Age discrimination is rampant and it is supported by the Human Resource
Departments of many of the Fortune 500 companies. (Not all) If you work for a
large Corporation heed the advice to contact an attorney immediately if you feel
there is an age discrimination problem. Do not follow the Corporation's
HR Departments guidelines that legal council not be secured. Always take a
witness and/or an attorney with you to any meeting that a Corporation's HR
Department sets up. They will have their witnesses so you need yours. Do not be
intimidated. I only wish I had taken this advice when a fortune 100
Company falsified and then threatened me. The Manager lied to me when he
didn't think that anyone would hear him......also a little side note. In
Utah it is 100% legal to record ANY conversation as long as one party is
involved in that conversation. This Manager was caught on tape lying. Just
don't think any HR Department has your rights in their sights, they are
there to protect the Company, and sometimes at a very dishonest cost.
Do the people who support this bill also support the ending of the "senior
discount" at restaurants and other stores. Doesn't a "senior
discount" discriminate based on age?Plus, seniors are BY FAR the
wealthiest generation in the history of our country. The idea that the rich
somehow need a break over teenagers is laughable.Further, employers
should be allowed to hire whomever they want for whatever reason they want -
they should also be allowed to fire any employee for any reason or for no
reason.We need fewer laws not more.
Employers should be able to hire and fire at will.Look at what we
have in schools and other civil service jobs where it is virtually impossible to
fire even the most incompetent workers because of various
"protections."Howe about some "protection" for the
folks who do the really hard work running companies and trying to provide the
best products and services for their customers.No one should be
guaranteed a job forever. But, if a worker of any age is really good, they will
keep their job.
I know of companys now who are going through layoffs getting rid of older
workers who have higher than average salaries. When employees get targeted in
this way, people need protection. It has nothing to do with protecting poor
performing employees as some suggest.
Outside-View,Business owners should be free. They should be free to
do whatever they want (including fail and go bankrupt). And, you
should be free to not shop at a business that fires people just because they are
old.Why do we need another law here??Should we pass a law that
says Outside-View can only shop at stores that hire lots of old people even
though that store's goods are more expensive?If you're not
willing to accept a law forcing you to spend more on goods then why force a
business owner to keep expensive employees??
I bet you a lot of these supporters were against the legislation that would have
protected LGBT workers from discrimination.How can one form of
discrimination be ok, and not another?
@DN Subscriber."Employers should be able to hire and fire at
will." You will be relieved to know that Utah is an "at
will" state and while an employer may not fire you for race, religion, sex,
age?, he/she can fire you if he doesn't like your looks, your politics, or
"the cut of your jib." For a senior worker a firing can be
the end of life literally. As a Marxist I have a very different
view of labor. Remember labor makes the stuff or produces the service. Even
though they are ripped away from what they produce, "alienated from what
they make," their labor is embodied in the product. I emphatically disagree
with your view and in time your view will be as archaic as Jim Crow laws and
women not being allowed to vote. Because labor's sweat is embodied in the
product, they have rights.
If employers can hire and fire at will, then employees should be able to do the
same by making them an offer they can refuse. "If I'm not working here
anymore, then neither are you." Everyone has vunerabilites, just find out
what there's is and exploite it.A collegue was fired froma an
HBCU simply based on age and race, but the EEOC stated that "Black colleges
are allowed to discriminate based on race because they are Black colleges."
So much for support from federal law that makes discrimination based on race or
age illegal and this after the Presdient of the colleg made the statement
"There are too many White folks teaching at this Black college." If a
White college president had made the same public statement, Jesse Jackson would
have been all overe this like, well "White on rice."
ManInTheMiddle and DN Subscriber here is your reality check, YOU are the next
generation of older workers over 50 years of age. YOUR world is temporarily
perfect. YOU will scream the loudest when discrimination hits you in the face.
Until you are there you have NO CLUE as to what is going on. Seniors in America
are being forced back into the work place. Their retirements (if they have one)
have little or no value. Prior to the Obamacare laws medical costs have forced
many seniors into bankruptcy causing them to lose their home and assets. You can
be completely wiped out financially by one illness in your family. All it takes
is one back injury, cancer, car accident or mental break down. Do not ever thing
you are invincible! If you don't believe discrimination is not
alive and well in this day and age then you had better wake up. Your reality
check is that you are next and don't think it will not happen to you. Age is coming at you like a runaway train.
