You've heard the jokes over and over regarding an old political comment which went, very simply, "It's the economy, stupid." And it has been quite obvious that the economic condition has been poor for the past four years. Despite what you may read on today's USA TODAY about the recession having been over in June of 2009, there's not reason to believe that for most Americans. Come on and be honest about it, don't be stupid about it - the economic condition has not become dramatically better, no matter how many figures get thrown at the news media. Hey, I'm a member of the news media and I really don't think I can believe that the positive numbers are outweighing the negative numbers because I still have been getting the same feedback that I've seen for the past four years: jobs which can improve your life's standing are not there for the majority of Americans.
There is evidence on Yahoo! today - a story from the New York Times. Here's a link to this story here. It discusses something which I have posted about in the past: that Americans over 35 are increasingly not allowed to compete for the jobs allegedly available. Job discrimination is not only happening, but it is happening for an extended period of time.
Not telling the truth is simply the way "around" violations of trust, violations of rules and ethics, violations of understanding. What do you think of these violations? Apparently you either completely agree or you find fault with my findings because you're the boss who lies or the Human Resources person who MUST lie in order to keep your own job these days.
What happened to "The Golden Rule" when it comes to business and honesty?
Is it now a "new business-only Golden Rule" which completely dominates the world of business and economics?
Do unto others as you are going to be done unto by others when you are doing your job in business.
Read that again. Does this sound like the way corporations do business on a regular business? IF it is NOT, then I encourage you to tell me which corporation does not or companies do not follow this new "recipe" for business dealings. Overall for this particular writing, the way business is conducted with other business isn't necessarily the target of my critical thinking, but more the way these companies handle one-on-one dealings with potential employees. This is not to say that B2B is staying out of these bad situations. We occasionally read the stories about certain businesses becoming the targets of investigations or allegations of potential wrongdoing within a business transaction. These include some notorious gaffes such as that of Arthur Anderson's mismanagement, numerous banks which took it on the chin for making two-sided deals in which they caused their own downfall, and manufacturing companies which sold-out their businesses to others who were larger only to find themselves the target of an investigation into the "new owners" when they were only a subsidiary of that group for months. It can cut both ways in B2B - good or bad. But in one-on-one employment situations, where is the "control" that is supposed to be exercised by the "good" companies in good faith with potential hired hands?
Reviewing the New York Times article which appeared on Yahoo!, it shows a woman who has a good work history but cannot find a job with similar earnings largely because she is older than Generation X. Frankly, if I am reading this right (and I am no legal expert), this particular case could be one in which the woman could potentially file as part of a class-action suit against someone to which she applied for work IF there were dozens or hundreds of others in her age range who applied for open positions and did not get them because of their age and income history. IF those jobs went to someone who is just out of college or university and holds a similar degree but is 30 years her junior there is age discrimination. Unfortunately, she's not necessarily going to be looking for an attorney to file such a suit because she does not want to be labeled a troublemaker. And --- here's the interesting part to esquires around the country --- I am not a proponent of filing lawsuits as a general rule. I believe in forgiveness. Moreover, most of us believe in not attempting to make another wrong. The vernacular has been "two wrongs don't make a right" for good reason. We don't necessarily gain anything out of bringing down another. BUT, if it's obvious that such a thing will be best-served for the overall good of the public which is being unwillingly the target of unethical business practices, then I think filing suits is clearly the way to refocus the target to the party which is being unethical time and again.
This economy sucks. And if you missed this key piece to that article, I'd like to point it out now:
Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older. Nearly half of them have been unemployed six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession.
This doesn't sound good in its tenor and tone. This not only signals what I was saying months ago about job discrimination against Generation X, but it comes to show one thing that I did not want to believe was happening then:
Age discrimination has extended its ugly range WELL PAST Gen-X to those who rightfully can file suits against those who have been practicing such discrimination. It's criminal, folks, not petty or nitpicky.
If the rules against age discrimination aren't being utilized against the companies and corporations that have been so doing for the 50 or older crowd --- what do you think that means for those between 35 and 50?
Showing posts with label Age Discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Age Discrimination. Show all posts
21 September 2010
04 May 2010
Legal Age Discrimination
A few months ago I wrote about this topic - more or less - when I wrote about Generation X being irrelevant. It seems that not much has changed, except maybe it has become increasingly clear to some in my age range that being "not old enough to qualify for age discrimination" seems not so strange. And here's how it is perceived by those who are at the tail end of the Baby Boomer generation: people who haven't experienced life like the Vietnam War do not truly understand discrimination; people who didn't grow up with civil rights protests do not truly understand discrimination.
That is just Baby Boomers whining, in my view. It deems the person or persons saying those things as being "the old fogie" --- which is ironic, considering that they were protesting things that "old fogies" were doing prior to the 1960s and 1970s.
