House committee passes bill that could allow employers to require genetic testing - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946075]So should you force companies to hire people who can't do their job properly, or are a liability? I'm not opting for a eugenics program and throw these people in the pits, I'm not even in favor of this bill because its far too invasive, but I disagree that people unfit for a job should be hired for it just because they have a disability. If someone has bad hands then they probably shouldn't be working jobs that put a lot of stress and require good motor skills with your hands. Theres a job for everyone but not everyone is capable for every job.[/QUOTE] There's a job for everyone sure but those jobs aren't always 1) where the person is 2) available 3) feasible but sure, keep making excuses as to why being born with problems should result in you being screwed

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51946106]There's a job for everyone sure but those jobs aren't always 1) where the person is 2) available 3) feasible but sure, keep making excuses as to why being born with problems should result in you being screwed[/QUOTE] Ok, so companies should be forced to hire people who can't adequately do their job, or even safely, just because they were dealt a bad hand from the start? [editline]12th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Govna;51946085]No it wouldn't. "Could" does not mean "will", and there's plenty of people in society who have genetic conditions who lead perfectly normal and productive lives-- even in serious cases. Like with most things, it's a matter of what fair and equal opportunities (if any) are extended to them. The problem is that we have no shortage of individuals and organizations who don't want to be bothered with trying to extend them fair and equal opportunities, because that would require them to make concessions. This is America. We do whatever we can to avoid that shit for as long as possible, even if it's futile for us to drag our feet in the end. If we're going ahead with this proposition though, then I suggest we start by testing you to see if you've got any problems. If you do, then we should probably go ahead and sterilize you (perhaps even euthanize, depending on the severity) in addition to denying you employment or compensation of some sort. We don't want the defective procreating and passing along their biological inferiority to future generations after all...[/QUOTE] I like how you went straight to Nazi Eugenics just because I'm not in favor of hiring people who can't safely and sufficiently do a job. :godwin:

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51945960]Probably not? Too broad of a question really. I mean if some genetic condition exists where a person could drop dead for any reason, it would be tough to justify employing that person.[/QUOTE] If only we had some sort of system to prevent people from dropping dead.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946124]Ok, so companies should be forced to hire people who can't adequately do their job, or even safely, just because they were dealt a bad hand from the start? [editline]12th March 2017[/editline] I like how you went straight to Nazi Eugenics just because I'm not in favor of hiring people who can't safely and sufficiently do a job. :godwin:[/QUOTE] That's a fairly large assumption isn't it Do you think there should be any "Safety" net at all in the US? [editline]11th March 2017[/editline] The logical conclusion of your ideas, Cyke, is that those people would die, and starve. That's what you're asking for.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51946165]That's a fairly large assumption isn't it Do you think there should be any "Safety" net at all in the US?[/QUOTE] It's a broad statement about a broad scenario, what do you expect? And sure there should be safety nets, but do you think it should be on the backs of businesses to accommodate these people? Why should a company be forced to inhibit its own workforce when they could hire someone who can properly do the job? Should we also force companies to hire inexperienced or ill-qualified people?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946124]I like how you went straight to Nazi Eugenics just because I'm not in favor of hiring people who can't safely and sufficiently do a job. :godwin:[/QUOTE] You're in favor of denying them the right to hold down any sort of job and to discriminate against them (and it is discrimination) under the unrealistic pretense that none of these people will be capable of holding down jobs because of hypotheticals. "Well they [i]could[/i] drop dead at any moment." I'm not seeing any realistic examples being given here, nor am I seeing any understanding of why this is a dangerous line of thinking to follow precisely because of what happened with the Nazis (or for that matter what was also happening here in the United States). Again, if you provide them with the opportunity and are willing to make some accommodations for them, this isn't a valid mindset. It's just asinine. The problem is that we've got employers who simply don't want to, and they're hell-bent on dragging their feet as much as possible in order to avoid having to. But like I said before, it's no big deal. Surely you won't mind being tested? We'll examine your DNA, and while we're at it, I think we'll look through your family history too and see if there's any markers that could indicate negative/undesirable characteristics that we don't feel comfortable with having in our employees. Maybe your parents were alcoholics, maybe one of them had a nervous breakdown, maybe you've got depression or anxiety, etc. We can find out.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946177]It's a broad statement about a broad scenario, what do you expect? And sure there should be safety nets, but do you think it should be on the backs of businesses to accommodate these people? Why should a company be forced to inhibit its own workforce when they could hire someone who can properly do the job? Should we also force companies to hire inexperienced or ill-qualified people?[/QUOTE] So companies should operate in our economy, not contribute tax dollars to it, contribute lobbyist dollars to change the way the society is headed, use lobbiest dollars to maximize profits, and at the end of the day, the safety net should be on the people? Again, I don't understand why some of you have a hard on to suck off corporate interests You're saying "has a genetic defect" is equivalent to "[B]completely incapable of a task/job[/B]" which is bullshit and a false dichotomy if I ever heard one.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51946165] The logical conclusion of your ideas, Cyke, is that those people would die, and starve. That's what you're asking for.[/QUOTE] lol ok dood. Like I said earlier, I'm not asking to throw these people into the wilderness like Spartans. I'm not calling for a eugenics plan or sterilization. All I'm saying is that a company shouldn't be forced to hire someone who is ill qualified for a job. I don't know why this is so irrational. How it works now is great. Larger corporations get tax breaks and benefits for opening positions more suited to the handicapped or older individuals. For example, wal-mart has door greeters for retirees and handicapped adults. So why should wal-mart be forced to hire a paraplegic with no arms to stock produce?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946188]lol ok dood. Like I said earlier, I'm not asking to throw these people into the wilderness like Spartans. I'm not calling for a eugenics plan or sterilization. All I'm saying is that a company shouldn't be forced to hire someone who is ill qualified for a job. I don't know why this is so irrational. How it works now is great. Larger corporations get tax breaks and benefits for opening positions more suited to the handicapped or older individuals. For example, wal-mart has door greeters for retirees and handicapped adults. [B]So why should wal-mart be forced to hire a paraplegic with no arms to stock produce?[/B][/QUOTE] Are you going to argue with me or are you just going to argue with the strawmen in your head