If you are terminating people because they make more you are not discriminating
based on age. You are basing your decision on cost. If someone does not add
more value, but costs more, you have a problem.The interesting thing
with anti discrimination laws is that they work one way. If an employee does
not like their bosses age, race, gender, etc., they can quit. Why should the
boss have to put up with you if you do not have to put up with them.An employer is the one with its assets on the line. If an employee is
unproductive he or she should be for able regardless of his or her age, race,
gender, etc. These laws simply make it easier to sew the company and are
usually used by employees who do not produce or are otherwise a problem. A
company should not have to retain an employee simply because they fall in some
little group. Otherwise, people will start subtly screening out those types of
people at the front end.
Come to St. George, spend some time shopping in the area.One will find
that many of the older workers do not appear to have the speed and stamina
necessary for an 8 hour shift in the busier businesses.Obviously, the
business owners are trying to help the senior population in this area.However, one will see the older worker for only a short time at the
business.This is unfortunate, but if customers cannot be served in a
timely manner....Observe and learn.
I appreciate such laws, but I'm just always mystified that they are
necessary in the first place. My naive nature suggests that it should just be
common sense: You treat people nicely and honestly, end of discussion!And yet we are needing laws to tell people its not okay to lie, cheat,
swindle, injure, and so forth. At the same time we have public education
threatening us not to teach good standards in school -- by reason of the
separation of church and state.I know, this is simplistic at best,
but frustrating none the less.
Age discrimination is rampant. I know, I've seen it and have been a victim
of it. And no, these people were not 'bums'. Back in the 1970's
employers were terrified of age discrimination, either direction. We need some
teeth back in the law.
I don't see why seniors need extra legislation. As a group, seniors/boomers
(like myself - born after World War II) have had natural advantages that other
generations have not enjoyed. Marketing, politics, etc all cater to
seniors/boomers just because they are such a wealthy and large demographic. The
whole system is already distorted in their favour, so why do we need to further
'protect' this very powerful group in our society?
Did anybody actually read this article before commenting? The headline says
that "most" Utahns support anti-age discrimination legislation, but the
only people polled were over 50. Last time I checked, there were more than a
few adults out there in the 18-49 age range. There's no hint as to how
they would have voted.And as someone well into "seniorhood",
I wholeheartedly support getting rid of the senior discount.
Man in the middle & DN subscriber, The "senior discount" is a
marketing tool, nothing more. Seniors workers can, and do face real
I see it all the time in hiring, but since the hiring process is by nature a
subjective one, it's impossible to prove."We went in a different
direction", "You have excellent qualifications, but we felt that there
was another who would be a better match", and so on. In reality,
it's that your decades of experience make you more expensive than a less
qualified rookie.Lately, even the rookies are having rough sailing, so
imagine what it's like for older workers.
This "old people are poor" line is tired. Old people are the RICHEST
segment of our society. So taking a job from a 20 something to give it to a 60
something is nonsensical. 60 somethings have had decades to save and invest.
Most have done a good job and for those who haven't they should look to
their families, churches, civic groups, and neighbors for supplemental support.
That's why family and community are so important.We can not let
the elderly continue this generational theft. "Age discrimination" laws
like these are just one more example of the elderly taking from other
generations. Read Stan Drunkemiller on this topic. The average baby
boomer will receive $327,400 more from the government than they pay in taxes.
Yet children born now will pay $420,600 more than they get back. The elderly have spent more than they've taxed themselves. You are
leaving us with now $17 Trillion worth of debt that you wouldn't pay off
rather you've left it to us to pay off for you - now you want us to keep
you employed even though someone else is more profitable? Your
greed seems limitless.
why would anyone think it is ok to discriminate on the basis of age.??
Age discrimination has always been there, whether it is the old argument of not
hiring someone who had the education or training but lacked experience. Most job
openings specify both education and experience as requirements and also use them
as criteria in there company pay structure. In large companies for years they
paid to keep employees based on their assessed job performance. Raises were
established based first on profitability of the company, then established a
range of raises based on individual performance. Excellent workers got more than
just getting by employees.Some level of discrimination is always
built in, laws provide protection for those who suffer unilaterally and
unfairly. Business owners always make their case to keep laws and
government regulation off THEIR backs but insist on all the protections they can
get from the government. Class discrimination is patently wrong at
its core, and it should not matter whether the class distinction is religious
belief, sexual orientation, political or ethnic affiliation, age, race or, in
this melting pot, national origin.In law all are entitled to equal