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.
These companies could easily take an older employee who makes a lot of money and ask him either to take a pay cut or go elsewhere.
But nooooo, they simply have to cut him and replace him with a younger worker.
Same principle when employers bypass older applicants even if they are willing to work for a lower salary.
Older people aren't even given that basic courtesy of a chance.
That, mi amigos, is classic age discrimination.
I don't know why people continue to deny or sugarcoat this.
They don't want us or fire us because they don't like old people purely from a physical/emotional aspect. They equate old with being cranky, slow, grumpy and stubborn. No logic at all. They want us in old folks home or grouped with all those other old people who no longer have relevance in society.
When i talked about my son's job, i was talking about 20 years of his life to a company. It not only put him on unemployment at 40 years old, it destroyed his confidence in himself as a solid worker.
Maybe your son doesn't have any confidence because his mother is online talking to strangers about his problems and has likely emasculated him.
That my friend is a classic example of age discrimination, if the terminated employee is over the age of 40.
Let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. A company could theoretically maximize its profit margins by continually turning overs its workforce as employees reach a certain amount of longevity (aka age). Those recently ousted workers then enter a job market that systemically favors younger workers. What protection would an older worker have for economic security as they age? Enter the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. An employer better have a better business case for terminating an employee than their seniority/cost.
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.
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.
Lets say you go to hire a Plumber, Painter, Electrician, Landscaper etc. and you do three bids.
A 30 year old, 40 year old and a 50 year old show up for each job.
The 30 year old is 20 bucks an hour, 40 year old 30 bucks and hour and 50 year old is 40 bucks an hour who do you hire.
Maybe for something big like a main electric panel or main sewer line I hire the more expensive folk.
But 99% of us would hire the 30 year old. Heck even if all three made the same salary for landscaping I would take younger one.
Huh? Your son is 40, you should know by now that you can't fix every little boo boo and make it better for him. If he feels that he has been unfairly fired due to age discrimination, he needs to go to an employment lawyer and see if he has a case. You need to stay out of this and only offer quiet support if he asks for it. He is 40, not 60 and he can probably find another job.
My son, who is 40 years old, and two other men: another man was over 40 and the 3rd man was close to retirement were laid of and replaced with younger men who work for less pay. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 could they take legal action?
Anyone can sue anyone for pretty much anything. But can the plaintiff win his/her case? That's the true test of the strength of a legal case (and/or the competence of one's lawyers). One particularly interesting civil legal case sticks in my mind. It was one in which many people thought the plaintiff couldn't possibly win, yet against all odds, he did.
In 2011, a guy sued the Hilton Hotel chain for $0.75, the charge for one copy of a USA Today edition the hotel delivered to his room. The hotel told him the only way the charge would be removed is if he unsubscribed to the newspaper, but he never ordered the paper in the first place; automatic charged subscriptions for hotel guests were the default. So he sued, because he said he didn't agree to the service in the first place, so he shouldn't have to unsubscribe to an unauthorized charge (a persuasive argument, IMO).
Apparently the hotel chain had been doing this to untold numbers of guests for years, and few even noticed. They automatically delivered the newspaper to all guests every morning, charging them $0.75/day for a paper the majority of them didn't request and probably didn't want. They added this charge in fine print onto every customer's bill, and most customers just signed for it, either not noticing the charge, or not even fighting such a menial amount. This customer did, won his $0.75 (plus court fees), and more importantly, Hilton ceased and desisted its practice of charging customers for an unwanted paper without their knowledge. Many people bashed this guy saying he filed a trivial lawsuit, but I disagree. It wasn't trivial at all, because it was about an important principle: transparent billing and authorized charges to customers. He showed the Hilton that one customer's complaint can be a giant thorn in the side of a company, and sometimes greed doesn't pay.
What field do they work in? What type of work did they do and what were their job titles? What type of company did they work for and how many other employees work there? Did the company lay off other people at the same time? What reason did the company give him for the layoff?
You haven't given us enough information for us to be able to offer you a good opinion as to whether this situation was truly age discrimination or whether age likely had little to do with it.
Back towards the end of WWII my father was driving a creamery truck. Back then dairy men would put their milk in as many 10 gallon cans with their number on the can as needed. Drivers would have a route to pick up the full cans and deliver the empty ones that had been steam cleaned. One of the drivers was a year away from retirement, and they gave him 2 weeks notice. They were looking to save paying the man a pension.
My dad and another driver went down to the other big nationally known creamery, and asked them if they could get him the entire route if they would hire the driver, and the said yes and they would pay his pension. It was part of the valley they could not even get one dairy to sell to them. He had been on that route for about 23 years. Then they went out to the people on his route where the dairies were now ran by the older owners sons. They had known the driver since they were little children and knew him as a good friend. When they explained what was going on, they all signed a petition the day he was gone, so were their milk. They took it back and handed it to the office manager and left. The next morning that older driver was called in, and told it had just been a joke and they knew he was getting older and should not pick up the cans any more, so they were assigning a helper to go with him on the route to do the driving and loading the milk while he kept up good relations with the dairymen. He loved his job, and did a lot of visiting while the helper did all the work right up till he retired 2 years later by his choice. If the dairy had lost that route, they would have lost 25% of the milk they needed to run the creamery as he had far the biggest route out of 6. They could not afford to lose 25% of their business, which was making ice cream powder for the military, so they could mix the powder with water and freeze at military locations all over the world. They would have lost the contract, when their deliveries could not full fill the contracts. That would have put that creamery out of business, 20 years before they closed it down for good and the big food company that owned it did not want that to happen. Hauling milk 400 miles from other dairy areas by tanker, was not practical back in those days before they were refrigerated. The did not dare fire my father and the other driver that got the signatures, as the same thing would have happened and they knew it.
I always remember this, and wish at times like that the older workers were being laid off, could put that much pressure on the company, so they did not dare fire someone.
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.
