Legal and Illegal Employment Practices

I'm curious how many people have experienced illegal HR practices. If legal experts could comment as well it would be very helpful.

Here's one: a large layoff where everyone gets a letter telling them their position is not needed. A month later temps are being hired to fill those positions. Does the company has a legal obligation to offer the positions to those who were laid off? Is there preferential rehire for laid-off employees?

I applied and interviewed for a contract software position at a large online medical information company. In addition to a job application, they had me fill a form to "track their interviewing process"; including my ethnic group, social security number and age.
I was in a bit of a quandry about filling it out, but since I didn't want to appear negative about applying, I went ahead.

Although the interview went well (always hard to tell), I didn't get the job.

I am 55 and although I believe there is a lot of covert age-ism, this is the first time it has been so overt.

I believe this is illegal, but what recourse did/do I have?

Not totally sure, but at my last job the employer was paying under the table and with personal checks. That's really illegal.

55 & looking in Portland, Oregon said: I applied and interviewed for a contract software position at a large online medical information company. In addition to a job application, they had me fill a form to "track their interviewing process"; including my ethnic group, social security number and age.
I was in a bit of a quandry about filling it out, but since I didn't want to appear negative about applying, I went ahead.

Although the interview went well (always hard to tell), I didn't get the job.

I am 55 and although I believe there is a lot of covert age-ism, this is the first time it has been so overt.

I believe this is illegal, but what recourse did/do I have?

If they are a company that has government contracts, they are required by law to request some "applicant flow" information for their affirmative action plan and their EEO form they must file every year. The request usually states that it is voluntary and is not considered in the hiring process. Good places don't even make that information available to the recruiter or the hiring manager.

That being said, the information that is required is ethnic group, gender and veteran status. Age (or birth date for that matter) should never, ever be requested; most companies won't even ask for year graduated high school for fear it could be used to calculate age and be construed as age discrimination.

How bout this...I loved my job and the work I was doing Retail/Wholesale Home Decor (for a Very Large International Company).. I had Seniority over everyone. I had more responsibility than anyone else, besides senior management, and then I found out that EVERYONE who had been hired (male) in the past year was making More Money than me - ?? - AND ... one of them touched me and another female employee inappropriately - both on the same day - and they not only did not reprimand him in any way - soon after he was offered a full time employment benefit package. Now I sadly no longer work for these amazing people and they do not want to pay me the commissions that I have earned (going out of town/state to do shows). I think there may be a few bends in the law there? Perhaps... Sexual Harrassment? Gender Descrimination? Fair Wage Acts? Any suggestions?

laid-off in Livermore in San Leandro, California said: Here's one: a large layoff where everyone gets a letter telling them their position is not needed. A month later temps are being hired to fill those positions. Does the company has a legal obligation to offer the positions to those who were laid off? Is there preferential rehire for laid-off employees?

It depends. What is your age, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability status as compared to the individuals who were hired to take your place? In which were you employed?

And one other question -- HR Person -- What does someones credit report have to do with the job? We the people are being laid off left & right, using every dime to save our homes yet our credit goes sour. We can't get interviews no matter how much education, experience, or training we have because we are being judged by a credit report which has nothing to do with whether we can do the job. We are trying to get jobs and our credit is falling by the wayside because it is difficult to secure a position. Those with bad credit, due to lay-offs, are being told we are BRIBERY risks yet we haven't done anything to get this label but get laid off and try to survive what the companies we were working for did to us. Now that Credit reports are a factor the working class trying to survive will not survive and the homeless rates will continue to grow. However, since it is the govt. who puts out those reports they will lie about that to the rest of the world as well. We as a country are completely screwed! Nothing like working over 30 years to lose everything because we are now deemed Bribe risks. We need someone to regulate the govts hiring practices that aren't a govt agency!!

jd in Massachusetts in Middleboro, Massachusetts said: It depends. What is your age, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability status as compared to the individuals who were hired to take your place? In which were you employed?

