Employers and unions differ over pre-employment genetic testing

A study carried out by the Centre for the Sociology of Health at the Free University of Brussels on the use of pre-employment genetic tests has revealed profound differences in approach between Belgian employers and workers. Workers perceived them as an attack on their status and privacy, while employers considered them from the point of view of efficiency.

A recent survey, carried out by the Centre for the Sociology of Health at the Free University of Brussels, aimed to analyse the views and arguments of trade unions and employers concerning the acceptability and justification of pre-employment genetic tests. The sample population was not chosen according to its representative nature but rather along lines of quality and comprehensiveness. It was carried out in the banking and the chemical sectors, with representatives from firms employing at least 500 workers.

The unions' positions were collected during training seminars on this question attended by union delegates from the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond/Confédération des Syndicats chrétiens, ACV/CSC) and the Belgian General Federation of Labour (Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond/Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique, ABVV/FGTB)

For the employers, the representatives were drawn, on one hand, from the Federation of Belgian Enterprises (Fédération des Entreprises de Belgique/Verbond van Belgische Ondernemingen, FEB/VBO), the Belgian Banking Association (Association Belge des Banques/Belgische Vereniging van Banken) and the Chemical Industries' Federation (Fédération des Industries Chimiques/Federatie der Chemische Nijverheid) and, on the other, from amongst recruitment and personnel managers from those enterprises.

The research report - "Contribution to the analysis of the positions of trade unions and employers regarding genetic pre-employment tests", M Moulin, G Lebeer, P Schmitz, M Vanhercke and M Vermiglio, ULB, Brussels (1996)- was financed by DGXII of the European Commission for its programme entitled Biotech: Scientific studies of the socio-economic impact of biotechnology.

A majority of union delegates oppose pre-employment genetic tests

A majority of union delegates were in favour of categorically refusing pre-employment genetic tests, arguing that they had characteristics which led to unacceptable practices or standpoints - for example, the fact that the tests indicated only the probability of an ailment and moreover that the potential ailment could manifest itself at an indefinite time in the future. The applicant subjected to the tests would then be aware of being predisposed to the disease, but would have no way of avoiding it other than refusing the job. So genetic tests imposed within the pre-employment medical examination would prejudice the chances of carriers of "virtual diseases" from getting jobs, as they would risk exclusion from the labour market.

Another ground for refusal lay in the purpose of the genetic investigation itself: the genetic heritage. In the delegates' eyes, this made up the individual. Genetic screening would mean using an examination technique which would aim ultimately at documenting and checking the entire body. As part of a pre-employment examination and in the case of compulsory screening, this would mean an invasion of the physical integrity of individuals, according to union delegates. But it could also be a violation of their moral privacy, as, in revealing some or other particular predispositions, such screening could have psychological and social consequences and critical effects on life choices.

More generally, interviewees thought that pre-employment genetic testing supported a deterministic and reductionist idea of human beings which reduces people to nothing more than biological mechanisms entirely defined by their genes. Consequently, the use of such tests could lead to discriminatory and eugenic practices, as well as calling into question the assumptions of a society based on social cohesion.

Finally, in the eyes of the union delegates sampled, genetic tests symbolised harder and more intense recruitment methods illustrating the general deterioration of the position of wage-earners. For that reason, a majority simply proposed banning them legally.

Genetic tests acceptable to a minority of union delegates

A minority of union delegates thought that genetic tests represented progress in terms of health protection. However, in a pre-employment situation, they wanted to impose conditions on this screening; for instance, by introducing the right of appeal against unfitness decisions and guaranteed protection to avoid abuse, such as that advocated by the opponents to the tests.

Employers' views

Respondents representing the employers did not necessarily want genetic tests: they did not consider them very reliable and did not see many practical advantages. They tended to argue more at the theoretical level rather than in terms of concrete applications. Employers therefore did not come down clearly either for or against pre-employment genetic tests. They tended to ask themselves questions, either in practical or ethical terms.

Practical questions

Practical questions were based on the specific recruitment situation, as this involved employers' economic and moral responsibility in terms of workers' health, as well as their legal responsibility. From the employers' point of view, the use of genetic tests should follow the principles that currently apply to pre-employment medical checks and should therefore fit into the existing framework of rules that clearly define their responsibilities.

Ethical questions

When employers were asked questions on the ethical scope of genetic testing, they responded with arguments concerning people in general rather than workers in particular. They then expressed their reservations which included fears about invasion of privacy, undermining the fundamental rights of individuals and the principles underlying a democratic society. They thought that genetic tests should be the subject of a wide ranging debate within society leading to specific legislation.

Commentary

Comparison of the employers' and the workers' answers reveal fundamentally different points of view.

According to the employers' standpoint, genetic screening is perceived as an exterior "object", an instrument with advantages and disadvantages that have to be assessed dispassionately.

On the other hand, the workers saw themselves as the "subjects" of genetic investigation: for them the screening question was part of the specific reality of work. As a result, they feared the negative consequences of the implementation of such tests, including the worsening of their conditions and the inhumane approach to individuals implied.

These differing standpoints must be viewed in the context of the positions the social partners occupy in the labour market, and in particular the unequal balance of power between them. The result of these differences is that what is at stake in genetic testing is not and cannot be the same for workers and employers. (Maria Vermiglio, Centre de Sociologie de la Santé, Université Libre de Bruxelles)