TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: the OTHER test From:BMcClain -at- centura -dot- com To:Sarah -dot- Bane -at- spectrumretail -dot- com Date:Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:14:38 -0400
Sorry, no remonstrance intended -- just the way of the litigious and
imperfect world. When Joe CEO reads in Inc. magazine about some liability
issue, next thing you know, suddenly HR is making everybody contribute a
sample for the lab.
Coming next: Genetic screening a la the movie GATTACA.
Bill McClain
("Writers are always selling somebody out." - Joan Didion)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Bane [mailto:Sarah -dot- Bane -at- spectrumretail -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 4:41 PM
To: BMcClain -at- centura -dot- com
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Subject: RE: the OTHER test
B. McClain remonstrates:
~|>We're way off-topic with employee screening at nursing
~|>homes, but I'll
~|>defend the practice by pointing out that nursing homes have
~|>employed some
~|>real losers through negligence or tolerance or both, with
~|>tragic results. I
~|>think pee tests are atrocious, and pre-employment health
~|>screening ought to
~|>be blatantly illegal, but criminal background and credit
~|>history are valid
~|>targets of scrutiny for some occupations.
Yes, it is off topic. Another listmember has already written me
privately on this. Since B. has addressed this on the list, I'll respond
here lest others think I have no regard for the safety of nursing-home
residents, children in day care, etc. I have no problem with such
screenings being conducted on people who work in nursing homes. However,
I was not at a nursing home. I was at the corporate headquarters, which
houses departments such as IT, accounting, and purchasing whose
employees have no contact with residents. In fact, the company in
question owns or runs hundreds of facilities (as I learned to call them)
but does not happen to have one in the same city where the headquarters
is located. The drug and criminal-background screenings were not doing
anything to protect residents.
Sarah Bane
Technical Writer, ProphetLine, Inc.
and Associate Instructor, Westark College
sarah -dot- bane -at- spectrumretail -dot- com
sbane -at- systema -dot- westark -dot- edu
Opinions expressed are my own and not endorsed by ProphetLine or by
Westark.
