Would you submit to DNA testing by your employer.
|
|
Jsecure Hanks
Capitalist
Join date: 9 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,451
|
09-29-2005 04:51
From: Nolan Nash I agree.
What's next? Employers monitoring how much sleep we get and our diets too?
How did humankind run businesses for 1000s of years without testing? Simple. If a person was at work stoned or drunk, you fired them.
I'll tell you what this is really about - it's about insurance companies putting the squeeze on employers. It's about the parasitic testing labs making a mint off of this. It's pathetic, and a horrid invasion of privacy.
On the military. I was in the military, and I saw more drugs being done there than during any other period of my life. So much for testing curbing drug use.
Heavy drinkers, who cause a whole bevy of social problems, are hardly affected at all by this testing, and that's a shame. It's unfair that an alcoholic can get hired by laying off the booze for a couple days, and a person who took acid once, when they were a teen, will be rejected because the DNA in their hair strand tests positive for LSD. It's a fucking farce. It's also a worrysome breakdown of one of the key truths of a good company. A good company sees it's employees as it's people. Members of the firm. The partners. The guys (and girls) who make things tick. They have a lot of respect for their workforce, and their workforce have a lot of respect for them. With the advent of spying on employees all the time, they are dehumanised into little test subjects to be examined, poked and prodded. This is the kind of relationship a scientist has with a lab rat, and it has no place within good business. I would be ashamed if my company ever came near that kind of situation. |
|
Memory Harker
Girl Anachronism
Join date: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 393
|
Wow.
09-29-2005 05:43
From: Torley Torgeson I guess what I'm wanting to say is that I'd only confidently submit to a DNA test if we were ruled by perfect alien overlords with bicameral minds who didn't have humanity's prejudices. And you did say it. And that statement, so well worded, covers so many things besides DNA testing, too. I'm gonna be quoting you for years to come, Torley, thank you!  |
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
09-29-2005 06:22
I personally would be willing to take a DNA test if it meant a 7 figure salary.
In principle though,
I would be opposed to allowing Employers mandate them, however. I think the Governement and Employers already are true intrusive into our lives.
Im opposed to manadatory Drug testing for employment also.
I would be willing however to make drug screens a condition of maintaining licenses to operate vehicles ( for pilots, bus/truck drivers, train engineers, auto) - since it potentially impacts the safety of others.
Of course if you were going to do this youd have to include alcohol as a prohibitive substance for getting a license - since its it probably the most common method of imparment.
|
|
Kris Ritter
paradoxical embolism
Join date: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 6,627
|
09-29-2005 06:44
No. Because I'm merely an employee. I'm contracted to work for them. They don't own me and I don't owe them anything more than a weeks work in exchange for a weeks wages. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to behave as if they are slaves to their employers and live in mortal fear of being fired for just about anything. I know that's prolly not all particularly related to the topic, but its a subject I'm fond of ranting about.  |
|
Leilany LaFollette
Not old, just older
Join date: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 686
|
09-29-2005 07:22
No. And no. Like Kris said, most people's mortal fear of getting fired is what keeps them demanding invasive crap like this. I'm not afraid. They can fire my ass any time. I'll just go live in my dad's basement and file for bankruptcy.  |
|
Gabe Lippmann
"Phone's ringing, Dude."
Join date: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 4,219
|
09-29-2005 07:34
From: Ghoti Nyak No. Nor will I ever work for a company that demands that I submit to a drug test.
-Ghoti Get a job with my firm. Head office in Amsterdam. No drug testing 
_____________________
go to Nocturnal Threads 
|
|
Daz Honey
Fine, Fine Artist
Join date: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 599
|
09-29-2005 09:34
From: Colette Meiji
I would be willing however to make drug screens a condition of maintaining licenses to operate vehicles ( for pilots, bus/truck drivers, train engineers, auto) - since it potentially impacts the safety of others.
Of course if you were going to do this youd have to include alcohol as a prohibitive substance for getting a license - since its it probably the most common method of imparment.
Thank you for a common sense approach to life, I think the majority of us can agree on that. When your job involves the safety of others you have to forfit a little personal liberty for the good of your fellow citizens. In a perfect world we wouldn't need testing but this is the world of drunk airline pilots and oil tanker captains, we need some regulations. I gave up some of my personal freedoms, willingly, when I served in the military.
_____________________
All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up. - Pablo Picasso
|
|
Cosmo Drago
Pixel Dust Addict
Join date: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 377
|
09-29-2005 13:46
From: JackBurton Faulkland Would you submit to DNA testing by your employer. Fugno! However, I would gladly submit a stool sample directly on the manager's desk.
_____________________
 a work in progress... 
|
|
Sextus Baphomet
-v-v- Sanguem Bibo -v-v-
Join date: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 78
|
09-29-2005 13:49
DNA, no. Proctological exam by our nurse, yes.
_____________________
Quaere Verum -v-v- Nunquam Lamiae Morde Me Dice -v-v-
|
|
JackBurton Faulkland
PorkChop Express
Join date: 3 Sep 2005
Posts: 478
|
09-29-2005 14:03
The reason I ask is because we all know how our employers like to save money on insurance and disability. I wouldn't put it past some employers trying to adopt this testing because they would rather hire person A with no history of cancer rather than person B who is suseptable to a certain kind of cancer while A and B are equally qualified for the position. Do I think this will be the mainstream approach to hiring? No, but this case of Curry vs. Chicago Bulls could be used by a buisness to justify DNA testing if Curry submits to the testing.
|