Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/3/2010 6:20:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 7:01:48 AM EDT by GeorgiaBII]
We've got a mechanic that is over 65 that will never be able to retire as he started with the company too late in life.

Now in the last few years he's had poor health and can't physically do the job and keep up with the pace... do we have any restraints on firing him legally?
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 6:25:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 6:26:28 AM EDT by DriftPunch]
GA law is in full effect, so only listen to those in the know about GA laws...

However, in most cases, the standard is 'reasonable accomodation'.  Meaning, you may be obligated to assign more manageable tasks to him (if these tasks are a part of normal business operations), or buy some speciality equipment to assist him, but his duty is to be able to do the work if you make said accomodations.  Nobody can sue you for terminating an employee who flat out cannot do the job, even with assistance.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 6:29:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
I've got a mechanic that is over 65 that will never be able to retire as he started with the company too late in life.

Now in the last few years he's had poor health and can't physically do the job and keep up with the pace... do I have any restraints on firing him legally?


We are going through the same problem with the grounds keeper at the shooting range I work at, he's 80.

You have a problem on your hands with an age discrimination lawsuit if you can't prove in court that he isn't doing what the job description says he should be doing.

On the flip side, from what we understand, the courts aren't going to force you to keep a retired person on the payroll.

Talk to your attorney.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 6:29:55 AM EDT
As the other poster mentioned look to your state laws above whatever else anybody here says.

I noticed you mentioned that the employee was ill a lot lately. What is your company's policy regarding sick leave and absenteeism?? Personally I would not terminate an employee for not being able to do his job. Sure, there is relief for those situations but much of the time it is a slippery slope and a misstep could lead to a lawsuit. If he is missing a lot then you could look to 'excessive absenteeism' as cause but again, I would make sure your bases are covered before you do.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 6:56:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 6:57:22 AM EDT by GeorgiaBII]
Well absenteeism is a big issue. Last year he missed 32.5 days sick and also used all 4 weeks of vacation time.

We want the ducks in a row before dumping the issue with HR.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 7:01:00 AM EDT
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 7:24:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
Well absenteeism is a big issue. Last year he missed 32.5 days sick and also used all 4 weeks of vacation time.

We want the ducks in a row before dumping the issue with HR.


Sounds like a pretty good reason to me. I guess my question is why you would just lay him off and avoid the improper termination claim? The increase in unemployment premium might be worth it if you look at it like an insurance policy. I'm not a business owner or manager/supervisor, but this is how I would look at it if attendance were not an issue I could exploit in the situation. 32 days a year is just too much.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 7:28:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins.


This....you are walking on egg shells, under the American Disabilities act you might have to accommodate him if he was in a wheel chair.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 7:33:00 AM EDT
I would just throw the 65 year old piece of shit away like the Trash he is.........Maybe someday when your old and in need someone will pay the favor back to you.

Why not talk to him first and see what you both can come up with. He might agree with you and tell you it's time for him to go.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 7:34:05 AM EDT
What you do is document every time he scews up.

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 7:35:18 AM EDT
I'm sure you could come up with some reason. Is GA a right to work state? In Pa, I don't need a reason to fire someone. I can do it for any reason at any time.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 7:44:22 AM EDT
If you are personally involved in this decision..why are you asking this on an internet forum?
Law question - requires a lawyer. If he has missed that much work, I'd let him go on those grounds alone.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:03:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
Well absenteeism is a big issue. Last year he missed 32.5 days sick and also used all 4 weeks of vacation time.

We want the ducks in a row before dumping the issue with HR.


What is your employee manual sick day policy?
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:06:24 AM EDT
Move the guy to another position and have him contribute in other ways. Make him a super and have him mentor some of the younger guys.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:06:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By damcv62:
I'm sure you could come up with some reason. Is GA a right to work state? In Pa, I don't need a reason to fire someone. I can do it for any reason at any time.


Fla is an at will state as well and employers who have done what you suggest get hauled into court all the time and often lose.Federal law can kick you in the butt.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:13:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
We've got a mechanic that is over 65 that will never be able to retire as he started with the company too late in life.