Yes, it depends on if they can hire someone else for less pay while they keep the upper mgmt levels or need to give them their bonuses. They rehire for less, will change the job title slightly to get someone in at a much lower rate. Lay-offs were designed to eliminate people who have rightly worked there way to a decent salary just to get replaced by some younger less experienced lower paid individual and it is the countrys way of allowing companies to screw the ones who helped them get where they are today. Sexual orientation should play NO PART, age should play NO PART, race should play NO PART -- but if you just about to be fully vested or are about to get to the next payscale -- YOU ARE DEEMED no longer right for the position! Plus since outsourcing seems to be the way more companies are going it is a way to hire without giving benefits to its people. However, their greed will come back to bite them in the butt later on & that is the day I am waiting for!

mad in marietta in Marietta, Georgia said: How bout this...I loved my job and the work I was doing Retail/Wholesale Home Decor (for a Very Large International Company).. I had Seniority over everyone. I had more responsibility than anyone else, besides senior management, and then I found out that EVERYONE who had been hired (male) in the past year was making More Money than me - ?? - AND ... one of them touched me and another female employee inappropriately - both on the same day - and they not only did not reprimand him in any way - soon after he was offered a full time employment benefit package. Now I sadly no longer work for these amazing people and they do not want to pay me the commissions that I have earned (going out of town/state to do shows). I think there may be a few bends in the law there? Perhaps... Sexual Harrassment? Gender Descrimination? Fair Wage Acts? Any suggestions?

You have a right to the commissions you already earned. Were you paid on written or delivered sales? Was your pay plan in writing? To understand whether you may have a discrimination case, may I ask you the following questions? What is your age, race, sex, sexual orientation, disability status as compared to the individuals who were hired to take your place? In which state were you employed?

I am 36 year old healthy white female. None of the males were hired to take my place. They were an addition to our workforce. We were expanding our scope and needed manual laborers in the shipping/warehouse department. I was in charge of all shipping procedures, so they were all hired to work under me. I also did trade shows as part of our new expansion. It was not in writing that was given to me, but the pay for that area has been consistent throughout, with the only exception being an adjustment after my very first Show. My commission was calculated from the amount sold - after delivery and after the grace period for Returns/Claims/etc. had expired. Monthly commissions were paid around 45 days after I shipped the order to the customer.

We are in the beautiful state of Georgia - north tip of Atlanta. I

Jobless Female said: Yes, it depends on if they can hire someone else for less pay while they keep the upper mgmt levels or need to give them their bonuses. They rehire for less, will change the job title slightly to get someone in at a much lower rate. Lay-offs were designed to eliminate people who have rightly worked there way to a decent salary just to get replaced by some younger less experienced lower paid individual and it is the countrys way of allowing companies to screw the ones who helped them get where they are today. Sexual orientation should play NO PART, age should play NO PART, race should play NO PART -- but if you just about to be fully vested or are about to get to the next payscale -- YOU ARE DEEMED no longer right for the position! Plus since outsourcing seems to be the way more companies are going it is a way to hire without giving benefits to its people. However, their greed will come back to bite them in the butt later on & that is the day I am waiting for!

I have been curious what "outsourcing" meant...

Outsourcing is bringing people into a company, they most likely are the hardest working people, making the least amount of pay, getting little or no benefits from the company that they work for who placed them there. That means the companies your are placed at with the really great perks. IBM, Lockheed Martin, the State & Federal Govt, Xerox, Boeing, most major corporations are now outsourcing. Trying to eliminate the overhead by filling positions with companies that will place their people in them. Most companies that do the outsourcing don't allow you to participate in any of their functions as you are an 'outsider' -- some treat you as if you have the plague some don't. Employees wear one color badge, the outsourced individuals have another and are also notated in their email address with a {C}. It's corporate discrimination at its best and this world wonders why everyone doesn't get along --

HR Person in San Diego, California said: If they are a company that has government contracts, they are required by law to request some "applicant flow" information for their affirmative action plan and their EEO form they must file every year. The request usually states that it is voluntary and is not considered in the hiring process. Good places don't even make that information available to the recruiter or the hiring manager.

