" that predisposes an individual to incurring maternity costs. Not everyone who has the "XX" marker actually incurs maternity costs, of course, but the likelihood is greatly increased if they have that specific genetic marker.

Is it acceptable to you for an employer to decline to hire a person with an "XX" genetic marker, on the presumption that such a person might expose the company to a higher medical claim cost at some point in the future?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 12:41 AM   #146
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Marplots... There's a specific genetic market, "XX" that predisposes an individual to incurring maternity costs. Not everyone who has the "XX" marker actually incurs maternity costs, of course, but the likelihood is greatly increased if they have that specific genetic marker.

Is it acceptable to you for an employer to decline to hire a person with an "XX" genetic marker, on the presumption that such a person might expose the company to a higher medical claim cost at some point in the future?
Depends on whether or not the company will be required, by statute, to meet the financial burden. The compromise, and the system we have been talking about, is to say, "Yes, we will hire you, but we won't pay for that condition. If it arises you will have to pay yourself."

The sole interest of the company is to escape financial liability. As soon as that is accommodated, they have no reason to avoid that person as an employee. It's very similar to how a preexisting condition is handled.

We should note this system makes the XX employee a better hire. Why? Because we've removed the liability for a disabling condition for this person, lessening overall risk, whereas we haven't done it for the XY employee next to her.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 02:39 AM   #147
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,527
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Can't tell if sarcasm... : boggled :
Not sarcasm. What boggles you?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 03:50 AM   #148
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,094
I have to ask, if the employer is "negotiating" with prospective employees by telling them their will have to bear all health care costs associated with condition "x", why are they offering health insurance at all as part of their compensation scheme?

Will they also require a genetic test for their partners, or children (solely to reduce unnecessary insurance costs)? After all if the employee is so disloyal to the company that they marry someone with the genetic predisposition to condition "x" they might incur additional insurance costs as a result, or if not the spouse then any children of the union (or prospective adoptees) may also incur such expenses - and then there is the lost productivity that might result from dealing with sick family members, better make it a condition of employment then to require that the employees be single and without children or face termination for potentially costing the company money.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 04:32 AM   #149
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
I have to ask, if the employer is "negotiating" with prospective employees by telling them their will have to bear all health care costs associated with condition "x", why are they offering health insurance at all as part of their compensation scheme?
It doesn't matter who provides it. Anyone with a vested interest would want to know, even if the employee contracted with an insurance carrier directly.

Quote:
Will they also require a genetic test for their partners, or children (solely to reduce unnecessary insurance costs)? After all if the employee is so disloyal to the company that they marry someone with the genetic predisposition to condition "x" they might incur additional insurance costs as a result, or if not the spouse then any children of the union (or prospective adoptees) may also incur such expenses - and then there is the lost productivity that might result from dealing with sick family members, better make it a condition of employment then to require that the employees be single and without children or face termination for potentially costing the company money.
Again, it depends on who bears the costs - whoever it is, they have the right to know what they are getting into. Although we have been discussing this in terms of health insurance, it's really just about cost projections.

We could have a situation where a possible employee informs you she's been accepted to Harvard and will start next fall. You can hire her to work the summer, but you know there are costs in training her. You might still hire her, or you might hire someone else who you predict will be with the company longer. You don't know what will happen for sure, but are trying to make the best decision possible with the information at hand.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 01:22 PM   #150
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,094
Ethics of DNA testing in employment

Originally Posted by marplots View Post
It doesn't matter who provides it. Anyone with a vested interest would want to know, even if the employee contracted with an insurance carrier directly.







Again, it depends on who bears the costs - whoever it is, they have the right to know what they are getting into. Although we have been discussing this in terms of health insurance, it's really just about cost projections.



We could have a situation where a possible employee informs you she's been accepted to Harvard and will start next fall. You can hire her to work the summer, but you know there are costs in training her. You might still hire her, or you might hire someone else who you predict will be with the company longer. You don't know what will happen for sure, but are trying to make the best decision possible with the information at hand.

