It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1. Besides discrimination based on age, what other types of employment discrimination would you describe as being "beneficial" to the employer, employee or both?
The Occupational Health and Safety legislation requires you, as an employer, to do everything you reasonably can to protect the health and safety of your workers.
While there are certainly jobs which might not be appropriate or even safe for older workers we cannot apply a categoric exclusion given the possibility of exceptions among the potential workers.
2. The shift in balance towards an older workforce also raises issues related to "knowledge transfer". The growing retirements of experienced, skilled workers is creating a talent drain in some industries. One example is in the fine machinery industry where retired machinists are being brought out of retirement with healthy incentives in order to help train younger workers and pass on the wisdom they acquired over decades of employment.
Lastly, the application of categoric discrimination is a violation of the individual right of equality. Each person has the right to be evaluated for employment based on his or her individual skills and suitability rather than be eliminated for it based on categoric assignment.
Your rights as an employee to work in a safe and healthy environment are given to you by law, and generally can't be changed or removed by your employer. The most important rights are:
* as far as possible, to have any risks to your health and safety properly controlled.
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.
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.
Socratic question 1. How would the elimination of the ADEA benefit society, employers and workers?
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).
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.
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 B-movie actress.
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.
This was a very short debate and kind of disappointing with the available material out there for the subject. I guess the holidays just interfered..
Anyway: One with the judgment.
This debate broke down to proof. Both debaters made many claims but only one provided any proof for their claims.
“Nationwide in the US mandatory retirement age for police officers is between 60 and 65”
Where was the proof for this statement?
While both debaters were about equal in their input, intrepid far and away proved his points with source material.
Debate to intrepid
Intrepid comes right out of the gate with a focus on safety and as such provides a sound reasoning for age discrimination. Ecoparity's opening post didn't really leave any clue as to his direction so I am left wondering.
Intrepid misses his first rebuttal and Ecoparity jumps into his argument with some very interesting points, mainly that the generation gap and the longevity of the baby boomers has inherently made age a reasonable point of consideration in the workplace. He cites Japan correctly though I would have liked if there was some sourcing. His point on knowledge transfer is an interesting one but comes out as an underestimation of the younger generation (after all, the older generation had to learn it from somewhere and many were in a position to pick it up 'on the fly') and as such is a bit reaching in my opinion. He finally cites the infringement of personal rights as a reason to not use age discrimination, which was an expected tactic and one that does carry some weight.
Intrepid answers the infringement point with unexpected ease, citing safety as a reason. However, Ecoparity returns in his next post and broadens the parameters of the debate citing that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was meant to protect individuals "40 years of age or older". Intrepids reply to this in his next post, calling it irrelevant, is offbase as the releasing of older employers in many cases could be the precurser to the hiring of younger employees, which does indicate a hiring practice.
That point is moot, however as there are no further posts from eco parity and while I think that up until his departure it was an interesting battle, Intrepid gets the obvious nod here into the second round.