.

[Tubaryan12]

Yeah, right.

Thanks, Bloke, I was wondering when someone would bring up that example

[Mark]

...vinegar-based barbecue vs. pit-smoked beef brisket.

Since leaving Texas, I really haven't found any good barbeque joints. There are a lot around here, but the owners all seem to be from Alabama or Mississippi, where they apparenlty have no concept of good barbeque.

[funkcicle]

Further, where was it stipulated that membership in this group is equivalent to "paid employment?" I may have missed it, but I did not see anywhere that the members of this group are paid - did I miss something?

The ad specified that the applicant must be a union member or willing to join the union. That says to me that not only is this a paying gig, it's a WELL-PAYING gig. Looks like a really fun job, too.

funk"who makes on average twice as much at union gigs than self-had gigs"cicle

[Lew]

So I guess the answer to Euphdad's original question is, "it depends."

Yeah, that really cleared things up for me.

Alex confirmed that this ad is in violation of Federal law. No action could be taken unless the group has more than 20 employees (or some other number depending on local law) and if a potential applicant over 40 were to want to apply and be denied. The answer is still that the ad on its face is a violation of the ADEA. Whether it is actionable is what depends.

Whether it's reasonable that this type of limitation be illegal is another question. I think that there are legitimate reasons for this type of job criteria, but that doesn't change the law.

[Alex F]

[quote=Shakespeare was right: Kill all the lawyers...

Tubadad[/quote]

I am sure that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Saddam share, or shared, your sentiment.

Alex "making no apologies" F.

[Alex F]

Shakespeare was right: Kill all the lawyers... Tubadad

I am well aware of the context of Shakespeare's language. My comment addressed you use of the phrase.

O God . . . writing like a strict constructionist. WHAT HAVE I BECOME????

[windshieldbug]

[ThomasP]

I am speaking from sheer ignorance. If an employer can require that applicant X have a Bachelor's Degree why then can't that same employer require applicant X be 18-32 or ??-?? years of age? If I am running a business I want to be able to choose my employees. If I want everyone at my gas station to have Ph.D's then so be it. If I want them to all be 22 then so be it. The rockettes are required to be a certain height correct? Doesn't that violate the Disabilities act? Little people and dwarfs or giants and big people are discriminated against with that right?

Here's the solution to this problem, if I ever own a business, I'll contact the local, state, and federal government, and tell them to provide my business with appropriate employees. I will then hang a red flag on a pole over the door, and I'll make sure to get that same government to kick my grandmother out of her house because I want to sell tubas!!!!

Then again, I can just move to China....

[Lew]

I am speaking from sheer ignorance. If an employer can require that applicant X have a Bachelor's Degree why then can't that same employer require applicant X be 18-32 or ??-?? years of age? If I am running a business I want to be able to choose my employees. If I want everyone at my gas station to have Ph.D's then so be it. If I want them to all be 22 then so be it. The rockettes are required to be a certain height correct? Doesn't that violate the Disabilities act? Little people and dwarfs or giants and big people are discriminated against with that right?
....

I am not a labor lawyer, but have worked in human resources and as a Chief Operating Officer of a company so have some experience in hiring and firing. A simple answer is because the law prohibits age discrimination, but allows differentiation based on skills, training, education, or intelligence. A longer answer is that anybody can get a college degree with enough intelligence and work. Many people have gotten college degress even starting out with no money. On the other hand nothing I can do will make me 30 again.

I would wager that the Rockettes can demonstrate a "bona fide occupational qualification," which allows them an exception. Yes, if you want everyone at your gas station to have a Ph.D. you could require that, but you might have trouble finding employees (unless they had Ph.Ds in music). Again age is different. Whether it should be is another question.

I have personally witnessed older employees being laid off and then younger people being hired as replacements because they would work for less money. I don't think this is ethical and I think that in many cases it is short sighted, but I'm not sure that it is our government's responsibility to protect us from such practices. Of course what I, or you, think doesn't matter in this case. Congress passed a law and the president signed it making age discrimination illegal.

As someone who is almost 50 I appreciate having recourse if I were to lose my job because of my age. I still question whether it's appropriate for the government to control this, but I appreciate it.

The Americans with Disabilities act is different from the age discrimination laws, and has different criteria. An employer has to make reasonable accomodations, but there are more jobs where certain disabilities would clearly disqualify someone than those for which age would disqualify them. Companies and people discriminate in hiring and firing all of the time. If you are hiring an accountant it is legal to discriminate against someone without an accounting degree or experience. There are a fixed set of criteria, determined by our Congress, which can't be used to discriminate. Age just happens to be one of those, end even then, the age of 40 was set as the age when discrimination is actionable. You can hire a 22 yr old instead of a 39 year old because of their age, and nothing can be done.

[ThomasP]

I generally understand the law, but my point is that if one can discriminate based on intelligence then they should be able to discriminate based on other qualifications.

I do think there should be certain safeguards against employers firing older people to hire younger people to save money. Proof of incompetency in the work place should be produced.

The government's own contradiction is the problem I have.

[Alex F]

My response to Thomas P.

Federal and state anti-discrimination laws generally prohibit the use of race, sex, national origin, age, disability, and religion as factors in an employer's decision to hire, promote, or terminate an employee. The seminal statute is Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964. Most states now have some statute that tracks federal law and, in some cases, expands on it. In Illinois for example, the Illinois Human Rights Act, in addition to the categories named above, prohibits discrimination because of arrest record, marital status, and, as of July 1, sexual orientation.

Many of these laws set jurisdictional thresholds and set conditions for applying the law. The feds (largely EEOC) and other administrative agencies implement regulations to apply specific portions of the statutes. There is also a 40 year history of litigation in just about all issues pertaining to these laws and how they are applied.

In line with the above, an employer can set legitimate hiring criteria so long as these critera are job related. Thus, an employer can require an employer to have a PhD. if holding one is necessary to perform the job. If on the other hand, the employer required that janitors and secretaries have PhDs, this requirement becomes suspect. In the normal course of things, these issues do not arise unless someone is denied a job and files a claim.

Minimum height requirements have generally been held to be illegal because they have been shown to discriminate against women and Hispanics. These used to common in police and fire departments. Today, we have hundreds of female and Hispanic cops and firefightersin Chicago whose height does not interfere with their ability to be efficetive.

Age requirements are also held discriminatory because age is rarely an issue in preforming most jobs in our modern economy. There are, of course, exceptions. An employer is not allowed to hire, with some exceptions, someone who is below the minium employment age.

Before opening my private practice, I worked for the state for 26 years. Part of my job was assisting employers in complying with the IHRA. For the most part, I found employers willing to "do it right" and enjoyed helping them find ways to make effective non-discriminatory employment decisions. As state budgets get tighter, these technical assitance activities are, unfortunately, the first to go.

When asked by an employer what they should do, my response is that they should focus on the job requirements. What does this job entail? What specific skills do you need this person to posess? What general skills?

Do these laws limit an employer's ability to hire the people they want? Of course. Before they existed, a young Sandra Day (O'Connor), second in her law school class at Stanford, could get nothing better than a typing job at an L.A. law firm. Thousands of U.S. black soldiers who fought in WWII could not land even low-level factory jobs. A young CPA who uses a wheelchair for mobility could not get hired anywhere. I an confident that most Americans would not want us to back to those days. I sure don't.

[Chuck(G)]

I'll never forget a hiring seminar that I attended back in the 80's when a lot of overseas firms were setting up US electronics operations.

Most of the questions from the foreign employers were about finding legal ways to avoid hiring blacks and women.

No kidding.

[ThomasP]

You are correct, wnazzaro, that's exactly my point. Especially now that the eminent domain guidelines have been altered.

My thoughts and ideas are only possible in a perfect world, in which we do not live. As an employer if I were to advertise a job and its qualifications as leagally as possible, and then I had two people with identical qualifications (i.e. experience and education). The problem is that one person has no physical disability while the second person is in a wheel chair. If I hire the person with no disability wouldn't I then be discriminating against the person in the wheelchair, who would be able to perform the job as well as the other applicant? I personally think I should be able to pick whomever I want without fear of a lawsuit.

Now, let's take the same situation and let the disabled person have 5 more years experience and an extra degree. At this point is where I believe the law should kick in. The disabled applicant, when having more experience, should be hired. That is the best way I know how to explain my displeasure with these laws we are discussing.

[Alex F]

The folks I really feel bad for is INNERCITY. All they wanted was a sousie player and look what we've done to them. Don't worry folks, we don't bite (or if we do, we've had our shots).

These issues obviously stir up a lot of emotion, and I'm not sure this is all that bad. Let's be thankful that we live in country where we can still express these views openly and without fear of reprisal (I hope).

If we treat others in the same way that we want to be treated, most of these problems would go away. It can be an elusive ideal at times, but we need to keep working to "do it right."

[Monty]

The ultimate irony is that most all of the influences they cite are well over their stated age limit - and a few of them are putting out their best stuff of their lives.