Training costs are a given in any business, and most businesses and offices can expect 10-15% turn over each year in their workforce. If you aren't factoring that in already, you're foolish.

The cost projections you're looking at - increased health care costs possibly due to genetic factors - require you to invade a potential employee's privacy (and their spouses and children's) and to base your decision on possible future outcomes. This is likely to lead to economic marginalization of certain genotypes, regardless of talent.

Furthermore, normalizing this behaviour by companies is likely to lead to the them assuming that they have the right to regulate their employee's behaviours outside of the workplace - requiring them to forgo activities that the company deems too risky and therefore likely to result in increased costs for insurance or training new personnel.

Would you feel comfortable if your potential employer was able to tell you, "Sorry marplots, you just won't work out for us. You've got the relevant education, practical experience and professional qualifications, but you failed the genetic screening, or more correctly your spouse and children did. They have the markers for "X" and this may lead to unacceptably high possibility that you might make claims for rather expensive treatments. Plus you play recreational hockey, which puts you at an unacceptable risk of broken bones or concussions, again meaning that you'd need both time off and medical expenses. And don't get us started about your love of BBQ...."
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

Last edited by Border Reiver; 21st March 2017 at 01:35 PM.
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2017, 01:35 PM   #151
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Training costs are a given in any business, and most businesses and offices can expect 10-15% turn over each year in their workforce. If you aren't factoring that in already, you're foolish.
And if I don't seek to reduce those costs, I'm also foolish.

Quote:
The cost projections you're looking at - increased health care costs possibly due to genetic factors - require you to invade a potential employee's privacy (and their spouses and children's) and to base your decision on possible future outcomes. This is likely to lead to economic marginalization of certain genotypes, regardless of talent.
Anything I ask about an employee could be considered a violation of privacy rights. But it's a moving line. Primarily, we justify it by pointing to relevance, which I submit seems pretty flimsy in some cases now. Are employers who pull credit reports, criminal histories, and muck about in social media (your facebook, linkedIn and twitter accounts) really pushing any harder than a DNA test? What, for example, is the usefulness of knowing you have facebook friends who "like" neo-nazi websites?

I agree that it could lead to marginalization of some genotypes. Which is why I offered a remedy. However, we should note that any relevant selection criteria will do the same. And further, if it marginalizes some, regardless of talent, it simultaneously promotes others, also regardless of talent.

Talent, however, would be one of many other balancing factors - just as it is now. Will I hire a person I believe has a propensity towards addiction and irresponsible behavior? I might, if that someone is Charlie Sheen and makes me money.

Last edited by marplots; 21st March 2017 at 01:38 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 05:35 AM   #152
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,094
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
And if I don't seek to reduce those costs, I'm also foolish.
There is no reasonable way to reduce the turnover of employees though - people age out of the workforce, move away, decide they'd rather pursue different opportunities, are found to be less then stellar, etc. These are simply the costs of doing business. In certain jobs (retail sales, or the low end of the food services industry for instance) turnover is going to be even higher.

Quote:
Anything I ask about an employee could be considered a violation of privacy rights. But it's a moving line. Primarily, we justify it by pointing to relevance, which I submit seems pretty flimsy in some cases now. Are employers who pull credit reports, criminal histories, and muck about in social media (your facebook, linkedIn and twitter accounts) really pushing any harder than a DNA test? What, for example, is the usefulness of knowing you have facebook friends who "like" neo-nazi websites?
If you're asking questions not directly related to the occupational requirements of the job, you're likely invading privacy - credit reports may be relevant if the person is being placed in charge of money, criminal records may be relevant depending on the job, and if you are trying to be a spokesperson for the company, your online presence will reflect on the company.

Now, explain how your DNA is relevant to the performance of your job?

Quote:
I agree that it could lead to marginalization of some genotypes. Which is why I offered a remedy.
Your remedy would not be sustainable in court. It is not reasonably connected to the performance of the job, and the remedy you propose places an undue burden on the employee relative to other employees, which will lead to your company losing lawsuits for workplace discrimination.

