Indeed, employers are also inclined to conduct these tests, either clandestinely or overtly, of their employees to ensure they could be able to match workplace environment or would develop diseases amid genetic abnormalities. Indeed, employers regard such individuals that could develop diseases from workplace hazardous substances as ‘hypersensitive’ and usually are reluctant to induct them in organizational hierarchy to save future health care and social costs, avoid absenteeism, litigation and productivity losses. It is worthwhile to mention that workers having ‘thalassemia gene, sickle cell’ and other genetic disorders are among sensitive individuals who could develop diseases if they work in environment that contain chemicals such as ‘lead, benzene, carbon monoxide particles, cyanide’ etc (Andre & Velasquez, 1991) and (Miller, 2007).
Indeed, the proponents of Genetic Testing have raised many arguments for this strategy because employers may inform workers why business workplace may be deleterious for their health, which may lead to disabilities in the long-run. Hence, in this way, the workers could make rational decisions for personal health security and shun dangerous workplaces whenever they apply for job as well as could avoid untimely deaths because of chronic illnesses. Second, the tests enable employees to hire healthy and dynamic workers thereby increasing internal efficiency, lowering absenteeism and minimizing recruitment costs from reduction in employee turnover rates per annum. Third, the financial burden on government reduces because of low allocation for health budgets and fewer social security disbursements. Fourth, it has been considered the responsibility of an employer to offer safe and secure working environment to its employees. However, it may not be possible for business owners to offer 100% secure environment