Njugle Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 I hear tell that there is a new impending piece of PC legislation on it's way, forbidding the practice of ageism in employment issues, i'll bet the lawyers are drooling in anticipation........well maybe not but it will make employers lives all the more difficult in handling applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Joost mind dat wis baby boomers are hittin 60 an dere an aafil lot o wis! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 I hear tell that there is a new impending piece of PC legislation on it's way, forbidding the practice of ageism in employment issues, i'll bet the lawyers are drooling in anticipation........well maybe not but it will make employers lives all the more difficult in handling applications. Njugle: Why do you want to discriminate against someone because of her or his age? Is it the young or the old you object to??? (Careful now!)Remember that if anyone of any age is less able to do the job, you appoint the most able candidate. Spurious claims of discrimination get nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted August 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 8O Au contraire! I am not protesting the legislation, merely fearful of the bureaucratic melée that it may cause for those affected by it. I'm not an employer, nor "young" or "old". I also fear for the consequence of making it law rather than recommendation. Unsuitable candidates, old and young, will now be able to pursue action against potential employers or staff against employers. Positive discrimination may also ensue. It is not the law i am concerned about at all i suppose, more the "British" implementation of it. And the "relevant statistics". I was taught an 'adventure sport' recently by a guy old enough to be my Dad, who was notably fitter and sharper than me, by the same token i was told the other day that i was "too old" to attempt a different, and easier, adventure sport by an ignorant individual not much older than me who couldn't jump a shoe box, which was just bunkum. It is all in the eye of the beholder. That's where problems start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag Posted August 29, 2006 Report Share Posted August 29, 2006 Sorry Njugle, I misunderstood you. We already have legislation forbidding discrimination on the grounds of sex or race. In my experience, this might mean that the employer has to explain the reasons for not short listing someone from a minority / female group. But if the reason is that other people were better suited / qualified for the job, then there is no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Also Employees cant be forced to retire at 60/65 and they are free to work till they are 70. ( not for free obviously ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheesht Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Also Employees cant be forced to retire at 60/65 and they are free to work till they are 70. ( not for free obviously ) It's not a straight forward as that. I believe that employers have to discuss with an employee months in advance the issue of that persons 65th date. Employers can not be forced to keep someone on after that, as I Understand it. I would imagine that most employers plan ahead and build in the taking on of replacements etc around people retirement dates? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.