Quote:
However, we should note that any relevant selection criteria will do the same. And further, if it marginalizes some, regardless of talent, it simultaneously promotes others, also regardless of talent.
Marginalizing people based on criteria they have no control over is OK?

Quote:
Talent, however, would be one of many other balancing factors - just as it is now. Will I hire a person I believe has a propensity towards addiction and irresponsible behavior? I might, if that someone is Charlie Sheen and makes me money.
You just need to be so much more talented to compensate for that unfortunate condition that you had no control over. You'll need to be twice as good to be thought equal to others.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 08:03 AM   #153
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,527
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
There is no reasonable way to reduce the turnover of employees though - .
Of course there is. In fact, retention strategies and techniques are a well established body of knowledge that probably every employer pays attention to in one way or another. Many employers invest heavily in them.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 08:29 AM   #154
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
If you're asking questions not directly related to the occupational requirements of the job, you're likely invading privacy - credit reports may be relevant if the person is being placed in charge of money, criminal records may be relevant depending on the job, and if you are trying to be a spokesperson for the company, your online presence will reflect on the company.

Now, explain how your DNA is relevant to the performance of your job?
Here's an example - a study that relies on the known link between Chronic Beryllium Disease and a glutamic acid residue at position 69 of the HLA-DPB1 gene (Glu69). I would like to reduce the risk to my employees who are exposed to Beryllium. Further, I count this as a win/win, not some underhanded mechanism to deny jobs to the genetically unfortunate.
http://oem.bmj.com/content/72/1/21


Quote:
Your remedy would not be sustainable in court. It is not reasonably connected to the performance of the job, and the remedy you propose places an undue burden on the employee relative to other employees, which will lead to your company losing lawsuits for workplace discrimination.
Nothing happens unless and until it does become connected to the performance of the job or the business's bottom line. You'd set it up like any other stipulation in an employment contract.

Quote:
Marginalizing people based on criteria they have no control over is OK?
No one is marginalized. And in what universe does everyone get the job they want, merely for the wanting? Of course we rank candidates by using facts about them and these facts are things outside of their control.

I think it's pretty obvious I won't be hired as a native Bengali speaker, through no fault of my own, but an unjust accident of birth. Nor will I get hired to play professional football, or as "sexiest woman spokesmodel" for Chanel. I don't expect to be hired for any of those roles because I don't fit them. Luck of the draw. I can hardly blame an employer for this, nor require them to ignore my true status.

What you seem to want is to give workers permission to deny the facts, to lie and conceal something, to commit fraud- with an appeal to justice and equality of opportunity. Those are some pretty strange bedfellows.

Last edited by marplots; 22nd March 2017 at 08:30 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 10:20 AM   #155
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Not sarcasm. What boggles you?
Without sarcasm, it reads as if you're saying that GATTACA is a desired and acceptable society. It sounds like you're saying that there's nothing wrong with it from an ethical perspective.

Are you intending to support marplot's position on this topic?

ETA: I'm boggled, because that isn't a position that I would expect you to take. Granted, I'm not particularly good at predicting the positions of nameless anonymous entities with whom I have only superficial engagement... so I could be completely wrong on this
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 12:54 PM   #156
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
I've seen it, but I don't remember much about GATTACA. Mostly it was about identity theft, back when the public thought it was cool.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 01:00 PM   #157
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 9,261
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I've seen it, but I don't remember much about GATTACA. Mostly it was about identity theft, back when the public thought it was cool.
It's pretty spot on for the context of this discussion. It's also a pretty good movie, I recommend seeing it.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 01:26 PM   #158
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,094
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Here's an example - a study that relies on the known link between Chronic Beryllium Disease and a glutamic acid residue at position 69 of the HLA-DPB1 gene (Glu69). I would like to reduce the risk to my employees who are exposed to Beryllium. Further, I count this as a win/win, not some underhanded mechanism to deny jobs to the genetically unfortunate.
http://oem.bmj.com/content/72/1/21
Thank you. I too would count this use of such a test as a win/win.