Now in the last few years he's had poor health and can't physically do the job and keep up with the pace... do we have any restraints on firing him legally?


Here is a crazy idea....... TREAT HIM THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED AT THAT AGE!!!!!
You might be lucky enough to live that long too. I'll tell you what I have learned and witnessed, shit comes back to bite you even if it takes a long time.
I bet you aren't loosing any money on him....... maybe just not making the profit you would like to.

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:13:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins and bill you for four hours.



fixed.



Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:17:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins and bill you for four hours.



fixed.





And contact a friend of his who will contact the employee so a simple problem will turn into a couple of boat payments for the two barristers which your company will pay for.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:22:07 AM EDT
NOPE, Griffey announced his retirement effective immediately.  

TXL
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:25:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 8:26:30 AM EDT by sparsedirect]
Originally Posted By Trapshooter12:
I would just throw the 65 year old piece of shit away like the Trash he is.........Maybe someday when your old and in need someone will pay the favor back to you.

Why not talk to him first and see what you both can come up with. He might agree with you and tell you it's time for him to go.


There's a reason we don't have 65 year old firefighters, among other jobs.  Your reaction ignores the fact that his employer does not owe this man a living.  Perhaps the old gentleman could find a job that is more appropriate to someone his age?  Or maybe, retire?  But the OP is not running an adult day care.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:30:08 AM EDT
If he cant do the job you will have to be specific about what it is he is unable to do. Then you will have to begin documenting each and every case where he was unable to perform the job.Consult a GA labor attorney for the details but I can tell you right now as far as his age is concerned it has nothing to do with it period. You are simply trying to make sure the task at hand gets accomplished and as a business owner you have a right to expect the employee to perform his or her job duties. How would you view it if it were a female and she was "physically unable" to complete the task at hand?
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:33:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 8:35:51 AM EDT by Vulcan94]
This is what I found at the Georgia's Secretary of State site.


EMPLOYMENT AT WILL

Georgia recognizes the doctrine of employment at will.  Employment at will means that in the absence of a written contract of employment for a defined duration, an employer can terminate an employee for good cause, bad cause or no cause at all, so long as it is not an illegal cause.


There is also this:

DISCRIMINATION

Age:  The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against workers who are 40 years of age or older.  The law applies to all private employers with 20 or more employees, employment agencies and certain labor unions.  Georgia law provides it is a misdemeanor to discriminate in hiring and employment against individuals between the ages of 40 and 70.

Bankruptcy:  Generally, federal law prohibits discrimination in employment decisions against people who have declared bankruptcy.

Disability:  Employers are prohibited from engaging in discrimination against qualified individuals with a disability by the Georgia Equal Employment for People with Disabilities Code, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.  A "qualified individual with a disability" is an individual who possesses the requisite skills, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the position and who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.  An "individual with a disability" is a person with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such impairment or is regarded by the employer as having such an impairment.  The determinatin of whether a person is “disabled” should be made with reference to measures that might mitigate that individual’s impairment, including medicine or eye glasses.  Typical "major life activities" are caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.  "Reasonable accommodation" might include making existing facilities accessible to the disabled, restructuring jobs, reassigning work or otherwise modifying schedules, or revising employment tests.  An employer is not required to create a job that does not already exist.  An accommodation is not reasonable where it would cause the employer undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense).

Equal Pay:  The Equal Pay Act and Georgia law forbid employers to pay different wages to men and women who are performing equal jobs.  

Pregnancy:  The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.

Race, Color, Religion, Sex or National Origin:  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination (any adverse employment action) by employers of 15 or more employees, employment agencies, and labor organizations on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Section 1981 prohibits discrimination against employees based on their race.

Retaliation:  The law prohibits employers from retaliating against their employees for asserting their rights to be free of discrimination.

