So you can’t be discriminated against if you’re less than 40, but that seems somewhat discriminatory (maybe you wanted to be), but that means that you are being discriminated against, but that’s meant to be forbidden.
The law is you can't descriminate against a protected class. Lots of things are protected classes, like race and religion. Old age is, but young age isn't. Clothing choices in general aren't, but if it's a religous choice, it likely is protected.
Etc.
It's kind of weird that you can fire young people because they're young, but not old people because they're old. But it's not a paradox, it's just how the system is codified.
Yes, from a legal perspective this will always be true: in-group vs out-group. Age discrimination is a special category because everyone will be in the out-group (when young) the age into the in-group. In this case, it is probably legal to fire someone for being too young. It sounds weird, but that is not a protected class of employees.
I know there's an unspoken rule to not speak directly about whatever shady thing your organization and leadership is doing but for this situation it would be surprising if there isn't some correspondence that would come up in discovery detailing the strategy. It's too much of a coincidence and too big of a decision to hire 20% of your workforce as interns and then a couple months later fire 20% of your employees.
You would need some class action lawsuit I’d think? Need a good number of laid off people to join it and you need solid statistics that would convince a jury more than the corporate lawyers would with whatever HR covered their assess on paper have.
Technically yes, IBM just got sued successfully for it.
That said they just settled the case for what happened in 2016. So you might be right and even win but that wont help you for a decade (assuming you win at all)
Should companies be forced to retain talent of a certain age group? Should they be forced to retain less competent people? How do you expect this to work?
In Sweden,the Employment Protection Act, (LAS ) mandates 'last in - first out', meaning if there are layoffs due to over-capacity, people with seniority (years of employment) take priority for available positions. This is kind of partioned by profession-group, so yes you can fire nurses but keep doctors, or other way around. (Its been a while since I looked into it, but thats the rough gist of it)
China is hiring engineering talent. US is firing. Nobody forces anybody to do anything. Just pointing out the current state of affairs in the long life cycle of empire. As Ray Dalio says US is very late stage declining „financial capitalism”. While China is early stage aspiring „production capitalism”. It is not like late stage declining USSR needed as many engineers as it did when it wasnt collapsing. USA is a collapsing empire. China is growing.
In the United States (where most Cloudflare employees work):
To answer your question: Probably not. Even so, it is incredibly hard to prove workers 40 and older were laid off as a result of age discrimination.
> Even so, it is incredibly hard to prove workers 40 and older were laid off as a result of age discrimination.
The only way for this to happen is by leaked private conversations, I think.
So you can’t be discriminated against if you’re less than 40, but that seems somewhat discriminatory (maybe you wanted to be), but that means that you are being discriminated against, but that’s meant to be forbidden.
I sense a paradox.
There's no paradox.
The law is you can't descriminate against a protected class. Lots of things are protected classes, like race and religion. Old age is, but young age isn't. Clothing choices in general aren't, but if it's a religous choice, it likely is protected.
Etc.
It's kind of weird that you can fire young people because they're young, but not old people because they're old. But it's not a paradox, it's just how the system is codified.
Yes, from a legal perspective this will always be true: in-group vs out-group. Age discrimination is a special category because everyone will be in the out-group (when young) the age into the in-group. In this case, it is probably legal to fire someone for being too young. It sounds weird, but that is not a protected class of employees.
Only if you're dumb enough to leave a paper trail showing that's what you did.
I know there's an unspoken rule to not speak directly about whatever shady thing your organization and leadership is doing but for this situation it would be surprising if there isn't some correspondence that would come up in discovery detailing the strategy. It's too much of a coincidence and too big of a decision to hire 20% of your workforce as interns and then a couple months later fire 20% of your employees.
It seems it would be easy to show a pattern.
You would need some class action lawsuit I’d think? Need a good number of laid off people to join it and you need solid statistics that would convince a jury more than the corporate lawyers would with whatever HR covered their assess on paper have.
Is it not fine to just cut for pay rate? That should be easy
2 replies →
Technically yes, IBM just got sued successfully for it.
That said they just settled the case for what happened in 2016. So you might be right and even win but that wont help you for a decade (assuming you win at all)
Just your average Thursday in American capitalism!
Should companies be forced to retain talent of a certain age group? Should they be forced to retain less competent people? How do you expect this to work?
In Sweden,the Employment Protection Act, (LAS ) mandates 'last in - first out', meaning if there are layoffs due to over-capacity, people with seniority (years of employment) take priority for available positions. This is kind of partioned by profession-group, so yes you can fire nurses but keep doctors, or other way around. (Its been a while since I looked into it, but thats the rough gist of it)
17 replies →
China is hiring engineering talent. US is firing. Nobody forces anybody to do anything. Just pointing out the current state of affairs in the long life cycle of empire. As Ray Dalio says US is very late stage declining „financial capitalism”. While China is early stage aspiring „production capitalism”. It is not like late stage declining USSR needed as many engineers as it did when it wasnt collapsing. USA is a collapsing empire. China is growing.
1 reply →
Making it illegal would be communism
Would it be Communism to require a license stating you know what that word means in order to use it?
Yes because anything that is good for individuals is communism.
People are feeling more alone than ever. But whatever you do, don't do anything communal!
Anything I don’t like is communism