Your Fired !!!

C B

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2001/0713/courts2.htm

A couple of weeks ago a woman won a lawsuit against a firm of solicitors for unfair dimissal on the grounds of age discrimination. Should employers be allowed to hire and fire whom ever they want?

_____________
Edit:
(damn I wrote "your" instead of "you're" in the topic title and now I can't change or delete it well there goes the moral high ground on grammar!)


[This message has been edited by C B (edited 25-07-2001).]

GreenHell

Well they can hire whoever they want, but when firing staff they most remember that employees also have rights and cannot be removed without a valid reason, hell if employers could hire and fired as they pleased employes would have no protection.

The Sweeper

If you've ever worked for a large company, especially a well established large company that's been around for donkeys, you'll see a whole pile of dead wood people floating about the place getting paid nine times your annual salary to take long lunches and scratch their ar$es.

These people are often protected by their age (because age is assumed to be relative to venerability, wisdom, maturity and so on).

I think it's outrageous for an employer to lay off a staff member for the singular reason of their age. If you're over 50 or under 25 and you can produce the goods, there's no reason to fire you.

BUT, excessive youth is often equal to inexperience, over confidence, carelessness and so on, while great age is too often synonymous with computer illiteracy, over confidence (again), enforced traditionalism, the lack of desire to try anything new etc. etc.

I'm suspicious of people who take law suits because they feel they've been discriminated against on the grounds of their age.

I reckon it boils down quite simply - if you were that fab, you wouldn't have been sacked in the first place.

(I may be putting my head on the block here.)

---

It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

Greenbean

Employment rules are pretty tricky these days. Your only chance to discriminate as an employeer is when hiring, after that it can only be the actions of the individual that get them fired (or proven lack of need for that persons job anymore - ie you are bankrupt).

When hiring, and doing it properly - usually via a recruitment agency - you have to state essential and desirable aspects. If for example you said - essential c++ skills and 20 people applied and of these only 1 had c++ skills, there is absolutely NO way that you can hire one of the non c++ skilled people. You can be successfully sued I'm told.

C B

I'm not asking what the legal position is. I presume that the judges made a correct decision based on the law as it stands. I'm more interested in what the law should be. This woman was fired/ let go 'cause her employer felt that somebody else could do the job better. Surely every employer should have the right to set a job description and hire whomever they decide would best suit the job.

GreenHell

yes but the employer has no right to fire someone if they have not done something wrong.
Sure an employer can hire as many new faces as he/she wishes but law restricts an employer from getting rid of staff and basis of apperance, race, age, religion or sex

C B

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by GREENHELL:
the employer has no right to fire someone if they have not done something wrong.
</font>

why not? nobody owes you a job. if somebody can do your job better why shouldn't you be sacked?

The Sweeper

Based on that argument that anyone should be able to do any job, a woman has the right to be a professional sperm donor.

Judean Peoples Front, anyone?

---

It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

[This message has been edited by Minesajackdaniels (edited 25-07-2001).]

C B

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Minesajackdaniels:
a woman has the right to be a professional sperm donor.
</font>

don't you oppress me!

The Sweeper

I wouldn't dream of it. But still - the possibilities are endless... imagine - Oprah has the right to be Halle Berry's stunt double...

---

It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

Hobbes

Whoooaaaa there partner.

What they did was illegal. Why are you's even debating it?

Xterminator

In the specific case above, it seems they wanted a pretty young secretary. Possibly for the image purposes.

In Ireland it is against the law to discriminate against a person an the basis of age.

I can see the point of the employers, that they may want somebody that projects a certain image, when you walk into an office it is the secretary you see first.

But then from the point of the employee, just cause they don't like the look of your face, or your skin, or your weight etc. you don't get offered a post you apply for. Not acceptable, but very hard to prove.

I am always skeptical when I see these reports, eg a 'black man' cries racist because he gets passed over for a job.
For 'black man' subistute any phase eg. woman cries sexist, or handicapped person cries foul.

I wonder how they can tell none of the other applicants were better suited to the job, how they can tell none of the other applicants did a better interview etc.

Also you can see a situation develop were the employer might fear the accusation of discrimination, and this may be taken into account when giving the job, when it is supposed to be a level playing field for all, not weighted in favour of the minority.

[This message has been edited by Xterminator (edited 25-07-2001).]

C B

Because I don't think it should be illegal to sack somebody if someone else can do a better job.

GreenHell

Well if you hired to do a job and you do that job, and there is nothing wrong with your performance at work employers cannot just fire you for the above reasons, its law for god sake its simple protection for workers.

TheWolf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Minesajackdaniels:

Judean Peoples Front, anyone?

</font>

Judean Peoples Front, heh, wánkers, were the Peoples Front of Judea! lol, Judean Peoples Front

---

"A man works hard to keep the wolf from the door. Then his daughter grows up and brings one home..."

Hobbes

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by C B:
Because I don't think it should be illegal to sack somebody if someone else can do a better job.</font>

Well if you read the article you would of seen that.

a) The person sacked was more qualified.
b) The person hired they would have to train.
c) She was fired over her age, nothing to do with work.

C B

Hobbes,
The job had evolved and whoever was to do it would need to be trained. the employer felt that they would be better off training somebody young. Why shouldn't they be allowed? they don't owe anybody a job for life.

GreenHell

"Ms Argent claimed the partner who dismissed her spoke of a decision to "take on a young girl who could be trained to do her job". The partner in question denied saying that the <b>new</b> employee would be trained to do the complainant's job, but Ms Argent's version was supported by correspondence"

The article implies that the person hired to replace her would be doing the exact same job.