Retired people taking jobs from people who could use them

[Ree]

After all, if they just needed something to do with their time, they'd just take up a hobby (which, in some ways, is what volunteering is).

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if they don't need the money, then that's exactly what the job is, too.

[bainsidhe]

I have to agree with AB, the problem isn't the workers, it's the folks doing the hiring. If I hadn't suffered total burnout working 2 jobs, I'd still be working p/t at MalMart and enjoying the extra money. Not because I need extra money per se, but just because having a cushion and being able to splurge is totally awesome. That doesn't make me a bad person and just because I'm not some spry, fit young thing doesn't make me useless either. But if HR hired me only because I'm in my thirties and seem "more experienced" while overlooking younger or older persons who are equally experienced and willing to dedicate themselves to the job, then that would suck. Age discrimination isn't cool, whether against young or old.

[Seifer]

{sarcasm on}
They should quit hiring black people too, what with all those white people needing jobs....
{sarcasm off}

People are people, you don't get to throw away an entire class of people just because you think someone else is more deserving.

As a customer I want to go to the hardware store where the retired guys work. I don't care if they can lift eleven pounds, I care if they know what size breaker I need for that air conditioner and what size wire I should use to avoid a voltage drop on a 100' run

If one person is going to work and another is going to stand around all day, who should the store hire? Obviously the person who is actually going to work, since that's what they get paid to do. Whether that person is old or young is irrelevant - it's all about who works the hardest and therefore deserves to be paid for it.

[Imprl59]

I guess, if you can't find a valid argument to back up a disagreement with the ACTUAL point being made, the only recourse is skew what has been said..

And I guess when you have realized you were wrong but don't want to admit it you decide to call my argument invalid.

It's the same point. You decided grandma didn't need to work anymore because she already had enough. If you're entitled to decide when grandma has enough then surely I'm entitled to decide when you have enough.

You are jumping to all these incorrect conclusions that we are making a decision on who is deserving of a job and discriminating against certain age groups..

No jumping necessary. You said it all for me.... "These people have worked for years, and are now collecting pensions, and there they are, filling jobs that could go to younger people who really don't have any other source of income."

You didn't say generic people have enough money so they should go do volunteer work so other generic people can have the job. You want to get rid of the old people and hire young people because you decided the old people have enough. Your words, not mine.

I think it's very clear that we are talking about people who already have a full source of income and are only working to have something to do or get some extra cash versus someone who is just trying to make ends meet, or has no choice but to go on assistance or hit the streets.

How can you equate that with "more deserving" in the contexts that you have used it?

Nobody is saying anyone is "more deserving".
In fact, I think you are the only one who has actually used that phrase in an attempt to discredit anyone who has an issue with jobs going to retired people on pensions who want to earn extra cash instead of going to those of actual working age who need the income.

"I had written a referral note on the job app for a young single Mom who really needed a job. The father of the baby is a deadbeat.
Her only other option was to go on assistance and she didn't want to do that.

They were definitely hiring cashiers.

They never even looked at her app. Instead, they hired the wife of one of the old retired guys who already works in hardware. She's retired and on a pension too."



So you think that grandma shouldn't have a job because your friend decided to get knocked up by a looser? How many of your hours did you offer to not work so your friend could have a job? You certainly are deciding who you think is more deserving and providing us specific cases. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

[Seifer]

So you think that grandma shouldn't have a job because your friend decided to get knocked up by a looser? How many of your hours did you offer to not work so your friend could have a job? You certainly are deciding who you think is more deserving and providing us specific cases. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

WOW, someone is acting hateful today. Hypocritical, too.

You said earlier that you'd rather go to a hardware store that employs a retiree because that person is more likely to know what they're doing. That's ageism if I've ever seen it. Just because someone is old DOES NOT mean that they know what they're talking about. For all you know, the older employee is an idiot who doesn't know their asshole from a screwdriver, yet you feel it's okay to go straight to them for advice based on the fact that they're old? Old doesn't equal experienced, just like young doesn't equal inexperienced.

By the way, in that rant you gave in the above quote, HELL YES "grandma" shouldn't have a job because "[the] friend decided to get knocked up by a loser." In that case, "grandma" not only had a pension coming in, she also had a husband who had a pension AND was getting a check from the same hardware store. So, there "grandma" is with a household that has 3 checks coming in (plus social security, I'm guessing) and then there's "the friend" who has no money coming in.

Oh yeah, "grandma" deserves to have that fourth check over "the friend."

[Ree]

So you think that grandma shouldn't have a job because your friend decided to get knocked up by a looser?

Now who's discriminating? You don't even know the situation and you use that terminology?
This was a young, hard working young woman who was actually working her way through school to get a diploma, but had to drop out because she could no longer afford the tuition.
She didn't "decide to get knocked up".
She got pregnant with a guy to whom she was actually engaged to be married.
The baby was a year old when she found out that he had been cheating on her. She did not want to go on assistance. That was one of the reasons she didn't try to get public assistance to finance her way through school. She believes in working to pay her way.
But go ahead and show your hypocrisy by passing a snap judgment on her in the same way you are accusing me of doing.