Sexual Orientation:  There is currently no Federal or Georgia law prohibiting discrimination against employees based on their sexual orientation.



http://www.sos.ga.gov/firststop/georgia_employers.htm


Vulcan94
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:45:23 AM EDT
I'll say this I hope that if you fire him for "being too old to do the job"  I hope your company gets fucked in the ass with no lube.  That is in accordance with GA statues regarding EEOC ......Shall not discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, religion.....But hey go ahead fire him and if he has anywhere remotely approaching half a brain I'm sure your company will love to pay for his back wages for about the next 2 years plus court costs etc.  The absenteeism, is most likely covered under the FMLA laws, and can be applied ex post facto.

Now with that being said what your company can do is review the standards of which it takes to do whatever XYZ job, by this you take all individuals in job XYZ and pay for them to undergo a medical exam (physical) to see if they are medically qualified for a job.  If not then said person is a safety risk to themselves and to others in the work site, and is to be transferred off that job.  

Therein lies another problem.  If the company has a med eval done, and the person is found to be unable to do the job you may have a disability claim on your hands.

Best course of action may be to just suck it up and smile.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:47:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 8:50:51 AM EDT by twckxbzd]
Originally Posted By nashvillecat:
Originally Posted By damcv62:
I'm sure you could come up with some reason. Is GA a right to work state? In Pa, I don't need a reason to fire someone. I can do it for any reason at any time.


Fla is an at will state as well and employers who have done what you suggest get hauled into court all the time and often lose.Federal law can kick you in the butt.


if they can prove some type of discrimination your fucked.

also if you have an hr dept why are you not asking them?
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:48:13 AM EDT




Originally Posted By Trapshooter12:

I would just throw the 65 year old piece of shit away like the Trash he is.........Maybe someday when your old and in need someone will pay the favor back to you.







Agree.





Link Posted: 6/3/2010 8:51:30 AM EDT
Do you have a job description?

If you have a job description and he cannot perform to that then you can order a doctors review of his physical condition. That doctors visit would be paid for by the company of course.

You can also review his condition and try and make reasonable accommodations for him, provided that he can still perform most of his duties.

It's a pretty scary place to be when you not only have an age issue, but you may have and ADA issue that you are unaware of.

I have been though the ADA issue a few times and skirted with the age issue also. In most cases when the older person was not completing tasks , they were written up for this. I would document everything they did, as I did for other employees also. Can't just do it for one and not the other as this would be seen as discrimination. Once the person was confronted through the process they ended up quitting.

Be careful and document everything.

Keep a file on the employee and another log of your own outside of the company file. All medical issues should be kept in a separate file.

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:00:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins and bill you for four hours.



fixed.





still beats the $10,000,000 jury verdict and the $1,000,000 legal fees attached to that.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:17:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kylerudibaugh:
I'll say this I hope that if you fire him for "being too old to do the job"  I hope your company gets fucked in the ass with no lube.  That is in accordance with GA statues regarding EEOC ......Shall not discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, religion.....But hey go ahead fire him and if he has anywhere remotely approaching half a brain I'm sure your company will love to pay for his back wages for about the next 2 years plus court costs etc.  The absenteeism, is most likely covered under the FMLA laws, and can be applied ex post facto.

Now with that being said what your company can do is review the standards of which it takes to do whatever XYZ job, by this you take all individuals in job XYZ and pay for them to undergo a medical exam (physical) to see if they are medically qualified for a job.  If not then said person is a safety risk to themselves and to others in the work site, and is to be transferred off that job.  

Therein lies another problem.  If the company has a med eval done, and the person is found to be unable to do the job you may have a disability claim on your hands.

Best course of action may be to just suck it up and smile.


What a load of liberal crap. And while the law may be on your side of the argument - that doesn't make it any less crap-tastic.

Getting old and not being able to perform as you used to is a fact of life for everyone, should they be lucky enough to get there.
There are lots of things I won't be doing at age 70 that have nothing to do with my work. Who, exactly, should I sue over that?
I'm sure losing a job sucks, but if this old man has planned for his future, then he should be OK. What if he's not? Well... that's on him. The whole 'personal responsibility' bit.

