Most Utahns back bill to protect older workers from discrimination

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • rick122948 boise, id
    April 4, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    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 protection.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    April 3, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    why would anyone think it is ok to discriminate on the basis of age.??

  • ManInTheMiddle SANDY, UT
    April 3, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Buzzards LEHI, UT
    April 3, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    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.

  • stevo123 slc, ut
    April 3, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Man in the middle & DN subscriber, The "senior discount" is a marketing tool, nothing more. Seniors workers can, and do face real discrimination.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 3, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    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.

  • KanataHal Ottawa, 00
    April 3, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    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?

  • Vince Ballard South Ogden, UT
    April 3, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    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.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    April 3, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    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.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    April 3, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    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.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    April 3, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    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.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 3, 2014 5:43 a.m.

    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.

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    April 3, 2014 4:50 a.m.

    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."

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2014 12:33 a.m.

    @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.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 2, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    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?

  • ManInTheMiddle SANDY, UT
    April 2, 2014 11:25 p.m.


    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??

  • Outside-View Federal Way, WA
    April 2, 2014 10:55 p.m.

    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.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    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.

  • ManInTheMiddle SANDY, UT
    April 2, 2014 5:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 5:32 p.m.

    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.