"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

[Purple]

You are getting ahead of yourself here. He doesn't discriminate against young people. He has about 6 teens and 20+ employees on his books.
He would prefer to have more mature staff. He considers them to be more reliable, better productivity, less supervision. That is his opinion.
He finds it hard to find these worker's. Probably due to the wages (more or less minimum wage) he offers. Perhaps he can't afford to offer higher wages, perhaps he is tight with his money. Either way it's his business and he gets what he pays for.
There is no discrimination case here. There would be if he refused to employ someone on the basis of what age they were.

I see where your friend is coming from and I see his comments as anti-ageism rather than anything else but if he's said the same thing about women (taking time off because of sick kids etc) then it would be seen differently. We have to be careful how we generalise in a work environment. I find Eastern Europeans have a better work ethic and are more skilled than their Irish counterparts but that does not mean I wouldn't take everyone on a case by case basis. I presume your friend operates with the same attitude when it comes to age.

 

[TheBigShort]

I see where your friend is coming from

he's said the same thing about women (taking time off because of sick kids etc) then it would be seen differently.

He is not my friend, he is the husband of a colleague. I met him once at a social event where the topic of trade in the midst of economic crisis. During the discussion he brought up the issue of finding good reliable staff, that young ones were great worker's but they always had parties to attend and wanted to swap shifts etc. He mentioned how much more difficult it was to manage inexperienced staff than it was experienced staff, hence his preference for more mature staff.
No discrimination here. A simple discussion. To discriminate he would have to actively not employ young people. He doesn't do this.

 

[TheBigShort]

At the moment most people are net recipients and many contribute nothing

They qualify for welfare because their incomes are so low. Wage increases would resolve that, but that is a complete no-no on this site, without productivity increases. But wait a minute, the economy is growing, so wage increases should be on the way?

 

[Firefly]

It is only discrimination if it can be shown to have actually happened.

I'm gobsmacked at the above to be honest. Straight question if I may....In your opinion is the following sentence discriminatory (A Yes or NO would be helpful)

A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire people with disabilities. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers people without disabilities.

 

[Firefly]

The initial post...

A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another.

The next post, which infers that younger workers don't get on with the job and need much supervision

It is his preference to hire mature reliable staff. They turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision etc

To now saying young workers are "great workers". Tell me, if you friend is loathe to hire young workers as they are always calling in sick, going to parties how in God's name can they be "great workers" ???

During the discussion he brought up the issue of finding good reliable staff, that young ones were great worker's but they always had parties to attend and wanted to swap shifts etc.

And finally, I am beginning to wonder if you are trying to distance yourself from this person now:

He is not my friend, he is the husband of a colleague. I met him once at a social event

You certainly keep interesting company!

 

[Firefly]

No discrimination here. A simple discussion. To discriminate he would have to actively not employ young people. He doesn't do this.

You could actively under-employ a group of people based on their age, race and religion and still be discriminatory..

 

[TheBigShort]

I'm gobsmacked at the above to be honest. Straight question if I may....In your opinion is the following sentence discriminatory (A Yes or NO would be helpful)

A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire people with disabilities. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers people without disabilities.

Yes.

Same question to you, same scenario. Just add "but as people with disabilities are generally the people that apply for jobs he advertises, he does not deny them an employment opportunity."

To now saying young workers are "great workers". Tell me, if you friend is loathe to hire young workers as they are always calling in sick, going to parties how in God's name can they be "great workers" ???

Good God, you assumed from the initial comment the complete outlook of the employer toward young people. How daft, even though you know he employs at least six young people!

And finally, I am beginning to wonder if you are trying to distance yourself from this person now:

Not at all, I'm just having fun with the ludicrous nature of this discussion. This beats the time you implied I was xenophobic for mentioning "foreigners".

 

[TheBigShort]

The next post, which infers that younger workers don't get on with the job and need much supervision

That is the opinion of this particular employer in relation to his experience of employing young people. You might not agree with him, or you might agree with him. But in no sense of the word does it imply that he actually discriminates against young people.

 

[Firefly]

Yes.

Thanks. And do you find the following sentence discriminatory?

A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another.

 

[TheBigShort]

Thanks. And do you find the following sentence discriminatory?