I'm dying to know what reasoning you use to justify forcing a business/employer to keep a man on staff that can't do the job any longer.
The people who have responded negatively obviously don't have any experience owning or running a business.
Business owners don't spend 18 hours a day working and prematurely kililng themselves w/ stress so they can 'lend a helping hand' to the unfortunate.
A job should be considered a mutually beneficial arrangement. When it ceases to be beneficial to one or both parties, why exactly should it continue?

There are plenty of positions older people can fill where their age is not a handicap. Keeping a man on staff that can't cut the mustard is ridiculous.
How many SF operators do you know of that are 80? Should we sue the US govt?????








Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:17:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dipper:
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
We've got a mechanic that is over 65 that will never be able to retire as he started with the company too late in life.

Now in the last few years he's had poor health and can't physically do the job and keep up with the pace... do we have any restraints on firing him legally?


Here is a crazy idea....... TREAT HIM THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED AT THAT AGE!!!!!
You might be lucky enough to live that long too. I'll tell you what I have learned and witnessed, shit comes back to bite you even if it takes a long time.
I bet you aren't loosing any money on him....... maybe just not making the profit you would like to.



You can't run a business that way and expect to stay in business long.  One guy not keeping up soon turns into everyone not keeping up and customers being dissatisfied.  Customer's don't leave money on the table to the point that you can say something as simple as "well duh, just make less profit!".  Owning a business doesn't mean you have an infinite money cave in back and the magical ability to set prices and expectations so that things just work out.  You do what you have to do to keep things going.  That's just the way the world works.

If you feel so strongly about treating this 65 year old right, then you should have no problem sending the OP a weekly check so he can keep the guy paid, right?  Or is this just another case of someone telling another person how to spend their money on someone else?  

If the guy can't do the job, he needs to retire and get a job doing something that his current capabilities allow.  This job is not the last job on Earth and there are plenty of other things a 65 year old can do.  This of course completely ignores the fact the guy had atleast 40 YEARS to take care of business and save for retirement.  We all know that old age is coming for us, retirement should come as a suprise to no one.

Of course, he may have taken care of business and he may only be working to keep himself busy.  If that's the case then this should be no big deal to him other than having to figure out what to do now to keep himself busy.

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:21:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By woodsie:
Originally Posted By Dipper:
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
We've got a mechanic that is over 65 that will never be able to retire as he started with the company too late in life.

Now in the last few years he's had poor health and can't physically do the job and keep up with the pace... do we have any restraints on firing him legally?


Here is a crazy idea....... TREAT HIM THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED AT THAT AGE!!!!!
You might be lucky enough to live that long too. I'll tell you what I have learned and witnessed, shit comes back to bite you even if it takes a long time.
I bet you aren't loosing any money on him....... maybe just not making the profit you would like to.



You can't run a business that way and expect to stay in business long.  One guy not keeping up soon turns into everyone not keeping up and customers being dissatisfied.  Customer's don't leave money on the table to the point that you can say something as simple as "well duh, just make less profit!".  Owning a business doesn't mean you have an infinite money cave in back and the magical ability to set prices and expectations so that things just work out.  You do what you have to do to keep things going.  That's just the way the world works.

If you feel so strongly about treating this 65 year old right, then you should have no problem sending the OP a weekly check so he can keep the guy paid, right?  Or is this just another case of someone telling another person how to spend their money on someone else?  

If the guy can't do the job, he needs to retire and get a job doing something that his current capabilities allow.  This job is not the last job on Earth and there are plenty of other things a 65 year old can do.  This of course completely ignores the fact the guy had atleast 40 YEARS to take care of business and save for retirement.  We all know that old age is coming for us, retirement should come as a suprise to no one.

Of course, he may have taken care of business and he may only be working to keep himself busy.  If that's the case then this should be no big deal to him other than having to figure out what to do now to keep himself busy.



Too bad he wasn't UAW eh?
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:22:36 AM EDT
I'm a 50 year old mechanic
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:26:07 AM EDT
Age has nothing to do with it.  Either a person meets the standards of the job requirements or doesn't.

That includes Army Special Forces:

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:29:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ellery_Holt:

Originally Posted By Trapshooter12:
I would just throw the 65 year old piece of shit away like the Trash he is.........Maybe someday when your old and in need someone will pay the favor back to you.