The likelihood of most employers using a DNA screen where there is a bonafide occupational requirement, instead of simply to screen out people with the potential to incur higher health care costs is low - most will just look at it as a way to eliminate the cost.

Quote:
Nothing happens unless and until it does become connected to the performance of the job or the business's bottom line. You'd set it up like any other stipulation in an employment contract.
"Should the employee or a spouse or dependent of the employee, develop a serious medical condition (as defined in Annex A of this contract), the employer will cease to pay the employer's portion of the health insurance plan after 30 days, and entire cost of the health insurance premium will be deducted from the employee."

Should you need the plan, we're not there for you.

Quote:
No one is marginalized. And in what universe does everyone get the job they want, merely for the wanting? Of course we rank candidates by using facts about them and these facts are things outside of their control.

I think it's pretty obvious I won't be hired as a native Bengali speaker, through no fault of my own, but an unjust accident of birth. Nor will I get hired to play professional football, or as "sexiest woman spokesmodel" for Chanel. I don't expect to be hired for any of those roles because I don't fit them. Luck of the draw. I can hardly blame an employer for this, nor require them to ignore my true status.
You're also not likely to apply for jobs for which you don't meet the bonafide job requirements.

Ie. You can learn to speak Bengali, get really good at football, etc

It is rarely a bonafide occupational requirement of employment that the employee may not develop an expensive medical condition unrelated to the employment.

Quote:
What you seem to want is to give workers permission to deny the facts, to lie and conceal something, to commit fraud- with an appeal to justice and equality of opportunity. Those are some pretty strange bedfellows.

Nice strawman there.

No where am I saying that an employee should get a job, just because. Nor am I advocating that employees be able to deny facts, etc. What I have said is that employers should not be able to demand information unrelated to the position as a criteria for hiring someone.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 04:42 PM   #159
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,527
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Without sarcasm, it reads as if you're saying that GATTACA is a desired and acceptable society. It sounds like you're saying that there's nothing wrong with it from an ethical perspective.

Are you intending to support marplot's position on this topic?

ETA: I'm boggled, because that isn't a position that I would expect you to take. Granted, I'm not particularly good at predicting the positions of nameless anonymous entities with whom I have only superficial engagement... so I could be completely wrong on this
Oh, god, no.

What I am saying is that GATTACA is a work of fiction. It doesn't actually tell us whether the kind of eugenically-optimized society we're discussing would be desirable or acceptable. PhantomWolf thinks that such a society would turn out like GATTACA, and he may be right. But looking at the movie doesn't tell us one way or the other. It's just a movie.

I happen to think it's a good movie. More than that, I think it's good science fiction, because it tells a story about how human society responds and adapts to technological change--genetic optimization, in this case. And I think it recognizes a truth about human nature, that our societies create winners and losers. They always have, and they probably always will.

A good story has conflict, and GATTACA gives us that. It tells the story of a loser in the new society, and their struggle to win against the odds and the forces stacked against them. It's a good story. It's a believable story. I think that it is even an artistically true story.

But it's still just a story. It's not data. It's not an argument against marplots' vision, it's a competing vision. Or even a complementary vision.

My point is this: It's not sufficient to reject GATTACA because it depicts winners and losers. All societies create winners and losers. Our current societies, even the best of them, create winners and losers. GATTACA doesn't look very desirable or acceptable to me, but then I haven't really seen it. Who knows what it's really like? If its tradeoffs are worse or better than the ones we currently are making?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2017, 04:53 PM   #160
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
No where am I saying that an employee should get a job, just because. Nor am I advocating that employees be able to deny facts, etc. What I have said is that employers should not be able to demand information unrelated to the position as a criteria for hiring someone.
I think the ethics even take it further in the sense that for some employers, everything potentially affects the employee's job performance, so that's not a great criteria.

Jurisdictions put a stake in the ground and prohibit some types of information from being mandatory for job consideration, whether they're job-related or not.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.