Machinists Call for Airline Re-Regulation

Larry Dighera wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.

So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
sex discrimination in the workplace?



In general no I don't. There are certain situations though where common
sense should override the normal rules. Example, Hooters should not have
to hire or continue to employ waitresses that get old or fat. Just as
fashion designers should have to to continue to use models that the same
thing happens to. Mainly, because they are no longer able to do the job
they were hired to do which is be young and hot.

And, for the record, I hold in my hand an EEOC form 5, "Charge of
Discrimination" form. Race, Color, Sex, Religion, National Origin, Age,
Disability, and also retaliation are the things that can be claimed in
an EEOC case. Political isn't one of them.

You do realize that the response that started this sub-thread and the
statement that it followed were in the nature of humor? So I guess it is
safe to say we have found yet another area where you are socially
disabled. Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of
that. Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
list I see that is OK.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:28:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.

So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
sex discrimination in the workplace?



In general no I don't. There are certain situations though where common
sense should override the normal rules. Example, Hooters should not have
to hire or continue to employ waitresses that get old or fat. Just as
fashion designers should have to to continue to use models that the same
thing happens to. Mainly, because they are no longer able to do the job
they were hired to do which is be young and hot.


Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
discrimination in the workplace?

And, for the record, I hold in my hand an EEOC form 5, "Charge of
Discrimination" form. Race, Color, Sex, Religion, National Origin, Age,
Disability, and also retaliation are the things that can be claimed in
an EEOC case. Political isn't one of them.

Given a few more years of RNC influence in our government, I wouldn't
be surprised to see political orientation listed among them. :-)

You do realize that the response that started this sub-thread and the
statement that it followed were in the nature of humor? So I guess it is
safe to say we have found yet another area where you are socially
disabled.

Humor is either funny or it's not humorous. In a written forum,
without benefit of voice inflection nor visual cues, one cannot be
certain if an author's statement is sarcasm or not. My personal
policy is to treat all comments as literal unless sarcasm is denoted
with a :-). Was there a smily appended to the humor to which you
refer?

Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of that.

This smells a lot like a personal attack.

Perhaps you are man enough to take responsibility for your
contribution to any misunderstanding you perceive.

And is that the royal 'we' you used, or do you believe you speak for
the readership of this newsgroup.

Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
list I see that is OK.

--

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
--

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
discrimination in the workplace?


Can you justify the ban against age discrimination in the workplace?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
discrimination in the workplace?


Can you justify the ban against age discrimination in the workplace?

It appears you can't.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:28:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.
So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
sex discrimination in the workplace?


In general no I don't. There are certain situations though where common
sense should override the normal rules. Example, Hooters should not have
to hire or continue to employ waitresses that get old or fat. Just as
fashion designers should have to to continue to use models that the same
thing happens to. Mainly, because they are no longer able to do the job
they were hired to do which is be young and hot.


Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
discrimination in the workplace?


Sure, common sense. But that is something that is in short supply in our
government and in our courts. A few phrases along the lines of
"...except where market forces require otherwise..." and then some
verbiage to layout when those forces can come into play wouldn't hurt.




And, for the record, I hold in my hand an EEOC form 5, "Charge of
Discrimination" form. Race, Color, Sex, Religion, National Origin, Age,
Disability, and also retaliation are the things that can be claimed in
an EEOC case. Political isn't one of them.

Given a few more years of RNC influence in our government, I wouldn't
be surprised to see political orientation listed among them. :-)


RNC... HA, it is the the followers of the DNC that have burdened us with
political correctness.


You do realize that the response that started this sub-thread and the
statement that it followed were in the nature of humor? So I guess it is
safe to say we have found yet another area where you are socially
disabled.

Humor is either funny or it's not humorous. In a written forum,
without benefit of voice inflection nor visual cues, one cannot be
certain if an author's statement is sarcasm or not. My personal
policy is to treat all comments as literal unless sarcasm is denoted
with a :-). Was there a smily appended to the humor to which you
refer?

Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of that.

This smells a lot like a personal attack.


No that wasn't a personal attack. The personal attack was later in the
post when I called you an asshat.

Perhaps you are man enough to take responsibility for your
contribution to any misunderstanding you perceive.


I would but I perceived no misunderstanding. You di.

And is that the royal 'we' you used, or do you believe you speak for
the readership of this newsgroup.

The royal we.


Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
list I see that is OK.