Orville W. Taylor, ContributorPrior to gaining employment, prospective workers should be tested for the propensity towards eating too much. They should be also screened for their inclination to walk out in the street.
And if they don't like vegetables and fruits and drink more than three cups of black coffee per day, they should be tested for caffeine. Test employees for excessive consumption of cattle products and all that bull.
As a matter of fact, bring in the World Anti-Doping Agency and test the Jamaica Employers' Federation (JEF) for abnormally high levels of testosterone because only a preponderance of this hormone or its precursors could make it go nuts in trying to enforce and maintain its ludicrous policy on HIV/AIDS.
Sheer hypocrisy
Once again, the sheer hypocrisy of some employers is cause for concern. The JEF has publicly defended its policy of testing workers prior to employment as well as during one's tenure. In the face of opposition from the Medical Association of Jamaica and the Jamaica Confederation of Trade Unions, JEF's executive director, Jacqueline Coke-Lloyd insists that it is the right of employers to test. However, "What we also maintain is that, if at all they do test, then it should remain confidential."
I know Coke-Lloyd to be a very sensible person, so I honestly do not believe that she is actually expressing her personal opinion. The stance of the federation is as indefensible as is the fear that AIDS is a gay disease. And the only way one can see the logic clearly is if one closes one's eyes and looks in the dark.
Her point that there is no law to prevent it is correct.
Furthermore, in any contract, employers have the right to put in provisions to protect their interests as long as there are no statutes or case laws which militate against them.
Typically therefore, in the absence of laws to shield workers from injustice, employers have a free hand. Nonetheless, there is a massive difference between having the legal right to do something and being morally right and just in doing so.
For example, one has the legal right to have sex with a giddy 16-year-old by promising her things and tricking her into thinking that the BMW in which she is riding will infect her with the wealth of its owner. But, is this right?
ILO Code
In 2001, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) developed and published its Code of Practice on HIV/AIDS and the world of work.
For the uninitiated, the ILO is the most democratic arm of the United Nations (U.N.) as it comprises membership from government, unions and employers. All member countries and organistions are expected to adhere to its principles.
The JEF is a fully participating member of the ILO. So, it does not have the luxury to pretend that it is not morally bound by the code.
The code is not a willy-nilly, dilly-dally document advanced by the Minister of Health. It is a carefully thought out product of international experts and is described by Stephen Lewis, the U.N.'s special envoy on AIDS in Africa as, "The best single document on HIV/AIDS the U.N. has produced."
Key elements in the code include Section 4.2: "Non-discrimination: There should be no discrimination or stigmatisation of workers on the basis of real or perceived HIV status" and Section 4.6, which states, "HIV/AIDS screening should not be required of job applicants or persons in employment."
Section 4.8 asserts that "HIV infection is not a cause for termination of employment. Persons with HIV-related illnesses should be able to work for as long as medically fit in appropriate conditions." Even a cock-eyed porn star looking in the opposite direction can see this lucid imperative from the ILO.
Beyond this, CARICOM, in addressing HIV/AIDS, has developed a plan designed to incorporate "sustained advocacy at the highest levels of the societies aimed at reducing discrimination against those people with HIV/AIDS." In countries such as The Bahamas, it is illegal to test and discriminate.
So then, if the JEF does not intend to treat HIV-positive people differently - which is what discrimination is - the question is, what does it want to do with the information?
Furthermore, given the sensitivity of the 'disease', how can the senior managers of the companies guarantee that their subordinate non-medical staff will keep the information confidential?
Unsecured information
Will all the records be the purview of executives only? Or will the information be sealed in the medical department in a file maintained by the company nurse? Will there be a clerk or security guard to monitor or maintain vigil over the documents?
If a worker's positive HIV status is leaked to the public by a member of staff will the employers have the necessary insurance to indemnify the company?
Given the fact that custodians of confidential health information often leak like ice trucks, how many employers are willing to take the risk of one of its visible or activist workers suing the company because the unsecured information ruined his/her career as a television anchorman/-woman or news editor? I use the media example because it is a short step from 'medium' to 'large.'
Government's policy on HIV/AIDS states that, "there is no justification for HIV/AIDS screening for the purposes of exclusion from employment or work processes."
Health Minister Horace Dalley, like his predecessors, had the opportunity in his capacity as labour minister to give teeth to the policy by enacting legislation. This is an obligation of governments under the ILO's code.
Therefore, based on the ILO policy and the regional labour standards, the government needs to stop pussyfooting the whole time and pass the legislation forthwith. Thank God, there is a cure for Arrogance, Insensitivity, Disingenuity and Stubbornness (AIDS).
Dr. Orville Taylor is a senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