Agree.



Well, I hope both you guys are getting your checkbook out to write the OP a check to contribute to the "Old Man Support Fund" because the OP's customers certainly aren't going to pay for him to do no work.

I feel for the guy, but you've got to get the job done otherwise you won't be in business long.  It sucks but that's the nature of running a business.  The 65 year old is a grown man who has had atleast 40 years to plan for old age.  He has more responsibility here for his financial well being than the OP does.  

It'd be a different story if the OP had promised the guy something to get him to come to work and then isn't delivering on the promise.

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:33:48 AM EDT



Originally Posted By bcw107:


Age has nothing to do with it.  Either a person meets the standards of the job requirements or doesn't.



That includes Army Special Forces:



http://lh6.ggpht.com/_yM1mA5E8NuY/St_p2T_9eLI/AAAAAAAAGzY/Xcq2C3uSzlM/AG%20Military-03%20(8).jpg


That guy oozes awesome and bad ass.



I bet he is also the most soft spoken, warm hearted guy you will ever meet when he is outside of his work.



 
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:35:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 11:47:10 AM EDT by Rufhouse]
Originally Posted By marcushire:
As the other poster mentioned look to your state laws above whatever else anybody here says.

I noticed you mentioned that the employee was ill a lot lately. What is your company's policy regarding sick leave and absenteeism?? Personally I would not terminate an employee for not being able to do his job. Sure, there is relief for those situations but much of the time it is a slippery slope and a misstep could lead to a lawsuit. If he is missing a lot then you could look to 'excessive absenteeism' as cause but again, I would make sure your bases are covered before you do.


No???  Even on a personal level?  I understand it on a business level because of all the lawsuits.  Isn't that the whole point of hiring someone or keeping them on is because they can do their job???
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:38:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schizrade:
Move the guy to another position and have him contribute in other ways. Make him a super and have him mentor some of the younger guys.


This!  The elderly person has something that you guys don't have... he has years of experience and wisdom under his belt.  He's a valuable resource that while he may not be able to do the physical labor, I bet he can bring insight to the workplace that may become invaluable.  

If your company is interested in only the bottom line and can't see past it, then he'd be better off to go and let your company reap the rewards of it's short sightedness.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:43:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nashvillecat:
Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins and bill you for four hours.



fixed.





And contact a friend of his who will contact the employee so a simple problem will turn into a couple of boat payments for the two barristers which your company will pay for.


it takes the average person 4-5 lawyers before they find a good one. and when you find one you keep them....................
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 9:57:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By marcushire:
As the other poster mentioned look to your state laws above whatever else anybody here says.

I noticed you mentioned that the employee was ill a lot lately. What is your company's policy regarding sick leave and absenteeism?? Personally I would not terminate an employee for not being able to do his job. Sure, there is relief for those situations but much of the time it is a slippery slope and a misstep could lead to a lawsuit. If he is missing a lot then you could look to 'excessive absenteeism' as cause but again, I would make sure your bases are covered before you do.


Whaaa?  Not fire someone for not doing their job?

Again, the ADA is a good thing, but has been twisted so much that it becomes a hinderance instead of a help. Now if he was having medical issues then we have the FMLA for him and I would offer that to him in good faith.

Mentoring is great as I'm sure he has allot of useful knowledge. But when he is sitting in that chair all day talking instead of working how do you think the other people will react to that? I will tell, they will be pissed that this guy is milking it whether he is or not.

If he can't do the job document it.

Offer him FMLA if he has medical or family issues and document it.

Begin the process. Your screwed either way. He can file a lawsuit that has no basis and still tie you up, but in the end he will be gone and you can get more productivity out of a newer person and keep the other natives under control.



Link Posted: 6/3/2010 10:28:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:
We've got a mechanic that is over 65 that will never be able to retire as he started with the company too late in life.

Now in the last few years he's had poor health and can't physically do the job and keep up with the pace... do we have any restraints on firing him legally?


Is he in "poor health" because of work related reasons?  Did he get any injuries on the job?  