How many of your hours did you offer to not work so your friend could have a job?

Once again, as in all your previous comments, you are comparing apples and oranges. My job is completely different than the one that was being filled, so it's irrelevant whether I give up my hours as a supervisor in a completely different area of the store so she could have a job as a cashier.
My department was not hiring, and my hours spent working are not optional.

You certainly are deciding who you think is more deserving and providing us specific cases. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Yes, I am naming specific cases, because that is the reason I posted.
I work with specific cases.

[Imprl59]

WOW, someone is acting hateful today. Hypocritical, too. .

No, someone is just tired of hearing how I somehow owe things to other people because they made bad choices. If the subject is brought up to win sympathy for one side then it's fair game for the other side.

You said earlier that you'd rather go to a hardware store that employs a retiree because that person is more likely to know what they're doing. That's ageism if I've ever seen it. Just because someone is old DOES NOT mean that they know what they're talking about. For all you know, the older employee is an idiot who doesn't know their asshole from a screwdriver, yet you feel it's okay to go straight to them for advice based on the fact that they're old? Old doesn't equal experienced, just like young doesn't equal inexperienced. .

You're right on that one. It is ageist of me. If I walk in to home depot tomorrow and see and old guy and a 20 year old I'm going to the old guy. Now if it's an old cashier or a young cashier I don't really care.

By the way, in that rant you gave in the above quote, HELL YES "grandma" shouldn't have a job because "[the] friend decided to get knocked up by a loser." In that case, "grandma" not only had a pension coming in, she also had a husband who had a pension AND was getting a check from the same hardware store. So, there "grandma" is with a household that has 3 checks coming in (plus social security, I'm guessing) and then there's "the friend" who has no money coming in.

Oh yeah, "grandma" deserves to have that fourth check over "the friend."

My question to you is How is it that you get to decide what's enough for one person and not enough for another? Why does grandmas number of checks determine her need? Do you have any idea how much grandma and grandpa are paying for medicine every month? My dad's out of pocket is $2500 a month. I guess if we left the decision to you he should sit at home and die so someone else could have his part time job. Perhaps you're right. I just wonder how it is you got to be the one to decide.

[Ree]

No, someone is just tired of hearing how I somehow owe things to other people because they made bad choices. If the subject is brought up to win sympathy for one side then it's fair game for the other side.

It was NOT offered as a sympathy ploy.
It was offered as background for why this girl could have used the job over a woman who, as Seifer pointed out, has 4 incomes coming in to the home.

[Seifer]

No, someone is just tired of hearing how I somehow owe things to other people because they made bad choices. If the subject is brought up to win sympathy for one side then it's fair game for the other side.

Um, just so we're clear, if the single-mother in the given example didn't get a job, she would have probably had to go on welfare. Since she was apparently passed over for the job, she might have needed assistance from the government. The older person in the example already had three incomes coming in, and was probably getting social security from the government, so I'm guessing they weren't desperate for the money.

How exactly is the single mother getting the job affecting you? Her not getting the job is what could have caused her to go on government assistance, which would have cost everyone tax money.

You're right on that one. It is ageist of me. If I walk in to home depot tomorrow and see and old guy and a 20 year old I'm going to the old guy. Now if it's an old cashier or a young cashier I don't really care.

If you admit you're ageist then why are you so angry with who you perceive to be ageist as well? Is it just because they appear to be ageist against your side?

My question to you is How is it that you get to decide what's enough for one person and not enough for another? Why does grandmas number of checks determine her need? Do you have any idea how much grandma and grandpa are paying for medicine every month?

Why do you get to pass judgment on the single mom and say she's less deserving? Is it because she supposedly spread her legs and had a brat with a deadbeat dad? Is that why she deserves to be passed over for someone who is already making more money and (from the sounds of it) is too old to be able to perform the job properly?

Do you have any idea how much grandma and grandpa are paying in medicine every month? Assuming that one household pays the same amount in medicine every month is asinine. My grandmother doesn't work, so she lives off social security and her late husband's military pension. She has medications to take, but due to her husband having been in the military, she has some of the most amazing insurance available. (She paid $10 for a medication whereas I had to pay $300 for the same damn thing.) Plus, the older generation has access to government funded medical plans and services, so unless they have an unbelievable amount of medication to take, a household with 3 incomes + social security coming in is probably not that desperate.

My dad's out of pocket is $2500 a month. I guess if we left the decision to you he should sit at home and die so someone else could have his part time job. Perhaps you're right. I just wonder how it is you got to be the one to decide.

Actually, since I'm not ageist, I think if a person can do the job, then they should go for it. However, I think it's unfair for a company to hire an elderly person over a younger person just because the elderly are thought to be more experienced or knowledgeable. Like I said earlier, age doesn't equal experience, just like youth doesn't equal inexperience.

What it boils down to is this: Hire the person who is best able to perform the job.

[Ree]

You're right on that one. It is ageist of me. If I walk in to home depot tomorrow and see and old guy and a 20 year old I'm going to the old guy. Now if it's an old cashier or a young cashier I don't really care.