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51946186]So companies should operate in our economy, not contribute tax dollars to it, contribute lobbyist dollars to change the way the society is headed, use lobbiest dollars to maximize profits, and at the end of the day, the safety net should be on the people? Again, I don't understand why some of you have a hard on to suck off corporate interests You're saying "has a genetic defect" is equivalent to "[B]completely incapable of a task/job[/B]" which is bullshit and a false dichotomy if I ever heard one.[/QUOTE] Again, it's a broad statement about a broad scenario. I'm not saying every single person with any sort of handicap imaginable should be denied jobs outright. I'm saying if a person with handicap can not adequately complete a specific task, which is their job to do so, then they shouldn't be forced to hire them. [editline]12th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51946192]Are you going to argue with me or are you just going to argue with the strawmen in your head[/QUOTE] I guess so dood. You vilify me if I make broad statements, and vilify me if I bring up specific scenarios. gg

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946197]Again, it's a broad statement about a broad scenario. I'm not saying every single person with any sort of handicap imaginable should be denied jobs outright. I'm saying if a person with handicap can not adequately complete a specific task, which is their job to do so, then they shouldn't be forced to hire them. [editline]12th March 2017[/editline] I guess so dood. You vilify me if I make broad statements, and vilify me if I bring up specific scenarios. gg[/QUOTE] You keep resorting to ultra specific scenarios that I have to respond to, but you never responded to my congenital heart failure example beyond replying no one should be forced to hire someone that may drop dead? Genetic screenings aren't going to deal with the fact someone has no arms, and no legs. Why are you even acting like that's relevant and getting mad at me for being frustrated with irrelevant shit [editline]11th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946124]Ok, so companies should be forced to hire people who can't adequately do their job, or even safely, just because they were dealt a bad hand from the start? [/QUOTE] To me, this line right here sums up the problem. Corporations have more rights to profits, than people do to life.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946188]lol ok dood. Like I said earlier, I'm not asking to throw these people into the wilderness like Spartans. I'm not calling for a eugenics plan or sterilization. All I'm saying is that a company shouldn't be forced to hire someone who is ill qualified for a job. I don't know why this is so irrational. How it works now is great. Larger corporations get tax breaks and benefits for opening positions more suited to the handicapped or older individuals. For example, wal-mart has door greeters for retirees and handicapped adults. So why should wal-mart be forced to hire a paraplegic with no arms to stock produce?[/QUOTE] In what reality are paraplegics with no arms applying at Wal-Mart to stock produce? Are we going to actually discuss real-world examples, or just hypotheticals pulled out of the ass-end of ridiculousness? Do you seriously believe that handicapped people aren't aware of their own limitations or something lol?