That being said, the information that is required is ethnic group, gender and veteran status. Age (or birth date for that matter) should never, ever be requested; most companies won't even ask for year graduated high school for fear it could be used to calculate age and be construed as age discrimination.

I wish that was the case in Texas. I only ONCE saw an application that specifically said to NOT put down your birth year. My husband once went to apply for a job and the supervisor actually ASKED him how old he was!

I'm 47, college degreed and have plenty of experience. However, it's almost impossible to get something other than a contract job. This was a shock because I never used to have any problem getting permanent work even when I had less experience. But it seems everyone wants "fresh-outs" (of college) so they can get them cheap (and I suspect it keeps their insurance costs down.) Trying to PROVE people are discriminating because of age (or any other reason), however, is another thing.

Jobless Female said: Outsourcing is bringing people into a company, they most likely are the hardest working people, making the least amount of pay, getting little or no benefits from the company that they work for who placed them there. That means the companies your are placed at with the really great perks.

More specifically, outsourcing generally means using contract workers, most notably hiring contract people overseas. Contract/temp workers do not COUNT as staff or come out of the staffing budget, so a manager can look like they are reducing staff (making the stock go up) when they're just moving the jobs overseas.

Some countries, unlike the US, put a limit on their companies on how many contract workers they can hire to keep them from just hiring all contract or part-time employees and not having to pay benefits.

May I suggest watching this video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU#qR_g3S40kj4

Jobless American in Stamford, Connecticut said: May I suggest watching this video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU#qR_g3S40kj4

Thank you for the link to the video. It explains alot and it's obvious to us who are seeking work, but now we see it televised on national tv! Nice.
I sent this out to alot of people who can't figure out what the H is going on in America.

Anybody jobless and over 40 want to protest on the steps of Capitol Hill?

STOP AGE DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!

One interviewer asked what my "total years of work experience" were. It occurred to me that she was just trying to gauge my age without asking me directly. I don't know if it's illegal, but seems unethical since age shouldn't be a factor.

Unemployed Tech Chick in Houston, Texas: "I'm 47, college degreed and have plenty of experience. However, it's almost impossible to get something other than a contract job. This was a shock because I never used to have any problem getting permanent work even when I had less experience. But it seems everyone wants "fresh-outs" (of college) so they can get them cheap (and I suspect it keeps their insurance costs down.) Trying to PROVE people are discriminating because of age (or any other reason), however, is another thing."

You hit the nail on the head on all of your points. It used to be that to get the job you needed experience and to get experience you needed the job. Now, if you have the experience you won't be hired.

Age and employment cases are tough. You need proof you suffered discrimination. Try to get someone who attended your interview to speak up in your behalf. Good luck. Discrimination won't show up on paperwork. And, let's say that if you can prove age discrimination. The company only has to say it liked other candidates better.

The strange thing about high insurance costs is something changes if you become unemployed. If you were older but employed your employer was paying for your insurance. Become unemployed but can still do your job and employers will pass on you. They don't want to pay for your insurance. What changed?

Good luck with your job search.

Unemployed Tech Chick in Houston, Texas: "I'm 47, college degreed and have plenty of experience. However, it's almost impossible to get something other than a contract job. This was a shock because I never used to have any problem getting permanent work even when I had less experience. But it seems everyone wants "fresh-outs" (of college) so they can get them cheap (and I suspect it keeps their insurance costs down.) Trying to PROVE people are discriminating because of age (or any other reason), however, is another thing."

You hit the nail on the head on all of your points. It used to be that to get the job you needed experience and to get experience you needed the job. Now, if you have the experience you won't be hired.

Age and employment cases are tough. You need proof you suffered discrimination. Try to get someone who attended your interview to speak up in your behalf. Good luck. Discrimination won't show up on paperwork. And, let's say you can prove age discrimination. The company only has to say it liked other candidates better.

The strange thing about high insurance costs is something changes if you become unemployed. If you were older but employed your employer was paying for your insurance. Become unemployed but can still do your job and employers will pass on you. They don't want to pay for your insurance. What changed?

Good luck with your job search.

Well, if their job requirement says you need over 10 years experience I would say 12 or 15 even if I had 26 years experience. That way you are covered without revealing your age and they can't figure it out.

