How can they say this? Of course it is pertinent. Our legal sysem is imploding. Any testimony to find the truth shouild be allowed. So Ok legal scum – if not pertinent what about her privacy issues? Other employees easily saw this information.
I can’t imagin a company would fire someone who is productive. That’s contrary to good business practice. I would hate to think that it is harder for me to fire a forgetful old geezer than to fire a perfectly competent young/white/male person.
In a free country, employers can hire whom they want. In a dictatorship, the “subjects” are told with whom they must associate.
In a free country, workers can be let go for any reason, even due to the well-known, axiomatic ravages of age. In a dictatorship, employers are told by Big Brother that they may not fire slow geezers no matter what the drain on the bottom line.
This ruling is a vote for freedom, and you geniuses lament that fact.
Lets hope there are still have laws against age bias when you get to be one of the “slow Geezers”. Oops! Maybe you’re already there. Your comment has all the markings of senility/lost of true reality.
Hell, I’m older than the gal in this story. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Please. Do you want to live in a free country or not? If you restrict your neighbor’s freedom regarding his own property, by placing innumerable restrictions on his behavior, then he is not free. If you agree with that, you are an oppressor. No bones about it.
So call me names, mock etc., but I wish someone would debate the merits of my statement instead. Freedom is hard, and so is arguing against it, which is why you won’t.
Slaves were pensioned in the old South, did you know that? The plantations couldn’t just cut them lose when they were no longer at peak production, they had to continue to feed, clothe and shelter them until they died. Kinda like you’re arguing for.
If the testimony of the other employees is indeed just hearsay it should be easy to show that. I agree that we should not be placing limits on who can testify in a court case regardless of who is actually named in the suit. Reversing this ruling is the beginning on a course down a very slippery slope.
As tough as it is for all of us to realize/accept…one day we too, will get older and less productive. We have a shelf life…we should not expect to be paid for production we don’t accomplish. If that were the case we would have 60 year old athletes playing professional sports, breaking their hips and running in slow motion compared to their younger counterparts. The entertainment value may be diminished slightly if that were the case and some might lose interest…then they would all be out of a job, wouldn’t they?
How would you like to pay for a house that was built by 80 year old workers? IF the house was ever finished, would it stand with a good breeze blowing on it? Would it cost 3 times as much because it took 3 times as long? Would you want your children living in that house?
Is it possible you might want to rethink your stance on this issue? I’m not the economic think tank, per say, so I could be wrong.
Maybe…just maybe…people should be expected to take care of themselves when they get older, i.e. savings, 401K, more children, etc as their safety net rather than expect their employer to do it. In addition, weren’t they paid for services rendered when they rendered them? Why does the employer become liable, in your opinion, for un-equal services rendered in the future?
The U.S. was a capitalist/free enterprise system last I checked. You are welcome to disagree, that is your right, but you are also welcome to move to Great Britain or China to experience what they have to offer.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
How can they say this? Of course it is pertinent. Our legal sysem is imploding. Any testimony to find the truth shouild be allowed. So Ok legal scum – if not pertinent what about her privacy issues? Other employees easily saw this information.
I can’t imagin a company would fire someone who is productive. That’s contrary to good business practice. I would hate to think that it is harder for me to fire a forgetful old geezer than to fire a perfectly competent young/white/male person.
I hope the Supreme Court overturns the stupid ruling. The “information” has no bearing on the case and is total heresay.
to deny fairness and justice at every turn. Hello corporate profits, goodbye equal justice for the less fortunate. How sad :(
In a free country, employers can hire whom they want. In a dictatorship, the “subjects” are told with whom they must associate.
In a free country, workers can be let go for any reason, even due to the well-known, axiomatic ravages of age. In a dictatorship, employers are told by Big Brother that they may not fire slow geezers no matter what the drain on the bottom line.
This ruling is a vote for freedom, and you geniuses lament that fact.
Al,
Lets hope there are still have laws against age bias when you get to be one of the “slow Geezers”. Oops! Maybe you’re already there. Your comment has all the markings of senility/lost of true reality.
Hell, I’m older than the gal in this story. Please tell me where I’m wrong. Please. Do you want to live in a free country or not? If you restrict your neighbor’s freedom regarding his own property, by placing innumerable restrictions on his behavior, then he is not free. If you agree with that, you are an oppressor. No bones about it.
So call me names, mock etc., but I wish someone would debate the merits of my statement instead. Freedom is hard, and so is arguing against it, which is why you won’t.
Slaves were pensioned in the old South, did you know that? The plantations couldn’t just cut them lose when they were no longer at peak production, they had to continue to feed, clothe and shelter them until they died. Kinda like you’re arguing for.
If the testimony of the other employees is indeed just hearsay it should be easy to show that. I agree that we should not be placing limits on who can testify in a court case regardless of who is actually named in the suit. Reversing this ruling is the beginning on a course down a very slippery slope.
I totally agree with Al.
As tough as it is for all of us to realize/accept…one day we too, will get older and less productive. We have a shelf life…we should not expect to be paid for production we don’t accomplish. If that were the case we would have 60 year old athletes playing professional sports, breaking their hips and running in slow motion compared to their younger counterparts. The entertainment value may be diminished slightly if that were the case and some might lose interest…then they would all be out of a job, wouldn’t they?
How would you like to pay for a house that was built by 80 year old workers? IF the house was ever finished, would it stand with a good breeze blowing on it? Would it cost 3 times as much because it took 3 times as long? Would you want your children living in that house?
Is it possible you might want to rethink your stance on this issue? I’m not the economic think tank, per say, so I could be wrong.
Maybe…just maybe…people should be expected to take care of themselves when they get older, i.e. savings, 401K, more children, etc as their safety net rather than expect their employer to do it. In addition, weren’t they paid for services rendered when they rendered them? Why does the employer become liable, in your opinion, for un-equal services rendered in the future?
The U.S. was a capitalist/free enterprise system last I checked. You are welcome to disagree, that is your right, but you are also welcome to move to Great Britain or China to experience what they have to offer.
Just my two cents….
That’s more than two cents-worth, that’s priceless wisdom.