You asked me a question, I answered. I asked you a question, so...

 

[TheBigShort]

Taken on it's own, yes, it could be construed as being discriminatory. But putting it in to context of how he actually runs his business, that is, employing young people, then it's clear to me that he does not discriminate.
Like I said, you are getting ahead of yourself.

 

[Firefly]

You asked me a question, I answered. I asked you a question, so...

I don't think anybody should be denied an employment opportunity based on their race, colour, religion or sexual orientation and most especially if they have disabilities. In fact, for those unfortunate enough to be in the latter group, I have most sympathy. Through education and friendships etc, the former groups can get through life in most cases, but someone with disabilities (particularly mental disabilities) are really at the mercy of the rest of us. And this is my point, age just like the groups of people mentioned should not be used to discriminate. The best person for the job should get the job and not be automatically discounted based on age.

I hope this answers your question. So if I may, do you find the following sentence discriminatory?

A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire young people in their 20's. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another.

 

[Firefly]

Taken on it's own, yes, it could be construed as being discriminatory. But putting it in to context of how he actually runs his business, that is, employing young people, then it's clear to me that he does not discriminate.
Like I said, you are getting ahead of yourself.

Why the caveats? Why do you find it discriminatory when I substituted young people for people with disabilities?

 

[TheBigShort]

I don't think anybody should be denied an employment opportunity based on their race, colour, religion or sexual orientation and most especially if they have disabilities.

No, neither do I. Can you point to a case of discrimination in this bizarre side-track of the main discussion?

 

[Firefly]

No, neither do I. Can you point to a case of discrimination in this bizarre side-track of the main discussion?

Your turn I believe..

 

[TheBigShort]

Why the caveats?

Because you have taken a single comment, which on it's own could be construed as discriminatory, but have failed to grasp the wider context of the situation which clearly shows that no discrimination is being practised.
It is possible to make a discriminatory remark, without actually discriminating against someone.
It's possible to make a racist, sexist, homophobic remark, without actually being a racist, sexist or homophobic.
Is our Taoiseach a racist? I wouldn't think so do you?
Is Arlene Foster sexist? I wouldn't think so, would you?

 

[Firefly]

Because you have taken a single comment, which on it's own could be construed as discriminatory,

So when I asked you if sentence below was discriminatory you said Yes without any caveat, but when I substituted young people in you said, taken on its own it could be construed as discrimination!

"A colleague of mine, whose husband runs a small cafe is loathe to hire people with disabilities. Always ringing in sick, wanting to swap shifts for one party or another. He prefers people without disabilities."

I find it interesting that someone who is not your friend and you have only met once has volunteered that he is loathe to hire young people, that they always phone in sick and look for time off and finds older people by comparison turn up on time, get on with the job, don't need as much supervision and yet you emphatically declare that "clearly shows that no discrimination is being practised". How do you know, based on his beliefs? And lastly, I also find it interesting that when you made the post about loathing to hire young people you didn't say you found it in the least bit discriminatory.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

The law is the law, regardless of the size of the employer's business, but I have a lot of sympathy for small businesses. For example, like many people I am aware of businesses that avoid hiring women of a certain age and marital status for fear of them going on maternity leave. Of course that's discrimination and it's wrong, and of course they dress it up as something else, but it must be tough for the small business owner to navigate the vagaries of life.

 

[TheBigShort]

So when I asked you if sentence below was discriminatory you said Yes without any caveat, but when I substituted young people in you said, taken on its own it could be construed as discrimination!

So what is your point? You asked me a question about people with disabilities. A Yes or No answer you requsted. I provided a Yes or No answer. No other context was given.

With regard the young people. There is a context. Plenty of it, and not all shared here, because there was no need to, because a reasonable person could deduce that.

 

[TheBigShort]

I find it interesting that someone who is not your friend and you have only met once has volunteered that he is loathe to hire young people,

Really? Why would you find that interesting? We were in a pub, having drinks, the subject of his business came up. And as far as I can recall, young people were mentioned in the context of the U25 welfare being cut. From there a discussion ensued, about the merits or none, of that proposal. At some point, in the context of all this discussion about recessionary times and it's impact, this employer relayed his experience of employing young people.
Get over yourself!