Jobless Female in Vienna, Virginia: "Well, if their job requirement says you need over 10 years experience I would say 12 or 15 even if I had 26 years experience. That way you are covered without revealing your age and they can't figure it out."

Lying that you had more experience than you really had was a big temptation. Now, you have to lie that you have less experience than you really have. Further, lying on a job app, which is a legal document as opposed to a resume, can get you fired. What if you lie about having less experience than you really have? Ya gotta love the irony (not)!

Not getting credit for or being considered in light of years of good work experience really sux.

That's my point though -- you are just stating that you have the number of years maybe a few more than what they are asking. They can't prove you are lying if you weren't truly experienced in say, the first 10 years, right -- since they considered you a novice - fresh new kid. These companies are lying all the time about complying with the EEO and WE know they aren't hiring due to age. Do you think that they would hunt to find out if you had MORE experience then you were stating. Afterall, they are expecting us to constantly change careers and learn new things -- so in actuality stating less is more accurate than stating more. I've just been wondering what we HAVE to due to prevent them from saying it's because we are over 40. Besides that, if these young hiring folk are so smart, then why are they afraid to hire us -- we're old, don't work as fast or think as fast [in their eyes] so what makes them so afraid? Most rules for apps are 10 years back & yet they think we don't know that when they are writing down what we say is them actually totalling the years because they can't add it up in their heads - since they are so use to using calculators and can't figure it out any other way? Not getting credit does suk but somehow, someway, we have to outsmart them. I look younger than what I am -- but it is very hard to play dumb.

Perhaps it's because these young types either (1) don't respect their elders; (2) are afraid that older, more experienced workers may know more than they do and could take their jobs; or (3) know that older and wiser workers are more apt to question them.

Getting a job has always been hard, but never as hard as it is these days. <sigh> Once again, good luck with your job search.

DLP: YES, it is harder these days. I've got a stack of applications for jobs that I applied for and it is very discouraging yet I keep on going on. I have my bad days and my days where I don't want to wake up but I keep writing the News here in this area hoping someone just might take it seriously and investigate. However, when you got the President of the United States not adhering to the law [the subpoenas] it makes me feel at least in my area that the people of this country are less important news-wise. And Paris Hilton is much more important than the 10's of thousands people over 40 who CAN't get a job because people without money are less important in this country. The country is creating a new form of segregation amongst it's people and it has nothing to do with race -- it is now the age factor. The employees vs. the temp or contractor -- the political assistants within our govt. agencies vs. the employees and the contractors and temps. BUT funny thing about life -- everyone gets a dose of it at one point in time in their life as everything comes full circle AND those who are shunning us will be shunned and I think that they will be less apt to handle it.

Incisive comments. Thanks for posting them.

This forum is a funny one -- I am the Jobless Female from MO, VA, and nowhere. I wonder where this posting is going to say I am from this time.

DLP: I am like a sponge who absorbs it all in & then thinks about it as logically as I can. I am one who feels what others are feeling yet they are afraid to speak of what they feel. I am one who is not afraid of the repercussions as the truth will always remain the most dangerous weapon out here. I speak only the truth of what my experiences have been and what I have witnessed. The news saves time for PARIS HILTON -- who cares about this lost soul -- what about the ones who have aided in her family becoming that rich? And then to have the nerve to say she was unjustly treated for her actions? WE ARE the ones who are being unjustly treated because of the number of years in age. The govt. can take everything away from us, yet they don't have to follow the law? These people are not GODs of this world, they are the ones destroying US. We don't have the right to ignore subpoena's or we get jail time or heavily fined and warrants for our arrests are put out there. The President took an oath to uphold the laws of this country yet defies them once they are imposed upon him and his cabinet. This is unjust and they make a mockery out of the Constitution. We are stripped of our rights, yet they get more. They keep taking more & more from US while their pockets are ripping at the seams. We the people are fools if we allow this to continue BUT then again from a legal standpoint - what can we really do without being jailed for standing up for our own country? No wonder there are so many Presidential candidates this year -- they all want to get away with all they can............ I'm going to vote for myself.

