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.
Overwhelmingly, when I have asked bosses/managers this question (not with me as their underling, but as a matter of interest), that's what the reason has been.
Agree. It is all about cheapness. Not quality. Not excellence. Take a hit to the bottom line? That's ok too.
Health care is the big one. The older the employee pool, the higher the group insurance. Since most employers pay a large chunk of the insurance premium, they're very aware that hiring an older worker can cost them more in extra insurance premiums for all employees than the salary of the older employee they just hired.
Yes that is true. And if we had universal health care, that would disappear.
But also big is that older people are much more difficult to fire or lay off. Employers hate age discrimination suits. They want to be able to get rid of employees if they want or need to.
Yes that is true. And if we had universal health care, that would disappear.
But also big is that older people are much more difficult to fire or lay off. Employers hate age discrimination suits. They want to be able to get rid of employees if they want or need to.
But if they don't hire old people, then they are age discriminating anyway and liable. I think age discrimination being because of healthcare or discrimination lawsuits is a red herring.
But if they don't hire old people, then they are age discriminating anyway and liable. I think age discrimination being because of healthcare or discrimination lawsuits is a red herring.
That is irrelevant and no way it could be proved that you were not hired because of your age. Doubt any attorney would even take it on. It is not a red herring. Corporations think this way.
If you fire an employee over 50 and there is not a good reason (or even if there is), they can sue for age discrimination. Most attorneys take those cases on a contingency basis, so they get a percentage, but don't necessarily charge on a regular fee basis. Person suing has no reason not to sue, and is fully within their rights to sue. The only reason someone would not is if they are trying to get a job in the same field and it would prevent that.
If you fire an employee over 50 and there is not a good reason (or even if there is), they can sue for age discrimination. Most attorneys take those cases on a contingency basis, so they get a percentage, but don't necessarily charge on a regular fee basis.
It is excessively hard to prove age discrimination so much so that I would say it doesn't exist any longer as a remedy. Even if they replace you with a younger employee that doesn't per se do it. Tons of people do not understand this and pay the price for it.
I think it might be a better thing if there was a movement to encourage everyone to plan into their career the fact that they are on borrowed time after 50 and plan accordingly. Instead people don't think about it, think they will work to 70 with pay raises all the way and when they get let go, SUE, which probably won't get them anything anyway.
It is excessively hard to prove age discrimination so much so that I would say it doesn't exist any longer as a remedy. Even if they replace you with a younger employee that doesn't per se do it. Tons of people do not understand this and pay the price for it.
I think it might be a better thing if there was a movement to encourage everyone to plan into their career the fact that they are on borrowed time after 50 and plan accordingly. Instead people don't think about it, think they will work to 70 with pay raises all the way and when they get let go, SUE, which probably won't get them anything anyway.
I strongly disagree. I have worked in the legal field, and it does pay. I know of many companies that 'settled' age discrimination suits just to make them go away. Offering someone $10k to drop their case works for an older person who needs it, and it is better than nothing. It doesn't hurt the companies to pay off someone for 10k.
That is irrelevant and no way it could be proved that you were not hired because of your age. Doubt any attorney would even take it on. It is not a red herring. Corporations think this way.
If you fire an employee over 50 and there is not a good reason (or even if there is), they can sue for age discrimination. Most attorneys take those cases on a contingency basis, so they get a percentage, but don't necessarily charge on a regular fee basis. Person suing has no reason not to sue, and is fully within their rights to sue. The only reason someone would not is if they are trying to get a job in the same field and it would prevent that.
By that reasoning you couldn't prove discrimination in hiring based on any protected classes .
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.
.
