Workers' rights/Happy Days!!!m GOP depressed.

[AtlasShrieked]

Workers' rights boosted by US Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Supreme Court this year made a number of key rulings on workplace discrimination which, unusually for the conservative court, mostly favored workers over their bosses.

Last week, the US high court ruled in favor of several workers in a high-profile age discrimination lawsuit. In a 7-1 decision, the court said an employer bore the burden of explaining its reasons for laying off some two dozen workers -- all of whom happened to be aged over 40.

The court ruled that employers must provide "reasonable factors other than age" for the action in order to successfully defend itself against an age discrimination lawsuit.
The US Supreme Court, which meets from October to June each year, considered some 70 cases this year, with some of its highest profile deliberations on hot-button cases like Guantanamo, the death penalty and Americans' constitutional right to bear firearms.

But about a dozen decisions dealt with the decidedly less sexy but vitally important issues of workers' rights -- including several cases which focused on age or racial discrimination.

The recent workers' victories come in sharp juxtaposition to last year, when the court dealt workers a major setback, in a blockbuster case which labor leaders said dramatically curtailed employees' rights to sue for pay discrimination.

That case involved worker at a Goodyear Tire plant in Alabama who sued the company after learning that, as the sole woman among 17 management-level employees, she was the lowest paid, although she was not the lowest in seniority.

The conservative US high court, in a narrow five-to-four ruling, found that under US labor law, employees have a 180-day time period for filing a gender discrimination lawsuit, and that the employee had not uncovered and documented the discrimination in a timely fashion.

The debate later went to the US Congress, where Republicans succeeded in blocking Democratic efforts to change the law.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The problem with protecting certain demographics with legislation is that it creates an incentive to not hire them in the first place. For example, unemployment among the handicapped went up after the americans with disabilities act was passed. No one wants to hire someone that they can't fire. In France, it is very difficult to fire people in general--great, except that it's more difficult to get a job to begin with.

Really though the bottom line is freedom of association and property rights. If someone worked hard to build a business, they have the right to do business with whoever they please, even if it's for foolish reasons. If they're passing up good employees with decades of experience, they will suffer and their competitors who hire them will benefit. (I suspect that any age discrimination is due to the cost of health care coverage. And coverage is illogically tied to employment, thanks to heavy tax incentives.)

 

[AtlasShrieked]

The problem with protecting certain demographics with legislation is that it creates an incentive to not hire them in the first place. For example, unemployment among the handicapped went up after the americans with disabilities act was passed. No one wants to hire someone that they can't fire. In France, it is very difficult to fire people in general--great, except that it's more difficult to get a job to begin with.

Really though the bottom line is freedom of association and property rights. If someone worked hard to build a business, they have the right to do business with whoever they please, even if it's for foolish reasons. If they're passing up good employees with decades of experience, they will suffer and their competitors who hire them will benefit. (I suspect that any age discrimination is due to the cost of health care coverage. And coverage is illogically tied to employment, thanks to heavy tax incentives.)

unemployment went up after the ada was passed and you draw what conclusions?

I heard people went on the disability roles in greater numbers and once people are on them it is difficult for them to get off because of the risks involved in getting back on them.

I think the % is lower because we are not recruiting the disabled in ways that would allow more reasonable accommodations and a streamlined process for going back on the roles if the particular employment scenario doesn't work out.

Disability law and issues is a complex subject

 

[manu1959]

if you were an employer what rights would you want with respect to terminating someones employment.....

 

[AtlasShrieked]

if you were an employer what rights would you want with respect to terminating someones employment.....

I've been in management and I've been an employer.

There are reasons you cannot discriminate against people in employment. Employment is not about association.

A reasonable employer can fire just about anyone, just not for any reason...like their gender etc.

it is so simple it escapes my imagination why employers get caught up in this crap. it says more about the employer or their managers than it does about society