Ross Buniao in Chicago, Illinois said: Not totally sure, but at my last job the employer was paying under the table and with personal checks. That's really illegal.

Actually this is not illegal. An employer may pay you any way he/she sees fit. A personal check is just as valid as any other instrument. The difference is whether you are an employee or a contractor. If you are a contractor, it is up to you to pay the necessary taxes and report that check as income.

If you have no actual contract on paper, you still report the income as "other income" or whatever on your tax form. If you have an actual contract on paper with the employer, then you get (I believe a form 1099) at tax time that lists the payments.

The term "under the table" includes YOU in the act as it means neither you nor the employer is reporting the income to tax authorities.

mad in marietta in Marietta, Georgia said: I found out that EVERYONE who had been hired (male) in the past year was making More Money than me - ?? - AND ... one of them touched me and another female employee inappropriately - both on the same day ... I think there may be a few bends in the law there? Perhaps... Sexual Harrassment? Gender Descrimination? Fair Wage Acts? Any suggestions?

Sexual harassment - No. It has to be ongoing AFTER you have informed the person to stop. A one time harassment has to be really intimate like a hand on your privates to be a harassment case. If this were not so, any man who turned around to walk in a different direction suddenly and accidentally touched a woman in the chest could be fired. They have to draw the line somewhere.

Gender discrimination - Possibly. You said 'everyone who had been hired was making more. Were ANY of them females? If so, then no case.

Fair wage - That gets complicated. You might have a case there but you would have to know that your performance was equal to everyone else who was doing that exact job and that you were making less money for no legitimate reason.

laid-off in Livermore in San Leandro, California said: Here's one: a large layoff where everyone gets a letter telling them their position is not needed. A month later temps are being hired to fill those positions. Does the company has a legal obligation to offer the positions to those who were laid off? Is there preferential rehire for laid-off employees?

Something like this impossible to determine. As example, if I laid you off and hired a temp in your place, I would be not only having to pay part of you unemployment income, I'd probably be paying extra for the temp agency fees on top of their salary. I'd have a pretty compelling reason to do that.

There is no way you can determine that every person laid off was replaced by temps with equal skills to you. The temps might be higher skilled and able to do more than you were doing for example.

I doubt there is any law that requires the company to give preference to re-hiring laid off employees but it certainly would be a matter of ethics.

Jobless Female said: What does someones credit report have to do with the job? .... Those with bad credit, due to lay-offs, are being told we are BRIBERY risks...

Another reason credit checks are done is if the job involves handling money. People who have a long history of financial difficulty are more apt to be tempted to steal in a new emergency. Most employers can see by the report whether the credit situation was due to recent unemployment or has been an on-going thing. If you have been missing payments in the last six months, you probably are ok, but if you have filed for bankruptcy three times in your life, you aren't that trustworthy. That is what they are wanting to know.

Even if recent financial difficulty, some people will take a job just to get near a cash register to pay this month's mortgage and then skip out. Many people think of resorting to breaking the law if they are unemployed for an extended period and think it is a life or death situation to hang onto a house. There are some crazies out there.

Jobless Female said: Lay-offs were designed to eliminate people who have rightly worked there way to a decent salary just to get replaced by some younger less experienced lower paid individual and it is the countrys way of allowing companies to screw the ones who helped them get where they are today.

Oh come now. Layoffs are a normal business response to a sudden loss of income potential. If a company loses a contract due to poor employee performance, the proper thing to do is get rid of that group. If a contract ends, then you can't afford to have a gang of people on the payroll while you wait possibly a year for that contract to renew or get a similar one. If your contract, providing one type of widget ends and your new contract is for a completely different widget, then you sometimes have to bring in totally new types of employees with the necessary skills. Other times you just have to lay off people in order for the company to survive.

It is natural to view a lay off situation as you the employee getting screwed, but the company has very good reasons for doing such a thing and usually does not want to have to do that. It's usually a last resort to solve a problem.

mad in marietta in Kennesaw, Georgia said: I have been curious what "outsourcing" meant...

