If this had been required back when I got my first job, I would've learned that my wife and I are carriers of a rare genetic disorder, and it would've saved the sadness and pain of my wife having delivering stillborn twins. My wife is still dealing with medical issues years later because of this. The pain was indescribable.
Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have. Or how anyone would. At the point an employee gets tested, you've already hired them. What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
> I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
Did you really mean to say "how" or did you mean "why"? Because the "why" is that if you have investors (at least in the U.S.) then you have a fiduciary duty to them to maximize their return by all legal means at your disposal. You do not have a fiduciary duty to your employees. So if you can increase profits by discriminating against employees who are more likely to be sick then you have no choice but to either do it or break your fiduciary duty to your investors. You could actually be sued if you don't.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?
Yes. Exactly. And then hope they quit. Or, if you're in an at-will state, you could just fire them.
Please note that I am not endorsing this system. I think it sucks. But that's the way things currently are in the U.S.
All social constructs are myths, including the very idea of a corporation itself. When enough people believe the myth it becomes self-actualizing. The law itself is a self-actualizing myth, having power only because enough people believe that it has power. It is that shared belief that causes the law to have actual power in the real world.
It's the same with corporations and their duties. Enough people believe the "myth" that shareholders own corporations and that corporations hence have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders that this "myth" becomes self-actualizing in exactly the same way that the law becomes self-actualizing. The law itself even has a mechanism for incorporating such self-actualizing myths, notwithstanding that they are not formally codified into the law. That is called "common law". Common law is a meta-myth. Nowhere will you find the idea of common law formally incorporated into the law. And yet anyone who questioned the principle of common law (at least in the U.S.) would rightfully be considered out of touch with reality. Likewise for the fiduciary duty of corporations to their shareholders.
Note that Milton Friedman was four years old at the time, so this data point also falsifies your claim that Friedman invented fiduciary duty to shareholders out of whole cloth.
You really should do your homework before you accuse someone of "dispensing of the very concept of truth."
Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.
"However, ONE VIEW is that this interpretation has not represented the law in most states for some time." [Emphasis added.]
IMHO that view is wrong. The fact of the matter is that if, as an officer of the company, you do not act in the best interests of the shareholders you can be sued in all 50 states, and if your conduct was sufficiently egregious you will lose. The business judgement rules gives you a lot of wiggle room, but it does not change the basic underlying principle. Whether you call this a "legal mandate" or a "standard of conduct" is just quibbling over terminology.
In any case, your claim that fiduciary duty to shareholders is "a myth ... [c]reated from whole cloth (like many others) by Milton Friedman" is plainly flat-out false.
I'm sorry for your loss, but as I understanding it, employers are not currently forbidden from offering these genetic tests, they are only forbidden from incentivizing them or penalizing you if you refuse. That's to make sure the disclosure is entirely voluntary.
> Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have.
> What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A?
Not everyone is as nice as you. I can certainly imagine an employer terminating someone who tests "positive for XYZ Type A" because they don't want to pay the costs of treating the disease (though they may have to jump through some hoops to make it look kosher). Healthy employees are cheaper employees.
Also, keep in mind, not every employee is a developer-type that could be "leading a project." Think of all the other kinds of employees: phone reps, janitors, clerks, mechanics, etc. They're already treated as disposable, unlike a high skill developer.
That same level of testing could be required without requiring an employer's involvement, and all the potential for abuse, discrimination, harassment, and pain that might imply.
You're forcing a false dichotomy. Under colour of sympathy to boot.
I'm sorry for your pain, but your suggestion and justification are both exceedingly poor.
Your comment is incredibly insensitive and unkind. I sincerely hope that if I were to tell you what happened to our family face-to-face, you would not have responded in this way.
I was assuming that it would be a worthwhile anecdote to share, given that most people appear to find it unnecessary to get tested. If one person on the Internet reads my comment, decides to get tested, and finds they are a carrier of a severe genetic abnormality and avoids delivering a stillborn child, I frankly don't give a shit how "inappropriate" it is.
I don't want to minimize your pain in any way, but I think the reason you're being downvoted is that your comment sounds like you want to imply that because mandatory testing would have spared you this pain, that it is therefore a good thing. But this does not follow. Just because mandatory testing might have led to a better outcome in one case doesn't mean that overall it's a good thing. You yourself pointed out the extreme cost of mandatory testing: if an employer knows that you are at high risk of being sick, then they have no choice but to do everything they can to replace you with an equally productive but healthy person. Not doing so would be a breach of their fiduciary duties to their investors.
Furthermore, as an employer myself, I can't for the life of me understand or comprehend how one would discriminate against someone based on what genes they have. Or how anyone would. At the point an employee gets tested, you've already hired them. What are you going to do? Block them from leading a project since they test positive for XYZ Type A? Or getting a promotion because they're carriers of ALS?