Pape
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 10,600
- Reaction score
- 16,024
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.No mention of this on the local news. Doesn't register since the Patriots are not involved (yet)...
"We are making money hand over fist, until that stops, it's all aboard the Roger Goodell train. Wait.... that's not... ahhh screw it. Choo Choo!""Roger's doing a great job" - Bob ("Happy Ending") Kraft
i really dont get the age bias thing
if you're hiring or starting a company and need a critical role filled, and you have a choice between a 63 year old who is on verge of retirement and someone who is 50 or younger the better business decision (assuming they work out) would be to go with the younger person so you aren't having to re-hire again in 2 years
Nothing wrong with doing that, unless I guess you openly admit you arent hiring them because of their age?
I dont get it
I remember seeing Rice say that her dream job is commissioner of the NFL.
Quite right. The Rooney Rule was a joke from its very conception and remains so. I believe it was devised in a room full of weeping men with tom-toms clasped between their knees in a teepee near Berkeley.If the NYFL is getting sued over anything I thought it would be racial discrimination. The Rooney Rule has been a joke.
What a time to be alive … I’m more confused now then when I first started out … no lie.i really dont get the age bias thing
if you're hiring or starting a company and need a critical role filled, and you have a choice between a 63 year old who is on verge of retirement and someone who is 50 or younger the better business decision (assuming they work out) would be to go with the younger person so you aren't having to re-hire again in 2 years
Nothing wrong with doing that, unless I guess you openly admit you arent hiring them because of their age?
I dont get it
The solution would be to hire (and admit and elect and appoint) on merit exclusively, as the individual or entity hiring or buying or electing or admitting would define it (certainly not as some bubble-brained young ideologically-paralyzed government hack with a degree in mendacious propagandistic horseshit and an affliction with rabid emotional lability would do). The solution, that is, is - as always - freedom of the individual. Freedom in this instance would, I suppose, theoretically disadvantage such an old shoe as I in the job market, but I am unafraid. I'd like my chances against the present cohort of simpering ninnies. Bring it, boys and girls.i really dont get the age bias thing
if you're hiring or starting a company and need a critical role filled, and you have a choice between a 63 year old who is on verge of retirement and someone who is 50 or younger the better business decision (assuming they work out) would be to go with the younger person so you aren't having to re-hire again in 2 years
Nothing wrong with doing that, unless I guess you openly admit you arent hiring them because of their age?
I dont get it
The basis behind age discrimination issues is that older workers have more experience and therefore higher pay, and are forced out in cost cutting moves. That is how they become a protected class, and then brig a member of that class makes that demographic illegal to use as a factor. I.e. you can’t hold his close to retirement against an elderly person any more than you can hold potential to go in maternity leave against a young woman.i really dont get the age bias thing
if you're hiring or starting a company and need a critical role filled, and you have a choice between a 63 year old who is on verge of retirement and someone who is 50 or younger the better business decision (assuming they work out) would be to go with the younger person so you aren't having to re-hire again in 2 years
Nothing wrong with doing that, unless I guess you openly admit you arent hiring them because of their age?
I dont get it
The solution would be to hire (and admit and elect and appoint) on merit exclusively, as the individual or entity hiring or buying or electing or admitting would define it (certainly not as some bubble-brained young ideologically-paralyzed government hack with a degree in mendacious propagandistic horseshit and an affliction with rabid emotional lability would do). The solution, that is, is - as always - freedom of the individual. Freedom in this instance would, I suppose, theoretically disadvantage such an old shoe as I in the job market, but I am unafraid. I'd like my chances against the present cohort of simpering ninnies. Bring it, boys and girls.
Good cause nobody's hiring your old ass. LolNeither do I... It's All just one big Nothing-Burger.
I AM a boomer. I support the freedom of employers to hire and fire anyone they like, for whatever reason. If in some unusually perverse circumstance a firing (hiring?) is in furtherance of some other, actual crime, that is a different matter; but if you wanna hire somebody because he reminds you of your beloved uncle Bobby, or he has red hair, who am I to judge? It's none of my business. If by some chance you hired me and you turned out to be an *******, I'd quit. All this freedom turns today's mollycoddled primadonnas into squishy, handwringing wrecks, or course. Couldn't care less. Might be good for them.i certainly hold nothing against older people, I have a boomer working for me that i respect like crazy.. hes a hell of a lot smarter than I am, and makes my life so much easier (with the exception of his hot fuse temper lol)
but in a smaller company, if there is a critical position, i could see someone wanting to hire someone they know is going to be around awhile (granted there is never a guarantee that someone will be around long term, but you know someone who is like 65 is def not going to be around for the long haul)
just seems weird to me.. let people hire whoever they want
It is an actual crime to not hire someone based on race, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, national origin and disability or age(so long as it doesn't prevent someone from completing the tasks). Otherwise yeah, reminding you of Uncle Bobby or not liking red hair etc. is up to the employerI AM a boomer. I support the freedom of employers to hire and fire anyone they like, for whatever reason. If in some unusually perverse circumstance a firing (hiring?) is in furtherance of some other, actual crime, that is a different matter; but if you wanna hire somebody because he reminds you of your beloved uncle Bobby, or he has red hair, who am I to judge? It's none of my business. If by some chance you hired me and you turned out to be an *******, I'd quit. All this freedom turns today's mollycoddled primadonnas into squishy, handwringing wrecks, or course. Couldn't care less. Might be good for them.
Then abolish the laws which make such hires a crime. It's none of the government's business whom I hire and for what reason. Want an equal shot at a job? Make yourself equally worth hiring. There is no other honorable and sustainable approach. If the resultant whining bothers you, get ear plugs.It is an actual crime to not hire someone based on race, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, national origin and disability or age(so long as it doesn't prevent someone from completing the tasks). Otherwise yeah, reminding you of Uncle Bobby or not liking red hair etc. is up to the employer
I haven't done any research but 3 black HCs out of 32 is very poor and could be lower than when the rule began.Quite right. The Rooney Rule was a joke from its very conception and remains so. I believe it was devised in a room full of weeping men with tom-toms clasped between their knees in a teepee near Berkeley.
When I first retired I looked into a part time job at a pro course where I volunteered to work during tournaments. A short time after my interview I started working the tournament and I found out that there was a class-action lawsuit against the course for age discrimination. They had fired all but a couple of their older employees and replaced them with youngsters. I figured that job was gone.i certainly hold nothing against older people, I have a boomer working for me that i respect like crazy.. hes a hell of a lot smarter than I am, and makes my life so much easier (with the exception of his hot fuse temper lol)
but in a smaller company, if there is a critical position, i could see someone wanting to hire someone they know is going to be around awhile (granted there is never a guarantee that someone will be around long term, but you know someone who is like 65 is def not going to be around for the long haul)
just seems weird to me.. let people hire whoever they want
I have argued extensively in other venues re affirmative action, and I could rattle on for an hour about the damage it does - most cruelly to the groups it is intended to benefit, as well as to the body politic generally. I suspect, though, that this is not the venue to extend this discussion, but I suspect you and are of a mind. I am trying to respect Ian's sundry edicts here.I haven't done any research but 3 black HCs out of 32 is very poor and could be lower than when the rule began.