Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, my friend. It is a classic example of a company that doesn't care about it's employees but it is NOT age discrimination. Firing someone because they are too old and firing someone because you can find someone to do their job for less money is not the same thing. There is nothing illegal about firing someone who makes 30 bucks an hour and hiring someone in to do the same job for 15 bucks an hour. If I fire a 55 year old making 30 bucks an hour and hire a 25 year old in at 30 bucks an hour then that's probably an age discrimination case. Unless the 55 year old simply wasn't doing his job. Luckily, most companies don't operate that way and many of the ones that would or could are union protected.
Huh? You just argued my point. Sometimes I thnk people like to argue on C-D just for the sake of argument. SMH
I see the opposite happening, a lot of young people get hired but quit in short stint when they realize the one's at management level are all old white men all with beautiful young women working as their secretaries.
What's left at most jobsites are middle aged folks because they don't complain and they don't just pack up and leave because they're worried about finding a job.
Young people typically go into start ups that offer more freedom from the 9-5 grind, growth, and less bureaucracy.
Maybe your son doesn't have any confidence because his mother is online talking to strangers about his problems and has likely emasculated him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by convextech
He is 40, for God's sake. He doesn't need his mother running around trying to fix his life.
^^ Wow, this is jumping to judgment without knowing the whole situation, isn't it??! Concern over one's son doesn't just suddenly cut off because someone gets older and leaves the house. She may not be "running around trying to fix his life", but offer words of hope/advice because they still communicate with what's going on in their lives. It just seems like a decent thing to do to be concerned for someone in the family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vision33r
I see the opposite happening, a lot of young people get hired but quit in short stint when they realize the one's at management level are all old white men all with beautiful young women working as their secretaries.
What's left at most jobsites are middle aged folks because they don't complain and they don't just pack up and leave because they're worried about finding a job.
Young people typically go into start ups that offer more freedom from the 9-5 grind, growth, and less bureaucracy.
^^ Young people don't need to be expecting to go from entry level to upper management in an unrealistically fast time frame. If there's talented and dedicated, they can definitely rise in the business world faster, but there's still a learning curve (not just with technical knowledge but experience and maturity) they need to go through.
With that said, if they find a better fit at a startup that fits them, and they can advance quickly, that's great....more power to them. But some young people have unrealistic expectations that they're going to just waltz into a high level without paying their dues with the blood, sweat, and tears (and time) that earns that respect.
And while I agree if there are few or no minorities in the upper ranks, the "old white men" that the above post flippantly refers to, often worked their butts off in more menial roles to achieve a high role, just as old non-white men and women did.
You would be wrong. It is very logical that one could be fired because they make more money than the company can pay someone else for the same position.
The employee, if he can be fired at will, obviously does not have a contractual right to be paid any particular amount. In other words, the employee does not make any amount of money. All that can be said is that, before the time of the firing, the employee made a certain amount of money. And if an employee is not making any particular amount of money, he can't be fired for making too much.
If the employee's compensation is in the employer's discretion, it is impossible for the employer to think the employee is making too much.
Quote:
I'm not sure why that confuses you.
I'm not the one who's confused.
Quote:
Age is irrelevant. Employee A is 30. He's been with the company 12 years. He makes $25.00 per hour. Company realizes that they can hire Candidate A for $16.00 per hour. It doesn't matter if Candidate A is 20 or 40 to the company.
Of course, it matters. The jury will say it's age discrimination if you fire an older worker to hire a younger worker without some explanation other than age. And in your example, if the replacement were the 20-year-old, the presumed explanation would be age, since you're assuming that the current employee was not offered the chance to work for the reduced wage. (If he had been, he would have kept his job or quit instead of being fired.)
The employee, if he can be fired at will, obviously does not have a contractual right to be paid any particular amount. In other words, the employee does not make any amount of money. All that can be said is that, before the time of the firing, the employee made a certain amount of money. And if an employee is not making any particular amount of money, he can't be fired for making too much.
If the employee's compensation is in the employer's discretion, it is impossible for the employer to think the employee is making too much.
I'm not the one who's confused.
Of course, it matters. The jury will say it's age discrimination if you fire an older worker to hire a younger worker without some explanation other than age. And in your example, if the replacement were the 20-year-old, the presumed explanation would be age, since you're assuming that the current employee was not offered the chance to work for the reduced wage. (If he had been, he would have kept his job or quit instead of being fired.)
Wow. You are beyond confused. It is a very simple concept. I'm not going to try to explain it to you. Bottom line is that most people who get fired aren't getting fired because of their age and it is NOT illegal to replace one worker with another worker who will work for less money. Period end of story.
If an employer disproportionately fires workers over 40 years old, it’s possible that the employer will be found to be engaging in illegal discrimination. For example, if a company fires older employees for economic reasons, they must fire younger employees who fall into the same category. They are guilty of age discrimination if they claim they only needed to fire 5 of the 10 employees, and it just so happened that 4 of the 5 fired were older and 4 of the 5 kept were younger.
I would also like to add, my son was not fired, he was laid off and the company stated they would not recall him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? You just argued my point. Sometimes I thnk people like to argue on C-D just for the sake of argument. SMH
Concern over one's son doesn't just suddenly cut off because someone gets older and leaves the house. She may not be "running around trying to fix his life", but offer words of hope/advice because they still communicate with what's going on in their lives. It just seems like a decent thing to do to be concerned for someone in the family.
