Slashdot Mirror
Age Discrimination, Indian-Style
theodp writes "In April, IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano told investors Big Blue hopes to dodge an estimated $6 billion in liability stemming from a judge's ruling that IBM violated U.S. federal age discrimination laws. In May, IBM closes on its $150-$200MM purchase of Indian outsourcer Daksh, whose age requirements for job applicants make Logan's Run seem progressive. On its Opportunities page, Daksh states that Customer Care Specialists should be between 21-25 years of age and Team Leaders should be no older than 27. Early Daksh investors included Citigroup and we-don't-need-no-stinking-unions Amazon."
I'll probably get flamed but how come whenever we talk about age discrimination we prevent older people from working. We never talk about the fact that millions 17- people are discriminated all the time for all kinds of things ranging from big machinery to going to movies. Yes in many cases they might not be mentally or physically mature but they often are. I was mentally the same as I am now when I was 14 or even younger. And as an age many "older" people are just as "dumb" as younger ones. Sometimes people talk about needing a cutoff but we don't need one. Age just isn't related to most of that. Size might be for a few things but not most. They can't even vote but the law expects them to be tried as adults. Wasn't there a revolution about taxing without voting! It's isn't fair and won't be until children get all rights due to them.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
And the point is ?
What your'e saying is undoubtedly true, you have missed the fact that younger less experienced people are more easily pliable with vague promises of promotion into management positions. Young people are considerably less likely to leave a job to retire.
The question is should an employer be penalized for trying to use the best most motivated workforce ? Every time someone is hired there are numerous acts of discrimination. Candidate A went to a better school, Candidate B had a good personal presentation. Candidate C was 6 months pregnant and had a high probability of taking maternity leave.
Companies have legal status as individuals and well run companies do indeed act as individuals. Their first priority is to maintain their own existence. If they don't maintain their existence its moot to argue about their hiring practices. This is something that the legal system would do well to recognize as its very hard to sue defunct companies as well.
The only things that are legitimate complaints of descrimination are sex and race, and in alot of situations sex doesn't cut it. Yes ladies if you want maternity leave and pregnancy covered by healthcare it will get back to you. This is reality these choices cost money somewhere it will get paid for.
The truly sad thing in this story is the whiny annoying horrible premise that underlies it. The shear arrogance that says yes lets go to the courts and have the laws of economics, common sense and if at all possible the laws of physics set aside so that a class of people can hold onto what they have come to regard as their right and privilege.
Thanks be to Milton Friedman, Presidents Clinton and Bush and free trade!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Somebody with the class and educational background to get this sort of job in India speaks English well enough. Your problem is not that the foreign workers speak bad English, but rather that you're intolerant of anybody who speaks it with a foreign accent, and undisposed to listen to them in the first place. (Of course you're not going to understand what somebody says if you don't listen to them.)
Are you adequate?
21-25 year olds are a minority group, so this is called 'affirmative action', which means its discrimination, but it's good discrimination. Nothing to see here folks, move along...