Too Hard To Prove (Your Rights)

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. The ADEA’s protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training. The ADEA permits employers to favor older workers based on age even when doing so adversely affects a younger worker who is 40 or older.
It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an age discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA.
The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. ADEA protections include:

• Apprenticeship Programs
  It is generally unlawful for apprenticeship programs, including joint labor-management apprenticeship programs, to discriminate on the basis of an individual’s age. Age limitations in apprenticeship programs are valid only if they fall within certain specific exceptions under the ADEA or if the EEOC grants a specific exemption.
• Job Notices and Advertisements
  The ADEA generally makes it unlawful to include age preferences, limitations, or specifications in job notices or advertisements. A job notice or advertisement may specify an age limit only in the rare circumstances where age is shown to be a “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business.
• Pre-Employment Inquiries
  The ADEA does not specifically prohibit an employer from asking an applicant’s age or date of birth. However, because such inquiries may deter older workers from applying for employment or may otherwise indicate possible intent to discriminate based on age, requests for age information will be closely scrutinized to make sure that the inquiry was made for a lawful purpose, rather than for a purpose prohibited by the ADEA. If the information is needed for a lawful purpose, it can be obtained after the employee is hired.
• Benefits
  The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA) amended the ADEA to specifically prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees. Congress recognized that the cost of providing certain benefits to older workers is greater than the cost of providing those same benefits to younger workers, and that those greater costs might create a disincentive to hire older workers. Therefore, in limited circumstances, an employer may be permitted to reduce benefits based on age, as long as the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is no less than the cost of providing benefits to younger workers.
  Employers are permitted to coordinate retiree health benefit plans with eligibility for Medicare or a comparable state-sponsored health benefit.
• Waivers of ADEA Rights
  An employer may ask an employee to waive his/her rights or claims under the ADEA.  Such waivers are common in settling ADEA discrimination claims or in connection with exit incentive or other employment termination programs. However, the ADEA, as amended by OWBPA, sets out specific minimum standards that must be met in order for a waiver to be considered knowing and voluntary and, therefore, valid. Among other requirements, a valid ADEA waiver must:
  • be in writing and be understandable;
  • specifically refer to ADEA rights or claims;
  • not waive rights or claims that may arise in the future;
  • be in exchange for valuable consideration in addition to anything of value to which the individual already is entitled;
  • advise the individual in writing to consult an attorney before signing the waiver; and
  • provide the individual at least 21 days to consider the agreement and at least seven days to revoke the agreement after signing it.

If an employer requests an ADEA waiver in connection with an exit incentive or other employment termination program, the minimum requirements for a valid waiver are more extensive.  See Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements" at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_severance-agreements.html

 

 

Age Discrimination

Age discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) less favorably because of his age.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) only forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states do have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.
It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.
Discrimination can occur when the victim and the person who inflicted the discrimination are both over 40.

Age Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Age Discrimination & Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person because of his or her age.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's age. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Age Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices

An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of age, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on applicants or employees age 40 or older and is not based on a reasonable factor other than age.

Occupy Wall Street

 I'm not sure why everyone is excited about this now. Pretty much everything people have worked their whole  lives for is gone. Are the people responsible going to pay us all back once everyone finally has figured out what they should have known all along? They've been ripped off, a little bit at a time over a much longer span the just four, or even twenty years.

 I don't need a Rachel Maddow, an Ed Shultz, or a Lawrence O'Donnell, or anyone else for that matter to show me graphs and tables, and give me history lectures to explain what has gone on with the financial institutions  in this country. I've lived it, watched it, and so have you.

 The people you and I work for have done it gradually, and not because they're all that bright and had some ominous plan to screw over the American working class, they were just fortunate enough to kill two birds with one stone, and created this little rich man poor man scenerio.

 So here we are. They got rich with money we earned, along with the money we helped them earn. Unfortunately for these individuals, there is also the fact that while they might have some skill with finance, numbers, and such. What other skills do these Wall Street wizards have? Can they do their own plumbing, are they electricians, can they put out their own fires, build, as well as protect their own homes, repair their own furnaces and air conditioners, fly themselves from one country to the other, or nurse themselves back to health and educate their children? And I've yet to even reach the tip of that iceberg. I could just add to the list.

 While it's not an original idea, and the unions have been doing it for years. Rather than, or in addition to standing out in front of their offices with signs, it would probably be a much more effective demonstration if for one or two days we all just stayed home and gave them an effective demonstration of what it would be like with one hundred percent unemployment. I believe my union brothers call that a strike. And I really don't think it would take one hundred percent of the working class of this country to make that point. Like you, I thinkWall Street and their congressional sympatizers should pay for what they've done to the country, but would punishing them help us? I doubt it. It won't make any of us any richer. But it might be gratifying to take a couple days off and watch the lines on Rachel and Eds graphs come together.

 Just a thought...

UMWA, Democratic Party different from father's day (An online letter)

Published: October 14, 2011 Writer unknown...

My father, a miner disabled by black lung, was a proud member of both the Democratic Party and the United Mine Workers’ of America. In the early ’70s, my father filed for and was awarded federal black lung benefits. Those benefits allowed my parents to live comfortably and have definitely been a much-needed addition to my 96-year-old mother’s monthly income.

One can only imagine my father’s dismay, were he alive, to realize that the UMWA he fought for is now supporting a candidate for Virginia state delegate who not only works for a law firm that defends coal operators against miners seeking black lung benefits, but the candidate also represents employers fighting black lung claimants.This is not my father’s UMWA!

I personally would have never believed that I would see the day that the UMWA would make the choice to financially support a candidate who “defends” coal operators and insurance companies against black lung claimants; and, choose to give no financial support to black lung associations that advocate for equitable black lung legislation and also assists black lung claimants.This is not my father’s UMWA!

Moreover, if the UMWA is supporting the Democratic candidate because he is a Democrat, then, you know what – this isn’t my father’s Democratic Party either!

Sparkle Bonds

Bandy, Va.

Paradise...Written by John Prine

destroyed the mountains," says Paul Ashley, a leading local opponent of surface mining. "They've destroyed the timber. They've destroyed the streams, and their coal trucks have destroyed our roads."

Now they would like to drill for oil in the everglades.

Corporate Tax Rates

Have you lost your job because your company has sent your job overseas?

Deferral of Income from Controlled Foreign Corporations costs the federal government...5-yr Cost to Government: $172.1 billion

All they apparently have to do is collect the profits and leave them overseas indefinitely, plus the added benefit of paying employees there less than what you would make here, and only pay taxes in the country where the business is located. As long as the money never comes back, to the US they do pretty well. No US taxes! Too bad Americans are the ones that have to suffer.

Then there's the Deduction for Domestic Manufacturing This one was created to keep jobs here. The 5yr Cost to Government is $58 billion, and my guess is that corporations keep a token amount of manufacturing plants in right to work states to collect on this. And it sounds to me like they're using this one to capitalize, not only on this tax break, but locating in states where unions are less prominent, and paying about half the wages and benefits.

Here's one that makes a little sense and has been around a while.

Accelerated Depreciation of Machinery and Equipment

This one costs the Government about $51.7 billion over a 5 year period. However it allows companies to take a depreciation on equipment that has a 20 year life prior to any point of deteriation.

Manufacturers aren't the only ones in the federal pockets, which in some obscene way leads me to the conclusion that poverty rocks in some circles.

Credit for Low-Income Housing Investmentswhich Costs Government: $34.5 billion over a five year period. Companies get tax breaks by developing low-income housing.

Take a look at the entire article.

Blowin' in the Wind

It's amazing that Dylan wrote this, how many years ago? And it still applies. We've learned nothing.

This video depicts some of the negative effects of globalization. Are there any positive effects? Well, I guess that would depend on who you are. I would doubt that the true christian philosophy would support globalization. The power shifts from the average American to the American Corporatist, whose regard for humanity seems to relate mostly to the bottom line.

The Times They Are A'Changin'

We recieved a warning from the state of Wisconsin that republicans and big business are going to do everything in their power to dissolve unions. That fight goes on. Don't ever kid yourself that if those in power ever thought force and violence was an option, they wouldn't use it. For years they have made minor changes in labor laws toward this end. This is a battle that affects union and non-union workers alike. Watch what happens if the unions give up.

Miners Medley

The fight for the miner still goes on. Union busting still goes on. Gradual elimination of organized labor has compromised the safety of the nations mines.