Harry Angstrom
Striker
Apparently yourselfWhom am I trying to fool, Mr Contrarian?
It’s just really cliched pish patter that someone like Jim Davidson would come out with.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Apparently yourselfWhom am I trying to fool, Mr Contrarian?
It’s just really cliched pish patter that someone like Jim Davidson would come out with.
As per the permanently offended prove once more they have no sense of humour.No it's not man. Even a lass on here liked the post. He even added ermm, it works both ways. He knows it's not worse for a man it was a pun.
Why don't we ask him?
@yamar1 were you serious, that it is worse for men?
I feel your pain.As per the permanently offended prove once more they have no sense of humour.
Not at all, Its part of life living with a wife and a daughter. And i was having a laugh, to be clear.
lost me sorryThat’s a Tory wet dream there.
I don't think many in their 80s will be looking for work. Quoting an extreme and unlikely example doesn't prove a point. If a person can't do a job because of age or whatever, then obviously you aren't going to take them on. But not taking them on when they can do the job but they just happen to be getting on a bit, is wrong.Well ageism is a load of nonsense isn't it, where do you draw the line? taking on people in there 70s and 80s? Its fair enough if companies choose not to do that.
How dare youAs per the permanently offended prove once more they have no sense of humour.
Not at all, Its part of life living with a wife and a daughter. And i was having a laugh, to be clear.
It isnt though in certain circumstances like mentioned, if you're going to heavily invest in them with training, courses and qualifications etc its common sense to employ someone younger who has a greater chance of providing a return on the investment.I don't think many in their 80s will be looking for work. Quoting an extreme and unlikely example doesn't prove a point. If a person can't do a job because of age or whatever, then obviously you aren't going to take them on. But not taking them on when they can do the job but they just happen to be getting on a bit, is wrong.
I doubt a seventy year old would apply for a job that required years of training.It isnt though in certain circumstances like mentioned, if you're going to heavily invest in them with training, courses and qualifications etc its common sense to employ someone younger who has a greater chance of providing a return on the investment.
People in there 60s would though yet will probably be retiring soon. Totally understandable why companies would prefer to recruit younger people.I doubt a seventy year old would apply for a job that required training.
Wouldn't somebody that age likely apply for a job that they were already qualified to do? Or for a job that required minimal training? At what age would you stop recruiting workers?People in there 60s would though yet will probably be retiring soon. Totally understandable why companies would prefer to recruit younger people.
Well it depends on the job and type of work, hands on manual work in a skilled environment I'd understand firms not taking on anyone over 60 tbh. Working in ASDA then aye it probably wouldn't put you off and the flexibility might suite both parties. I dont think if a firm decided to give a job to a 21 year old over a 60 year old they've done anything wrong though. I completely understand the decision, you build for the future at the end of the day.Wouldn't somebody that age likely apply for a job that they were already qualified to do? Or for a job that required minimal training? At what age would you stop recruiting workers?
It would be quite unfair the other way around though wouldn't it, to overlook someone who doesn't have as much time off, it's the practical reality of adding in more and more adjustments.Welcome to the world of being a woman.
Those wheelchairs really get in the way of people doing a good job, man!
I find it very telling that SMB doesn’t seem to think that a small business owner could ever be a woman of childbearing age themselves.
A 21 year old is more likely to move on for a better job. Also older people are more relable and more productive. If you take on a sixty year old you will likely get 6 or seven years out of them. Do many younger people stay at a job that long?Well it depends on the job and type of work, hands on manual work in a skilled environment I'd understand firms not taking on anyone over 60 tbh. Working in ASDA then aye it probably wouldn't put you off and the flexibility might suite both parties. I dont think if a firm decided to give a job to a 21 year old over a 60 year old they've done anything wrong though. I completely understand the decision, you build for the future at the end of the day.
You've just agreed with me and contradicted your point tbh, that could be classes as age discrimination given the job to the 35 year old. I think that's nonsense.A 21 year old is more likely to move on for a better job. Also older people are more relable and more productive. If you take on a sixty year old you will likely get 6 or seven years out of them. Do many younger people stay at a job that long?
I think younger people should be given opportunities over an elderly person. If there is one vacancy in town and a 65 and a 35 year old apply the job should go to the younger person. But nobody should be discriminated against for the crime of getting old. If old age is the only reason they aren't being considered then that is wrong.
No I haven't contradicted myself. I said if there is one job in town and a 65 year old applies then the job should go to someone younger. That's just being fair the younger person has his whole life infront of him. But if there are plenty of vacancies and an older worker can't get one because of his age that is wrong. You want to discriminate against older people regardless of any other circumstances.You've just agreed with me and contradicted your point tbh, that could be classes as age discrimination given the job to the 35 year old. I think that's nonsense.
You have the only thing you know about them is the ages. So that would be age discrimination. Im agreeing with you the 35 year old should get preference.No I haven't contradicted myself. I said if there is one job in town and a 65 year old applies then the job should go to someone younger. That's just being fair the younger person has his whole life infront of him. But if there are plenty of vacancies and an older worker can't get one because of his age that is wrong. You want to discriminate against older people regardless of any other circumstances.