Where I worked you reached mandatory retirement age at 57, no one was hired after 37 years of age.  It was spelled out at the time of hiring and was legal.

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 10:33:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
Originally Posted By nashvillecat:
Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins and bill you for four hours.



fixed.





And contact a friend of his who will contact the employee so a simple problem will turn into a couple of boat payments for the two barristers which your company will pay for.


it takes the average person 4-5 lawyers before they find a good one. and when you find one you keep them....................


I have three I trust.Will fight tooth and nail for me.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 10:41:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Leanangle:
Originally Posted By kylerudibaugh:
I'll say this I hope that if you fire him for "being too old to do the job"  I hope your company gets fucked in the ass with no lube.  That is in accordance with GA statues regarding EEOC ......Shall not discriminate on the basis of race, age, gender, religion.....But hey go ahead fire him and if he has anywhere remotely approaching half a brain I'm sure your company will love to pay for his back wages for about the next 2 years plus court costs etc.  The absenteeism, is most likely covered under the FMLA laws, and can be applied ex post facto.

Now with that being said what your company can do is review the standards of which it takes to do whatever XYZ job, by this you take all individuals in job XYZ and pay for them to undergo a medical exam (physical) to see if they are medically qualified for a job.  If not then said person is a safety risk to themselves and to others in the work site, and is to be transferred off that job.  

Therein lies another problem.  If the company has a med eval done, and the person is found to be unable to do the job you may have a disability claim on your hands.

Best course of action may be to just suck it up and smile.


What a load of liberal crap. And while the law may be on your side of the argument - that doesn't make it any less crap-tastic.

Getting old and not being able to perform as you used to is a fact of life for everyone, should they be lucky enough to get there.
There are lots of things I won't be doing at age 70 that have nothing to do with my work. Who, exactly, should I sue over that?
I'm sure losing a job sucks, but if this old man has planned for his future, then he should be OK. What if he's not? Well... that's on him. The whole 'personal responsibility' bit.

I'm dying to know what reasoning you use to justify forcing a business/employer to keep a man on staff that can't do the job any longer.
The people who have responded negatively obviously don't have any experience owning or running a business.
Business owners don't spend 18 hours a day working and prematurely kililng themselves w/ stress so they can 'lend a helping hand' to the unfortunate.
A job should be considered a mutually beneficial arrangement. When it ceases to be beneficial to one or both parties, why exactly should it continue?

There are plenty of positions older people can fill where their age is not a handicap. Keeping a man on staff that can't cut the mustard is ridiculous.
How many SF operators do you know of that are 80? Should we sue the US govt?????










Link Posted: 6/3/2010 10:43:41 AM EDT
Have you thought of asking a lawyer instead of posting for comments on the Internet? Sounds like you have real solid business sense.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 10:45:57 AM EDT
If he's a good worker is there any way he can still be productive and be on payroll? e.g. bookkeeping, answering phones, etc?
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:06:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By koorva:
If he's a good worker is there any way he can still be productive and be on payroll? e.g. bookkeeping, answering phones, etc?


You would really put a mechanic in charge of your books?  Or pay a mechanic salary for someone to answer the phone?
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:11:26 AM EDT
It's amazing how many people can seem to think that a poor performing worker is ok.





Now here's a question to those of you who say he shouldn't be fired.



Would you be ok with a 65 year old guy working on your car if he was known to forget things?



Would you be ok with a 65 year old firefighter, EMS , police officer or similar individual to save your life if they were known not to be able to perform to the 'norm' of the job.



While I have great respect for older Americans , it's easy to forget sometimes your life may some time be in their *very* uncapable hands (this isn't the  case for EVERY person over 50, 65 ,ect ) just as it would be the same for a younger person.



I say treat him like you do any other employee under what the law allows, no more , no less. I'd hate to see him forget to install break lines in a car and kill a family.

Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:11:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 11:12:29 AM EDT by Bubbatheredneck]
Originally Posted By joedapro:
Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
Originally Posted By southfloridaguns:
contact your lawyer. why are you asking about this on some random internet site? your lawyer charges $195 an hour and can resolve this in 30mins and bill you for four hours.



fixed.





still beats the $10,000,000 jury verdict and the $1,000,000 legal fees attached to that.


Perhaps.

I made the mistake of paying for legal advise (once) that I later discovered was 180 opposite the state law....and the appropriate reference was on the first damn page of the state's DOL website in the FAQ.

If an employer in an at will state can't figure out how to legally fire someone with running to a lawyer when the employee in question:

a) on average, can't make it to work for more than five weeks without missing a week
AND
b/ can't do the job



perhaps he should sell the business to someone that can.

Age has nothing to do with this case, unless the OP has left out critical details.  Getting fired BECAUSE you are old is wrong.  Getting fired while being old is not.




Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:18:02 AM EDT
or he might lawyer up and sue the fuck out of you for even suggesting it.


Originally Posted By Trapshooter12:


I would just throw the 65 year old piece of shit away like the Trash he is.........Maybe someday when your old and in need someone will pay the favor back to you.



Why not talk to him first and see what you both can come up with. He might agree with you and tell you it's time for him to go.






 
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:26:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/3/2010 11:27:32 AM EDT by kylerudibaugh]
Where does my reasoning start?  I suppose that the misnomer of a "right to work state" is that it is employment at will.  That means unless You decide to quit coming to work, are insubordinate, violent or a whole host of other justifiable causes the employer can fire you for, otherwise legal issues will come into play. Now just firing someone for being old is covered under a myriad of federal, and state laws that would definitely fall under the definition of age discrimination.

It was stated that the military does not allow 80 something's to be in special forces units.  Wisely so, but the failure in that observation is that the military is not the real world in which people like me, or perhaps even your parents go to work everyday.  I am 31 I am a US Navy vet, I have lived in both worlds I did see the forced retirement of chiefs and others b/c of age.  But if I do recall I had to sign a contract with the Government that said at X years of age you will leave the service of the US Navy.  

There is no such requirement outside of the military that I am aware of that says you will retire at whatever predetermined age.

I am admittedly ignorant in the many facets of owning a business, but I have worked for a lot of them.  If I am mistaken please correct me but the business owner is responsible for several aspects of hiring employees, that among these are OSHA standards, complying with Fed minimum wage standards, and several others.  The decision of the company to hire an individual at whatever age the person is comes with these responsibilities.  Unless of course you want to hire illegals I guess that would be mutually beneficial to the business owner.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:29:56 AM EDT
[Getting fired BECAUSE you are old is wrong.  Getting fired while being old is not.




[/quote]

Agreed
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:30:16 AM EDT
Society is judged by how well they treat the very young or old.

So far, what I see in here is not a representive of society I would want to be around. Either this place is full of sorry assholes who are immature or full of liars. I tend to believe it is the latter as I see better behavior than this in the general populace.
Link Posted: 6/3/2010 11:31:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By schizrade:
Move the guy to another position and have him contribute in other ways. Make him a super and have him mentor some of the younger guys.


This!  The elderly person has something that you guys don't have... he has years of experience and wisdom under his belt.  He's a valuable resource that while he may not be able to do the physical labor, I bet he can bring insight to the workplace that may become invaluable.  

If your company is interested in only the bottom line and can't see past it, then he'd be better off to go and let your company reap the rewards of it's short sightedness.  


You are assuming WAY too much here:

1)  That old = wise.  Often?  Yes.  Always?  No.  You don't know enough about the guy to say one way or another.

2)  That there is room on the roster for another member of the brain trust.  Too many chiefs and not enough indians is a good way to ruin a company.

You know way too little about the situation to immediately conclude that the company is short sighted for wanting to get rid of someone who can not perform the job.  

If your company is interested in only the bottom line and can't see past it, then he'd be better off to go and let your company reap the rewards of it's short sightedness.


This is a massive contradiction.  If keeping the guy in another role where he can contribute would result in rewards to the company then doing so would by its very definition be in the interest of the bottom line.  So what exactly are you trying to say?  Besides, if there was an obvious unmet need in another area that this guy could fill then I doubt the OP would have even made this thread to begin with.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top