Lewis Maltby\'s Proposition That Employers Should Not

¶ … Lewis Maltby's proposition that employers should not do drug testing (or other testing related to off-work conduct) but should instead focus on impairment testing when an employee is entering the workplace. Instead of using drug testing in a punitive and time-consuming manner, Lewis Maltby holds that the technology exists to see if any safety or impairment issues are present in certain occupations in a way that is non-invasive and far more relevant. For instance, a train engineer, bus driver or airline pilot might be impaired due to stress, illness, sleep deprivation, etc. They could be tested using something akin to a video game, which captures their baseline performance and then compares it to the values at a certain test-time. If the individual is not able to perform the duties, then they are simply bumped for that shift.

Discuss privacy in social media websites. What sort of policies should exist? Does it matter that the user doesn't have to be honest (to the extent of using false names? There are a number of different types of social networks -- personal, location, content, shared interest, etc. Within these networks there are two types of information that can be gathered: information from the user like photos, age, gender, biographical info, contacts, etc. This information becomes public on many sites unless the user blocks it or marks it private. Information can also be gleaned from using cookies that track the sites user visits, stores information from shopping carts, etc. Most sites have an encryption ruling and the ability to choose which information becomes public. For all, the sharing of information should be a personal choice. For those under 18, there should be even more limits. Information on the internet is such that there would be no way to feasibly police using of false names, gender or location -- it is up to the other users to be wary and careful.

3. The term "privacy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States. Discuss (meaning share your opinion and support it with anecdotes or evidence) whether or not the Supreme Court was correct in "finding" privacy in the Constitution. Most scholars consider the Constitution to be a "living document," meaning that because of technological and other societal advancements, it would be impossible for every single iota of case law to be represented in the initial document. Instead, the Supreme Court has interpreted certain issues, like privacy, that may have had little meaning in the 18th century. For instance, in 1968 the Court found that there is a semblance of privacy in effect from the 4th Amendment, but that it is not violated when an officer of the law stops a suspect on the street and frisks them with probably cause to arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is about to commit a crime, or is in the process of committing a crime. This moves the idea of privacy to a "privacy under certain circumstances," ruling, and clearly, if the subject is potentially committing an offense or is a danger to self or society, privacy no longer remains valid.

4. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) was passed amidst public concern for the collection and use of genetic information. Prior to its passage, the Americans with Disabilities Act protected anyone with a disability or perceived disability and the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) protected people from intrusion in to medical records. Was GINA a necessary act or was it merely passed for political reasons? As in the previous example, certain issues are new to modern society. The electronic storage and dissemination of medical records and even the ability to define and process a human's genetic code are examples of new technologies that need addressed. When these new technologies come into play, it is important that government acts in a beneficial manner towards society and the individual to issue controls (balances) to the use of those technologies. HIPAA and GINA are examples of this protection.

5. The Supreme Court has defined sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual harassment (both opposite-gender and same-gender). The Court has defined quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. The Court has not defined it to protect someone against discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation or preference, or transgender status. Discuss whether Title VII should be expanded to include those issues. Society and culture have evolved considerably in the last two decades. It was not all that long ago that many viewed ethnic minorities as different and not having the same rights as Whites. That, today, seems abhorrent. In a similar manner, the idea of Civil Rights was an evolutionary step to guarantee all people protection; therefore a person's sexual orientation or affiliations should also be protected under the Civil Rights acts in a similar manner as that of gender, age and ethnicity.