DNA Testing
-
I couldn't imagine taking a DNA test to go to work, but that was a real life situation for Eddy Curry. For those of you that don't recognize the name, he was a basketball player, professional, for the Chicago Bulls who it was revealed, had a heart arrhythmia. The team asked that he take a DNA test before signing a new deal so they would be aware of his potential future health issues.
He refused and was dealt to the Knicks. I don't like either team, so I could care less. Go Nuggets!!
In the wake of that, IBM announced they would not require nor use DNA information in hiring decisions. I applaud that, though there is no reason they couldn't change their mind tomorrow. Or when the next CEO comes in.
I'm glad they did and hope that more companies will make that a part of their policy. It may sound crazy, but allowing this to happen moves us one step closer to Gattaca. Not that I see that in our future, but you never know and I'd prefer we be safe rather than sorry.
Steve Jones
-
Steve - I wish I could agree with you. In the present corporate climate, a 'buyer's market' if you will, companies are trampling applicants' rights because they can. Ten years ago, drug screenings were used only in security-related positions. Now you can't flip burgers at McDonalds without peeing into the cup. Look at Wal-Mart's recently leaked H/R policy of discouraging the hiring of older or overweight workers. It's here buddy. Be prepared.
Keep up the good work.
Bernard Reagan
-
I agree it is a scary thought and, though not applicable in most cases, will be applied nonetheless. If I'm hiring an athlete, I do want to know what kind of investment I'm making. But a cashier at WM isn't really going to make or break my bank account. If the technology is there and becomes ready-made for your average business; they will use it just because they can (because they are too dumb to count those beans, but smart enough to count them when huge lawsuits are at stake). The drug screening companies are going to look elsewhere for something to sell (insider biological information) now that fewer people really care about drug screening (something I hear IBM dropped). I guess I don't mind doing the right thing for the right reason. What scares me senseless, though, is how easy it is to steal and fake identities. So now, on top of my current health information, people can steal my future health information (things that may never come to fruition with a healthy lifestyle). Our parents always said you can't judge a book by it's cover, but I'm sure they were telling us to get to know people personally by investing a little in them (not by running their blood, urine and hair through a bunch of tests to try and predict their future worth).
-
Steve,
I think this is comparing apples to oranges and your concern about this becoming mainstream is not warranted. Players are the product of the NBA, all their money resides on eleven men that they spend millions of dollars on per season to play a very, very aerobic game; one that can strain a bad heart. This is hardly the same as IBM being concerned that Harry in accounting might keel over from a bad ticker because he became aggressive when the copier broke. I'd go out on a limb and state that 99.99% of everyone that works in our field will never exert the physical load on their bodies in their whole career that an NBA player will in one game. And I lift servers!
IBM is just trying to get some media hype. NBA has a legit reason; IBM doesn't, and therefore made the correct (and logical) choice to not perform and expensive test for no reason.
-
I'm not sure I'm miscomparing. Where do you draw the line? I agree they might not care about Harry in accounting, but do you test C-levels? VPs? Directors? DBAs controlling critical data?
The comparison with drug testing is, I think, a poor one. I think drug testing is ok because you are affecting your performance on the job on a daily basis and in some cases, NBA or IBM, that's an issue.
But DNA testing doesn't go to your performance on a daily basis. It's a chance to discriminate against someone for a potential. Who knows how many people perform well in daily jobs, or even in stress ones like pro sports with a genetic defect. Testing for it is a short throw to discriminating against them in hiring, promotions, insurance, and more.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply