4 ms·
>> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for w
by slg 4y ago
>> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities.
>To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically the protected class is people over 40. Why is that distinction made instead of a blanket "no one can be discriminated against based on their age"? Doesn't that imply it is trying to protect a specific group rather than force equal treatment? Why can't a young person sue for age discrimination? How is that logically different from a white person suing for racial discrimination?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- TeaDrunk 4y agoI think part of this is that, obviously it is totally fine to discriminate based on age. Children aren't allowed to work, vote, buy certain items, etc. You're also not allowed certain public offices if you're too young.
- sjtindell 4y agoI don’t know if the term discrimination fits there. Employers would gladly employ children if not for the law.
- Enginerrrd 4y agoI'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I'm fairly sure this is the correct reasoning. We generally think it's acceptable to discriminate on the basis of age in many contexts, one of the most important of those being experience. If you are selecting candidates with more experience or "maturity" than is possible for someone of a particular age, you are effectively discriminating by age. Perhaps people have morphed their internal definition of the word "discrimination" into something that differs from the dictionary and therein lies the objection?
- CodeSgt 4y agoThe difference is that we can conclusively show that children are intellectually under developed. Old people are often just as intelligent as their younger colleagues, and often wiser as well. Of course there are exceptions, but there are poor performers at every age bracket for a variety of reasons.
- tomhyggja 4y agoLet's abolish these discriminatory labour laws. If a child can go to school he can also work, why rob 8 year olds of this opportunity & force them to school when they could be working in a sweatshop?
- hunter2_ 4y agoPerhaps age is just an oddball compared to the other protected classes, because there are legitimate reasons not to employ someone young (e.g., if the position requires x years of professional experience but the candidate has only been of working age for <x years) while there aren't many legitimate reasons not to employ someone old. Gender, race, etc. don't have this natural asymmetry.
- thethimble 4y agoAnother interesting angle is that everyone eventually will become old and therefore in this protected class. It's not like race, gender, etc. in that way.
- codefreeordie 4y agoEveryone old was once young, but not everyone young will live to be old.
- 8note 4y agoThere's similarly good reasons to not hire somebody old though - theyve already been trained in some other work method, have/spend time with their families, have retirement sooner, etc
- falcolas 4y ago> have retirement sooner By that logic, you shouldnt hire women, since they may get pregnant and take extensive leave on your company’s dime. Or men, whose partner could get pregnant (or adopt). > have/spend time with their families Applies to anyone over the age of 18. Probably under 18 too. > theyve already been trained in some other work method Which is why once you learn one programming language, you are immediately banned for working with any other language.
- mise_en_place 4y agoI just want to comment that your comment reminded me of min wage requirements. I'd love to hire a really Jr DevOps engineer but because of min wage and benefits that makes it impossible. If there was no min wage requirements I could hire a high school student with interest and not get destroyed financially by regulations
- test6554 4y agoOne could argue that a younger person could still be developing mentally and their decision quality and impulsiveness is undergoing change. Someone under 21 or 18 for example. But the same argument would be pretty nasty if applied to race.
- slg 4y agoThe cutoff for discrimination is 40. It is perfectly legal (at least at the federal level) to discriminate against someone for being 39. That seems to imply that mental development is not a consideration here. The law is pretty clearly "don't discriminate against older people" rather than "don't discriminate based on age". Also for all the other comments mentioning experience. Decisions based on experience are not discrimination because experience is pertinent to one's effectiveness in a job. It isn't discrimination if an NFL team decides not to hire a disabled player because the job of being a football player has strict physical requirements. It doesn't matter that the player's disability might normally qualify as a protected class in another line of work. It isn't discrimination because the job requires that selection criteria.
- tomhoward 4y agoIt’s at least valid to consider a young person insufficiently experienced for the job, as long as the hiring decision is legitimately made according to experience not numerical age alone.
- rsanek 4y agoThat's not age discrimination though, that's having insufficient experience. You can be denied for lack of experience at any age.
- q1w2 4y agoThe similar concept of "protected class" exists in many states' race-crime laws. In New York, for example, only members of the protected classes are protected by race-crime laws, as per a statement by the NY AG office.