3 ms·

In the US, ageism is allowed as long it doesn't discriminate against older people(45 years old or older I think?). You're allowed to discriminate against youth

In the US, ageism is allowed as long it doesn't discriminate against older people(45 years old or older I think?). You're allowed to discriminate against youth all you want. Offering a buyout is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary. If it was forced buyout, then yes it would be discriminatory

OJFord 5mo ago
By that logic a job offer is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary?
- IncreasePosts 5mo ago
  A job offer can be discriminatory, why not? "You were our only female candidate, so we're offering you the job"
  - Iulioh 5mo ago
    ...there are a lot of answers on the "why not?"
  - OJFord 5mo ago
    Yes, that is exactly my point. "You were our only female employee, so we're offering you VR"
    - IncreasePosts 5mo ago
      Oh, I see. The difference there, I think, is that you're illegally discriminating against men by doing that, which is not allowed. However, by law, you can't illegally discriminate against youth, so it's ok.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
rdtsc 5mo ago
> In the US, ageism is allowed as long it doesn't discriminate against older people(45 years old or older I think?). You're allowed to discriminate against youth all you want. I think it's 40 https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination. So for 40 or less years + X years worked to be more than 70 they'd have to work there 30 years starting at 10 years old or younger. Granted, some of the decisions I saw Microsoft make do look like they were made by 10 year olds, so maybe there is some truth there. > Offering a buyout is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary. If it was forced buyout, then yes it would be discriminatory Still, what if they offered it based on gender, religious belief, or race? Would that look just as good or bad of an offer.
- mixdup 5mo ago
  >Still, what if they offered it based on gender, religious belief, or race? Would that look just as good or bad of an offer. Those would be illegal. Based on age + tenure is not. Simple as that But in terms of optics, I think this comes out positively. They're basically letting people retire early with a generous buyout offer that they are not required to take instead of just laying these people off with or without severance, which they'd be within their legal rights to do
idebug 5mo ago
"Hey, John. I see here that you didn't volunteer to retire. I admire your dedication to your job and to the company. However, I just got a troubling message from HR about your recent performance/allegations of misconduct/social media postings/<etc insert other BS excuse that HR makes up etc> and I need you to come with me to the board room so that we can sort this out. Don't bring anything with you. Just leave it on your desk. That'd be grrrrreat..."
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

OJFord 5mo ago

By that logic a job offer is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary?

IncreasePosts 5mo ago
A job offer can be discriminatory, why not? "You were our only female candidate, so we're offering you the job"
- Iulioh 5mo ago
  ...there are a lot of answers on the "why not?"
- OJFord 5mo ago
  Yes, that is exactly my point. "You were our only female employee, so we're offering you VR"
  - IncreasePosts 5mo ago
    Oh, I see. The difference there, I think, is that you're illegally discriminating against men by doing that, which is not allowed. However, by law, you can't illegally discriminate against youth, so it's ok.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

rdtsc 5mo ago

> In the US, ageism is allowed as long it doesn't discriminate against older people(45 years old or older I think?). You're allowed to discriminate against youth all you want. I think it's 40 https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination. So for 40 or less years + X years worked to be more than 70 they'd have to work there 30 years starting at 10 years old or younger. Granted, some of the decisions I saw Microsoft make do look like they were made by 10 year olds, so maybe there is some truth there. > Offering a buyout is in no way discriminatory since it is voluntary. If it was forced buyout, then yes it would be discriminatory Still, what if they offered it based on gender, religious belief, or race? Would that look just as good or bad of an offer.

mixdup 5mo ago
>Still, what if they offered it based on gender, religious belief, or race? Would that look just as good or bad of an offer. Those would be illegal. Based on age + tenure is not. Simple as that But in terms of optics, I think this comes out positively. They're basically letting people retire early with a generous buyout offer that they are not required to take instead of just laying these people off with or without severance, which they'd be within their legal rights to do

idebug 5mo ago

"Hey, John. I see here that you didn't volunteer to retire. I admire your dedication to your job and to the company. However, I just got a troubling message from HR about your recent performance/allegations of misconduct/social media postings/<etc insert other BS excuse that HR makes up etc> and I need you to come with me to the board room so that we can sort this out. Don't bring anything with you. Just leave it on your desk. That'd be grrrrreat..."

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]