This has to do with health insurance. It's a voluntary thing that employees can do to get discounts on their health insurance. Kind of like how safe drivers get cheaper car insurance. It has nothing to do with the hiring process.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51946197] I guess so dood. You vilify me if I make broad statements, and vilify me if I bring up specific scenarios. gg[/QUOTE] Your "specific" scenario is a scenario that would never happen. A person with no arms knows that they would not be able to stock produce. They wouldn't apply for the job to stock produce.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51946369]Your "specific" scenario is a scenario that would never happen. A person with no arms knows that they would not be able to stock produce. They wouldn't apply for the job to stock produce.[/QUOTE] They might if they felt that the law would mandate the company hire and retain them due to their disabilities. It seems like you're assuming that just because they're disabled they'd never seek to exploit the system in any way, but this entire thread is about how employers might exploit this to discriminate in their hiring practices.

[QUOTE=geel9;51946378]They might if they felt that the law would mandate the company hire and retain them due to their disabilities. It seems like you're assuming that just because they're disabled they'd never seek to exploit the system in any way, but this entire thread is about how employers might exploit this to discriminate in their hiring practices.[/QUOTE] I was just replying to how he keeps bringing up "specific" situations that have nothing to do with anything relevant. The law would side with the company because it's unreasonable to expect someone that physically can't do a job to be paid to do the job. Likewise it's bullshit that there would even be a potential to a company not hiring because there's a [I]possibility[/I] that you wouldn't be able to do the job in [I]the future[/I] due to genetics.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51946396]I was just replying to how he keeps bringing up "specific" situations that have nothing to do with anything relevant. The law would side with the company because it's unreasonable to expect someone that physically can't do a job to be paid to do the job. Likewise it's bullshit that there would even be a potential to a company not hiring because there's a [I]possibility[/I] that you wouldn't be able to do the job in [I]the future[/I] due to genetics.[/QUOTE] Obviously there's no reason the company would be forced to hire a paraplegic for that job, and it's absurd to think so. I had issue with your attitude that seemed very "nobody would even try to abuse it, so don't worry about it".

[QUOTE=geel9;51946405]Obviously there's no reason the company would be forced to hire a paraplegic for that job, and it's absurd to think so. I had issue with your attitude that seemed very "nobody would even try to abuse it, so don't worry about it".[/QUOTE] I'm sure someone would, but, and this is anecdotal and I'm happy to fold on this point, I don't think that would be a huge number of people

[QUOTE=geel9;51946405]Obviously there's no reason the company would be forced to hire a paraplegic for that job, and it's absurd to think so. I had issue with your attitude that seemed very "nobody would even try to abuse it, so don't worry about it".[/QUOTE] Poor wording on my part, but if someone did try to abuse it, and then either they or the company started a suit over it, it would end in the favor of the company in his situation.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51946415]I'm sure someone would, but, and this is anecdotal and I'm happy to fold on this point, I don't think that would be a huge number of people[/QUOTE] It's not really something we can settle between us because it's entirely conjecture, but I had a lot more faith in people's moral fortitude before I started dealing in online credit card transactions. If there's money to be made from exploiting someone or something else, people will do so, and it will not end well. It's the human condition. It's why we have such massive wealth inequality. That is to say, there is no fundamental difference between a rich corporate asshole abusing a tax law or dumping pollutants in the river, and a poor asshole who abuses welfare or whatever. One's certainly doing more damage than the other, but the basic moral principle -- abusing a hole in a system -- is the same.

[QUOTE=Govna;51946224]In what reality are paraplegics with no arms applying at Wal-Mart to stock produce? Are we going to actually discuss real-world examples, or just hypotheticals pulled out of the ass-end of ridiculousness? Do you seriously believe that handicapped people aren't aware of their own limitations or something lol?[/QUOTE] I know this because Ive interviewed people for jobs at walmart with limitations like this, and specifically this, received specific training for it. But nah Im an evil pro-eugenics ass hole who talks out of his ass so disregard me.