I'm not trying to be discriminatory to someone older than I, because I am socially aware of the importance of multiple-generational society. No, in fact, I am pointing out that sometimes it is the older person who is directly discriminating against a younger person simply over an age issue. It's not CALLED an age issue, per se, by the older person --- but it is what it is, something with which they have decided to pick on as "not right". Oddly --- that's what this is about, picking on something I have decided is "not right" --- so, how do I come to justify what I say?
Here's the food for thought, starting with the previous blog about "irrevelant" Gen-X'ers. Even though it may appear the economy is starting to trend toward a rebound from the depression (or for those of you who still wish to say it was only a recession...the recession), we have seen downsizing and outsourcing continue at a steady pace. Unemployment numbers have remained fairly high in Generation X people for much of this time BUT those have dropped a bit due in part to something that gets largely ignored. We run out of unemployment "benefits" and become a statistic which does not exist to the "real world" --- the underpaid. Sure, there have been some statistics about the underemployed --- I am one of these --- but it is the underpaid person who has years, if not decades, of experience in one field and has been forced to take a position with a lesser pay grade or work multiple jobs as a part-time employee in an attempt to make the money she or he was previously making in the "better economic conditions" of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
The underpaid: it sounds like a whining complaint until you ask around if it's common. Unfortunately it is common. 40-somethings are probably first (I can't cite stats, just have a hunch at this point), followed by 50-somethings and then 30-somethings. See, the reason the 60-somethings don't end up in this category much or most of the time is that they CAN file a lawsuit on age discrimination and have it heard in court easier than someone who is 42. Even those who are in their late-40s have a better chance of getting an attorney to represent them in an age-based lawsuit than someone in their early 40s. If this holds to be true --- and I suspect that plenty of people who are even at the tail of the Boomer generation would find this happens to them --- then this "underpaid" category is not simply an opinion with some people, but an undiagnosed problem within the U.S. economy.
But this leads back to the age discrimination situation for Generation-X. We may be able to find an attorney who wants to represent us in such a trial, but that attorney had better find some evidence of the discriminatory practices. I assure you that it's not an easily tracked situation at this point in time --- probably because the companies who are practicing this don't want such statistics entered at all into their databases IF they have a database with age-related information about their hiring/firing practices under the age of 50. Gen-X'ers, ages 45 and down to Gen-Y, would love it IF those statistics were made available because we could prove what appears to be a factor already: Gen-X suffers from age-related, but LEGAL, discrimination. And that's just a shame.
That is just Baby Boomers whining, in my view. It deems the person or persons saying those things as being "the old fogie" --- which is ironic, considering that they were protesting things that "old fogies" were doing prior to the 1960s and 1970s.
I'm not trying to be discriminatory to someone older than I, because I am socially aware of the importance of multiple-generational society. No, in fact, I am pointing out that sometimes it is the older person who is directly discriminating against a younger person simply over an age issue. It's not CALLED an age issue, per se, by the older person --- but it is what it is, something with which they have decided to pick on as "not right". Oddly --- that's what this is about, picking on something I have decided is "not right" --- so, how do I come to justify what I say?
Here's the food for thought, starting with the previous blog about "irrevelant" Gen-X'ers. Even though it may appear the economy is starting to trend toward a rebound from the depression (or for those of you who still wish to say it was only a recession...the recession), we have seen downsizing and outsourcing continue at a steady pace. Unemployment numbers have remained fairly high in Generation X people for much of this time BUT those have dropped a bit due in part to something that gets largely ignored. We run out of unemployment "benefits" and become a statistic which does not exist to the "real world" --- the underpaid. Sure, there have been some statistics about the underemployed --- I am one of these --- but it is the underpaid person who has years, if not decades, of experience in one field and has been forced to take a position with a lesser pay grade or work multiple jobs as a part-time employee in an attempt to make the money she or he was previously making in the "better economic conditions" of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries.
The underpaid: it sounds like a whining complaint until you ask around if it's common. Unfortunately it is common. 40-somethings are probably first (I can't cite stats, just have a hunch at this point), followed by 50-somethings and then 30-somethings. See, the reason the 60-somethings don't end up in this category much or most of the time is that they CAN file a lawsuit on age discrimination and have it heard in court easier than someone who is 42. Even those who are in their late-40s have a better chance of getting an attorney to represent them in an age-based lawsuit than someone in their early 40s. If this holds to be true --- and I suspect that plenty of people who are even at the tail of the Boomer generation would find this happens to them --- then this "underpaid" category is not simply an opinion with some people, but an undiagnosed problem within the U.S. economy.
But this leads back to the age discrimination situation for Generation-X. We may be able to find an attorney who wants to represent us in such a trial, but that attorney had better find some evidence of the discriminatory practices. I assure you that it's not an easily tracked situation at this point in time --- probably because the companies who are practicing this don't want such statistics entered at all into their databases IF they have a database with age-related information about their hiring/firing practices under the age of 50. Gen-X'ers, ages 45 and down to Gen-Y, would love it IF those statistics were made available because we could prove what appears to be a factor already: Gen-X suffers from age-related, but LEGAL, discrimination. And that's just a shame.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
