Originally posted by ecoparity
Socratic question #1- If you were an HR person, would you hire a 70 year old to be a rookie on any given police force?
Nationwide in the US mandatory retirement age for police officers is between 60 and 65 (with the latter being a recent increase in response to the
social changes I previously mentioned combined with a need for the experienced officers). Your example of a 70 year old is extreme and paints an
incorrect point of view on the issue as do your other examples which also lean on people who are far past retirement age rather than the people who
are most involved in the legal actions surrounding age discrimination cases, (40 to 55 years of age on the average).
Jobs like police and fireman where physical danger could exist for older employees are allowed to set physical requirements for those positions.
Potential new hires have to pass a very extensive and difficult test of physical fitness and existing positions require scheduled standards testing in
order to maintain that physical condition.
EXACTLY. That applies to more than just cops. Is a company going to hire a 60 yo
bricklayer? Why do we have these standards? It's to protect
the employee, the coworkers, the public and the employer from lawsuit. Ability DOES decrease with age. FACT.
If the local bank were to suddenly implement a set of strict physical requirements in order to eliminate the older and higher paid employees
they would probably lose a lawsuit based on the anti age discrimination law whereas an airline could do the same thing and be able to argue that
airplane crew members need to meet certain standards in order to evacuate passengers in an emergency.
The establishment of the anti discrimination act in the US in 1967 gives workers the ability to challenge situations where employers violate their
right of equality in the workplace, the judicial review of the facts of each case is where each situation can be judged on its merits.
In the US, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment
discrimination based on age. This isn't just about retirement age "Wal-mart greeters", this is an issue affecting men and women at the peak earning
stage of their careers. The act was passed because unethical companies were establishing a pattern of discrimination against older workers, not
because of physical ability or "safety" but because they wanted to employ only younger workers who earned less and often found ways to eliminate the
older workers who were approaching the full pension benefits age. Unfortunately the workplace proved incapable of policing itself and acting in an
ethical manner which brought about the passing of the ADEA.
IRRELEVANT. We are not discussing existing employees. The topic is:
"Age discrimination is a perfectly acceptable hiring practice for employers.”
We are discussing age discrimination as it relates to hiring new employees.
Socratic question 1. How would the elimination of the ADEA benefit society, employers and workers?
It wouldn't benefit anyone. However, it's not the topic of discussion.
Socratic question 2. If the ADEA and similar statutes were repealed, how would workers be protected from being laid off as they reach peak
salary and pension benefits? (Usually occurring at 40 to 50 yrs of age).
I would mean no protection to workers my age. Again however, it's irrelevant, not the topic of discussion.
OK, we've looked at the age discrimination with older folks, how about younger ones.
In the adult film industry, note the term "adult", models and actors have to be 18 years of age. Those under 18 are discriminated against because
they are too young. This is legally and morally binding. There can hardly be a market for this right? Um no, it's a growing industry:
Over the past four years, the number of reports of child pornography sites to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) has
grown by almost 400 percent. Law-enforcement officials are particularly disturbed by the increased number of commercial sites that offer photos of
exploited children in return for a credit-card number. Those fighting child porn say it has become a global multibillion-dollar industry.
Surely this is something that the young folk aren't interested in though. Again, uh huh:
Traci Elizabeth Lords and Tracy Lords, is an American film actress, producer, film director, writer and singer. She first achieved notoriety for
her underage appearances in pornographic films and Penthouse magazine (she was 15 years old in her first film), later becoming a television and
So here are my Socratic questions:
#1- Do you agree with the discrimination of those under 18 to pose/act in adult material?
#2- How do you feel about the producers that do NOT discriminate against those under 18?
#3- Would you be comfortable working at a company that doesn't discriminate against those under 18? Basically, kiddie porn.