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.
Rule 1 of the Internet: Don't call people stupid. You don't know them. They might be a genius.
I found the story entirely plausible.
I fixed that. I think it is possible but strength varies on when it happened. If it is claimed yo have happened in the last few years, then I think the BS flag can be warranted.
I do agree that calling people stupid on the intranet is rather well... stupid. I wouldn't say because the person is a genius or not, but because who knows of they are using historical data or anecdotes (whether they are edited out not is a different issue) for their data points.
these low end jobs were made for teens. teach them work ethic and how to work for stuff you want and gives them life experience. not their fault other people need low end jobs also.
You assume a lot, and you know what they say about assuming. A teen who gets a job can need the money just as much as anyone else, to pay for his education, to put food on his table. How do you know his money isnt needed to help support his household?
Just because someone is a teen, doesnt mean they dont NEED money. And kudos to them for going to work.
^^^ This. I worked as soon as I turned 16. The money I made went right back into the household. It also went to any after school activity I wanted to participate in. Not all families have money to just throw around. If I needed school clothes, I bought them. If I needed new shoes, I bought them. I didn't have an allowance since I was 12, so finally being able to go out on a Friday night was an amazing thing for me.
Let's flip this around. If you are of retirement age, why are you working? You are taking jobs away from people who need the money. If you didn't plan for retirement, who's fault is that? /sarcasm and you get the idea.
I don't get what people have against young people from stable homes going out of their own volition and earning money that they use to improve their lifestyle and gain experience. Isn't acting on one's desire to work and improve one's life a good thing?
If we are talking about a well off family, the children can improve their lives by going to college. Certainly if Mother and Father can b*tch about keeping all of their money to themselves, they can pay their own kids' way.
Jobs like Wendy's, Mcdonald's etc. aren't going to improve your life for the better anyway. I look at them as emergency employment, employment for people who desperately need the money. I immigrated here from Australia while pregnant at age 19. I have been employed by TGI Friday's ever since (I am now a manager) and it sickens me that the opportunity I got could have been denied to me (I was in a new country with zero family support and a child to care for) in favor of someone in a stable home for the sake of "experience".
For the final time, a teen who comes from a low income family does not count.
Let's flip this around. If you are of retirement age, why are you working? You are taking jobs away from people who need the money. If you didn't plan for retirement, who's fault is that? /sarcasm and you get the idea.
I'm sorry, but last time I checked, employers are looking for the most qualified workers, not the most needy. My brother and I both started working at McDonald's as teens and the money we made/make through our fast food and college jobs were/are put towards our education. I am in my last semester of college and thanks to multiple pt jobs, I will graduate debt free and will be able to help my mother and younger brothers more financially. Just because I wasn't on the brink of homelessness or starvation doesn't mean I didn't need or wasn't as deserving of the jobs and money. And if one can't beat a teen out in getting jobs, then that is on him/her, not the teen.
I fixed that. I think it is possible but strength varies on when it happened. If it is claimed yo have happened in the last few years, then I think the BS flag can be warranted.
I do agree that calling people stupid on the intranet is rather well... stupid. I wouldn't say because the person is a genius or not, but because who knows of they are using historical data or anecdotes (whether they are edited out not is a different issue) for their data points.
Thanks for fixing it. It's obviously a one-person anecdote. if you don't think anyone has been successful in the last few years, I'll post some anecdotes of my own.
Thanks for fixing it. It's obviously a one-person anecdote. if you don't think anyone has been successful in the last few years, I'll post some anecdotes of my own.
You're welcome. While I am not saying it isn't possible, it is definitely more improbable to have happened in the last few years compared to past years. Not discounting any anecdote you have, it's just the way of the economy that fewer have the ability to actually pull themselves up by their bootstraps now as oppose to 6/7/8/9/10 years ago. The poster we are both referring to also has a very old school and relatively out-of-date view on hiring at times. With those criteria, the BS flag flying up isn't just a typical "complaining, anti-bootstrapper view" but a somewhat justified view. Again, the stupid comment the replier made was wrong, but the heart of the argument is what counts and that is it is suspect, especially with vague details given about the situation.
