First off, I agree with Lady Rowyn -- the company's actions are ill-advised. But it seems to me that your concerns -- black people, Jews, Republicans -- are based on old predjudices. Well, and one new one, the anti-Republican hatred, which so far remains politically correct. Weyco's situation is not leading to the problems you describe, I think.
But rather than "traditional prejudice", there is a different issue underlying this. The company is saying: "Government, you are forcing us to undertake medical risks for our employees -- we want to select those employees in order to minimize those risks."
It seems to be a very bad idea to fire based on this -- prior employees should have been grandfathered in at minimum, and the whole concept is problematic.
In this case, it's a voluntary risk; smoking. I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I am not in favor of the anti-smoking paranoia in the US today; much of it is based on utterly discredited second-hand smoke concerns, and my issues with it are Libertarian-inclined.
But here we have employment contingent on a medical risk. Already we have the ability to genetically screen for a number of risks; this number will continually increase.
We do not require insurance companies to insure people who smoke, or have medical conditions. Many do, and this is often automatic in group insurance because that's what the previous market required. This is changing, though, and the insurance companies (who are the world's experts on statistical probability) are now being given tools to improve the odds.
What can we do about that? And what should we do?
In Gattaca, a person's job prospects depended on their genetic heritage, which was manipulatable at the parents' discretion and with government involvement. Much of the movie was farcical, but that concept is close to reality.
A blood test will be able to, five years from now, make much better predictions about employee future health probabilities than we ever could before. It will be fast and painless. And it will completely change how we go about the social conventions of employment. And to an extent, it will be forced into being by the social welfare programs now under way.
no subject
But rather than "traditional prejudice", there is a different issue underlying this. The company is saying: "Government, you are forcing us to undertake medical risks for our employees -- we want to select those employees in order to minimize those risks."
It seems to be a very bad idea to fire based on this -- prior employees should have been grandfathered in at minimum, and the whole concept is problematic.
In this case, it's a voluntary risk; smoking. I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I am not in favor of the anti-smoking paranoia in the US today; much of it is based on utterly discredited second-hand smoke concerns, and my issues with it are Libertarian-inclined.
But here we have employment contingent on a medical risk. Already we have the ability to genetically screen for a number of risks; this number will continually increase.
We do not require insurance companies to insure people who smoke, or have medical conditions. Many do, and this is often automatic in group insurance because that's what the previous market required. This is changing, though, and the insurance companies (who are the world's experts on statistical probability) are now being given tools to improve the odds.
What can we do about that? And what should we do?
In Gattaca, a person's job prospects depended on their genetic heritage, which was manipulatable at the parents' discretion and with government involvement. Much of the movie was farcical, but that concept is close to reality.
A blood test will be able to, five years from now, make much better predictions about employee future health probabilities than we ever could before. It will be fast and painless. And it will completely change how we go about the social conventions of employment. And to an extent, it will be forced into being by the social welfare programs now under way.
===|==============/ Level Head