Well, if you're ever in my store and you do that, then you're pretty much screwed.
But, if that's the attitude you have going in, then I guess you get exactly what you deserve.

[Imprl59]

Now who's discriminating? You don't even know the situation and you use that terminology?
This was a young, hard working young woman who was actually working her way through school to get a diploma, but had to drop out because she could no longer afford the tuition.
She didn't "decide to get knocked up".
She got pregnant with a guy to whom she was actually engaged to be married.
The baby was a year old when she found out that he had been cheating on her. She did not want to go on assistance. That was one of the reasons she didn't try to get public assistance to finance her way through school. She believes in working to pay her way.
But go ahead and show your hypocrisy by passing a snap judgment on her in the same way you are accusing me of doing.

Yes, If you are allowed to decide that grandma doesn't need any more money because she already gets some checks then I am allowed to decide your friend is a bit of a ho when you bring her reproductive history in to the argument.

Once again, as in all your previous comments, you are comparing apples and oranges. My job is completely different than the one that was being filled, so it's irrelevant whether I give up my hours as a supervisor in a completely different area of the store so she could have a job as a cashier.
My department was not hiring, and my hours spent working are not optional.
Yes, I am naming specific cases, because that is the reason I posted.
I work with specific cases.

Once again, as in all your previous comments, you are trying to pretend my arguments are invalid to try to make yourself look better. Your company has X number of supervisor hours that have to be filled. They have Y number of supervisors to fill those hours. If you can no longer fill your part of Y hours they hire another person to fill those hours. I would guess that supervisors make more money than cashiers in your place of employment as they do in most places. This is good news for your friend! Now she doesn't have to be a cashier, she can apply for the part time supervisor position!

I missed your response to my quote of your blatant ageism from your first post. Im looking forward to reading it.

[Andara Bledin]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if they don't need the money, then that's exactly what the job is, too.

What you consider a job to be is irrelevant. It's what the person vying for the job considers it that matters to them. You don't get to decide what's right for other adults.

As for your friend with the kid, while that sucks, it's also irrelevant. Her situation is completely outside of the hiring process. Sure, it would be awesome if the company had hired her to help her out, but choosing her over an elderly person because she has a kid isn't any better than what you're complaining about.

^-.-^

[blas87]

Where I work, you want answers to how to operate the machinery and the computers that are the heart and brains of the machinery, your best bet is to go to one of us pups.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a 25 year old girl, and I am awesome with Allen wrenches and screwdrivers. Even nuts.

[Ree]

Yes, If you are allowed to decide that grandma doesn't need any more money because she already gets some checks then I am allowed to decide your friend is a bit of a ho when you bring her reproductive history in to the argument.

I realize you are just saying that for shock value because you can't think of anything else of any actual value, so I will let that pass.
She's actually more of an acquaintance than a friend, so I'm not taking offense on her account, but she's actually a lovely young woman.
I mentioned the fact that she had a child and she is a single mother who is trying to provide for her child rather than go on social assistance because I think that is relevant.
Aspersions on her character and sexual history are not, but if it works for you because you have trouble forming an argument, then I can forgive that.

By the way, you keep referring to the woman who got the job as "Grandma".
She doesn't actually have any grandchildren.
Talk about stereotyping and "ageism".
Apparently, though, that's OK as long as it's only you who is doing it, and it only goes one way in favour of the elderly.

[HYHYBT]

This presumes that the young people don't know these things. I run into this at my job all the time and I hate it. I'm under 25, I'm a woman and yep, I'm the assistant manager of the TV department. Day in and day out, people take me less seriously than my employees because I'm younger than they are. I work hard to keep on top of the product knowledge needed to run a technical department, and I do a damn good job. But because I don't have wrinkles, people think I obviously can't know what I'm talking about.

Funny thing: a month or two ago, Dad went to get a new TV. He brought me along because supposedly I'm an expert on those things... despite the fact that, as I reminded him, *my* TV still has knobs.

Although, if it can be proven there is a clear history of age discrimination ... it might be an issue to take to the local labor board...

I'm not 100% certain on this, but I *think* that, strange though it is, it's only illegal to discriminate against old people.

But really... I suspect that if they were hiring young and old alike, there would be no complaint on Fratching about the old people taking the jobs. The problem lies with the store's hiring practices.

Tempting though it may be, it's probably best in general not to give preferential treatment in hiring based on who needs the job the most. For one thing, if you *hire* somebody based on (your perception of) how badly they need the job, it will be all the harder to fire them if that becomes necessary. Also: how much of a potential hire's financial situation is the person doing the hiring likely to know about before making that decision anyway? Much of it depends on questions you're not allowed to ask in an interview, and the rest is still nobody's business. And of course many people who do really need the income (for whatever reason, and perhaps even moreso if what they have appears to others to be ample) are likely, if asked why they want the job, to frame it as wanting to get out of the house, feel useful, etc. Many people don't like airing their problems to strangers, and many more don't want to show weakness at a job interview.