Outsourcing means that a company wishes to transfer control or other business aspects to some company other than their own. Here is an example...

Let's say my company builds widgets and I hire you to make a cable that is attached to that widget. Say you can make 50 of those cables in a days work. If my ability to sell those widgets is about 40 per day, then we are fine. I have enough cables to meet my demand and you are providing inventory of them for use in a sudden new demand.

If I get orders that are 200 widgets a day, then I have to hire 3 more people like you to meet the demand. When the orders are demanding 1000 widgets a day, I have to make a decision on whether it is more efficient to hire 16 more people, buy an expensive machine to help do the work or just pay a bulk rate to another company that is already equipped to produce as many as 10,000 of those cables per day should I need them.

The decision to use the "outside" company is outsourcing because I have given them control over the manufacture of the product. If I am an ethical company, I will try to find something else for the four of you to do instead of making those cables.

Jobless Female in Vienna, Virginia said: Anybody jobless and over 40 want to protest on the steps of Capitol Hill?

It has already been done. That is why there is a law that says it is illegal to discriminate against a person because of age. Admittedly it doesn't always happen the way it is supposed to happen but if everybody had a march on Washington every time they discovered someone breaking the law, there would be one there every day. The EEOC is designed to handle that, not the steps of the Capitol.

I have always been against the so called "demonstration" act to change laws or solve problems. They once did that on a campus in Ohio and people got shot. A demonstration is just shy of a riot in a lot of cases.

The best bet is to work within the system provided. That was a lesson learned 40 years ago.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said:
The strange thing about high insurance costs is something changes if you become unemployed. If you were older but employed your employer was paying for your insurance. Become unemployed but can still do your job and employers will pass on you. They don't want to pay for your insurance. What changed?

Most likely nothing changed. The employer got rid of you because their insurance rates were subject to go up and the potential employer's insurance rates will go up if THEY employ you as well.

If there is any solution to this problem, it would be something like purchasing your own health insurance and taking the policy document to the potential employer and ask to sign a waiver that you are willing to forgo the company insurance if they will hire you. If that is illegal or unfair, then THAT is the law that needs to be changed.

In essence, this is what happens for a temp. The employee is allowed to choose whether or not to participate in insurance or not.

The way I see it. it is far better to be employed with no insurance than to be unemployed with wonderful benefits that you can't get anyway.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: Lying that you had more experience than you really had was a big temptation. Now, you have to lie that you have less experience than you really have.

Ah yes, but it is NOT a lie if they ask for say 10 years experience and you say you have ten years experience. If you worked for a company for 20 years, then it is still true that you have ten years experience in the job and they can't fire you for only that.

Jobless Female in Saint Louis, Missouri said: The country is creating a new form of segregation amongst it's people and it has nothing to do with race -- it is now the age factor.

Interesting theory. The final solution to racial discrimination is that we eventually all become on the same side age-wise. Might work now that we all share a common enemy as it were. :)

Senior Citizen in Atlanta, Georgia: "The employer got rid of you because their insurance rates were subject to go up and the potential employer's insurance rates will go up if THEY employ you as well."

My point that in a blink of an eye I became unemployable. Up to that moment I, at 55, was employed, performing my job, productive and on the firm's health insurance. My insurance deduction went up as I aged. It did for other employees who got older. For reasons not worth going into, I lost my job. I had worked for the firm for nearly seven years. I was NOT terminated because my age caused the firm's health insurance premiums to go up. Now, in part because of my age, I am sure, I am not being considered.

I do not agree with you about it better to be employed and pay for my own health insurance. As long as health insurance is part of everyone's benefits, I am just as entitled to it as any *younger* employee.

Senior Citizen in Atlanta, Georgia: "Ah yes, but it is NOT a lie if they ask for say 10 years experience and you say you have ten years experience. If you worked for a company for 20 years, then it is still true that you have ten years experience in the job and they can't fire you for only that."

You are playing word games. They will find out sooner or later, whether or not you tell them, that you were with the company for twenty years. Lying about employment dates can be cause for termination. Moreover, what if you gained that experience with multiple employers? Pretty soon the new employer will piece together your employment history and learn the truth.

Ah, yes, indeed.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: My point that in a blink of an eye I became unemployable. Up to that moment I, at 55, was employed, performing my job, productive and on the firm's health insurance. My insurance deduction went up as I aged. It did for other employees who got older.

The "blink of an eye" scenario usually happens when the employer's insurance company does a yearly audit and tells the company, "Look. You now have X number of employees in the high risk category and we are gong to have to raise our rates to you."

Its all demographics. I once had a friend who was a male to female transsexual. As soon as "she" notified the auto insurance company of the name change, her rates went DOWN on the next billing cycle. In a blink of an eye, she became a "safer driver" because she fell into a new group.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: Lying about employment dates can be cause for termination. Moreover, what if you gained that experience with multiple employers? Pretty soon the new employer will piece together your employment history and learn the truth.

If you are a legal professional I am sure you have heard of the idea of the "spirit of the law" and it applies to this situation. A company can fire you for misstating your dates of employment when doing so shows that you do NOT have the necessary credentials, but when the misstatement is actually to the company's advantage they won't be able to get away with it in most cases. The law or rule is there to prevent someone from having a job that requires certain credentials (like passing the bar exam) but does not really apply if a person with a DJ decided to apply for your job - as example.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: I do not agree with you about it better to be employed and pay for my own health insurance. As long as health insurance is part of everyone's benefits, I am just as entitled to it as any *younger* employee.

And so you are, but if you aren't hired you are not entitled to ANYTHING - is my point. I am talking here about people who are unemployed for long periods (years even) you may have to employ different tactics in order to survive. Remember that a company is not OBLIGATED to provide insurance benefits. They could cease everybody's insurance tomorrow if they wished and the insurance company would be the only entity who was required to legally pay existing claims.

On the reverse side, the company would not be doing anything illegal to have one employee who declined to participate. If every one of their employees decided to do that the company might even be able to afford a raise it pays for everyone.

Is it likely to happen? No. But I present the idea to every company to which I apply because of my age. I am in a very risky age group for insurance and my rates would be ten times that of the average 25 year old.

Senior Citizen in Atlanta, Georgia: "The 'blink of an eye' scenario usually happens when the employer's insurance company does a yearly audit and tells the company, 'Look. You now have X number of employees in the high risk category and we are gong to have to raise our rates to you.'"

I don't think you understand my point. Until the moment I was terminated I, at age 55, was employed, competent and productive. Also steadily employed for the past eleven years. Except for losing my job, nothing changed. I was age 55 and still competent. Once again, nothing changed. I was not terminated for insurance or economic reasons. However, despite the fact that until I was terminated I had been employed steadily without gaps for the previous eleven years and am competent, no employer will consider me. What made me persona non grata?

Do you get it now?

Senior Citizen in Atlanta, Georgia: "If you are a legal professional I am sure you have heard of the idea of the 'spirit of the law' and it applies to this situation. A company can fire you for misstating your dates of employment when doing so shows that you do NOT have the necessary credentials, but when the misstatement is actually to the company's advantage they won't be able to get away with it in most cases. The law or rule is there to prevent someone from having a job that requires certain credentials (like passing the bar exam) but does not really apply if a person with a [JD] decided to apply for your job - as example."

I understand "sprit of the law." My point is because a job app, etc., is a legal document lying on same can be grounds for termination. I am sure you know that most job apps set forth such conditions in the "Conditions of Employment" section.

Using wordplay and semantics to misstate your quals is not lying per se, but common sense tells me not to do it. It may result in not being hired.

Interesting that you bring up JD holders. I have seen JDs and attorneys apply for paralegal jobs. Talk about tough competition for few paralegal jobs, although, hopefully, hiring managers see these individuals as being legitimately overqualified. There are a few JDs who are paralegals. Most JDs will apply for attorney jobs. Paralegal work would be beneath them.

Senior Citizen in Atlanta, Georgia: "I present the idea [of not joining company health insurance] to every company to which I apply because of my age. I am in a very risky age group for insurance and my rates would be ten times that of the average 25 year old."

