Im almost 64 firm expect me to to run about like an 18 year old.

Lokolo

bendix wrote: »

How interesting.

For a start I think you will fnd that it was Lokolo who made the post about not having kids unless you can afford it. Not me. I'm sure he will confirm it if he's around.

Secondly I had no posts removed. Sadly I have no power to remove posts.

I suggest that if you're going to attack me for my posts you should make sure it's me who posted it.

Yo yo yo. I'm here

This thread does make me chuckle. :cool:

No interwebs in the place I'm staying at the moment. Reading "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" in the evenings, almost finished so going to go onto the second book.

However, whilst at work I can happily browse MSE and catchup on this old men bickering thread

cyclonebri1

bendix wrote: »

Anyway, as purch suggested in a (now deleted) post. Given he's disappeared, it's highly likely it was a serious post anyway.

Yes it is highly likely it was a serious post as you say, please have another last word.

Googlewhacker

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I deduce from that you are about 20, fighting fit, probably sit at a desk all day and can only attempt humour by sarcasm??

An employer with one once of compassion cannot expect a 64 year old to run around like an 18 year old. Of course this is the fall down side of the age discrimination act, the employer sees it as a reason not to make allowances. :(

No, no, no (but quite alot) and no (I could tell you a joke if that would make you feel better?)

It was an off the cuff mark but at the end of the day there is a contract between the employee and the employer and as such the employee should be CAPABLE of doing the job. Most reasonable employers would make allowances where possible but some employers just cannot allow adjustments and as such should have the right to dismiss someone if they are incapable

cyclonebri1

Googlewhacker wrote: »

No, no, no (but quite alot) and no (I could tell you a joke if that would make you feel better?)

It was an off the cuff mark but at the end of the day there is a contract between the employee and the employer and as such the employee should be CAPABLE of doing the job. Most reasonable employers would make allowances where possible but some employers just cannot allow adjustments and as such should have the right to dismiss someone if they are incapable

So his employer is being unreasonable then but he can't avoid it???

I know you weren't really serious but can anyone honestly think they can do a manual job as well at 64 as they could at 18??

And if this is a spoof or troll it's still pretty valid.

Oh, and the employee will have been "persuaded" to sign his contract, legally binding or not, at fear of losing his job. :T

diable

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Most reasonable employers would make allowances where possible but some employers just cannot allow adjustments and as such should have the right to dismiss someone if they are incapable

Years ago if your sexual preferences where different from the norm or your religious beliefs and even the colour of your skin to some employers meant that you where incapable. Thats why we have certain laws to protect peoples rights.

Googlewhacker

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

So his employer is being unreasonable then but he can't avoid it???

I know you weren't really serious but can anyone honestly think they can do a manual job as well at 64 as they could at 18??

And if this is a spoof or troll it's still pretty valid.

Oh, and the employee will have been "persuaded" to sign his contract, legally binding or not, at fear of losing his job. :T

I'm talking reasonable not in the legal sense of things, If it were me and someone had worked for me for years and wasn't as capable I would look at all possibilities of getting him on an easier section of the company but if I couldn't possibly do that then it is not unreasonable for me to expect someone I have employed to do a job to do that joband if he was unable to do this then I would look at getting someone that can (but that would be a very very very very very last resort!)

Googlewhacker

diable wrote: »

Years ago if your sexual preferences where different from the norm or your religious beliefs and even the colour of your skin to some employers meant that you where incapable. Thats why we have certain laws to protect peoples rights.

That is a stupid comparison and you know it, the colour of someones skin etc does not affect their ability to do a job and if anyone thinks that they have serious problems. Also some 64 year olds will be fitter than some 18 year olds but when it comes down to capability regardless of the age if the person is not upto the job then it is fair on the employer to dismiss them.

As I have said on a personal view I would personally look to make that persons job easier but at the end of the day if I am running a business and am there to make money and having someone that is not capable of doing their job hindering this then I would lookto dismiss them (as a last resort).

cyclonebri1

Googlewhacker wrote: »

I'm talking reasonable not in the legal sense of things, If it were me and someone had worked for me for years and wasn't as capable I would look at all possibilities of getting him on an easier section of the company but if I couldn't possibly do that then it is not unreasonable for me to expect someone I have employed to do a job to do that joband if he was unable to do this then I would look at getting someone that can (but that would be a very very very very very last resort!)

I think there will be quite a few test cases to the age discrimination act fairly soon.

What I am sure was intended to prevent older people from being discriminated against has actually rebounded or backfired with a vengeance.
It's being used by younger folks to stop older workers being treated prefferencially , being given lighter duties, getting extra pension entitlements etc, I am privvy to some of this stuff;)

Lastly for some employers the black bit is a 1st resort :(