THE OT THREAD - Lockout edition
View Single Post
06-18-2012, 10:25 PM
Now 11.5% more Zen
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Originally Posted by
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.
How on Earth is an age requirement illegal? Get a grip.
Nearly EVERY employer does this in the case of certain positions requiring responsibility, maturity, and experience. You can categorize it as minimum age requirement, minimum experience requirement, or both, all of which is perfectly legal.
Using the logical extension of your argument we should have Prime Ministers that are 21 instead of ones that just act like it..
Never said that YOU accused me of bigotry. You're late to the party.
Anyway I explained my point well, and thoroughly. It is really quite simple, minimum age requirement, its sensible, for a position entrusting working this security position with firearms.
As for the military I wasn't aware they sent people out into the field of battle armed, locked, and loaded after 5 days of simple basic training, news to me, which is the case in this G4S example. But again, you're late to the party and making me repeat myself. Its simply a bad idea sending 18yr olds anywhere to fight and has been documented many times and perhaps starting decades ago in Vietnam. We could argue that in PM, I don't imagine going too far on that tangent is productive here.
Finally, not every condition of employment is specifically up to an employer, G4S must meet, and satisfy, basic requirements of the Countries and jurisdictions in which they want to operate. Although sadly in our knock the walls down race to the bottom nation almost anything goes here. But that said this Company has run aground of minimal expectations here before. G4S WANTED to operate a money pickup service using ONE DRIVER/ONE normal CARGO VAN, a plan which was shot down in the courts and with the ruling indicating that such an expectation would far exceed acceptable risk for an individual involved in that employment with absolutely nobody watching their back. This is the firm we're talking about here. They'd have Donald Duck and Goofy picking up the money if they could get away with it.
Last edited by Replacement: 06-18-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Replacement