IMHO, you are setting yourself up for age discrimination. Once again, IMHO, only, you should not let yourself be treated any differently than any other employee. You are as entitled to every company benefit as the young punks.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: I don't think you understand my point. ... What made me persona non grata?

Basically what made you persona non grata was that you simply fell into a different GROUP as far as employment potential. Instead of being an employee at XYZ Company who was competing with NO ONE for her job, you became an unemployed, worker who was competing for any number of jobs with any number of companies.

Let's say that for the past ten years there were probably hundreds of people out there who could have done your job but the "opening" didn't exist. Now you are one of those hundreds even if you were trying to get your same job back.

It all happened years ago before you left the job.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: Using wordplay and semantics to misstate your quals is not lying per se, but common sense tells me not to do it. It may result in not being hired.

True enough but it might get you employed in some lower position long enough to get the real job without going bankrupt.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: There are a few JDs who are paralegals. Most JDs will apply for attorney jobs. Paralegal work would be beneath them.

Absolutely but in a storm any port will do. I have a friend who is an attorney with a JD and I saw her in a position a few years back where at one point she was having trouble keeping food in the house. That piece of paper framed on the wall cannot be eaten.

Displaced Legal Professional in Arvada, Colorado said: IMHO, you are setting yourself up for age discrimination. Once again, IMHO, only, you should not let yourself be treated any differently than any other employee. You are as entitled to every company benefit as the young punks.

Unfortunately I am at the age where it would be virtually ridiculous to be hired under the same parameters as people under age 40. I look my age. No one has to do any calculations at all. I tell them the truth and let them know that I am applying mainly for something to do all day long. I generally don't care what the salary is or what benefits are offered, so I try to assure them that they need not be concerned about my age. I have tons of experience and offer if they wish to take advantage of it.

That is at the interview of course. I have to use the "word games" and "semantics" to even get to the interview. Last time I did this, the interviewer said they had a fellow working there who was 74 years old and they couldn't do without him. Age had no impact whatsoever on me getting the job - which I did.

I would like to say that using the term "young punks" isn't fair. We were all young once and those who are young and starting their careers know just as much as we did then and deserve just as much respect as we expected back then.

Having such an attitude only shows you have proved the average potential employer's suspicion that your advanced age makes you unemployable because you are liable to not be able to work with and for younger people. It is a big mistake to go into a job and think you don't have to follow orders from a person who is 20 years younger. If that young person is the supervisor or boss, then his/her authority is valid.

The better attitude is to show respect for his/her position and you will find the young one will be coming to you for advice and show respect for you.

Senior Citizen in Atlanta, Georgia: "I tell them the truth and let them know that I am applying mainly for something to do all day long...."

I see. You probably collect Social Security and maybe retirement from your earlier career. So, you have another income source(s). You really don't NEED a job. Your circumstances are FAR DIFFERENT than people who NEED to work. In other words, when push comes to shove, you really don't NEED a job.

"I have to use the 'word games' and 'semantics' to even get to the interview...."

Once again, your situation is far different from people who NEED a job and NEED to work.

"I would like to say that using the term 'young punks' isn't fair...."

It's not? I was never a "punk" when I was young, nor were people my age back then. We were brought up to respect our elders and to respect authority. Quite the opposite of so many kids today, who are extremely defiant toward their elders and those in authority.

"Having such an attitude only shows you have proved the average potential employer's suspicion that your advanced age makes you unemployable because you are liable to not be able to work with and for younger people. It is a big mistake to go into a job and think you don't have to follow orders from a person who is 20 years younger. If that young person is the supervisor or boss, then his/her authority is valid."

See my comment, above, about respecting authority. Nothing has changed with me over the years; in fact, I've become more deferential toward supervisors - almost to the point where my last boss said I was timid.

Did I say or intimate I don't feel I have to follow orders??? I don't believe I did. In law practices, paralegals HAVE to follow directions attorneys provide. Period. It is employment suicide to do otherwise. I am always happy to receive direction and guidance from my bosses. You have no way of knowing about my attitude at work from reading these posts.