If we are talking about a well off family, the children can improve their lives by going to college. Certainly if Mother and Father can b*tch about keeping all of their money to themselves, they can pay their own kids' way.
This isn't only about money.. this also about the employer's right to hire based on qualifications. This is also a young adults right to the choice of holding a job and gaining experience regardless of the parental financial status.
Jobs are never handed out based on need .. rarely is anything else.
Who will measure "need"? A government agency with the right collect such data?
Who will determine who gets help and who is denied opportunities? Government?
Who is going to force the employer to hire person A over person B ignoring qualifications? Government?
Doesn't sound like the type of country so many people have sacrificed to protect.
Dang it... My house is way too small for my growing family! I demand that my neighbors give up there home (twice the size and half the family members) based on my "need".
Quote:
Jobs like Wendy's, Mcdonald's etc. aren't going to improve your life for the better anyway. I look at them as emergency employment, employment for people who desperately need the money. I immigrated here from Australia while pregnant at age 19. I have been employed by TGI Friday's ever since (I am now a manager) and it sickens me that the opportunity I got could have been denied to me (I was in a new country with zero family support and a child to care for) in favor of someone in a stable home for the sake of "experience".
For the final time, a teen who comes from a low income family does not count.
So you came to this country, legally, poor, single parent and worked your rear end off to get to a better place in part because of provisions that protect you from descrimination; female, pregnant, an immigrant and young. All protected by Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, and Civil Rights Act of 1991 (among others).
Yet support the idea of job discrimination of others because of family status and age?
When you grow older... can't work as hard.. manage long hours.. move a bit slower than your younger coworkers, I sure hope you have retirement all set at an early age (40). Because its very well possible your employer sees the younger worker more "needy" of your position (still working towards paying off college bills, family, and home) because you just might be on the other side of the equation of discrimination.
Oh wait.. this is the US. We have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. So think for a bit and be thankful. Be very careful of what you wish for.
This isn't only about money.. this also about the employer's right to hire based on qualifications. This is also a young adults right to the choice of holding a job and gaining experience regardless of the parental financial status.
Jobs are never handed out based on need .. rarely is anything else.
Who will measure "need"? A government agency with the right collect such data?
Who will determine who gets help and who is denied opportunities? Government?
Who is going to force the employer to hire person A over person B ignoring qualifications? Government?
Doesn't sound like the type of country so many people have sacrificed to protect.
Dang it... My house is way too small for my growing family! I demand that my neighbors give up there home (twice the size and half the family members) based on my "need".
So you came to this country, legally, poor, single parent and worked your rear end off to get to a better place in part because of provisions that protect you from descrimination; female, pregnant, an immigrant and young. All protected by Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, and Civil Rights Act of 1991 (among others).
Yet support the idea of job discrimination of others because of family status and age?
When you grow older... can't work as hard.. manage long hours.. move a bit slower than your younger coworkers, I sure hope you have retirement all set at an early age (40). Because its very well possible your employer sees the younger worker more "needy" of your position (still working towards paying off college bills, family, and home) because you just might be on the other side of the equation of discrimination.
Oh wait.. this is the US. We have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. So think for a bit and be thankful. Be very careful of what you wish for.
Qualifications are not the issue being that the majority of kids are still in high school. I'm not the only voice in hiring decisions so as a team, say we have two candidates:
One is a very young person dressed to the nines. The other is a middle aged person in raggedy attire because (gasp) maybe that's all he can afford. Now the team is going to vote in favor of the first for some unspoken reason. We have one position and both have equal qualifications.
There has to be some determining factor in situations like this. You may hire one candidate because he speaks clearer than the other, but the other could have a speech impediment for all we know.
Age discrimination act- we have certain employers here that only hire 18 and older anyway.
Look at this from a human standpoint- you have to admit the economic unfairness.
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.
