Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any Federal agencies that don't age discriminate??

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ten08
    It doesn't matter what your goals are. There is an age limit, period.
    Wasn't there a 72 year old Deputy disarmed and shot with his own gun in Florida?
    I agree there should be an age limit on when a person must quit working in the field. However what business is it of the government's if a person who is 41 wants to do the job. They are young enough to do the job, just not young enough to receive retirement benefits from working at the job. Retirement or no retirement is a personal choice not a government choice.

    There probably was a 72 year old deputy who had his firearm taken away, but I'll bet there were more officers/deputies/troopers/agents under 57 who had their firearms taken away.
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

    For the intelectually challenged: If the government screws the people enough, it is the right and responsibility of the people to revolt and form a new government.

    Comment


    • #32
      <double post>
      Last edited by get_low; 01-06-2009, 12:44 AM.
      "Hardcore, not so hardcore..."
      "Next six cadidiots..."
      "One sur, two sur, tree sur, five sur..."
      "I'm not your brother..."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by kc12 View Post

        There probably was a 72 year old deputy who had his firearm taken away, but I'll bet there were more officers/deputies/troopers/agents under 57 who had their firearms taken away.
        You are absolutely correct on this one. Officer Knapp's gun was taken away from him by a hardened criminal named Madison. Madison then used the gun to shoot Officer Knapp in the head. He died instantly. Knapp was 26 year old physically well built officer.
        "Hardcore, not so hardcore..."
        "Next six cadidiots..."
        "One sur, two sur, tree sur, five sur..."
        "I'm not your brother..."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by GoldBadge View Post
          That's great, but every agency has its own requirements.

          The Illinois State Police (for whom I believe you work) says:

          The Illinois State Police Merit Board has set the following minimum requirements for persons applying for an Illinois State Trooper position:

          1. An applicant must be at least twenty-one (21) years of age.
          2. (An applicant twenty (20) years of age may apply if the Option 4 education requirement is successfully met.) An applicant cannot have been convicted of a felony.
          3. An applicant must be a citizen of the United States.
          4. An applicant must possess a valid driver’s license at the time of completing the application.
          5. An applicant must be willing to accept an assignment anywhere in the State.
          6. An applicant must have completed, with a C average or better


          Gee, I had a C- average in college. I guess they'll discriminate against me by not hiring me.
          Again, let me repeat. According to the dictionary, discriminate means...
          1 a: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b: distinguish , differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
          2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences ; especially : to distinguish from another like object
          intransitive verb

          1 a: to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b: to use good judgment
          2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>
          The original poster meant to use the blue definition while the rest of you seem to be stuck on the red definition. What you are doing is close to picturing the presidential candidates physically running for president rather than "running" for president.
          "Hardcore, not so hardcore..."
          "Next six cadidiots..."
          "One sur, two sur, tree sur, five sur..."
          "I'm not your brother..."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by get_low View Post
            Again, let me repeat. According to the dictionary, discriminate means...
            1 a: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b: distinguish , differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
            2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences ; especially : to distinguish from another like object
            intransitive verb

            1 a: to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b: to use good judgment
            2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>
            The original poster meant to use the blue definition while the rest of you seem to be stuck on the red definition. What you are doing is close to picturing the presidential candidates physically running for president rather than "running" for president.
            My fair reading of his post, and the way the word "discriminate" is widely used, particularly among those already serving in a public job, I took him to mean the red definition.

            Maybe he intended something different, but that's the way it came out.
            They Don’t Think It Be Like It Is, But It Do.

            Comment


            • #36
              That's not what I said. I didn't use the word "good". I said he didn't use it in the bad sense that you seem to take it.
              Thanks for the Webster's reference, but the opposite of "good" is commonly "bad", and when you spike the title with - - that's the impression you're going to give, whether you mean to or not. And apparently, I'm not the only one who took it that way. Also, when you specifically say "age discriminate" like the OP did, about the only use of the word you're going to conjure up is the red version.

              Well, I'd try to understand the person's use of the word based on the context of the conversation, not automatically label it as something horrendous.
              If you read what I posted, you'll see that I did NOT "label it as horrendous", but just explained how people could get the impression that many of us did. If I actually thought it "horrendous", I certainly wouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he may not have meant it that way.

              ICEAGENT said it best, IMO. "'Discrimination' is a loaded term." I don't think there's anyone walking the planet in this day and age who doesn't know what context that word is almost always used in.
              "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by GreenLine View Post
                Thanks for the Webster's reference, but the opposite of "good" is commonly "bad",
                So, you're saying that everything has to be either bad or good? Is the color red bad or good? Since it's not bad, it must be good, right?

                and when you spike the title with - - that's the impression you're going to give, whether you mean to or not.
                I just could as easily say they were physically discriminate after I've failed the power test.

                The author of the original post was obviously disappointed that he was not qualified for the federal agency he wanted to apply for. That was cause to be somewhat mad. You can be mad about the reason and not refer to it as prejudicial discriminatory. Again, if I had failed the power test, I could have said they were physically discriminate. It doesn't mean I was comparing that kind of discrimination to jim crow.

                And apparently, I'm not the only one who took it that way. Also, when you specifically say "age discriminate" like the OP did, about the only use of the word you're going to conjure up is the red version.
                An argumentum ad populum.

                If you read what I posted, you'll see that I did NOT "label it as horrendous", but just explained how people could get the impression that many of us did. If I actually thought it "horrendous", I certainly wouldn't have given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed that he may not have meant it that way.
                Well, you guys certainly did come off like that. Again, the original author obviously seemed disappointed he couldn't apply for a federal agency because of his age. Take it for what it's worth.

                ICEAGENT said it best, IMO. "'Discrimination' is a loaded term." I don't think there's anyone walking the planet in this day and age who doesn't know what context that word is almost always used in.
                All according to one's point of view, I guess.

                And yes, my agency IS discriminate against people who failed the power test.
                "Hardcore, not so hardcore..."
                "Next six cadidiots..."
                "One sur, two sur, tree sur, five sur..."
                "I'm not your brother..."

                Comment


                • #38
                  So, you're saying that everything has to be either bad or good? Is the color red bad or good? Since it's not bad, it must be good, right?
                  Um...no. I said "commonly", as in "usually", "often" or "popularly". But this is beside the point, anyway.

                  Again, the original author obviously seemed disappointed he couldn't apply for a federal agency because of his age.
                  Exactly, hence the beef with the fact that the term was used in a negative sense. If you had said this up front instead of jumping in and telling us that he didn't use it "in a bad light" (which is what that is, IMO, and apparently, also in the opinion of everyone else who disagreed), we could have avoided this entire argument.

                  Either way, I'm out.
                  "Sir, does this mean that Ann Margaret's not coming?"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Dude come on, the way the term was used in this thread did come off a bit negative. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Therefore if 50% of people feel it was a harsh term and the other 50% felt it wasnt whats the big deal?

                    This whole 37 age limit is not different than the following.

                    JOb Requirement: You must apply for this position before your head has grown bigger than 20 inch in circumference.

                    If your head is growing and you realize your head size is getting closer to 20 inches, wouldnt it behoove you to actually apply for the job before your head size gets to 20 inch?

                    How can that be discriminatory if they are quite obviously telling you to apply early and not wait? (I know some people try to wait until they get retirement benefits from their home agency and then try to move on to something else.) Nobody told you to do that now did they?

                    Lets chalk it up to just that, a requirement that all can meet. 50/50 folks will not like it and the world turns.
                    Young people will change the old wicked ways of the past.sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by GreenLine View Post
                      Exactly, hence the beef with the fact that the term was used in a negative sense. If you had said this up front instead of jumping in and telling us that he didn't use it "in a bad light" (which is what that is, IMO, and apparently, also in the opinion of everyone else who disagreed), we could have avoided this entire argument.

                      Either way, I'm out.
                      I think I made it clear that I said in the bad light that you guys made it out to be, not just in a bad light.

                      Anyway, I agree to disagree.
                      "Hardcore, not so hardcore..."
                      "Next six cadidiots..."
                      "One sur, two sur, tree sur, five sur..."
                      "I'm not your brother..."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by E3CSHARP View Post
                        JOb Requirement: You must apply for this position before your head has grown bigger than 20 inch in circumference.

                        If your head is growing and you realize your head size is getting closer to 20 inches, wouldnt it behoove you to actually apply for the job before your head size gets to 20 inch?

                        How can that be discriminatory if they are quite obviously telling you to apply early and not wait? (I know some people try to wait until they get retirement benefits from their home agency and then try to move on to something else.) Nobody told you to do that now did they?
                        Again, the word "discriminatory" was rightfully used under the right definition and context. Please look back to the definitions I provided. Most of you seem to be stuck on one definition while ignoring the other.
                        "Hardcore, not so hardcore..."
                        "Next six cadidiots..."
                        "One sur, two sur, tree sur, five sur..."
                        "I'm not your brother..."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          What a joke

                          This forum is a joke. A bunch of arrogant cops ( I've been in law enforcement for over 16 years) and a lot of guys looking to get into law enforcemet who have ****ing contests in these threads. No wonder the general public is getting a negative stereotype of law enforcement. You guys act like your crap doesn't stink and the world revolves around cops. I know there are alot more level headed guys out there, just not here.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Discrimination is a &quot;loaded term&quot;

                            I guess if your not the one being discriminated against ! What is going on is the text book definition of discrimination.[ treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:' And they use the retirement game as the rational. MAKE it fair if you pass the physical requirments then you get a reduced retirement at 57. WE ARE slowly winning the battle sometimes by default. The old cut off back around early 90s was 35. AND we are winning in court . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                            MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

                            2008 MSPB 146

                            Robert P. Isabella,
                            Appellant,
                            v.
                            Department of State,
                            Agency,
                            and
                            Office of Personnel Management,
                            Petitioner.

                            ALTHOUGH with our tax $$$$ Goverment is appealing. AS Court Cases prove if it is about physical abilty why is a 56 11 month year old working with a 37 year old. If 37 is the cut off then it should be the retirement age. As the Court stated.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Genuine Issue

                              Look no need to play on words here discrimination is discrimination. However, a Protected Personnel Practice (commonly refereed to as triple P or PPP) is another. Sometimes they are blended together and become what is refereed to as a mixed case and shared between the EEOC OFO and the MSPB.

                              I believe like previously mentioned age can be a discriminatory factor or it can be a BFOQ, Bona fide Occupational Qualification and that is what the aforementioned case states if it is not a BFOQ or business necessity and the employer must show this and meet their burden if not a Veteran is entitled to a waiver. This can not merely be shown by a fixed retirement age.

                              I do find it interesting how the word discrimination causes such an issue, when the term is now widely used, but still has that condescending view by many.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                The job sucks anyway.

                                I had applied for may fed jobs before my 37th birthday, I never had any luck. The bottom line is that I didn't have a degree and not enough qualifying experience. When I turned 37, I had recently obtained my degree but received a letter stating that I was being removed from the system etc.

                                I was a little torn up at first but I understand that they need to keep their retirement system in healthy shape wtc. I should have gotten my act together sooner.

                                Would I like to work for a fed agency? Sure I would but there is nothing I can do about it so life goes on and I do well with my state agency.

                                I don't have to like the rules but I respect them.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 5313 users online. 241 members and 5072 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X