View Single Post
Old
06-18-2012, 09:54 PM
  #86
SK13
Mo'Linguish
 
SK13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Well, touchy apparently for those that are 21yrs old and can't read basic data tables I guess. The alternative is actually being able to look at information, not react unreasonably, and actually note that the data does tell a story. jebus if some person here claimed that 60yr olds make worse air traffic controllers because they're more likely to go nappy time at any point and they had data to back it up I wouldn't be claiming age prejudice and bigotry..
I'm pretty sure I did accuse you of ageism against older people when you made an unreasonable and frankly broken argument about Pat Quinn's age when he was hired as a coach.

So I'm not sure that example helps you here.

Quote:
Its easy to define the line. Every car insurance industry in the world does the identical profiling and adjusts insurance rates accordingly. Especially with young males. Is that prejudice? Or statistically backed rates according to data on risk? There are much greater risks employing young 21 yr old males in said capacity, which my link demonstrates.
There's a world of difference between a private company using data to determine entry level insurance rates (which is also regulated to some degree) and another company prejudicially deciding that a *qualified candidate can't be employed because he doesn't hit an minimum age quota. One is an optional arrangement with a private company, the other is possibly infringing on your right to seek employment.

* I know you don't feel a 21 year old should be qualified for the job based on experience, which is fine, but you didn't set the qualifications. If they're looking for someone with training and limited work experience, those are the qualifications that matter.

Quote:
Pay attention as well that this nature of job, for instance Loomis employees, used to require a higher minimum age and with more related experience. Its only the race to the bottom outsourcing charlatans like G4S that want to always limit qualifications and standards. What related experience did Baumgartner have, blowing away zombies in a video game?

Draw the distinction as well between a basic requirement of minimimum wage, which any company can have within reason and justification, and one that specifically preempts on the basis of race or skin color. Also, any firm has the right to denote certain years of experience. Which is exactly what occurs in almost any industry requiring experience. Is that age prejudice..?
Throw a minimum age of 25 in there, and theres no discrimination, only minimum age requirement. End of story.
If you're argument is that this company did not hire a qualified person, and that it should require more years of related experience, that's a perfect valid argument for a fairly inconsiquential point. Ultimately, what the requirements are for the job is up to this private company, and they assume all of the insurance risks and liability in the process.

But that's not your point. Your point is younger adults are statistically more dangerous, therefore should not be trusted with a job that involves firearms. It's funny that we let 18 year olds fight in wars, then, or go through training to be police officers before they turn 21. It's not overly difficult for a young adult to acquire firearms for protection or hunting, the process let's them at both classes of firearms at 18, with some certification possible at 16.

This is hardly a shocking exception.

Quote:
You're equating the two only for the purpose of argument. They are really different things.
It's profiling either way. I never said you were prejudiced or bigoted, that was someone else. I'm saying your argument is broken, and in some places, you're asking a company to profile in a manor which is at best a slippery slope, and at worst illegal.

The Canadian Human Rights Act (1977) specifically references "Age" as something that perspective employers can not use to descriminate against perspective employers. There are exceptions, in that if they can prove members of a certain age group CANT do the job, they may be able to screen based on it, but I'm not sure you can make that argument in this particular case.


Last edited by SK13: 06-18-2012 at 09:59 PM.
SK13 is offline